warri0r45

Obviously you have to be of a certain maturity to do such things. I'd also add a clause of doing it for the right reasons. If you're doing it based on peer pressure or solely to get paralysed then you're a moron. I'd also rather people stay away from anything that's severely addictive or seriously alters brain chemistry, such as meth or heroin.

Some of these qualities would probably make you die (unless you're taking that as a given for the outcome of this 'zombification'). Partailly decomposed flesh would severely compromise your immune system and bacteria would likely fester and kill you pretty easily. Overload of adrenaline gives you a 'fight or flight' response and supresses digestion; you'd literally run out of puff and just break down into a heap. Dead nerves could compromise motor skills or sensory input and just leave you in a heap anyway. As for the others, dunno, I'm sure there are all kinds of wierd and wonderful pathogens which can change disposition and make you go into a rage etc.

The full bit is a few lines longer, but I don't really feel like typing it all out. Exactly what I had in mind. :

The Bible isn't scientific literature so it's difficult to compare creation stories and scientific stories. However, I still think that there are some things in the book genesis that are difficult to fit in with the theory of evolution. Evolution offers no clear distinction between animals and humans. The Bible says that we're the image of God, put on earth to rule all other species and animals are basically our food. The idea that all animals are equal is to me absurd but if we're just another animal it actually seems to make sense. I think it undermines the creation story to some extent. The creation story suddenly doesn't mean much of what it actually says. I've never studied any actual evidence for it. All information I have is either from people who believe the current scientific model is correct or from people who believe it's wrong. So it's more up to which people I trust are more likely to tell the truth. Haven't you and other people with you been saying that evolution is the one and only explanation on the scientific side? That it's not a theory among theories and that it's THE theory. If I was a strong believer that there was nothing beyond nature, I don't see how life could've originated otherwise. I'm sure just by looking at some premises. If you're a theist you believe in God. Therefore you open up the possibility of a omnipotent God. An omnipotent God could've done anything and of course created life without following the principles of the theory of evolution. I also have an example of a swedish geologist Mats Molen(swedish wiki unfortunately) who once was a theistic evolutionist. But as he studied science, he found it more and more difficult to believe in the theory of evolution and eventually became a creationist. (1) I agree, the Bible isn't scientific literature, yet many people treat it as such (but of course it's not), which then makes it very easy to compare to other science. What you see as absurd is irrelevant to what the evidence tells us. (2) There we go, metaphorical. It's the obvious alternative to the creation story being a literal, factually consistant truth. (3) You're looking at it the wrong way. Don't trust anyone, for or against. Read the literature. Google has a new section "google scholar". You can search in there and likely get some good reults. Always take peer reviewed literature as the final judge over my or anyone elses opinions on the matter. (4) Yes, it is currently THE theory. My point was that you don't need to accept it as if it were true if you're a naturalist. Science is dynamic and falsifiable; it never claims absolute truth, thus leaving open any other scientific explanations. The weight of evidence and data in favour of one theory over another are the scales in which we choose which theory is currently THE theory. In my opinion, I don't see how life could have originated otherwise. Many naturalists agree, but accepting evolution isn't a prerequisite of naturalism. (5) Now we both have anecdotes. Both are true - there are some who are theistic evolutionists because they take the scientific position and see creationism as essentially falsified then there are some who are theistic evolutionists but can revert to or choose creationism.

I wouldn't mind a few of his supporters (aka supporters of terrorists) would kindly turn on each other and bash each other out of the gene pool. I couldn't care less if he's Australian decent, he doesn't deserve the right to come back to this country and call it home after he turned into a traitor of ours. Not David Hicks, Bill Hicks, an American comedian whom I made reference to on the basis of one of his jokes parodying the term 'hooligans'.

:XD: These terms have fish names? You're spot on with it though - I'll have to remember that one. I didn't agree with the luck thing but just wanted to give Kashi some positive feedback that her theory works with other things : I would say it served a perfect point but not the original point. It's a good one. :P As I say, I definately don't disagree with your point, it's just the idea of positivity altering probabilities such as a 1/36 chance of a roulette wheel or a 1/2 chance of a coin toss which I disagree with. But, like any good idea, Kashi can test this (or link to a reliable test) and prove me wrong. :D

He made a valid negative point so I matched it with a valid positive point. You can call it sidetracked, or anything you like really. I'll call it a red herring. In response to someone's point, an unrelated point distracts debate from the original point and does nothing in adressing the original point. It only serves as a guise that the point has been adressed when it hasn't. But, you've acknowledged his point as valid, so it all worked it's way out in the end I suppose.

When it comes to matters of chance and probability, I completely disagree with you. You can have a positive outlook all you like but what a roulette rolls up is completely independant of your positivity.

But something that is real is the psychology it has on an individuals mind/thinking style and when in tune with it, can produce amazing results. So all dreams are not crushed at all :) I tried it with an open mind and lost nearly 20 kilos - The psychology behind it undoubtedly works for some individuals. No offence, but he made a valid point and you sidetracked it. I agree with both your points, because they are both different. His was about probabilities and chance, and yours about psychology and positive attitudes.

I write music like a poet writes a poem or a painter paints a painting. It's an extention of myself - a document of my life in any mood from melancholy to madness (I don't seem to write any strictly happy songs for some reason). I could play you a song and you would understand who I am far better than words can portray. So yes, I don't think I could live without it. In many ways, it's grown to be my catharsis, my solace and an outpouring who I am. As for other bands music, it means a lot to me too. It's a trigger for the memory reservoir in my brain - I listen to a band I listened to years ago and I go back to that time, with all of the memories and feelings associated with it. So there you go, it's almost something as visceral as eating for me.

As soon as I saw the title I immediately thought of Bill Hicks. :lol: (sorry to those who don't know what the hell the reference is there) Anyway as for the topic, there is obviously the tax issue. If only they could bash themselves out of the gene pool altogether.

The bold was in reference to evolution vs. all creation myths in which case it does work. But as for the rest of the abiogenesis talk, I largely agree. It's still largely hypothetical as far as I'm aware. I disagree that the Miller-Urey experiment didn't clinch anything, though. It showed us that compounds such as amino acids, nucleic acids and fatty acids could all synthesise naturally in the absence of life, which is the obvious first fact you need to ascertain if abiogenesis were true. I also find it interesting that we find amino acids on meteorites that hit earth. But, from here to the first cell is obviously a big gap. The material is there, we know they can be polymerised and we know protocell structures are favoured in terms of hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions. So we have a groundwork, but not much meat yet. By the way abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution axiomatically presupposes life and deals with it's change over time.

(1) Although you do recognise this as a belief, it's a god of the gaps argument. You're using supernature to explain what we at current do not know. It's no different from Norse mythology and how they labelled the phenomenon of thunder with the god Thor. I'm quite certain that if we actually knew for a fact that it happened naturally (currently hypothetical), that you would not need to and thus would not pick out the specific occurance of the molecular formation of life and the first cell and label it with "god" or "intelligent causes". It would essentially be like you labelling the cellular process of transcription by the work of god when we know how it happens, i.e. it would be nonsensical. (2) People often justify a view by the language they use. "spontaneous creation" and "lightning bolts hitting sludge" is a bit more crude than ammonia, hydrogen and methane interacting with electrical energy to form amino acids, fatty acids and nucleic acids. (3) Maybe, but cellular life (as in H2O cytoplasm surrounded by phospholipid bilayer membrane and various organelles also surrounded by phospholipid bilayers) is structured because of the very nature of the molecules themselves, i.e. it's the most sensible "design", electrochemically speaking, and the most likely to exist elsewhere.

I like the rain. I feel more content when it rains. Anything else is second best.

I'd say it's just a matter of time. Sooner or later I will find that apple. There's a reason why we don't build towers anymore to find God but instead spend a lot of money to try and find alien life in space. It's because we should be able to find it. There are lots of religions with gods who have nothing to with the Bible. I believe the Bible is the truth and that God is the one the Bible tells us about. (1) I'm questioning parts of the evolution theory. Parts such as common descent and macroevolution. I don't understand how that suddenly means that I'm denying sceince altogether. No, i don't think my attitudes toward anything are entirely independent of faith. (2) I was thinking more like finding Jesus body and proving that something completely different than what the Bible says happened. (3) You've said yourself that there are some gaps in the evolution theory. I'm not saying that the entire evolution theory is wrong, Basically to rephrase: "everything about the evolution theory isn't written in stone". (4) Evolution becomes the only option if you believe that there is nothing else than nature. If you open up for the supernatural pretty much anything could've happened. (5) Theistic evolutionists simply believe that evolution and christianity are compatible. They don't shut the door for another explanation. However, there's no need for them to search for another explanation as they've accepted evolution. (1) I can help you out there, if you want to hear a swag of data I have to show you. The issue is why you question these aspects of evolution. It's obviously because you favour your faith, there's no use beating around the bush. This then means that you favour one of many possible creation stories over the one and only scientific story, as paperclips said. (2) And I wasn't; I was referring to data, test and theory that contradict your creation story. In your view, does the contradiction of your creation story by known facts undermine Christianity? By the looks of it, you're rigid in which you accept: But sure, I suppose you could undermine Christianity in the way you suggest too. (3) Of course, there are gaps; there are gaps in all scientific theories. Do you think that the human-chimp relationship is not "set in stone"? Have you read why science is so sure about evolution? (4) Truth isn't an issue of options. Either something happened or something did not happen. You can very easily choose not to accept evolution, if you're a naturalist, and form your own theory, even if it does fail to do as good a job as evolution, so I reject your assertion. In science, you can choose which ever testable theoretical concept you like. As for how much scrutiny it will stand up to and how much data it will encompass, that's another issue. Many people just happen to favour to most rigorous, data encompassing, tried and tested theory, that being evolution. (5) Are you sure? Theistic evolutionists, I'm assuming, accept the process of evolution because of the evidence (rejecting all other ideas based on thier contradiction with the evidence) and add thier footnote of "god did it" to the process. I don't think that they are so too and frow as you paint them out to be. I've encountered at least two on another forum which I couldn't ever imagine reverting to creationism, because, it's already essentially been falsified (by way of contradiction with known natural processes; you can never falsify or verify "god did" anything).

Expanding my vocab can't hurt and if by "free rice" they don't mean "clubbing brown children" it should be at least a win-neutral or perhaps even a win-win. But I'm going with merc's point too. If you think this should fill your life's charity quota to the poor of the world, In my opinion, you're not doing your job as a fellow human being.

Yeah, but the world does not want to hear it. Whether or not people like what they hear is irrelevant in science (assuming for the moment that Watson's analyses are purely scientifically based). The majority of American culture is against a particular scientific theory yet it's stood up to the face of enormous scrutiny time and time again to become one of the strongest theories going around. Many of them don't want to hear about it. Should we just abandon it to appease them? Apply this back to Watson. What if, hypothetically, his inquiries are not based in personal prejudices? What if some of his hypotheses about the smarts of particular races are verified? Should we supress the science to appease people?

Precisely why you should ignore all the politicized BS, including docco's like Al Gore's, and go straight to the scientific literature.

Supernatural concepts can't be determined true or false using scientific method or mathematical reasoning. You can search through the entire universe and not find God but still claim God exist. This is not the case with aliens. If there is alien life we should be able to find it. Though this doesn't mean that supernatural concepts such as God has nothing to do with evidence of any kind. There is always anecdotal evidence, the Bible, Jesus or philosophical arguments. The problem is that even if you prove that the Bible is complete rubbish you still haven't disproved God. However, it would mean that you have undermined christianity. The problem with evolution is that it according to me conflicts with the Bible. You're going to say it doesn't so it becomes a matter of interpretation. Some interpretations are compatible with evolution and some aren't. If you think that there is a conflict between evolution and the Bible you have to choose which one to believe in. As for now I don't think that evolution is written in stone. It's really only when you're a metaphysical naturalist that evolution is the only option. Perhaps we shouldn't go down this road again though. Response to me: So, if you can use evidence to support your chosen specific supernatural concepts, I should be able to use evidence to undermine them, which would, as you say, undermine Christianity. Although, I would argue that undermining creationism does not undermine Christianity unless you're a biblical literalist; it only undermines a literal reading of genesis. Response to clips: "It's not written in stone"? Have you done an exhaustive search on exactly why it's such a one sided affair in the scientific community that evolution happened? By the way nothing in science is technically "written in stone" as science is always correctable, falsifiable and dynamic in considering new knowledge and evidence. However, let me draw an analogy. Let me put it to you that evolution, for all intensive purposes, is set in stone, yet you could carve out the entire face of the tablet so that the words are gone and we're back to a level playing field. The issue is that this would obviously take a lot of hard work by way of evidence and a huge paradigm shift. Perhaps you'd like me to enlighten you as to why this is such a hard ask, given what we know... "It's really only when you're a metaphysical naturalist that evolution is the only option." Wrong. Theistic evolutionists, who aren't metaphysical naturalists, see evolution as far superior and totally compromisable with thier theology (some even see it as rediculous to regard young earth creationism as an option at all because, well, it contradicts known sciences). If a natural, verifiable, falsifiable, data encompassing theory has essentially proven the origin of species then there's no reason to conclude anything else. In doing so, you're (a) copping out by preferring unfalsifiable concepts instead of falsifying the already essentially proven theory, and/or, (B) being largely ignorant of the natural, verifiable, falsifiable, data encompassing theory.

It wasn't a storm per se yet I distinctly remember walking to uni one morning (over the goodwill bridge for you brisvegans) and the wind was blasting one side of my body at around 50 kilometers an hour (had to be at least) and zero degrees celcius. Not particularly out of the ordinary for many people here perhaps but for a city in the geographical location of Brisbane, Australia, it wasn't the most ordinary thing ever. Not fun.

By method do you mean cause? It's still an area of research but there's by no means a controvery by the scientific community's standards. I made an exhaustive post on the previous page detailing response to the mars warming phenomenon and the idea that it's just the sun doing the damage and a general overview of ice core data and the recent [bleep]e in CO2 emissions into uncharted territory for hundreds of thousands of years. I suggest the controversy is largely fabricated on political and industry grounds.

Supernatural concepts require faith. The concept of aliens shouldn't require faith. Therefore I have no reason to believe in aliens as they will either be found or not be found in the future. Mathematical reasoning doesn't say if there's anything out there, it merely gives us the odds for something being out there. Lack of evidence for a natural phenomenon means we should not believe in it, I agree. What makes supernatural concepts so special and pardoned from this kind of reasoning?

I agree with you, Watson's gene centric view is pretty narrow in my opinion. Afterall, genotype + environment = phenotype and you can't get to the phenotype without environmental influence and stimulus.

This is definately an interesting concept. I tried the alcohol one to about 30% while in a chair, relaxed, staring out the window at the afternoon amber light without a care in the world. But, nothing like being drunk, sorry. I was just relaxed and sleepy. Almost like in a meditation. I'll have to give it a better shot some other time.

And I agree. But this isn't about anecdotal evidence, but the mathematical reasoning behind each. We're not arguing that they've visited Earth, just that the odds that there is other [intelligient] life in the universe is as close to 100% as you can get. Ghosts, on the other hand, have no proof as of yet, and because of their supernatural base there is no way to mathematicaly analyze the probability that they exist somewhere in the universe. Therein lies the problem with comparing the two. Why? The odds are staggering. No need to childishly clutch on to dogma until you see everything with your own eyes. If you did that, you'd never learn, or at least you'd learn very slowly and only from your own experiences. I'll learn about alien life the day it's proven to exists. That's quick enough for me. I'm not in a hurry, I have no need to jump to conclusions. I guess it's no surprise your way of thinking is completely backwards compared to mine. You have no qualms in defending the reliability of supernatural concepts and dismissing natural ones when 1) the supernatural have no way of being proven where as the natural do, and; 2) you cite lack of evidence for alien life as reason not to believe in it when there is mathematical reasoning, which is more [indirect] evidence than any supernatural conept ever will have. :-k