warri0r45

I was never a massive fan, but I couldn't help but enjoy some of his music. RIP Michael.

I'll have a go at creationism. 1) A book written roughly 2000 years ago (The OT much earlier) isn't a reliable source of information for scientific claims. We've progressed far beyond this time period in terms of knowledge of how the world works. If we're talking creationists in general, then they aren't a reliable source of information. They will only accept information that is consistent with a preconceived dogma. When you want reliable information, it's a better idea to get it from an independent, ideology-free source. 2) I suppose the source would be creationists. They make similar claims about the creation and age of the universe (namely that the Bible is an accurate source of info on these topics). I'm not sure of the logic behind this point... 3) No. The claims are only given any weight in the creationist community and mainstream science rejects them completely. 4) No. Well, as far as we can tell. There is no apparent need for a deity to intervene and create parts of nature. Nature is completely autonomous. 5) This is an interesting one. Not really, because creationism has no credibility in the scientific community. This is because evolutionary theory accounts for more data and is well supported by scientific evidence. Also, there appears to be little incentive to disprove creationists if they are willing to be dishonest and dogmatic about the whole issue. 6) Evolution, most definitely. There's plenty of research out there which explains how evolution and common descent accounts for what we see in biology and paleontology in particular. 7) No. They refuse to publish any research in mainstream, peer reviewed journals and misrepresent evolution and how it works. They also appeal to a supernatural agent. This is a big no-no in science because it's not testable (and therefore unfalsifiable). Supernatural agents are beholden to nothing but your imagination and are not predictable. Natural agents (or events) are beholden to natural laws and are predictable. 8) No. Their preponderance is most certainly with ridiculing and "debunking" evolution. Notable arguments include the second law, the origin of biological information, transitional forms, etc. No such arguments hold any water. 9) No. Well, I suppose the massive cop-out here is that god can do anything, even rig the genomes of humans and chimpanzees to indicate unambiguously that we share common ancestry. As explained above, this breaks the rules of science, as it isn't a natural explanation and can't be tested. I may as well propose that invisible pixies tinker with our minds to give the illusion that gravity exists, but that claim is irrefutable as well (not that it's a supported claim, but that it's quite literally unable to be refuted, i.e. it's unfalsifiable). 10) Yes. All in all, creationism scores very poorly here.

Lateralus is right, there's no such thing as a "Christian scientist" and there's no such thing as an "Atheist scientist" either. You see, this is the real problem with people like you. You never see science for what it really is and try and break it down as a fight between Christians and atheists. This is absolutely crazy and couldn't be further from the truth. Science is a completely impartial endeavour which seeks to come up with explanations (theories) to fit the data we obtain from the natural world. Yes, the data needs interpretation, and yes, in some cases bias can creep in. This is precisely why we have peer review -- something which Creationists don't feel they should take part in -- to pick out bad science or incompetent methodology. It's perfectly conceivable that one explanation can take precedence over another by virtue of the amount of data it explains and the amount of evidence it has to support it. This is the reality with evolution vs. creationism. Evolution is a well supported scientific theory while Creationism is a religious belief. And please, don't even try with the "it's all down to your perspective" argument with me, because I've done my research. God knows I've done far more that my fair share, and I did it before I really knew I was an atheist, as a matter of fact. I did it because I was curious and wanted to find out why scientists are so favourable of evolution in relation to Creationism. Suffice it to say that I found ample evidence supporting evolution, and I discovered that Creationism is not scientific at all. In fact, it is supported by religious zealots whose primary tools are ignorance or blatant misrepresentations of the truth. I can't even remember how many times I've had to go through this thread and debunk Creationist arguments which clearly have no scientific backing to them whatsoever (or that are complete misrepresentations of what scientists really think or what evolution really is). It's a shame that you don't like science. You could learn a lot about evolution if you wanted to. [/hide]Whoa whoa whoa. Let me stop you right there, buddy. Please, tell me everything you know about people like me. I'll take a guess you know nothing of people like me. the only common thread we share is religion, and even in that we differ, with the fundamentalists and liberalists. And you know as well as I do, that what Lateralus meant, was that if you were Christian, it meant you didn't believed in Science. Not that all Scientists are the same. And I really like how you lumped us all together as a ignorance spreading truth hating Mob. Very respectful. Let me tell YOU something, Warri0r45, may I call you Warri0r? Thanks. Well Warri0r, religion bashing is no more "morally" (sorry, forgot you guys don't have morals, as they are oppressive as you've made clear in the past) wrong, and vile as is gay bashing. And as I stated, the data is unbiased, as you have also stated, but the interpreation isn't. That was all I was debating. Stop putting words in my mouth. And guess what, ever noticed how Muslims are against Evolution also? And yet, for some reason, you don't hate them, but respect them... Interesting. But are you really saying, that if someone worked their butt offf trying to understand Organic Chemistry, that because they're Christian, then automatically, the only reason why they did that was to spread hatred? maybe you should go back to studying. Now, a key fact you may want to know, is simply because someone is part of a religion, doesn't make them a zealot, or a fundamentalist. So, get that through your head, as for months you've continuously wanted to label all Christians who believed in Creationism a Zealot, because then you can disregard their evidence, because you don't need to heed a zealot's info. And I can't even remember how many times I've had too listen to you patronize everyone who doesn't believe what you do. That is the highest intolerance I've ever seen, and then to call Christians intolerant. Nice. And I'm sorry if I'd rather hang with friends then listen to a teacher in a mid-life-crisis blab in a monotone voice about the importances of resonance in a drum with a hole in it. It's a shame you don't have any humility. You could learn a lot from History if you weren't so close minded. I'm willing to apologise for saying "people like you" because it's a rather snide thing to say, but what I was getting at with that comment was creationists in general. In my experience creationists continually call evolution atheistic and creationism Christian and build up this massive false dichotomy between the two when in reality evolution is just like any other scientific theory. Added, evolutionary theory is supported by atheist and religious scientists alike (hence why there are just scientists, not different brands of them based on religion) and you can be a Christian and still support it. And I couldn't be bothered correcting things I clearly never said or don't believe. I think Lateralus said it best:

Lateralus is right, there's no such thing as a "Christian scientist" and there's no such thing as an "Atheist scientist" either. You see, this is the real problem with people like you. You never see science for what it really is and try and break it down as a fight between Christians and atheists. This is absolutely crazy and couldn't be further from the truth. Science is a completely impartial endeavour which seeks to come up with explanations (theories) to fit the data we obtain from the natural world. Yes, the data needs interpretation, and yes, in some cases bias can creep in. This is precisely why we have peer review -- something which Creationists don't feel they should take part in -- to pick out bad science or incompetent methodology. It's perfectly conceivable that one explanation can take precedence over another by virtue of the amount of data it explains and the amount of evidence it has to support it. This is the reality with evolution vs. creationism. Evolution is a well supported scientific theory while Creationism is a religious belief. And please, don't even try with the "it's all down to your perspective" argument with me, because I've done my research. God knows I've done far more that my fair share, and I did it before I really knew I was an atheist, as a matter of fact. I did it because I was curious and wanted to find out why scientists are so favourable of evolution in relation to Creationism. Suffice it to say that I found ample evidence supporting evolution, and I discovered that Creationism is not scientific at all. In fact, it is supported by religious zealots whose primary tools are ignorance or blatant misrepresentations of the truth. I can't even remember how many times I've had to go through this thread and debunk Creationist arguments which clearly have no scientific backing to them whatsoever (or that are complete misrepresentations of what scientists really think or what evolution really is). It's a shame that you don't like science. You could learn a lot about evolution if you wanted to.

That album is really good. You should check out Bath as well. Scream Blood Gore by Death (album).

There is probably some truth to noah's ark. Except for about three every single culture in the world has a story about a global flood. I have never heard about every single culture making up the same exact story. I wouldn't be surprised if every primitive culture had their own flood story, but that doesn't mean there was a global flood. It's much more likely that they were all local floods that were incorrectly interpreted to be global. After all, in the past a local flood would have seemed like a global flood; there was no communication with other cultures and no knowledge of high places like Everest. All these people knew was their own local area; it was quite literally the world to them.

Yes, and from what I can tell when you become comfortable with them it kind of stays with you. I remember learning barre chords years ago and I'm still relatively comfortable with them even though they don't feature heavily in anything I play. If you play barre chords enough, certain points along your index finger will start to callus up, making them easier to play as well. I play drop-D most of the time, and due to power chords being a bar of the E(D) A and D strings, I've got a huge callus where my index finger meets the high D string. Speaking of calluses, something weird has been happening to my right hand recently (the one I hold a pick with). I'm getting a callus on my index finger as if the way I hold the pick is causing it. I've been playing a lot of death metal lately, so perhaps all that tremolo picking is agitating the skin of the index finger?

It was about studies into polymorphisms of some P450 genes and how they may contribute to a difference in drug efficacy between individuals.

You didn't like pokemon, what's wrong with you? I remember a lot of people getting into it at the time, but it just didn't interest me at all.

Process of a New Decline by Gorod (album).

Count me down for the whole Pokemon craze. It completely passed me by, as did anything similar.

6.7/10 Pretty good, but it didn't move me in a big way. I didn't expect a Police cover from a band like this, but it's not too bad.

That would of course help, but I think in the interim knowledge of specific genes, the protein they produce and how they are regulated is crucial. Check out this article for an interesting look into P450 pharmacogenomics research and the hurdles that have been faced: http://www.nature.com/tpj/journal/v3/n1 ... 0144a.html The P450 genes are particularly promising because they target drugs and toxins for removal from the body.

What's insane about that, exactly? It's called littering. Unless it was an accident and some fine-happy cop sprang one on them as soon as the money fell from their pocket... Of course it was accidental, who would drop money deliberately like that? Edit - Are you guys referring to this: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol ... -note.html or was this another case in the US recently? Stranger things have happened, but of course I would expect something like that to be accidental. I was hoping for background on the story more than anything else. If this is the case he was referring to, then he left out some details, namely the other side of the story:

What's insane about that, exactly? It's called littering. Unless it was an accident and some fine-happy cop sprang one on them as soon as the money fell from their pocket...

Hackled In Gore by Scrambled Defuncts (album). I'm loving this album lots. Great production, brutal guitar tone, perfect drum programming and complex songs that are composed very well.

The concept is called pharmacogenomics - tailoring drug treatments to suit an individual's genome. The potential of this approach is huge, not only for the efficacy of drugs, but to mitigate potential side effects as you said. Of course there are masses of data we have to deal with here, and high grade computing ability and data management will be essential. I like the stratified approach this article talks about. It seems like a logical place to start. We can work down to a person-by-person specificity in good time.

Breeding The Spawn by Suffocation (album).

Martyr. Canadian tech-death.

22 people is half of Tip.it? It's called a statistical inference. We do it with political popularity polls all the time. Having said that, it's a small sample size and I'd argue it's more apt to say that it represents the beliefs of OT users, not tip.it users in general.

If you did the work, you should get the diploma. It's not about how well behaved you are at the graduation ceremony, so denying the diploma based on that is ridiculous. I don't care if the kid pissed on the superintendent's car; technically he still earned his diploma and is entitled to it.

In many ways I think laws and legal power is applied in the wrong places. Some of the examples you listed are obviously ridiculous, but I'd love to see more heavy handedness in cracking down on assault, especially knivings, glassings, gang-bashing, etc. I have zero tolerance for people who are willing to assault someone unprovoked, and I'm in favour of harsh jail sentences for such a crime. I'm also in favour of random searches and a higher police presence at assault hot-spots (popular bars, clubs, etc).

Damn, I love your taste in music. Martyr are brilliant! Same goes for Suffocation, Decapitated, Vader, Gorguts, Anata, etc. Brilliant. :) What do you think of Breeding The Spawn, by the way? I count it as an absolute gem lost in death metal history due to the notoriously crappy production. Hopeless Hopes by Martyr (album). Hehe, I really should thank you for that, I usually download things after I see you listening to them here. :lol: Martyr still has to grow on me a bit, when I first listened I really disliked the vocals but I'm slowly getting used to them. Breeding the Spawn is pretty good, the riffs are indeed quite hard to pick out because of the production, but the solo's are slightly better than the ones on Effigy of the Forgotten in my opinion. :) Glad I could help you out there. :thumbup: On a related note - holy crap. i just downloaded Warp Zone by Martyr and it fades in from the final track of Hopeless Hopes. Genius! Edit: Wow. The whole album is a crazy masterpiece. Definitely a step up in technicality from Hopeless Hopes.

Damn, I love your taste in music. Martyr are brilliant! Same goes for Suffocation, Decapitated, Vader, Gorguts, Anata, etc. Brilliant. :) What do you think of Breeding The Spawn, by the way? I count it as an absolute gem lost in death metal history due to the notoriously crappy production. Hopeless Hopes by Martyr (album).

I'm leaning towards no longer existing as well. It's impossible to know, though, and I'll be quietly interested to experience death whenever it meets me (hopefully not for many years yet).