warri0r45

If only there were a biological explanation for a sense of morality. Less damage to one another means more strength and the strongest get the best chance at reproduction. Through this, the systems of morality may have wittled away at the void beforehand. No, I understand how morality can be seen as an effective evolutionary tool. My point was that there is no biological evidence that shows where a sense of morality comes from. I don't know if there is evidence out there, the ideas are possibly still in thier infancy. I basically thought up the idea the other day to shortly find a mention of it on a wikipedia article; I might have to study up and see if I can find something in terms of evidence.

incase you didnt notice, about 2/3 - 3/4 of our planet is covered in water. and we CAN filter the salt out of it to make it drinkable. In case you didn't notice, I live in the driest country on the planet, Australia, and desalination is incredibly expensive on a large scale.

If only there were a biological explanation for a sense of morality. Less damage to one another means more strength and the strongest get the best chance at reproduction. Through this, the systems of morality may have wittled away at the void beforehand.

A got may exist, or many will. There are many ancient civilisations that were either mono or polytheistic. However as society progresses and gets more complex and the civilisation gets more intelligent overall the belief and "proof" in a god diminishes. If someone wasn't intelligent enough (not just unable) to write then they would probably believe even more what you told them about a mystical deity. imo Dead on. The less humans understood the world, the more they used dieties to fill in the holes. In my opinion, religion was devised as an evolutionary mehcanism to enhance the sense of community in the human people, thus giving everyone a sense of hope and strength to hold on to and prosper. The morality that came with religion or the inherent morality (if you believe in such a thing) of human beings could also be an evolutionary mechanism to assure we lessen the damage done to one another so we can each be the strongest beings possible for reproduction, hence passing on our genes, which contain brain peculiarities including moral thought, to the next generation. A bit wierd, I know, but it's not beyond the apparant complexity of the human mind. Sorry if this offends anyone by the way. Don't take these theories as fact though, they are just my ideas and I believe some other groups espouse them too.

1 - Chemistry, one of my favourites. 2 - Can't help, sorry.

I've found that people will call you a noob for anything. It's such a cliche it's lost all meaning whatsoever. An example would be me (lvl 94) getting called a noob by a level 60-ish for not responding when he said 'str lvl'? Give me a break. Look it up on the [bleep]ing highscores if its so important to you. So I suppose you'd call me a 'silence noob'? :lol: Whatever. This is why I generally stick to the off-topic forum, runescape and the whole community annoy me.

I just thought I'd share an artice about the accountability of science. The system for the search of knowlege that science has set up over the years, is, in my opinion, what makes science so trustable, no matter whether you are discussing theories or facts. The accountability and integrity of the system means that the false is forgotten as the truth is held on to, until a better explination or more hard facts arrive. This is also why I believe in evolution. Obviously many of you would know there is solid evidence for evolution yet people still question the gaps. The strength of science will take on these doubts and be accountable for any flaws found or changes to be made, thus assuring the closest model to what actually happened in the past. Just thought I'd share why I believe science is the best tool to use when searching for the truth.

Did you know Stephen Hawking is starting to think black holes don't exist? There was something on the Discovery Channel about it, but I don't really remember. And quantum theory is my favorite area of physics, I got interested in it off schwordinger's cat. I remember watching a 2 part series on the fundamental forces and string theory. I was like :? :?: =P~

I went to a Lutheran school and studied the chapter of genesis. I have also read through the chapter on my own. If you don't want to listen to what I have to say and just come back with immature and insulting comments, i'm not going to bother.

I don't think you fully understand that science, with today's knowlege, can make excellent predictions about the past. Not only can it make logical predictions, but we can have actual proof through fossil records, air bubbles in ice sheets, rings of growth in trees, radioactive dating, geological rock layers etc. Please, try and do a bit of research before you post. And as someone stated above, there is sufficient oxygen in the air today to keep us going i.e. we do not need any more. Unless your suggesting we evolved from higher beings (which could utilise more oxygen and thus make us live longer) to lesser ones, which would suggest a) you believe in evolution or B) [i wont say because it's offensive] because we don't evolve from higher beings to lesser ones if the the reason why we are higher beings makes us live stronger and longer.

Don't worry, it isn't. I didn't mean to say that science=atheism. I am just protesting moderator action. Tripsis locked the Evolution thread because "zealots" (in his own words) were taking the topic off track. Now that atheists (not synominous with science) are taking this thread off track, nothing is being done. I can see where you're coming from. I think it's the few that upset it for the majority though, on both sides.

I have a better solution. So long as people aren't making personal attacks, let conversation flow as it will. Some topics provide natural associations with other topics. Let people make those associations, so long as they do so without attacking other users. Stop censoring people, and let discussion on important issues flow freely. I agree. There is no need to reinstate the ban if we don't make personal attacks and try to add some some sort of reasoning into our arguments, which I'm sure we are all capable of.

I have never once insulted a persons religious beleifs on this forum. I was merely saying he should do a bit of research before he makes assumptions or chooses not to believe something which has science backing it up (by all means, question scientific theory if you want to, it's how science progresses). I haven't brought my 'atheistic beliefs' into this argument either, just science and last time I checked, science does not equal atheism. I'm sorry if your comment was not directed at me.

Wouldn't it be nice if people actually did take everything in the bible, including the concept of god, as a metaphor and a guide for life and not literally. I was taught in a Lutheran school, and they certainly did not think that the bible is just a book of metaphors. They weren't fundamentalists either, mind you. @ Defender, I'm just assuming here, but why don't you actualy pick up a biology book and give evolution a chance instead of assuming it's not real because of your religion? Have a look. And as for your whole 'atmosphere was different back then' theory I'm pretty sure the entire atmosphere of the planet dosen't change over a period of under 10,000 years. It changed over a period of billions of years back when there were primative, photosynthetic algae type organisms. the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has generally increased over time, not diminished. Have a look.

These days you shouldn't be worried. The amount of stringency, policy and procedures in place makes nuclear power immensely more safe than in 1986 (the year of the Chernobyl disaster). And just for clarification, I haven't read that book, so my reply is based on an assumption that your concerned for your safety.

I think you're right. You can always google, wikipedia or microsoft word it. :wink:

Cool man! Reminds me of Aztec culture and how they sacraficed people for thier gods. :ohnoes:

Nicely done archimage, Such a unique stucture, Iv'e never seen a poem written that way before but you've really made it work. As for the subject matter, I couldn't agree more at the bitterness and falities of the 'american dream.'

Thanks for the responses so far guys, it's great to see you are all mature enough to get past the whole 'yuk-factor' (unlike Toowoomba) :lol:

My case exactly. Well I suppose I will be burning in hell, thanks for the kind words. And thanks for spamming up my evolution topic which was actually about biology and not christianity.

I totally agree. Especially in my evolution topic where my beleifs weren't treated with respect. Just flame wars from those who all of a sudden feel the need to defend thier religion as if they don't have faith. In my opinion, there are a few religios zealots on these forums who ruin the whole religion's image for the decent believers here and everwhere else.

The title sais it all. Recently here in south-east Queesland, the Premier of the state has declared that we will be recycling sewrage via the tried and tested method of reverse osmosis and putting it back into water reservoirs. I, personally, am all for the idea for a few reasons - We are running out of water dangerously fast, and there is no other cost effective answer. It will obviously be regulated stringently. The act of putting recycled water in water reservoirs has been tried in Singapore, with no apparant detrimental affects. (I'll add more later, I'm a bit strapped for time) Bibliography - Source 1 Source 2 (will add more later) So what do you guys think? YES or NO to drinking recycled water and WHY?

I think it's pretty sad that Amnesty int'l uses logical fallacies in their responses. They're equivocating killing with murder - that's ridiculous. And justice with injustice.

1 Chuck Norris roundhouse kick has the same amount of energy as 100 million tons of TNT i.e. twice the power of the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated.