warri0r45

Most of the articles like that are tagged with something like "this reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article" or "the neutrality of this article is disputed." I tend to avoid those ones or just go straight to the sources they have for their claims. It's a bit of a stretch to call the whole thing unreliable based on those few pages. As I said before, most of my experience with the scientific stuff has been very positive. There's really no reason to put a lot of opinion or spin into a page about an enzyme or something like that.

I don't see how honoring thousands of innocent Americans who died is equal to "expecting attention". No one is forcing you to pay respect. Don't act like 9/11 and the war aren't horribly advertised in foreign countries. And I'm not posting anymore on this topic. They're not. Not in Australia at least. What exactly is wrong with a country mourning it's dead in such a tragic event? My country pays respects to our war dead which passed away as long ago as World War One. No one here seems to mind that we do this every year. In fact, it's a day many of us get into and enjoy. Well, enjoy is probably the wrong word; we participate and aren't afraid to reflect on what's happened to some of our soldiers.

As others have said, it depends on the page and the amount of references it has. In my opinion it's a great starting point to get a solid background of a concept, but it's not something you should reference. I've searched for various topics to do with molecular biology/biochem numerous times and they've never been wrong with anything I've known.

Chapel of Ghouls by Morbid Angel.

In response to your first comment: When my point of reference is being called ridiculous which such callousness from people who really don't know what they are talking about other than reading what is in a textbook is disconcerting. To your point about you can't disprove evolution, As I said before our world is hoping upon hope that we can have a world with no God. They will dismiss any evidence found against it. Such as figures like this He concluded that the chances of just this one tiny DNA molecule coming into existence over four billion years, with conditions just right, on just one of these extremely large number of hospitable planets, including the earth, as one chance in 10415.36 But this figure is also exceedingly beyond Borels law, which says that beyond a certain point, improbable events never happen, regardless of the time span involved. (Indeed, 1050 planets would pack the known universe with planets [so that no space exists between them] and yet the chances that life could evolve from dead matter on any one of them are still beyond possibility.) To your second point I agree that is why I say evolution and creationism can't co-exist Please, don't patronize people by telling them they don't know what they're talking about when all youve presented is an excerpt of a book written in 1978 by a creationist found from a creationist website. Hes not even qualified in molecular biology or biochemistry, he has a glaringly obvious agenda against anything that contradicts his worldview and you still rather accept his evidence over actual research that goes on into autocatalytic systems or autopolymerization post 1978? Should I even be surprised? Probably not. The only disconcerting thing here is that you think good research means looking up apologetics and dismissing real science from a textbook. So, what are the assumptions that underlie this estimation? What is it even addressing, specifically (what DNA molecule are we talking about here)? Does this estimation consider multiple simultaneous trials or one trial at a time? Does it consider autopolymerization on mineral surfaces to create a longer sequence more efficiently? Are you sure that abiogenesis even required this one specific DNA molecule? You should really be asking yourself these things and thinking more critically before jumping to conclusions. It's also worth mentioning that it's seriously flawed to present one possibility of how abiogenesis happened as if its the only possibility, especially if the benchmark is creating any modern DNA/protein molecule. There are other pathways of creating a self-replicating system from simple precursors. Take RNA molecules as self-replicating systems for example. [1] [2] After an autopolymerisation step, these molecules could have played part in the RNA world hypothesis of how self-replicating systems originated. There are all kinds of similar peculiar properties in DNA and protein based systems. Feel free to read up on the issue yourself. There are plenty of research articles linked at the bottom. Personally, this kind of stuff is of huge interest to me. It really is some fascinating biochemistry when you think about it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Its incredible how quickly a thread like this will revert to the same old flat out untruths and misrepresentations. I can't believe that people still come up with the nonsense that "it's just a theory" as if no hard facts are involved here, or that it's all based on the work of Darwin as if science has just stood still for 150 years. Im surprised no ones brought up the 2nd law of thermodynamics again in a vain attempt to disprove evolution. Seriously guys, there is so much you could learn if you just googled these things. It's pretty easy to take 1 minute of your life to figure out what a scientific theory is and the status of evolution as a theory and what that means.

Are you serious? Catholics aren't atheists because they accept evolution, they're still Christians. Just because they may see things differently to you on this issue doesn't mean that they don't believe in JC. Added, evolution has nothing to do with atheism at all. I agree with Ginger; this isn't really news. They've been pretty accepting of evolution for a while now.

My Apocalypse by Metallica

Didn't they have to revise it twice and basically rip the guts out of it because it was exposed as nonsense? Anyway, I watched a video of a debate between the people who made Loose Change and two people who debunk their claims in a book. It was interesting seeing the aggression and constant portrayal of anyone else as a liar from the conspiracy theorists, yet the relatively calm (yet intimidated) responses from the people who wrote the book. Needless to say the conspiracy theorists ideas weren't compelling in the slightest. They really love jumping to conclusions. For example, it's incredibly rich of them to demand more evidence that a plane crashed into the pentagon when they claim that a missile did, with zero physical evidence whatsoever.

It's an interesting idea, but I think we rationalise intelligence as being an emergent property rather than a property intrinsic to matter alone. What you're saying is akin to saying something like matter can see other matter because we have eyes.

I can't help but think when I look at one of those galaxies with billions of stars and billions of planets if there's someone in there looking back at ours.

your brain cells dont change :? Well, they're "different" in the sense that metabolic turnover changes the molecules that make them up. It's been estimated that upwards of 95% of all the matter in a human body is replaced over a year. Although I suppose the DNA would be the component of the cell that would remain largely unchanged. It's only "replaced" when the cell dies and another one takes it's place. As you said, for neurons (and muscle cells, for example), that doesn't happen.

Damnation by Morbid Angel.

Altars of Madness by Morbid Angel. Now this is metal that kicks serious [wagon]. Loving it so far. I also picked up Spiritual Healing by Death. Now just one album away from owning their entire back catalogue. What a great band. :) Loving this one too.

That's something that's always fascinated me as well, but materially you don't change. An atom is the same as any other of the same element, so the idea that we don't really change as much as our metabolic turnover would suggest isn't that hard to understand. As for what makes me question, pretty much everything. I'll think about something and ponder it for a while but there are just so many things I don't know. It's always fun to wonder though.

Gene Hoglan? Hell yes. He played on two albums for Death in the 90's. Very good. Anyway, I'm currently listening to Cyanide by Metallica.

I have an Ibanez S470, a fender strat and a cheapish acoustic. For an amp, I've got a spider II 212. Pretty crunchy. The Ibanez looks similar to this, apart from a missing central pickup: http://www.ibanez.com/eg/guitar.aspx?m=S7320

They have just as much right to as anyone else, really. If it can debunk the notion that all Muslims are terrorists, etc, then I think that can only be a good thing. I doubt it will have a significant effect, though.

Damn, that's sad news. He was a great musician and can claim a part in creating some of the best music of the 70's. Perhaps other decades, but albums like Meddle, Wish You Were Here, and Dark Side of the Moon are my favourites as far as Pink Floyd goes.

I've gotta say I'm enjoying it, on the whole. I think it's well worth the coin.

The Judas Kiss by Metallica.

He may very well be bubble wrapped by his parents, but you're not helping the situation any by basically pointing out every single flaw he has and treating him like a leper. Way to go. Also, jem brought up a good point - how can you be sure of the causality here? Are you sure that the bubble wrapping came first, or did the bullying come first and result in the calls to mum, overreactive personality, etc? For what it's worth, I do think that in general parents bubble wrap their kids too much these days. It's fallacious to think that bubble wrapping can only do good. It can do a lot of harm as well: underdeveloped social skills due to being overprotective, an underdeveloped immune system due to being a germaphobe, etc.

Picked up Death Magnetic by Metallica today. Sounds good so far. I also picked up Legion by Deicide.

Fire by Atheist.

Probably youtube. Great for wasting hours at a time.

I'm But a Wave to... by Cynic.