warri0r45

I know, poor effort from our boys, apart from Michael Clarke. Too bad he got bowled on 98.

In my experience, people rarely use evolution as an argument against the existence of a god, nor do I remember anyone using that argument here. It really just makes no sense at all; of course god and evolution can coexist. As for how eukaryotic cells arose from prokaryotic cells, there is one prominent theory that goes some way to explaining that step: Endosymbiotic theory. To sum it up, it basically posits that mitochondria and chloroplasts originated as bacteria and were engulfed by another cell to form a symbiotic relationship, both such organelles gradually loosing their biological independence. I suppose it's somewhat similar how bacteria like Chlamydia or Rickettsia coexist with humans (both live within the cells of their host), but in a positive sense. Wow that's an extremely interesting theory, I wonder why I haven't heard of it before. I'll read up on it when I get up in the morning (my brain is currently on the fritz), I wonder if this theory explains why there is some DNA in the mitochondria and plastids. Yep, it does. Obviously mitochondria and chloroplasts have small genomes, most often circular, as is the case with bacteria. These organellular genomes also have genes encoding various products, the most conserved of which being rRNA and tRNA (I'm assuming you know a bit of molecular bio here). What's most interesting is that the ribosomal genes encode a 70S ribosome - the kind found exclusively in prokaryotes. Obviously there is no real reason for them to have such ribosomes, nor is there any real reason that I can think of as to why the mitochondria or chloroplast needs a genome in the first place. There are also some other peculiar features of mitochondria, such as division by a process not unlike binary fission seen in bacteria.

In my experience, people rarely use evolution as an argument against the existence of a god, nor do I remember anyone using that argument here. It really just makes no sense at all; of course god and evolution can coexist. As for how eukaryotic cells arose from prokaryotic cells, there is one prominent theory that goes some way to explaining that step: Endosymbiotic theory. To sum it up, it basically posits that mitochondria and chloroplasts originated as bacteria and were engulfed by another cell to form a symbiotic relationship, both such organelles gradually loosing their biological independence. I suppose it's somewhat similar how bacteria like Chlamydia or Rickettsia coexist with humans (both live within the cells of their host), but in a positive sense.

I realise that, Reb, I was just countering the argument that "it's their money because they earned it" by questioning why the same point isn't brought up for taxing the poor, i.e. taxation in general. I recognise it's a side-point to the question of whether/how much different classes should be taxed differently. Edit: Just to add something else to the discussion, I think it's worth noting that the difference between socialism and more of a capitalistic approach lies along a continuum. In other words, if you favour taxing the rich an extra 3% (just to pluck something out of the air), it's not exactly reasonable to automatically label you a socialist when before you weren't. That kind of labelling is more in the vein of a mindless political response; some right-wing free market capitalsist will label you "socialist" when the political ideology moves the wrong way along the continuum.

Crawl Away by Tool. [i wonder how long this will last...]

This is the point I'm always torn on because there are people who need the help, but at the same time the wealthy deserve to keep their money. It's a point I haven't really made a finalized opinion on, although I do think that the current tax rates are for the above $100k income is just about right. Everyone earns their money, be they a big-time CEO or a store worker earning minimum wage. I suppose if you question whether rich people should fork over money they earn then you should question the idea of taxation all together, shouldn't you? I assume you've never been in the position where finding work is next to impossible or you physically can't work at all. Suppose some day you have a bad accident and any money you had put away goes to paying your medical bills. You're so severely injured that you are never able to work again. Would you like some of those tax dollars coming your way or are you happy being physically handicapped and begging for money on the streets? You bring up a good point, and this is another aspect of society where I support a socialistic approach. How a society cares for it's physically/mentally handicapped says a lot about its priorities. I wouldn't want to see those people on the street with no money, so I support welfare for them. On a side note, anyone who cares for someone with cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, etc, is an absolute hero in my eyes.

Saruman, you have to appreciate the reality of the situation here. Evolution isn't just another opinion among the crowd of people saying "I reckon this is how it happened...". It's now a centuries old scientific theory that has been tried and tested against the evidence to be confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. It's currently at the stage such that the overwhelming majority of biologists and earth scientists (paleontologists, geologists, etc) accept it as the best explanation for the diversity and similarity of life. As such, it's now in all the biology text books and that's where it will stay until there's any significant challenge to the theory, which there is yet to be. Not to teach evolution in a science class because people in your country may believe differently is a ridiculous retrograde step to science and simply shouldn't happen. If you were to appease the beliefs of everyone who thought different to science, then advancement would be much slower. Science is about challenging prevailing ideas by testing them against empirical reality and it so happens that the idea of creationism has been scientifically superseded by the theory of evolution. If you or any other people don't like that, then don't compromise the education of other kids. If it bothers people so much, then you always have the option of homeschooling.

But socialism works; it doesn't go that far. true but Obama imo will go further and truly make this socialism higher into a communistic level. that is why i dont support him. democrats tend to do socialism but Obama is all over it. i think this nation will turn into a communism. i hope not :pray: its also unright to take money from 200k+ and give to poor. i say just tax big money oil companies and put tariffs and perhaps we can turn the economy around. a socialism wont solve anything longterm. So you don't support Obama on pure speculation? Why would you do that? :lol: As for my opinion on socialism, I don't mind a bit of it, primarily for the reason that if I were rich, I'd gladly pay more tax to ensure an easier burden on those who have it tougher than me. I also quite like the idea of universal healthcare.

Pierced From Within by Suffocation (album). Not quite as good as Effigy... but still brutal and consistent enough to be an excellent Suffocation album.

Wouldn't it be nice if the gov't was just a bunch of nice people working together to better our country? Too bad they're not. And I wish I had saved an article I read some time ago about those anti-smoking ads and such. The article was about a study that showed those anti-smoking/alcohol/drug ads actually made more teenagers want to do said activities rather than deter them. If I was making money and knew something that looked good to the public would actually make me more money, I'd be throwing them around like crazy. Interesting angle, but first I would want to see the article/study and second there is a flaw to your idea. Why would they knowingly allow more kids to take drugs if they're so dead against them and they're just going to have to pay for it in terms of policing/health costs? Sorry, that's just too much of a stretch for me. I can't for the life of me picture government departments weighing up the costs of any set of actions, despite how harmful they may be, just to come out with the best monetary return to wave in people's faces. Of course governments aren't perfect, but on the flipside they're not always out to get you either, deloria. The reason for continuing those kind of ads, as well as actually wanting to help people, could simply be that they don't want to be seen to accept that study. You could imagine the political backlash if you essentially gave up the anti-smoking/drinking ads and all the "war on drugs" style ads. Also, you didn't address the other significant point I brought up with you about second hand smoke.

I don't like when phrases like this are used. I could make apples seem bad in this way. Or candy. Or sex. Or Left 4 Dead. There are possible health risks with everything we do in life. Sure, it isn't exactly fair that smokers are slightly elevating your chances of dying, but why not just walk around them? Or hold your breath? Or don't go a to bar/restaurant/cigarette company. I felt like ranting. I'm not one for ambiguity either, but that's exactly why I gave you sources. Whether or not you can make those things listed seem as bad as passive smoking (which in itself is a bit of a stretch), the fact of the matter is that passive smoking is bad, and it causes a significant amount of deaths each year: (from the first source) (from the second source) As for your suggestions as to how I could avoid cigarette smoke, to an extent I do hold my breath when walking down the street around smokers. So long as it's well ventilated, it's much less of a risk. Also, I should have the right to go to a bar without having to sit in a blanket of cigarette smoke, hence why I support smoking and non-smoking areas to limit crossover as much as possible.

Testing god is amenable to making up a supernatural explanation for a natural occurrence and claiming it has been tested when the natural occurrence comes true. For example, you could hypothesise that Thor is responsible for thunder and then whenever you see thunder, you could claim that the hypothesis has been supported. Yet, you're still left with the problem that, by definition, you can't actually test the abilities of Thor to see if he actually can make thunder; he's not going to come down from the heavens and show us all his mechanism for doing so. For all we know, thunder could be due to some natural mechanism, and in many cases natural explanations have been confirmed after years of supernatural superstitions like Thor. The secnario I've just explained leaves me with all the explanatory power I want (appeal to the supernatural while having no onus to prove the power of the supernatural agent) but it has no meaning or value in the real world at all because it's only limited by my imagination.

=D> Ladies and gentlemen, here is exactly what I was talking about. The gov't has drilled the idea of secondhand smoke being incredibly dangerous so many times that it actually appears to this young man to be a real issue. Sir, if you will please read what I posted earlier you will see secondhand smoke is not a danger to you unless you are in a confined room with a chain smoker or you purposely go around inhaling the smoke as other exhale it. Isn't it interesting that even though the government rakes in huge amounts of tax money on cigarettes that they'd still want to throw around propaganda to make people quit or stamp out smoking completely? No, actually, that makes no sense at all. Why must everything with you be that the government is out to get you? Your scapegoat is becoming a cop-out which gives you an excuse not to think. Don't rely on it like a crutch. It would seem that passive smoking is bad, in the sense that it can cause lung cancer and heart disease, both of which can lead to death: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/conte ... or_Air.asp http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monograph ... lume83.pdf In general, I'm not against smoking nor would I want it banned, but passive smoking should be stamped out wherever possible. That's not to say that we should try and restrict smokers like a noose around a neck, but we should try and separate smokers and non-smokers as much as possible.

"Scientific theories are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory a "guess" or "hunch." These conflicting definitions often cause unnecessary confusion about evolution." http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... ns_faq.php From the site I linked you. As it explains, a theory is not a guess or a hunch, it's an explanation which makes testable predictions and is based on evidence. God is not equitable to the scientific theory of evolution.

JtotheP, Check out the following site for easy to understand info on evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ We didn't come from monkeys, we share common ancestry with them (a concept the site will explain). As for why Homo erectus is no longer with us, the species died out a long time ago.

If you're into death metal and haven't checked them out yet, try Gorguts. This song is from Considered Dead (1991).

To Breathe In A Casket by Necrophagist. For some reason or another I haven't got around to checking them out until now. Sounds pretty good. :thumbup:

Good to hear you liked the Blotted Science link. Machinations of Dementia is the album if you haven't checked it out already. Released just last year. As for my recommendations: Decapitated - Tech death from Poland. Incredible drumming and instrumentation. The vocal style on albums prior to Organic Hallucinations (2006) is pretty guttural (Necrophagist-style). Gorguts - The album The Erosion of Sanity (1993) is an excellent offering in tech-death. It's a change in style from their original album Considered Dead (1991), which is straight death metal yet recommended all the same. Cannibal Corpse - They're a staple of death metal and while not strictly technical, they're still good and have some solid material to offer. In particular try the album Bloodthirst (1999). Warning, gory album cover. Obituary - Another staple of DM, but they're not tech death. Still well worth a look, particularly Cause of Death (1990) and The End Complete (1992). If you can stomach Schuldiner's vocals, then you won't mind John Tardy. Pestilence - Some great DM from the Netherlands. This song is from Testimony of the Ancients (1991), which is a little more tech/prog death in comparison to their previous album, Consuming Impulse (1989). Also check that one out for some great thrashy DM. Cynic - The other of the two well known jazz-fusion tech-DM bands from Florida (the other being Atheist). A bit more jazz-fusion than Atheist, but still excellent. They only have two albums: Focus (1993) and Traced in Air to be released in a matter of days from now. Start with Focus, but both are recommended. Psycroptic - Awesome Tech-Death from Australia (Tasmania, of all places). Particularly try The Scepter of the Ancients (2003), where this song is from. I'm not sure whether you'll like the vocals, though. Ontogeny - Their one and only album so far, Pillars of Perversion (2007), is pretty awesome. Your best bet is to check out their myspace for more songs. Again, apologies if the vocals are too harsh. Baphomet (US, not the Germans) - Released an awesome straight DM album called The Dead Shall Inherit in 1992 before changing their name to Banished. Fairly standard stuff, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Worth a listen. Malevolent Creation - Again, they're not tech-death, but regular DM. Check out the seminal Retribution (1992) for some ballsy death metal. The Ten Commandments (1991) is also worth a listen. That should be enough for now.

It was decriminalised in Massachusetts. Personally, I would favour decriminalisation everywhere as current laws don't seem to be working. Obviously the hope is that people use it responsibly, and those with genetic predisposition know that it can be bad for them. Check out this video for an interesting look into the link between marijuana and psychosis for those with genetic predisposition.

Anything that tastes more rich and chocolatey than sweet and sugary. I hate overly-sweet icecream, and in my experience that usually means vanilla.

Like a four-sided triange? I don't think so, hence why I don't find the concept of an omnipotent god possible either.

Yeah, I saw it on the news yesterday. It's pretty interesting, but obviously it's far off being a realistic treatment. I'd say it's too much of an effort to try and eradicate 33 million cases of the disease if only around 1 in 1000 people have the bone marrow necessary to cure someone. I suppose they'll take it down the gene therapy route instead. I'd be all for such a cure for HIV, but as some other people have suggested, it's a bit of a dire scenario where you cure people of the virus only to have them starve to death. My (rather simplistic) suggestion to overcome this would be to educate everyone in poverty-stricken areas about contraception.

Has to be a piss-take, surely. No one can be that stupid, can they? :lol: Currently listening to Altars of Madness by Morbid Angel (album). Awesome.

nice job on that bus mate its already been done in america tho you aussies are always late on everything Right, so he talks about how Aboriginals are given more government handouts and you equate him to the thugs during the Cronulla Riots? He's talking about the policies of the Australian government, not how Blacks are an inferior race or any garbage like that. The Cronulla riots were due to ignorant racist attitudes towards people of Middle-Eastern descent because of isolated incidents at the hands of some Lebanese people. How can you seriously compare Jem's comments to those of the rioters unless he starts showing blatantly racist attitudes towards all Aboriginal people? Why don't you ask him what he feels about Aboriginal people before you make an ignorant value judgement like that?

In response to Zierro: This might be a little off-topic, but what is it that you want to do that keeps you here? Survive and reproduce as much as possible. Just like any other animal. :thumbup: This (well, survival, mostly), career aspirations (molecular biologist) and also just experiencing all that life has to offer. If there's nothing else to it then I'd rather get the most out of it while it lasts.