warri0r45

+1 This thing owns.

yes... this is probably the best analogy i've ever heard for christianity. =D> Sarcasm? Do you think it's a bad analogy? If so, why?

The pictures of nature are stunning. Are they all for real? There would have to be some serious touch ups going on there, surely...

The Bible or what I think is the same thing or at least that's my intention. If evil means doing things that are morally wrong then yes I'm inherently evil. Seeing as I try to do good and want to do good but still end up doing a lot of things that are morally wrong. (1) I believe all humans inherently love sin, the difference is how we look at the problem. (2) Either we accept sin as a part of our life/life-style, or we repent and seek forgiveness. (1) I smell an all inclusive claim. I challenge your belief that all humans love to kill each other. (2) So we are inherently evil but it's up to us to ask for forgiveness for being evil? I'd rather ask he who made me inherently evil to apologise for expecting me to ask for forgiveness for portraying inherent qualities. It's a set up for sure-fire failure which the need of an apology for smacks of meaningless ego stroking. It's like the universe is a giant experiment where whenever we go for the cheeze, we get shocked then asked to apologise for trying to eat.

(1) Satenza adresses this well. (2) No. Hate fad for ignorance and bigotry. No one but ignorant bigots hates Christians because they are Christians. You're assuming he is an attention grabber. You've put that out there and suggested why. I wonder how you're so blase and quick to state that he's an attention grabber given your limited knowlege of his situation. Do you believe that anyone has a legitimate gender identity crisis? If we knew he did, what do you suggest he should do?

Another one for the apathetic team. Somwhere between and : wile being a little better than -.- :P

Apathy. I had a decent day. Not much to say really, life is fine. Tomorrow will be a breeze (a trip to uni just to hand something in and probably grab a bite to eat).

1. yeah, because no biased person has ever gone on to get a master's degree or higher in a field of science. :roll: Ever heard of peer review? Read a scientific journal and you're not reading one man's opinion. It's often done by more than one, with verifiable and repeatable methods and conclusions the whole area of science you happen to be part of can comb through and criticise if need be. So sumpta's right. I'll leave the science to the experts who I know have more of an objective outlook and are critiqued to a higher and more thorough degree than people on an internet forum are for thier views.

"Survival of the fittest" is actually a reference to evolution. In other words, the species most responsive and adaptable to changes in their environment will survive; those who are not responsive will perish. It doesn't merely mean humans are born with an instinct to survive. ok maybe that was worded badly, but what do you think makes them responsive and adaptable to changes? it's the strongest/most instinctive ones that will survive the longest. Perhaps it's the most cooperative who survive the longest. If everyone is selfish, there's a lose-lose situation across the board (I steal from you, you steal from me, I kill you, you kill me, etc). If everyone is at least cooperative, win-win situations all round (we all work together to ensure the group benefits).

Basically, you can make anything seem true if you only use little bits of facts to paint a misleading picture. I'd encourage everyone to look at the actual credible scientific studies that have been done. With the exception of those that are funded by oil companies/political think tanks/etc, you'll find almost no scientists disagree with the assertion that humans are causing global warming, and that it's a major problem. I find the bold so profoundly true and the italics, bar any serious research on my part, a generally true trend.

I think Ginger_Warrior's point of us having instinct for doing what's best for the species is generally a stronger idea than this on a base level. If our primary instinct was to look out for number one, then why are we still here? Why did we not, in our more primitive state when we were no where near as 'enlightened' as we are now, all fight each other out of existance? Why did we have families and communities? Why do we still have these things? Surely the fact that we've come through this primitive stage would tell you that we have an inherent basic nature of cooperation over a simple selfish 'look out for number one' mentality. We were taught morals, and those morals eventually overcame the need for self-centered behavior. I could tell you how I believe we got those morals, but you wouldn't like it. I don't mind what you believe about where we got our morals. Do you think it's possible that there was a point in our history when we were ignorant enough not to know any better and just act on a rough moral system because it's part of our nature, much like how some animals do? By the way, Im curious how you know we all displayed self-centered behaviour previous to having morals. This would require a point in history where there was no such thing as family or community, even in a crude sense. Do you believe such a time existed?

You know me, when it comes to sport, I'm a proud Aussie (Queenslander [brisvegan]) :P Always up for giving the shorcomings of other countries teams a plug.

I think Ginger_Warrior's point of us having instinct for doing what's best for the species is generally a stronger idea than this on a base level. If our primary instinct was to look out for number one, then why are we still here? Why did we not, in our more primitive state when we were no where near as 'enlightened' as we are now, all fight each other out of existance? Why did we have families and communities? Why do we still have these things? Surely the fact that we've come through this primitive stage would tell you that we have an inherent basic nature of cooperation over a simple selfish 'look out for number one' mentality.

Oh dude, the forward pass! You were robbed. Well... it's not all bad, it was only a measely 1.5 meters foreward. Chin up Kiwi.

Aussies are out. :( Well, after last years effort in the ashes, you'd expect england would win something against us. I don't think it's possible to suck that bad...

I'd hardly call cloud seeding a fix for climate change. It's a case of the dog chasing it's tail. Feel free to screw up the weather and don't think of the consequences until it starts to bite you in the [wagon]. Added to that, it seems something like cloud seeding isn't a simple one shot rainmaker; it needs specific conditions. Added to that, there can only be so much precipitation in the air; sucking it in at one location inevitably takes it from somewhere else, thus merely shifting the problem there. And as for fixing floods? As I see it at present, this is impossible. What technology do you suggest 'fixes' floods? Sandbags? The floods still happen. Again, the dog chasing it's tail. See how successful you are surrounding a huge farm with sandbags and time how long it takes the burst river bank to completely swamp the petty attempt at stoping one of the most powerful forces of nature.

Who should I trust? AAAS [1] NAS [2] or Heartland Institute [3] And @ Reb, I must disagree. A harvesting season is pretty useless when you're in prolonged drought.

Some humans ego tripping. Not suprised but I'm not happy about it either. He should at least get fired if not prosecuted for assault himself.

Who made you the culture police? Go dictate your opinion authoritively to someone else. You've got long hair, don't you? :P It all comes down really to everyone's perception on what they like and dislike. There's no clear cut right and wrong obviously. Mr. Captain Obvious, myself. 8-) Yeah I do but If he actually liked long hair and demanded people with short hair grow it out, I would have said the same thing. It's like me dictating to you to like heavy metal music or else and you better stop listening to anything else straight away. It's nonsense. Well, unless you're into dictatorships or something.

Who made you the culture police? Go dictate your opinion authoritively to someone else.

Good karma. I'd probably turn it in. I'm not so sure but I don't think it's the most legal thing in the world to claim finders keepers on anything, especially if it's 65 grand. As far as I know, you can turn it in and if no one claims it within a certain time, it's yours.

Sure, God could've triggered the Big Bang and then idly watched as things happened. When talking about a non-specific God, I have no problem with your example. However, I'm not interested in what a God could've done. I'm interested in what actually happened. The Bible claims to be the truth and the book of genesis tells us about the creation of the universe. I don't think anything in genesis points toward evolution. And a lot of it is difficult to fit in with evolution. If there was no conflict or even issues whatsoever between the Bible and evolution, there wouldn't be a Creation-evolution controversy. The key here is "let the earth bring forth". Abiogenesis leading into an evolutionary process where by god plans for the requirements to drive the plants and animals into "his kind"? There's something to think about. Oh and @ Paperclips, I was wondering why you were speaking so highly of ID. :lol:

You kind of just grossly misrepresented all atheism as strong atheism there. Weak atheists don't believe that there is no god and thus have nothing to preach. Yep, figure that one out. Clue: break the word atheism down into it's constituent parts. a - being without, not or lacking theism - the belief that a god or gods exist Being without or lacking positive belief for an idea is not negative belief against. Very important difference. This, weak atheism, a position of lacking belief, is the basis for all atheism. The next step up is strong atheism, or the belief that there is no god or that no god exists.

Haha, isn't that just the wierdest thing ever? "I saw some people having intercourse in an abandoned building so I decided to throw a waterbottle at them". :lol:

Sorry, edited. Lock please.