warri0r45

Why do you say that? I hear Dawkins towing this line but I've never understood the rationale behind it. How can you claim the odds of something which by definition is not amenable to be detected or measured? I can know the odds of a coin toss or the roll of some dice, but that's because I actually know and can observe the outcome of each trial. Having said that, I don't think not being able to determine the probability of god existing works in his favour.

Normally I'd agree but she is running alongside the oldest ever candidate for a first term. John McCain is 72 years old, the U.S average life expectancy for males is just over 75 (75.15 to be exact). Those numbers alone suggest that there is a possibility that McCain could die during his first term especially considering that he will be in one of the most stressful jobs on the planet at an extremely trying time in recent history. That is why his choice of Palin is so important, she doesn't seem to grasp he issues that are important and I just don't think she is cut out for the job. If McCain had chosen a more qualified running mate this election would be a bit closer, instead he opted to create this Sarah Palin sideshow that looks like it is really hurting him right now. I agree. Choosing Palin as VP running mate was probably one of, if not the worst political decisions of this campaign. I don't think she's at all presidential material, and the prospect of her getting to the top job isn't one I'd be comfortable with.

The Putrefying Road in the Nineteenth Extremity (...Somewhere Inside the Bowels of Endlessness...) by Demilich.

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but who said anything about something coming from nothing? Abiogenesis is a gradualistic process of building up simple pre-cellular life forms over time. The modern understanding, although patchy at times, goes something like this: 1) Simple chemicals abundant in the universe (CH4, NH3, H2O, H2) and an energy source (e.g. lightning) can form amino acids, fatty acids and the precursors to nucleotides. 2) Nucleotides and amino acids self-polymerise on a mineral surface while a clay substance called montmorillonite facilitates the formation of simple lipid micelles (spherical containers) to encase the newly formed polymers. 3) Autocatalytic (self-replicating) polymeric systems form and survive best in the micelles. 4) Natural selection takes over and a protobiont (pre-cellular organism) starts to evolve; the most successful and prolific self-replicators survive best and take over. Without God, we could forsake our moral principles easier! That's just what we want. To be fair, I think he was talking more about specific moral principles which are more or less religiously based. E.g. opposition to stem cell research, abortion, homosexual relationships, euthanasia, etc. Without religion, we wouldn't turn into mindless savages with no ethics, we'd just reconsider moral stances on issues that most of the time religion has the moral monopoly over.

Thanks for the kind words. But can I ask, what have these scientists said about evolution that they say makes no sense? I'm curious.

At the moment (more certain about the first 4, the rest aren't really in order) 1) Tool 2) Death 3) Faith No More 4) Opeth 5) Suffocation 6) Rage Against The Machine 7) Decapitated 8) Jeff Buckley 9) Sunk Loto 10) Incubus Something like that, though I always find it hard to take my own lists seriously (except perhaps the first 4, as I said). Edit: Should have added Jimi Hedrix, Nirvana, Cynic, Atheist, Alice In Chains... you can see how finicky I am with cutting it down to a definitive 10.

What's racist about being attracted to a particular group of people and not others? As other people have said, that's like saying you're automatically a homophobe if you're not a bisexual.

Slaughter In The Vatican by Exhorder (album).

Absolutely not. People usually have natural attractions to others of similar racial groups. As a matter of fact I'm not particularly attracted to people of Asian or African descent, but that doesn't mean that I think I'm better than them. Remember, racism is a belief that you are superior to another racial group with an emphasis on somehow dehumanizing them. Personal attractions aren't racist at all.

I don't agree with banning books. Knowledge should be free for anyone. Banning something like Harry Potter or Animal Farm is rediculous. If people don't like a book, then they shouldn't read it.

Saru, no one is saying that abiogenesis happens through the genius meat -> flies or hay -> mice models. Those example have been known as utter nonsense for some time now and are completely irrelevant to abiogenesis. This is what abiogenesis is.

Firstly, the sun standing still as written in the bible is a myth. [1] Even Creationists know that NASA somehow finding a missing day is nonsense [2] Secondly, like others have said and lamented over ad nauseum, the word theory has a different meaning in science than in every day use. A scientific theory isn't just one person's random idea. Rather, it's a testable, logical framework which explains some aspect of nature, incorporating evidence and making falsifiable predictions to support itself. A theory is the pinnacle of science, not the bottom. It's primary reason for existing isn't as a temporary solution to some yet unanswered problem: it's to tie concepts together to help us understand something. Gravity is part of the general theory of relativity, yet we know that gravity exists. The idea that bacteria cause disease is part of the germ theory of disease, yet we know that bacteria cause disease. Atoms are part of atomic theory, yet we know that atoms exist. These examples should at least cause you to scratch your head and ask what the hell is going on here. In the same vein, evolution (descent with modification over time) is part of the theory of evolution, but we know that it happened. [2] [3]

Man if you can get that feeling off "The Pot" I can't wait until you listen to the likes of Forty Six & 2 or Lateralus. Just listen to their latest 3 albums front to back and prepare to be blown away with knowledge and insight you've never had before. What would you consider is the best Tool album? I recently saw ALOT of their albums for sale on my local music shop, (about 8) but i only have money for one ;_; Also, Iron Maiden - Die With Your Boots On. Sorry to butt in, but I'd probably start off with Aenima (1996): Or perhaps even try Undertow (1993): It really depends on where your tastes lie when it comes to Tool. Both Undertow and their first EP (Opiate, 1992) were quite raw and rock-oriented while still being progressive, while Aenima, Lateralus (2001) and more recently 10,000 days (2006) are all more refined and art-rockish while being a bit more progressive in sound. Personally, I like all of them. The evolution in sound has quite some appeal, I think. And just to keep on topic, I'm currently listening to Breeding the Spawn by Suffocation.

Impossiable, There's no such thing as overdosing on marijuana. quote] Well, if you wanna get technical, you could. If you dust your Marijuana with PCP, you could die from the PCP while smoking marijuana. What an odd thing to say. If you're actually being technical, the PCP would kill you there, not the marijuana.

Similar to the ways in which we educate the public on the risks of smoking cigarettes, which are also very addicting. What makes you think the law is a good deterrent? Compare the relative rates of marijuana and heroin use -- both Schedule I substances, and both equally as illegal in many states. The public generally favours certain drugs over others not based on their legal status, but on the perceived health risks (to themselves and others). Prohibition does not remove drug use. Rather, it removes potential tax revenue, forces the drug further underground, and often causes an increase in rates of use and abuse. Limits certainly should be set in a society to ensure its stability, but prohibition seems to be a very ineffective and inefficient way to regulate this. In my opinion, full legalization is unrealistic given our current situation in the West. Decriminalization would be more realistic. The reason I think the law is a good deterrant is because people fear the consequences of breaking it. I'll admit, it's an overly simplistic view, and I'm inclined to change my mind because it probably doesn't apply so well in this case. Building on what you said, take a look at The Netherlands, for example. It seems that they've kept marijuana use down even though it's not a criminal offence to use over there. Given a robust education system, and perhaps the right drug culture, then this could work. I'd be interested to see how that translates into the use of hard drugs, but at present I don't think any government has the balls to do that.

Nothing Was Delivered by Bob Dylan. From The Basement Tapes album with The Band. I like the mix between Dylan songs and songs by The Band. Goes together nicely.

Good point, I suppose a lot of time and money does go into cracking down on drugs. As I said, whether or not we choose to ban something should be based on our best evidence, so if it is the case that less time, money and lives would be wasted from outright legalisation then I wouldn't be opposed to it. But as for education, what would you teach people about a really addictive drug like heroin or, say, meth? Just not to do them? If these substances are freely available, I doubt educating people not to do them would work as good as the deterrent of law. It's also hard to make education about responsible use of such drugs work if they're seriously addictive. At first people might think they're using responsibly, but with substances like heroin or meth, it's too easy to get seriously addicted. I suppose it would be a bit of a task to crunch the numbers for the cost of all these possibilities, so I don't think I'll bother doing anything like that.

Man if you can get that feeling off "The Pot" I can't wait until you listen to the likes of Forty Six & 2 or Lateralus. Just listen to their latest 3 albums front to back and prepare to be blown away with knowledge and insight you've never had before. Better yet, learn to play Forty Six & 2 or a song like The Patient on guitar. Musical ecstasy. Anyway, currently listening to Effigy of the Forgotten by Suffocation (album). Brutal death metal at it's finest, in my opinion. As far as I can tell, anyway; I'll just have to keep looking to see if I can find anything to beat it.

Once they're an adult it should be their choice. Sure you may not want it, but they're a completely different person and should have every right to do what they want to their own body. And of course, it would be illegal for children. Let's say cocaine and heroin become legal and a lot more people become drug dependant and leech off society. That means your tax dollars go to feed the damage they cause both to themselves and to others. Still ok? I can see the point you're making, and in principle I agree completely. The problem is that it's just not realistic. As a society we need to stipulate that some things are off limits so that not too much time/money/life is wasted needlessly. Of course we should do that based on the best evidence available and on a case-by-case basis. I tend to think that governments these days continue to legislate based on tradition or ideology (largely political ideology) rather than evidence and reason.

Effigy of the Forgotten by Suffocation Pierced From Within by Suffocation.

Wrong. I hate the arrogance of Americans celebrating nationalism and encouraging the thought that America is the greatest country on Earth that can do no wrong. The blind patriotism. America's breed is the worst...Australia's might be close. As far as my observations have taken me, you guys are far and above number one when it comes to patriotism. We Aussies don't even come close. Sure, we love our country and celebrate it every year (Jan. 26th), but the blind part that you (and I) detest isn't really here as much.

The Dead Shall Inherit by Baphomet (album). Worth a listen for any death metal fan.

We should also allow you to murder, because we don't want to impose on your natural abilities :roll: . He's talking about being allowed to do what you want with your own body, not someone elses. The point would be to do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of someone else to do the same. I suppose he's talking about Libertarianism of some sort.

Museum Of Human Disease by Grotesque (album). Some awesome brutal DM from Australia.

While it may be biologically beneficial to think that way, in it's extremes it leads to an unrealistic hoisting of humans onto the highest echelons of reality. That often involves the belief that we're the pinnacle of evolution/magical/the center of the universe/etc. Biology (and astronomy, for the last one) shows us that this isn't the case, and hence anthropocentric thinking isn't entirely accurate. I think a lot of religious/theistic beliefs are probably fueled by the concept of anthropocentrism.