warri0r45

If it's a free refill and they don't specify how much then that's their problem for not being specific. Personally I'd probably only ever bother doing one refill if I'm thirsty, but companies can only blame themselves when people exploit a loophole like this.

Yeah, there is an obvious difference. Being spoiled is a condition you are either in or not. Acting spoiled is an attitude. By any measure, I'm a spoiled person (similar to Nadril parents are paying for education), but I'm not the kind of person to act spoiled at all. The way I see it, acting spoiled is necessarily preceded by being spoiled (poor people dont act spoiled) but acting spoiled doesn't invariably follow from being spoiled (privileged people arent always brats).

A great one is that all uni students have it easy and just piss their time away at the bar, among their 20 contact hours a week. I tend not to let them effect me, because they're either true or nonsense when applied to an individual. This one's not true for me.

Did you see the 60 minutes story on cesareans a few weeks ago? No ulterior motives or anything, I just found it interesting and you probably would have as well. On topic, congrats on your sisters baby. I hope all goes well in the labor. :)

Coke all the way. I hate pepsi max with a passion (it tastes like flat pepsi to me last I can remember) and I don't mind a vanilla coke every now and then.

Society should take a stand somewhere. The more we cater to the needs of obese people, the more they feel comfortable being fat and the less incentive they have to lose the weight. Apart from that the airlines can charge money for their service however they want. Obviously charging per seat is the logical way to go because it covers cases like this with no loss of coin for the company.

So do you think the touted increase is more down to Liberal political point scoring? Wouldn't be surprised.

thank you mate : I have tried and tried to phrase how evolution is wrong from a non-creationist point of view Mage, you need to understand that his analysis is severely lacking and at times full of blatant misrepresentations. It's a joke. Firstly, he reverts to the most inane argument possible which demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of the most basic of scientific principles - "it's just a theory." Yes, it is a theory, a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a system of explanation incorporating empirical evidence, tested hypotheses, scientific principles and logic to generate an explanation for a set of related phenomena. It in no way necessarily means "guess or conjecture" like it does in every day use. It's not one step below being proven, either. Again, theory is a system of explanation - it helps us understand the facts. Take the germ theory of disease, for example. Its a real scientific theory and the fact that its a theory does nothing to tell us how sure we are that germs cause disease. Evidently we are pretty damn sure that germs play a role in the etiology of disease, so any weight that "it's just a theory" has is shot to pieces. He then takes Big Bang cosmology to mean everything from t=0 to the emergence of life on earth. The Big Bang theory is a theory of cosmology and has nothing to do with biology. I cant believe that anyone could screw things up so badly. On his first point, he fails to realize that Big Bang cosmology does not explain where the matter of the universe originally came from. This does nothing to suggest that the theory's explanation of the evolution of the universe from t=0 onwards is wrong. On his second point, he wrongly states that nothing exploded. He directly contradicts the actual information he brought forth in his first point its NOT nothing that exploded, its something, namely the matter of the universe. I dont know enough about the science of gravity to comment further on this point. On his third point, he makes a grossly shallow analysis of the hypothesis of abiogenesis, with no mention of how scientists suggest it probably happened. Any serious analysis would attempt to include the formation of amino acids, fatty acids, nucleic acids and simple sugars from a primitive atmosphere exposed to an energy source, autocatalysis of molecules like RNA (ribozymes), autopolymerisation of biopolymers on mineral surfaces, formation of lipid micelles on the surface of montmorillonite clay, etc. All he can come up with is life from rocks. He also brings up biogenesis, which is a valid scientific law, but then he says that no past or future evidence can disprove it which, again, is utter nonsense and shows a severely lacking understanding of the fact that science is dynamic and can change its proposals based on the introduction of new evidence. Either way, biologists are perfectly capable of recognizing abiogenesis as completely distinct from biogenesis, which holds on todays earth, under present conditions (though it may not have under the conditions of a prebiotic earth). Finally, on his fourth point he again gives a completely shallow analysis, yet to top it off he makes the assumption that transitional forms wont be adaptive to their environment, without even suggesting what these forms are transitioning into. You see, the concept of transition only makes sense when its in the context of actually transitioning into something. Evolution is an undirected process its only goal is for suitability to the environment at the time. Indeed, many individuals are unable to survive and cope in changing environments. Hell, over 90% of species to have ever lived have died out, essentially stopping dead in the fossil record before this present day, but this in no way means that a change in conditions must mean every organism dies out. There is a concept of tolerance in homeostatic systems, you know. Check this out as an example link. It's an experiment thats been going since 1988 where E. coli has been grown on limited glucose resources. Did they die out? No, they managed to survive during their transition to utilize a food source previously of no use to them whatsoever citrate. If any slight environmental shift killed off all members of a species, then there would be no E.coli left today nor any life on earth today both would have died out long ago. On top of all that, this guy has the nerve to tell the people of this thread to use your feeble brain to comprehend and think. Well I have used my brain to comprehend (which he clearly hasnt) and to think about the evidence in favor of a concept like evolution. Ive spent my fair share of research of peer reviewed journals scanning to see just how strong the case for evolution is, and I wasnt left in the lurch in terms of evidence, thats for damn sure. Of course, it's not like Killy brought up any of it at all. He seems to rather blatant misrepresentations and a complete lack of understanding of science to make his case.

I don't believe you should follow every single thing the party says - you still have your own opinions. But pretending like you don't have to follow a certain party to make your opinions known is pretty foolish. In this country, we have two major parties - Labour and the Conservatives. I am a socialist. The Labour party sure as hell isn't socialist, but it is the only party whose views I agree with which stands a chance of forming a government. Sure, maybe on principle I should vote for Respect, but this is politics. All split-off groups like Respect do is weaken the left-wing. It'd be counter-productive for me to vote them. I agree with all of that, I was just saying I don't like the idea of forming your opinions purely based on prepackaged party policy. I can see where bringing voting into what I was trying to say confused things.

(1) That's the thing though. You find the scientific method obvious. I find God obvious. You believe God needs to be proven. I believe the scientific method should be proven. Neither can be proven (you can't test the scientific method by the scientific method...). We're just different creatures, you and I. (2) No apology necessary; in my experience I've found "intellectuals" (aka. atheists) to be extremely arrogant... I know if I didn't believe in God I'd probably think alot more highly of myself. Belief in God requires quite a bit of humility, wouldn't you agree? I think acknowledging that there is a higher purpose that you (science) can have no bearing or effect on would be extremely humbling. It's also interesting to note that you used the term *critical* thinking. Have you ever known a humble person to be critical? (1) True. (2) I've always found the strive to help other people a humbling thing, too. Other than that, a general respect for fellow people always helps in the humility stakes. Obviously I can only speak for myself and from my own experience and that is that I don't feel any more highly of myself just because I don't believe in god. As for the first question, it depends on the believer. The more moderate and generally decent the believer, the more humble they will be. Having said that, I've seen this apply to people in general. As for the last question, yes.

You're the kind of voter I like. Party loyalty is stupid to me. But this has nothing to do with being apart of a party...this is where your views will generally land. Granted if you're a one/two issue voter, then you'd be more than likely qualify as someone who shouldn't take this compass into mind. Oh, I agree. So long as the political opinions you have are yours (and hence merely happen to allign more with one party) and not those of the party, then I'm fine with that. The whole issue of party loyalty suggests voting purely because of the party, and not because of what the voter actually thinks.

As I said, with many families in Australia feeling the pinch, they already have an incentive to save energy and petrol. I don't know how kicking them in the guts when they're down by essentially charging more for petrol would measurably improve their attitude towards energy savings. If they can't get it through their heads now, then I doubt they ever will. Maybe we need more gov't adds to tell them that they need to save energy in the home and be petrol frugal to save money. I don't see the logic in emissions staying the same as more technology is developed, especially if you provide incentives for the new technology, as I suggested. Ok, I can see the logic here - families hear of measures to introduce brand new technology and feel less inclined to do their bit be it with saving energy in the home or taking up offers of public transport. Why not then overemphasise the personal responsibilities of the people, sweetening the deal with incentives all around? There's nothing that says we must overemphasise the technology side of things. I can see the logic in people's reaction to new technology, so I basically agree with you here. Ok, this actually sounds fine by me and I agree, so long as private companies do the research. Heh, youve convinced me. :P

I know, mate. Just disproving the idea that religious people necessarily reject science. Obviously Newton isn't representative of all believers, but that wasn't the point I made. I think what happens is that as intelligence rises, tendency to see faith as valid drops. Just like as faith rises, tendency to see intelligence as valid drops. That might be why Christians (faith-believers) might be perceived as unintelligent and why scientists (knowledge-seekers) may be perceived as faithless. (1) What I don't agree with is scientists that reject faith when their entire system (the scientific method) is taken on faith. I also think Christians that reject science as unbiblical are in the wrong - the Bible has nothing to do with science or knowledge - it's a book describing the character of God, to be read as something else is erroneous. So I would agree that intelligence decreases the chance of believing in God, but it's not because belief in God is unintelligent - (2) I believe intelligence decreases belief because intelligent people tend to be more arrogant and are more likely to reject ideas that make themselves seem inferior. (3) What's also interesting to note is that while people often blame religion for wars and world turmoil, the 20th century, seeing a massive rise in atheism and secularism, was the bloodiest and most turmoil-filled century our history has ever seen. If religion caused the crusades (crusaders were religious), then Darwinism caused the holocaust (Nazis were Darwinists). (1) You could say that but I wouldn't equate religious faith to faith that science works. That's drawing a huge bow in my books. The scientific process is much more obvious and self-evident to me. I'd call it a truism. (2) Sorry, I don't agree at all. I think it decreases belief because it makes people more critical in their thinking. To some of these people an anthropomorphic figure with qualities x, y, z simply doesn't make any sense. (3) Yes, Social Darwinism. I think it's stupid too. I don't know what to make of the 20th century being the bloodiest and most violent. It sure seems that way but I've not looked over the stats, and I've heard suggestions that the trend that suggests (that we're getting more bloody and violent) isn't true. Somehow I doubt that the continued rise in atheism/secularism will be matched by 2 more world wars in the 21st century. Who knows though, insane. Perhaps your hypothesis will be vindicated, but we can both hope that's not true, because to me, any atheist who is violent to anyone else is stupid. Damn, Killy, you've got me stumped. What, with the insatiable argument that "it's just a theory" and that the law of biogenesis subjugates any notion of self-replicating molecules or autocatalysis because it cant be disproven, I think you deserve the prize. I also like your modern synthesis treatment of Big Bang Theory to include evolution, during which transitional forms arent adapted to their environment yet only to some unknown future environment suited for the future, non-transitional form. Genius! Practice your Swedish, Killy. Youre going to Hollywoo ah, I mean Stockholm!

I don't see why research can't be a good answer. If not coming up with new technologies from scratch it's still making existing green technologies more efficient. I also emphasised incentives for LPG, solar panels and other cleaner energy sources. I know research isnt the only part of the equation. I know people can technically do without fossil fuels and forcing them to face an even heavier economic burden would challenge the prevailing line of thought that "it's not my problem", but I worry about how viable that is for today's society. A lot of people are struggling here with getting into the housing market as well as putting enough petrol into their cars to go to work. In this sense people are having more and more reasons to be energy frugal to save money, i.e. it is their problem. What should we do if the economic burden of housing prices and petrol gets too much? Go live in mud huts? I mean sure, there are plenty of things we could do to maintain minimal carbon output but many of them arent realistic to me. One solution to eliminating the need for so many people to drive to work could be public transport or car-pooling, etc. If our government could manage to organise the former, at least, I might consider emissions trading a more attractive deal. They've got to give the incentive to be green, not just the disincentive to use fossil fuels when it may be needed. Yes, it will force down demand but I worry that the use of fossil fuels in this case is more of a need than a luxury. In this sense, again, if Rudd can sweeten the deal by getting serious on public transport for those that won't be as able to buy petrol, then I'd consider it a better deal. And again, I don't see anything wrong with research nor do I think its the only realistic means of action on climate change. As I said, there are ways to make being green attractive rather than making not being green an economic burden. I know fuel prices arent really the kind of thing that our government can control, but they can control the extra taxes that go on top of it, and thats my concern here. The fact that the oil moguls are more interested in money than the welfare of the people who depend on their product is all the more reason to get serious on alternative, independent fuel sources to my way of thinking.

You're the kind of voter I like. Party loyalty is stupid to me.

Hmm. Fair enough. Alright, scrap that one for the moment. So in saying my idea is pretty good, do you mean better than a trading scheme, where petrol prices would increase?

I know, mate. Just disproving the idea that religious people necessarily reject science. Obviously Newton isn't representative of all believers, but that wasn't the point I made.

I read an article in a newspaper today where the Australian government is planning to launch an emissions trading scheme to tackle climate change. A noble thought, but with petrol prices going up and putting strain on "working families" (which is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's favourite meaningless soundbite), I'm not so sure asking them for extra money at the petrol pump is the best way to go. That's the flow-on effect of such a scheme - the cost of emission sources like petrol and coal rises. Now I could think of a better way to spend money to tackle climate change - invest money into research and initiation of renewable industries and climate friendly technologies (elecrtic/hydrogen powered cars, for example). We could also add more emphasis on already existing technologies like rebates for LPG tanks for cars and solar panels for houses. The consequence of this is no extra cost for something everyone in this society needs but an added option, with incentives, of alternate energy sources. Your thoughts?

I think you're probably the only person on this forum ever to mention Francis Collins, and I've seen you do it 3 or 4 times. :P It's worth mentioning that he was an atheist at one point. His conversion is quite a famous story. Something silly like he fell to his knees and accepted Jesus as his savior because he saw a waterfall frozen into 3 segments. Seems odd to me that a scientist would even correlate those two things. Yeah, seems odd to me too. I just admire guys like Collins, Ken Miller and the like because they stand up for good science (evolution) and show that you can be a person of faith while accepting it. Plus, anyone who helps us along the path to understanding a genetic disease and/or the human genome gets a tick in my books.

Multiple points here. I personally would not be surprised if he actually admitted to being a religious person. The question is, how religious was he? Did he attend church constantly, and believe everything he was told there? Or did he go on about his research and mostly ignore the mess that religion is? Secondly, the theory of gravity and his three laws of motion do not largely contradict the bible, there fore his intelligence being consumed in physics, he had no reason to care whether or not the bible is the truth. Then theres also the whole thing about the brainwashing powers of peer pressure at work as well. How about a more modern and also well known scientist? Albert Einstein made it clear that he was an atheist. Although he did practice the religion with other Jews, he made it clear in numerous letters that he enjoyed the social aspect of it, and did not do it because he had any related beliefs. I have read the text of those letters myself by the way. Anyway, I'm not going to bother reading any more of this thread, but I will leave you with a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T27kB4BjbEg He was religious. Apparantly unorthodox compared to the church. http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virgi ... ewton.html But he accepted the Bible as fundamentally true and believed in god. http://www.newton.ac.uk/newtlife.html The point I made, and much of your post is taken up not adressing it, is that religious people don't necessarily reject science. It's a very wrong thing to say, considering people like Newton. I could just as easily bring out an example like Francis Collins, who was a key figure in the human genome project and the discovery of the gene for cystic fibrosis. He's a Christian and rejects creationism/intelligent design. Bringing out examples like Einstein, who according to what I've read would rather have been called an agnostic, really has no bearing on my point.

Eh, take your pick. Single celled organisms, high flying UFO's, or otherwise intelligent life. I'm pretty skeptical about ghosts and zombies, but aliens, yeah. And didn't Steven Hawking say something along those lines, where there are to many galaxies for there not to be aliens? Here is what Hawking says. It's a fascinating read.

Ultimately, I could see why we tended towards cooperation rather than all out anarchy cooperating means pooling our resources and abilities. Anarchy means trying to fend for yourself while fighting off someone else. The cooperation is obviously advantageous and any population of social animals will tend towards it. This could be the basis of the moral standard in humans were talking about a genetic predisposition. This in turn could be the basis for the attitude of repulsion most sane people take towards murdering someone else. However, its not absolutely binding. Were still influenced by society and can break moral predispositions. Another interesting thought is regarding the golden rule. If we do wrong by others, they tend to retaliate in self-defense. For example, if I come up and hit you and continue to hit you, youll probably hit back. Now I could see where the alternative (treating you as I would rather be treated) has an obvious advantage. If the former pans out, weve both lost energy and someone could even be dead. If the latter, no one is worse of and we have the opportunity to cooperate and become better off. Somewhat linked is the scientific discovery of Mirror Neurons, which may be linked with empathy. It seems to be pretty speculative at this stage in research, though. Theres also a sense of in-group and out-group morals. Call it tribalism if you want. Before we were all one conglomerate international society, we would obviously have been little population blips around the world, where the world would allow us. This could be the catalyst for a cautious or even hostile attitude towards others coming near your turf to take your food. Over time, we needed to learn to coexist with other tribes to survive as a race. Although we're not perfect (two world wars, for example), we seem to have been able to coexist, realising that we can get more done and be more successful by cooperating between tribes (or even by eliminating the whole concept of tribalism from our psyche) than by warring as factions. I for one stand for this social movement. I prefer to eliminate tribal thinking and rather see everyone as the same.

Its not nice to make threads like these either. I get really ticked about things like this, people finding reasons to prove christianity wrong. and in this case its a simple statistic. I'm willing to make an intelligent discussion. But I don't see how much intelligence is going on when someone posts a statistic saying most higher intellectuals are non-believers. I see no point in this thread other than to start controversy. No need to worry warren, this hardly proves anything wrong. Smart people believing something doesn't make it right. Having said that, I'd take any study with a grain of salt untill I look into it myself.

Same as you, but one notch up and to the right. I hate the idea of classing people by ideology, though. At least it's a scale and not a "you're X" as if you accept all the ideology's precepts. Edit: Looks like they keep this thing updated - they have Aussie PM (as of end of 2007), Kevin Rudd, on the scale.

witch is why I'd grow crazy if i was brought up in religion, i do not insult people for religion but why reject everything that is scientifically proven They don't. You're wrong. Want me to prove it to you? Issac Newton. He believed in god and studied the Bible. He also happened to write what's considered one of the best works in scientific history, "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica," in which he outlines laws of motion and gravitation, along with calculus. I don't think it's possible to have ravaged your idea any more than I just did. Hope it didn't hurt too much. Im not really surprised that there are some really smart believers out there (e.g. some people I admire Francis Collins and Ken Miller), even some men of the cloth. Take Gregor Mendel as a seminal example. He was a priest from Austria and the father of modern genetics. By the way, youre taking this study the wrong way. Its that on average, higher intelligence will correlate with atheism. For example, out of 5 intelligent people, 3 may be atheists. I dont even take it as accurate without looking into it seriously but its worth knowing what the study is actually suggesting. Oh and to Denismage, its not really that fair portraying all Christians as fundie morons when only a small handful are. I agree with bloodyhatchet bear, some people are coming up with the stupidest and most inane stereotypes.