warri0r45

God I hate this attitude. You know countries do change with time, Jack, and people have every right to protest things they don't like. I don't suppose you'd like someone telling you to get out of the country should Obama get in and redistribute some income to your utter distaste, would you? Say he did get elected, in reality you should have every right to protest his policy/share your opinion about it, because after all America is a democracy and everyone is allowed a say as to how the country should be run. There is a difference between "I do not like the government and It's policies" and "I hate this evil country and everyone who lives here is a stupid redneck who I am so much better than". I love this country no matter who is elected. It might become my life's goal to unseat Nancy Pelosi or Jackie Speier but that is different from Hollywood typed who say "If McCain is elected I'm moving to Canada" If someone really hates America, as Magekillr has made crystal clear plenty of times, then they should leave. I think there is a reason the immigration problem is people coming in and not leaving though. How on earth did you get the second option from magekillr's post? It sounds like you completely manufactured that from nowhere. [hide=the quote you responded to] Shadowfax hit it quite nicely, there's no reason to work, in a communistic country. Also, Communism is an idealist thing, as are most Democrats, everyone thinks it's a good idea, but it's never really worked. That's why I said theoretical beliefs. In reality, I support socialism and capitalism mixed...where the government has part ownership on production. [/hide] Either way, thanks for expanding on "if you don't like it you can get out". It sounds much better now. One final question. What do you mean by this: "as Magekillr has made crystal clear plenty of times"? Are you saying that Magekillr hates America and should get out? Or are you saying that Magekillr has agreed with your sentiment that America-haters should get out?

The Scepter of the Ancients by Psycroptic (album). Some awesome tech-death from Australia.

I honestly believe that he lied, and this is my reasoning: Even after he found out that he was misinformed, he showed no remorse for invading a country on false evidence. To me, that means he had alterior motives to invading Iraq (of which I do not know 100%, but I would guess some unfinished business by Dad in the 90s and oil). He would have used any reason he had to go into Iraq as soon as it popped up, and that is as good as a lie to me. I see. Sounds like a typical politician to me. They all want to save face and can't admit when they got something wrong. Whenever they do, they tend to rationalise it in some other way. Whether that means there were other motives involved is something I've not looked into in much detail, but thanks for your reasoning.

So then, by your theory, the media is to blame for George Bush outright lying to the entire world that Saddam Huessein had weapons of mass destruction? Did he lie or was he misinformed?

God I hate this attitude. You know countries do change with time, Jack, and people have every right to protest things they don't like. I don't suppose you'd like someone telling you to get out of the country should Obama get in and redistribute some income to your utter distaste, would you? Say he did get elected, in reality you should have every right to protest his policy/share your opinion about it, because after all America is a democracy and everyone is allowed a say as to how the country should be run. Without the fruit fly, we would have nowhere near the understanding of genetics that we do today. How can anyone justify this woman? :wall: How could anyone mock Drosophila research? Well, that is pretty incredible, but I wouldn't expect people who haven't taken genetics to understand why Drosophila research is important.

Agreed. This is basically my view on freedom of speech. I live in a free society and should be able to talk about any ideas I want with other people, so long as I'm not infringing on their rights, or as Baron said, so long as I'm not inciting violence.

For the same reason you and your cousin still exist. You share a common ancestry, and we share common ancestry with the apes. Phylogram: Species A and B share ancestry, as do species C and D. Each branch represents a lineage and after a branch point (speciation), each of the two new lineages still exists. [hide=Phylogram][/hide]

Ahh, of course. I agree, it just totally slipped my mind. I suppose this raises the prospect of adding jazz fusion into the mix somehow. Got no idea how, though.

I think Suffocation are brutal death, not technical. Their first album (according to wiki at least) is credited with being one of the first brutal DM albums. I have listened to it, and it does sound brutal rather than technical. A better example of tech-death might be Necrophagist or something. Edit: Almost forgot to say that my favourite genre is death metal (including brutal and technical). :) I also like a good bit of prog and some avant-garde if it piques my interest (Meshuggah, for example).

I think you're right, Ginger. His response to 9/11 with the patriot act and war on terror will be his lasting legacy as president. Second is probably his response to the economic crisis, followed by Katrina.

Redemption by Suffocation.

Funnily enough I read a little blurb in the paper the other day that said a virtual item theft in Runescape was put on trial in Holland. This is just bizzare. I hope these kind of people feel lucky that it's virtual junk they lost and not their health/life, etc.

It's arguably the complete opposite. Due to our massive egos, we love studying our own biology and comparing it to relatives. To everyone else, not teaching evolution in a biology class would be insane. As N0M_ANOR said, it is the cornerstone of modern biology, and explains a lot about the similarity and diversity of life. Not teaching evolution in a science class is tantamount to not teaching the Holocaust because of Holocaust deniers. Some people's personal beliefs are going to be tread on, but people need to learn that a scientific understanding of the origin of life exists outside their narrow upbringing. As for teaching it as "100% fact", every science is taught in the same way, even if it's not quite as strong as evolution. Perhaps that's a debate about the way science should be taught, not about how evolution should be taught. I don't buy into singling out evolution due to peoples beliefs because that kind of pandering is detrimental to actual scientific advancement. Perhaps we should actually teach kids what science is and how science works, what a theory is and what "fact" means in science. It would save me cringing every time i read a thread about evolution, at least.

What do you want, a map? Get off your high horse and realize that we're not trying to convert you, and even if we did, there's no logical explanation for either side. You're flying by faith that there is no God just as much as I know there is one. I think you're overreacting a bit, Lenticular. I'm not accusing anyone of trying to convert me, I was just making a comment on recent posts. If you read "you're trying to convert me so don't" into a sarcastic "you're so convincing", then sorry, you've misinterpreted me. No one was even responding to me, so I don't know how you get that I'm on my high horse about people trying to convert me. Trust me, I've heard it all too many times over to get offended by people preaching at me (not that anyone actually was in this case). Why is it so wrong to want more of an explanation than "I know god exists"? On a side note, you've got me wrong. I don't have faith that god doesn't exist, I'm just not convinced that he does. There's a huge difference between not believing in what you do and believing the negative of what you do.

It is 'England' afterall, I think Australia are in with a 98% chance of winning as long as Symonds doesn't go out partying. Speaking of Symonds, today he got a golden duck for QLD. I doubt that he's going to be let back into the test side on this form. For his sake I hope he gets a couple of huge scores, because when he's on he's awesome to watch.

Into Everlasting Fire by Immolation.

Science is a well defined thing. It involves testing ideas and repeating findings. If you don't test your idea, it's not a science. If you don't repeat your conclusion, it's not a scientifically rigorous one and won't get a place in text books or school curricula. Basically, you can't possibly test the actions of a supernatural being. You can determine through evidence whether or not organisms are related by common descent, and to a lesser extent you can test what natural mechanisms may have caused the divergence (i.e. what mechanisms drive evolution), but again, you can't test god. An analogy to this is that we can use science to determine whether or not a murder took place at a crime scene, but we can't use it to determine if the devil made the murderer pull the trigger. As current science goes, the overwhelming amount of evidence we have suggests the common ancestry of life. That's the well accepted conclusion adopted by scientists and the inverse of that doesn't deserve time in science classes.

The real issue to my way of thinking is the proposal to teach it as science in a science class. It's not, and it shouldn't be. That's the hot issue with creationism in schools, not the idea that it could be part of a religious class.

Life is a gift that should be enjoyed thoroughly. Thanks for the inspiring words, but I don't know how they relate to my post.

I could ask the same of you: why do you try to convince people that god exists if it gets on your nerves all the time? The simple answer to why I posted is that I'm just responding the the direction the thread's going. Perhaps my questioning will get people to explain why they know and I don't. I'd love to hear it, but then again what you said is very true. I'm not likely to get an answer that doesn't involve some personal feeling that has no relation to me at all. Even if that's the case, a little more of an explanation than the holier-than-thou attitude of "I know" would be nice.

Do Catholics use medicine? Determining when someone lives or dies is exactly what you do when you take antibiotics/cancer treatments, etc. OOH! I'm Catholic! \ Yes, Catholics use medicine because God put the plants there for us to use. But saying that medicines are "damnable" because they prolong life and therefore play God is as equally arguable that refusing medicines to shorten your life is also playing God. If both are damnable, then take the lesser of two evils and choose a longer life to make better medicine ;) The point is that the very invention of medicine served to put the destiny of human life in our own hands. If you see it as the lesser of two evils to actually use medicine, then in all honesty I'm extremely happy that you do. My point is that I just don't understand how someone could believe that life and death is the will of god then in the same breath go to the doctor to get antibiotics because a bacterial infection is killing them.

76 pages and we've managed to reduce the debate to "I know he's real". Well done guys. You're so convincing. I suppose the predictable answer to my post would be that I have no idea because I'm not a believer and I don't feel what you guys do. Don't worry, I've heard it a hundred times before and it just gets more and more dull.

Leprosy by Death (album).

We're talking about advertising here, not teaching things in school. People can advertise any concept they want others to buy into, and religion freely does that all the time. The fair thing would be to let atheists do the same, which is basically the topic at hand here. When it comes to school, I'm sure a teacher would get just as much flack, if not more, if they said to kids that "there is no god" during class. Especially so in the America, where probably 70-80% of the students would go home and tell their parents who would then seek to get the teacher fired, if not seriously disciplined. School is basically where kids go to get an objective education with no influence for or against religion. Advertisement is vastly different - it's an auction of ideas where the highest bidder gets to spruik the crap they're selling.

Just in case anyone hasn't seen this, here's the BBC's poll tracker. Obama ahead in all of them.