warri0r45

Does anyone take seriously the calls of Ricky Ponting to be sacked? Call me crazy, but I think if there wasn't so much media on this story, there wouldn't be such a fuss. I don't think Ponting should be sacked, I think Singh should get his appeal and I think Hogg should be investigated for his foul language. I'd then hope both teams stop giving the media fuel to stoke the fire and just bloody well get on with the series. Bloody hell. Crazy.

[hide] lol. People who are Pro Gay wouldn't know the Bible if it walked up to them in the street and said hello. They merely pick at scripture take them out of context and use them wit their argument so they can live with themselves. It clearly states in the Bible that Homosexuality is a sin. The question therefore is not whether the Bible is against Homosexuality (which it is) but whether or not you believe that its right to live by the Bible and whether the Bible's morals and beliefs are correct. Secondly your true about not declining others because of what they belief in. To be more correct it says love them no matter what, since we're all sinners. That doesn't mean you can't be against the act (waits for Warrior to come along and tell me thats not possible - thats incorrect - it is...such as me being against liars and others who continually do sinful acts- but whatever I don't wish to get into an argument about that at the moment). That's why I can believe that gay bashing is an unjust hypocritical thing to do, especially if you're Christian since your called to love the homosexuals. Doesn't mean I'm not against the act, I've got the right to be against the act, just as others have the right to support the act in the first place. Oh no I don't really mind that you're against the act, I just don't personally agree. I just tend to argue against people who think it's a choice to be a homosexual when it's not. I think it would be a little niave to go as far to say all homosexuality is a choice (assuming that your correct on homosexuality being not a choice in many people - whether or not I agree with you is a seperate issue) since many people can choose to be homosexual. For instance (I know its a little out there but its not like it doesn't occur) people can choose to go and have sex with their own sex for the pure enjoyment it brings them (as they may be experimental people) that's definitely a choice, so you've got to be careful saying all homosexuality isn't a choice - because thats not the case always. I can give other examples of choice when it comes to people not necessarily feeling attracted to their same sex but doing it for an experimental enjoyment factor (another example would be a 3 some) etc. etc. [/hide] Your sexual orientation is not a choice, therefore being a homosexual is not a choice. Ever tried being sexually attracted to guys? Yeah, not really possible if you're straight. You touched on instances where people choose to forego those sexual orientation feelings to have sex with people they aren't sexually attracted to (which I seriously doubt would be anything but meagerly fringe in numbers, especially among guys), which would not make them homosexuals; they just performed homosexual acts. Homosexuality, i.e. being of the homosexual orientation, is not a choice. Acting on it is. I think there's a distinction there to make between actions and orientation.

I'll be a true blue Aussie and go for the movie 'Gallipoli' which is based on the true WW1 battle at Gallipoli, Turkey (1915). Tragic ending.

Why do people continually say crap like this? It isn't 'unnatural' to be gay. It happens in nature, both wild and civilized, and by the dictates of nature, i.e. by biological and environmental factors. Would you say it's natural in the same way blindness is natural? Not in that respect, no. If IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m reading it right youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re saying blindness as opposed to sight is unnatural as homosexuality as opposed to hetero is unnatural. But then I read this and I think true, in this respect it's natural in the same way different skin colours are - you can't control it or choose to be one orientation or the other. That's the point I was making. I wouldn't call peoples condition 'natural' or 'unnatural' based on how malfunctional they are so as to stigmatize blind people, etc, although I think you could probably define malfunction or abnormality unnatural on a technicality. Either way homosexuality doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean your bits fall of or you stop producing sperm hence perhaps your analogy is more accurate when comparing sterility to non-sterility? Here we go. No, I'm not trying to say anything natural is OK. In determining whether it's ok, I'd ask whether it harms people. Does a consenting act between two adults behind closed doors harm anyone? I don't think so. By the way sex isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t just for procreation. My argument thus far has been itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s akin to racism discriminating against gays based on sexual orientation as itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s beyond their control. Thankfully, basically everyone in this thread is sensible and doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t discriminate merely because homosexuals are of their particular orientation.

I'm kind of wavering on the issue but in principle I agree. The point is I think that such a spirit is becoming a thing of the past and therefore perhaps it's unrealistic to continue calling non-walkers against the spirit of the game? Like I say, I'm personally wavering on the issue and in a perfect world I think everyone should walk.

lol. People who are Pro Gay wouldn't know the Bible if it walked up to them in the street and said hello. They merely pick at scripture take them out of context and use them wit their argument so they can live with themselves. It clearly states in the Bible that Homosexuality is a sin. The question therefore is not whether the Bible is against Homosexuality (which it is) but whether or not you believe that its right to live by the Bible and whether the Bible's morals and beliefs are correct. Secondly your true about not declining others because of what they belief in. To be more correct it says love them no matter what, since we're all sinners. That doesn't mean you can't be against the act (waits for Warrior to come along and tell me thats not possible - thats incorrect - it is...such as me being against liars and others who continually do sinful acts- but whatever I don't wish to get into an argument about that at the moment). That's why I can believe that gay bashing is an unjust hypocritical thing to do, especially if you're Christian since your called to love the homosexuals. Doesn't mean I'm not against the act, I've got the right to be against the act, just as others have the right to support the act in the first place. Oh no I don't really mind that you're against the act, I just don't personally agree. I just tend to argue against people who think it's a choice to be a homosexual when it's not.

Me too. :) I don't think it'll stop though, I think it's just 'suspended' right now. The walking issue has got me to thinking - is it really against the spirit of the game given less and less people (seems like the minority) are actually walkers these days? Perhaps you could argue it's not? Dunno. I mean, if most people don't walk, could it be that most people don't play by the spirit of the game or is the spirit of the game changing? Something to think about. :-k Either way the media appearances by the Indians today and talk of suspending the tour because they want to appeal against Singh's 3 match ban is too much I think. I think the Indian's reactions to some of these issues could have been handled better. I'm just glad that the Aussies havn't gone down the path of media sparring today. Last thing this tour needs. I mean, damn, one close test match win to the Aussies, a poor umpiring effort, a few claims of foul play by the Aussies (perhaps debatable?) and it's all over the bloody news! Haha. It's probably the craziest reaction to a test match I've ever seen.

I don't know about everyone else but I've gotta say I've seen the whole day's news events as a big non-issue. The only issue that would validate Anil Kumble's ramblings about us not playing in the spirit of the game would be if it's true that Brad Hogg went overboard with abusive language aimed at the Indians during play. If he seriously thinks that a competitive streak is against the 'spirit of the game' when he himself appealed umpteen times in a competitive game, then he's a hypocrite. I think that Kumble is upset at the umpiring (and rightly so) and at the fact that Singh got a three match ban yet that's no reason to take his frustrations out on Australia after a close loss in a competitive game of test cricket. As I say, the only issue that I'd see give his media appearance credence would be if Hogg mouthed off as he's been accused of. And on Australia's celebrations after the game, who bloody wouldn't celebrate like that after such a dramatic and down-to-the-wire win? I mean, seriously, there was exactly the same if not more of a celebration last year in Adelaide after a close Ashes win against the Poms yet no one said a word then, did they? and would you be quiet if the opposition claims an illegitimate catch and players staying and not moving when they nick a ball to 1st slip is this what you call "competetive streak" cmon i know the umpiring was [cabbage] but this was unacceptable .i was proud of the indian team for their sportsmanship after a tight loss. as for the racist accusations i agree that it should be dealt severely and its just not good for the game.cricket is above all such things.i hope the tour isnt called off. Firstly, I don't know whether Clarke's catch was illegitimate. He looked genuine when he caught it. The replays didn't help me come to a solid conclusion (I'm not saying that it was a legitimate catch, however). As for the walking/not walking issue, what makes you think it's only Australians that aren't walkers? I know Gilchrist, at least, is a walker and I have no reason to believe Indian players wouldn't abstain from walking if given the chance. From my perspective, I think all players should walk if they know they're out and be honest with their catches and yes, I'd be annoyed if a player who's obviously out didn't walk and if a player wrongly claimed an illegitimate catch and got away with it, but, I have no reason to believe any one team is better than another in this repect. Do you know that an Indian player would always walk? How can we be sure, before going on an anti-Australian team tyraid, that we just got the luck of the draw from poor umpiring in this match? Overall, you could argue that the walking and illegitimate catch issue are against the spirit of the game. I tend to agree, in all honesty. Thanks for bringing these issues to my attention; I actually forgot about them when writing my post. So perhaps I was a bit hasty. Perhaps the Aussies didn't play that particular match with the full spirit of the game and perhaps it went far beyond a competitive streak, yet is the spirit of the game a pipe dream or are Australians the only spiritless ones left in cricket today?

I don't know about everyone else but I've gotta say I've seen the whole day's news events as a big non-issue. The only issue that would validate Anil Kumble's ramblings about us not playing in the spirit of the game would be if it's true that Brad Hogg went overboard with abusive language aimed at the Indians during play. If he seriously thinks that a competitive streak is against the 'spirit of the game' when he himself appealed umpteen times in a competitive game, then he's a hypocrite. I think that Kumble is upset at the umpiring (and rightly so) and at the fact that Singh got a three match ban yet that's no reason to take his frustrations out on Australia after a close loss in a competitive game of test cricket. As I say, the only issue that I'd see give his media appearance credence would be if Hogg mouthed off as he's been accused of. And on Australia's celebrations after the game, who bloody wouldn't celebrate like that after such a dramatic and down-to-the-wire win? I mean, seriously, there was exactly the same if not more of a celebration last year in Adelaide after a close Ashes win against the Poms yet no one said a word then, did they?

Why do people continually say crap like this? It isn't 'unnatural' to be gay. It happens in nature, both wild and civilized, and by the dictates of nature, i.e. by biological and environmental factors. Some animals can display homosexual behaviour [1-2] and it's not a conscious choice for humans to be what sexual orientation they end up with; they end up with their orientation by biological and environmental factors [3-5]. Anyway I've got nothing against gays. What they do behind closed doors is none of my concern.

I'll have to agree there, some of the umpiring on the whole was awful. Perhaps the game would have had a different outcome but dispite that I think the two teams were evenly matched and the game deserved to go down to the wire as it did.

OH MY F------ GOD!!! That was incredible. Way to go M. Clarke and the rest of the boys to retain the Border-Gavaskar trophy and match 16 test wins in a row! :D This win reminds me of last year in Adelaide, the 2nd Ashes test. Right down to the wire.

Agreed. The US needs someone like him after Bush. I've heard a couple of his speaches on youtube and they actually aren't boring like someone would expect a presidential speech to be like. I read his speech on faith in America [1]. Damn, he's the kind of guy I would vote for. America needs Obama after Bush, I'd say. I'm not religious, but I pray for his success in campaigning and doing the best by your country should he win, which I think he will do. He seems like a real person. He has real doubts, has real concerns and has real aspirations in his work.

Yeah, I'd tend to agree. The rain isn't helping any. I think it will take both an awesome effort from Australia and an utter collapse from India tomorrow for us to win.

Damn you Tendulkar!!!! It's not looking good for a win from my perspective right now. 2 days to go and we need to not only set a substantial target and defend it, but get 10 more wickets. :( Ah well, if anyone can do it, it's Australia.

What's the significant difference? Any evolution occurs through darwinian natural selection. But if you're talking about darwinism as in some social philosophy then I agree, that's totally different to evolution. How is it ridiculous to oppose a religiously based view being espoused by any political body? Some people may not want to be told that they shouldn't worship any other gods other than the Christian one in a secular and multi-religious nation, or would you rather the U.S. become what Saudi Arabia is to Islam? If your law is based on the commandments as you claim, why do you need a government sponsored reminder if you have the constitution? And how do you reconcile the first commandment and the first amendment? Or did they just forget that commandment when establishing the bill of rights? If the first amendment states what it does and the founding fathers sought to establish a secular nation whereby religious freedom and no state religion was the aim, how can you seriously argue that the constitution and thereby the nation was founded on religious principles and not secular ones? I don't think upholding your constitution against any religious considerations is absurd at all, especially considering how much of a Christian nation yours has become in the face of secularism. To me that speaks volumes for secularism, the first amendment and the ability of the marketplace of ideas to freely pursue what it sees fit without the need for state sponsorship. Source and quotes::: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7500.html ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅBy their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

"Worthwhile Overdose" by a band called Mary Jane Kelly. Awesome outro.

Your thinking to much in a physical sense - God didn't need to be created, he is an all-powerful forever existant spirtual being, nothing that needs to be made. Unorclan, Some people may have a hard time believing that god required no creation in much the same way that people have a hard time believing that the universe required no creation. The curiosities of some will never cease them from questioning 'why is the universe here rather than not', in much the same way as questioning 'why is god here rather than not'? In this sense I think the human mind demands a beginning for everything at the hands of something else, be it a natural force or some supernatural cause. For the unbeliever, the buck stopping at a supernatural god merely pushes the frame back to question where this god or higher level of being came from. For the believer, this consideration may not apply. Some, such as me, might question where god came from. For those that don't believe in god, such as me, believing that he must have always existed is often uncompelling nor does wanting that proposition to be true make it so. I don't even want to bother with you any more. You consistantly either ignore critical parts of my posts or argue against things I never said.

I always think this question is phrased stupidly. Hell no it's not wrong to eat meat. Are people against me ingesting inanimate protein rich matter for the purposes of living? People think or get the connotation when asking this "is it wrong to kill or be cruel to animals?" In that case, no I don't think it's wrong to kill animals to eat them but yes, I think it's wrong to be unnecessarily cruel to animals.

I dunno, I like the practice of doing it manually. After a while, and I think I'm starting to pick up on it, you can tell almost immediately whether it's LBW or not. I'll be watching the TV and go 'nope'. Sure enough, it's not out and hawk-eye sais it's going down leg stump or too high or something. I dunno, just getting a feel for an LBW is like an art form. I like that they don't go to 3rd ump but I can still see your point. Perhaps that kind of modernization of the game is inevitable. Hell, they're alreadt talking about running test matches at night time. Crazy. :uhh: :P

My favourite genre is probably metal. Preferably less thrash centered and more progressive, groove or death. Then I'd have to say punk/hardcore. I love this punk/hardcore radio show on wednesday nights at 10 on a station here in Aus called triple J. Awesome stuff. It's like my easy listening haha. Here are a few punk/rock/hardcore bands I've discovered that I'd say I like from the radio show: http://www.myspace.com/horsellcommon -- Horsell Common http://www.myspace.com/maryjanekellyhc -- Mary Jane Kelly http://www.myspace.com/howlungswork -- Lungs http://www.myspace.com/extortionextortion -- Extortion http://www.myspace.com/hospitalthemusical -- Hospital the Musical There you go, some of my more up to date and evolving tastes. I still love metal, of course. Good stuff. I'm generally not opposed to any genre, as long as the music appeals to me.

Bloody oath. How good was the Hogg-Symonds partnership? :D Too bad hogg didn't get the ton. :(

Trampled in mosh pit or spinal fracture into the brainstem from excessive headbanging. Hahaha. But seriously, peacefully in my sleep would be fine.

How do they know its not the other way? My hypothesis is that land mammals came from the cetaceans and not the other way around. They are only assuming that cetaceans evolved from land mammals. I'm assuming the opposite. Who's wrong? Still irrelevant to the topic. The fatal flaw with that hypothesis is probably that cetaceans come after the major land tetrapods in the fossil record (and thus chronologically). Your hypothesis must predict cetaceans come before all land tatrapods and thus would be falsified. There are probably other hiccups to that hypothesis. You'd just need to think about it more and predict exactly what the data should say, embryonically, biochemically and in terms of the fossil evidence. Another drawback with your hypothesis would be that the cetaceans should show no embryonic leg buds nor any atavistic legs as legs should come after the cetaceans. So yeah, major flaws. Biologists don't assume when there is evidence of a given evolutionary link and the alternative, your hypothesis, is basically falsified by that same evidence.

You're still doing it, mate. I did not rule out any possibility as you claim, for christ sake. Bloody hell. Quote where I did or any other bumbling point you make about this will be ignored. Either way it's completely irrelevant to the point I was making nor have you countered the point I made, if that was even your intention. :? Getting over that nonsense, I'll respond to the rest of your post. I too share a passion for biology. Glad you get some joy out of it. :wink: You say observation isn't always scientific yet it is the basis of all science. It begins with observing some aspect of nature, say as Darwin did on the Galapagos Islands with the finches. Then comes the hypothesis, say how Darwin postulated the finches with different beak shapes and sizes share a common ancestry and each beak is an adaptation to a given food source through the mechanism of natural selection. Eventually this line of thought lead Darwin to postulate that all life on earth shares a common ancestry, as some other thinkers have done in the past. This is the core hypothesis which some religious people will often take opposition to in favor of belief in their creation stories. At this stage, we're up to the proposed hypothesis that life on earth shares relationship by common descent. To be a true scientific endeavor, this hypothesis must be tested against the data. We must now make predictions as to what the data ought to say if common descent were true. Three of these simple predictions may be, for example, that the geological record must show a gradual inclusion of 'newer' and more complex life forms as per phylogenetic estimates over geological time; that we, having 46 chromosomes, must have a fused homologous pair of chromosomes with either side of the fusion lining up with two independent chimp chromosomes (as a basis for comparison) as they and the other great apes have 48; and perhaps that whales, for example, may show atavistic traits akin to legs (google: atavism) and show leg buds in embryonic development in much the same way that other tetrapods that develop proper legs do. All of these predictions were verified by the data. As for your specific birds from reptiles lineage, I'm not familiar on the specific data supporting that link. I agree, the basis of scaled feet doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t seem enough evidence for me at all. I'll research it. I'm sure there's probably some biochemical indications of the bird's evolutionary history. As for the assumption point, what assumptions do you feel make the biological explanation of life inadequate? The missing links are there, yet from the data we do have, evolution fits the bill perfectly. Consider it kind of like having a puzzle and there being pieces missing. The good thing about this scenario is that we can predict what the pieces ought to be given the proposed hypothesis of common descent! A good example of such predictions of the fossil record coming to the fore would perhaps be the evolution of the cetaceans - whales and dolphins. According to evolution, they came from land mammals and as a result we should be able to find intermediates in the fossil record which adapt the organism to more and more aquatic environments. Also, there ought to be a complete remodeling of the inner ear structure of these fossils as to account for going from air hearing to underwater hearing. These predictions came true when a number of intermediates were found in recent times in a valley in Pakistan. When the first fossil was found, we knew where to look and the rest of the fossils fit the progression of morphology both in general terms and in middle ear structure perfectly. Anyway IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll source these claims if anyone requests. No sweat.