warri0r45

Haha, not quite, otherwise you wouldn't be scared. So, this would make you upset (scared) that you're not upset that you're not upset about the incident? Anyway I don't think there's anything wrong with you. I'm a very unexcitable person. When most people win something they get excited about it. Even though I've never won the lottery and thus couldn't reliably tell what my reaction would be, I hardly see myself jumping for joy or making any enthused yelps whatsoever. Does this mean there's something wrong with me? Nope. Not everyone is emotionally wired the same way. And as others have said, you didn't even know this person.

From a guy who dosen't have many black/symph/thrash metal leanings, I'm find this very enjoyable. Seriously dude, it's better than alot of the metal I hear on radio (on a metal radio show I listen too). Great work and best of luck with it. :D

Lock

I like the sig. :wink: Rational Gaze by Meshuggah.

I would tend to agree. We are genetically disposed to some things which one would consider evil (and I'd agree, if I were to want a peaceful coexistance with my fellow humans, which I do) yet behavioural patterns of humans are far beyond those of insects. We evaluate things instead of intrinsically following them necessarily as innocuous patterns. The philosophical side of this whole topic rests on what we define evil as, though. I think a more accurate and productive question would be social dissent or antisocial behaviour: innate or a choice? But evil? It's such an all inclusive term yet it's never applied all inclusively by all people. At least 'social dissent' implies a particular society in mind, usually western society (for most of us, at least).

(1) This is a flase dichotomy. If we have a soul, this goes no way to proving the biblical god, disproving evolution, disproving the biblical god or proving evolution. (2) You mean it can't be both from the scientific standpoint? What's to say we didn't evolve and god gave us a soul during this process? (3) I'm stuck here. How does this disprove evolution? What's to say god didn't give us a soul during our evolution? Again, a flase dichotomy. If we have a soul, this goes no way to disproving evolution. You're limiting an all powerful being. (4) Have you ever though (watch out, dissenting opinion) that the men who wrote the bible believed man to be a special creation from god and had no knowlege of evolution or the overwhelming evidence in favour of it? So yes, this is down to your bible point of view. (5) Again, this has nothing to do with any objective standpiont and is down to a rigid view of biblical teachings. I'd be happy to actually talk about the science of evolution. (6) Ahh, I see a point coming out of this. You've made your case for why evolution conflicts with the bible but I don't think anyone would disagree with you here. The literal reading of genesis, special creation, and the scientific story, evolution from common ancestors over billions of years, are obviously at a degree of contradiction. The idea, however, that evolution is somehow purposed to be against the bible is nonsense, if anyone here thinks that. It's the empirical evidence which is against special creation, not science. So basically, I deny your undeniable swing on which this issue rests. The only reliable, falsifiable or remotely demonstrable way to prove one of the two (evolution) is through the empirical evidence, which I'll gladly dispose if you so desire or want to learn an interesting thing or two about comparative genomics.

Creepy. At the OP, my belief in ghosts is a lack of rather than a dismissal. It's not like I have any knowlege of ghosts whatsoever thus my judgment of them of non existant as a statement of fact would be shallow and corrupt of any meaning.

I hear this alot, but not yet 1 person has been able to name that "common ancestor" that we seemed to have evolved from. Thats the missing link. However it evolved from monkeys I bet. Well, in my opinion, its probably missing because its not true. I think if we can discover 50 million year old dinosuars, a few early "humanoids" won't be far off from finding. Setting aside any fossil evidence of 'humanoids' (you should actually search to see what you find, there are many humanoid fossils that have been found), you can easily allign chimp and human genomes to find a plethora of genetic homologies, i.e. elements that make no sense functionally based on thier structure except in light of common genetic inheritance. Some examples would be that if we share some of the same redundant pseudogenes, some of the same endogenous retroviruses in the same loci, some of the same SINE elements in the same loci or identical nucleotide sequence for some of the same genes, then the only explanation to avoid the miniscule chance of all of these elements having been inserted in the same locations and order along the genome or having come about independantly of each other would be inheritence via common ancestry. Any suggestion that we don't share common ancestry with the great apes can only lead me to suggest that someone is screwing with my head by planting fake redundant genetic markers in specific locations and orders in primate genomes. They are a strong element in reconstructing primate phylogenies. I've got extra info if neccessary.

I'm saying that in an evolution vs religion debate we have a demarcation problem. Example is Intelligent design which is not pure science but has some aspects of science. Evolution might be pure science but when it conflicts with the Bible we can no longer have a pure scientific debate as the Bible isn't science. Of course we can have a purely scientific debate and I for one welcome it. You just recognised that the Bible is not scientific so you shouldn't have any problem looking at the issue from a scientific position.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GqtjOn9qVg4 :P I can't say I feel sorry for her the way she's been going. I tend not to feel sorry for anyone who has thier kids taken off of them because, obviously, there's always a legal reason in respect to the kids safety. You be an erratic spoilt drug taking pop star, you lose your kids. What an unjust world we live in.

I always thought of a smater, more understanding organism. :-k This is based on the assumption that they've been around longer than us. A simpler version of alien life makes more statistical sense as it allows less time to achieve thus allowing more potential planets to harbour it.

I suppose a view of statistical probabilities is the strongest argument for life elsewhere. I have no idea of the specific figures, though.

Expecting perfection from people is like expecting science to uncover absolute truth. It only gives you increasingly accurate approximations. Just like our attempts will only make us approximate perfection to a higher degree.

I wasn't being rude, I was just saying that questions like these can be answered pretty quickly with a short search :-s . Look how I phrased my post. I had no intention of being rude, nor do I believe my post was rude in any way. This forum's just too used to acrid remarks and sarcasm >_>. Oh, and you're welcome for the information. what is your problem man? I just thought I'd share my story and ask if anyone knew anything about spiders, geeze. Why all the hate? What hate? I don't think he was being rude. And I think I've heard that myth before. By the way I, being an Australian, wouldn't call a 1 - 1.5 inch spider big. I don't even like to think about it but we've got some double or bigger over here.

I have to agree with you. The idea that people dismiss the idea completely as if they somehow know what UFO's are baffles me. But do they have reason to be skeptical? You bet they do.

So lets say you've never seen an atom, or molecule before, perhaps even the northern lights. There's videos, pictures about them, even theories, and theories proven by these atoms/molecules, yet you won't believe it, same with the moon landing, or even another famous event like live earth, it all could have happened in U.S. and the audience are just payed, and its all recorded? :-k There's reason to be skeptical of fringe ideas largely unknown and spouted by fringe sources with scant evidence. There's less reason to be skeptical of accepted ideas largely known, demonstrated and supported by tests and with major lines of evidence. On this basis you can't reliably compare UFO 'theories' and something so fundamental and well supported by every experimental result like atomic theory.

What do I think UFO's are? That would require me to guess. I suppose I'm just not that kind of person. I don't know what UFO's are.

NRL: Broncos, Cowboys, Queensland Cricket: Australia

I think it's LP.

HUGE fan here. They are coming to Australia next year. I am going (if the tickets for the big day out don't sell in like 2 minutes or however rediculously quickly they sold for the Sydney and Melbourne shows). So yeah, I absolutely adore thier self titled debut. I'd even go so far as to call it the start of a musical uprising. An encompassment of everything the words "rage against the machine" stand for.

It's a little known fact that I, warri0r45, made all three. I'll PM you the blueprints and we split profit, k?

On the face of it, the idea of parallel universes at every possiblility seems too science fiction-esque and hypothetical to me. I'd have to digest and be able to make sense of all of the mathematics, which for me is almost an outright impossibility, before I can form an informed opinion as to the validity of this theory's claims.

Bus ride to uni: $2 Text books for second semester: $380 Subway after lectures: $5.90 That CD I bought at skinny's before jumping the bus home: $25 A jobless uni student: worthless.

I probably consume an average to slightly above average dose of caffeine. Nothing too adverse to report yet but it'll probably catch up with me in my later years.