Saru Inc

Oh, I know. I mainly post on this thread to past the time; I know full well I won't change anyone's mind. But I still like to hear other people's opinions.

I hate ThanksGiving, I asked them to work me at my job for 12 hours, but we're closed.

I can understand that, but there are some that happen everyday. I mean, some could be labeled as coincidence, but some can't.

3.798 Rank 31 out of 464 of my Senior class atm. Pisses me off.

Well here's the thing, miracles happen everyday, but they may not be put on the news, so noi one knows about them. Also, wasn't Jesus alive after 200 BC?

Eh I must say, technically they do, but in a way, they don't. As in yes, Jews also belive Jesus existed, along with Christians, but they don't believe he was the Son of God, same with Muslims. Found it, finally. (Page 100) And NoMoreDead, I think there is such thing as Agnosticism, I was just posting what Atheists said. :P I just realized, also, what is Richard Dawkins but a fundamentalist for Atheism? It would be ridiculous to not look at his information, simply because he's a fundamentalist.

[/hide] sooo hot. Agreed. I'd hit that, but I wouldn't stick around long enough to hear her talk. God no, Rihanna ftw. ;) ;) Oh well, each generation has degraded, I bet people in the last one, were hated by their parents, because of stuff we don't even care about. And not all music is like that. But, I'll agree with you there on the movies, I like the classics better, really an awesome plot is alllll I need. It's also giving us all an attention span of 5.432 seconds.

Mom - Born 1959, tends to be a nazi, and is highly sarcastic. Also, she likes to be a hypocrite, and she's polish. Dad - Born 1960, tends to be stubborn, and is a neo con (along with my mom). His dad disowned him for as an xmas present, and he's polish too I think. They both are [developmentally delayed]s. That's all that needs to be said.

Killing people and getting liad are too different things. Besides, I never said it'd actually work.

You, being a frequent defender of Christianity (Is God real thread), believe that sex should not be used as an act of bonding between a man and woman who love each other, but rather to make money? Hm... No, I think it does, it's just that, I take an apathetic approach, I nkow it isn't right, but I still support it. I also support legalizing weed simply because, if people will do it anyways, and you can't stop it, then tax it and help other people with the money. I mean, I don't think people should do it ever, but it's gonna happen anyways.

Who?

Yes, it should be, but regular tests should be required, and a license should be needed. And yes, while it's sacred, who gives a [bleep], people will get it anyways, so tax it crazy.

Damn, that's a lot of people. But I'm not sure I understand, seeing as I'm rank 371k at 74 Fletching... 10\10

That's not true at all. Sure, it may be competitive, but we made is so parasitic. And NoMoreDead, you really are dull. You can't have anything in religion be unbiased. It's the one thing where it all is biased. Obviously, all sites for Creation will be biased towards it, but do you even know the meaning of bias? Did you read the articles? First off, while a site may be biased towards Creration, that doesn't mean it would show up. What if I were to call all your sites biased, and thus unuseful? And NoMoreDead, GW says atheism is unsure, and there's no such thing as agnosticism. And just so you know, I never posted from TalkOrigins. And lastly, whether I put up logical facts or not, is irrelevant, but the site does put up some good ones. So debate those, and would you like me to re post the points, or do you think you could find themn on your own? And Warri0r, I stay away from the fundamentalist ones. But, just because someone believes in Creation, does not make them a raving lunatic. ;) So, after we've established that, I see no reason we should throw out what they're saying, you don't have to agree with it, just read it and say what you think about it.

People who call the health inspector on my restaurant, because we have moldy food. They think its moldy, because the Guacomole is green.

Gw, I know that. I was mocking the line of reasoning they used earlier, I only switched it to God. And all I was saying is that not all Christians are science haters and book burners.

This thread makes me laugh. You guys are all contradictingeach other. Some say you make a theory then find evidence, others say you fin evidence then make theories. You guys say atheism is unsure of God, then some say it's disbelief of a God. Make up your minds. And besides, no one is debating the points I put up. And most of you don't even know what you're saying, you say if I can't fin evidence to disporve the Oort cloud, then it must exist. Makes sense, I guess? Let's rephrase that: If I can't find evidence to disprove God, then he must exist. You guys act like it's an insult to your intelligence to be religious. Some of the most intelligent rational people in the world were Christian. Let's name some, Newton comes to mind, wait... what??? Newton? As in the scientist Newton?! What the [bleep]?? http://www.intelligentchristianity.net/ Click on apologetic notes, then Science and Religon comflict one. It was pretty good.

PSSSSSSSSSSST. Creationism's been around for ten thousand years. Not in a written form, although it comes somewhat close to the timeframe you mentioned. Earliest egyptian hieroglyphs that far outdate biblical, islamic or buddhist scripture were written 3200 BC which is over 5,000 years ago, and they often concern their local gods and descriptions on how the world was made/how gods should be worshipped. In an oral form amongst primitive tribes the idea has probably been around for as long as humans have been able to communicate with each other (cave paintings and archaeologic evidence of rituals, sacrifices etc. support this) Albert Einstein explained the phenomena pretty thoroughly The problem is, only proven and useful things matter in reality and the world. When you get an education at school, you can't write your personal opinion to answer a question demanding a logical and objective answer. If you refuse to believe easily proven scientific theories and facts and select religious mythology, you can't really graduate from most colleges or universities (bar religious schools or Koran colleges) Not sure how many times it has to be repeated, but accepting scientific facts doesn't mean you can't be religious. There are countless religious scientists both in the present and history. Of course science and religion can combine, and work together. Just not evolution or big bang. You guys act like I'm some luddite or hate science. Not at all, I just don't agree with Evolution or Big Bang. And actually, you can graduate from college witho ut accepting Evolution or Big Bang. I just found this great site, it's Christian, but not that biased. Some interesting things I saw: [hide=Young Earth]Minerals Have Too Much Helium The shiny black specks in granite are mica. Within mica are natural zircon crystals, only a few microns in size. Helium quickly diffuses out of zircon. If the granite is millions of years old, as commonly believed, all the helium should be gone. However, measurements indicate that much of the helium still remains. Either the diffusion rate of the helium is not uniform, the zircon crystals are younger than believed, or both. Helium in granite is evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, not millions. http://www.icr.org/zircon-helium/ http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html The Sea Does Not Have Enough Minerals There is not enough salt in the sea or mud on the sea floor for the seas to be billions of years old. Every year, salt accumulates in the ocean from rivers. Given the present rate it is increasing per year, the current 3.5 percent ocean salinity is much too low if this process has been going on for a very long time. Mud enters the seas through rivers and dust storms. This occurs at much faster rates than plate tectonic subduction can remove it. Each year, 19 billion tons of mud accumulates. If the oceans were ancient, the oceans would be choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. http://www.icr.org/ocean-salinity/ http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html[/hide] [hide=Debunking Evolution]Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well. According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions: 1. wholesale change of organisms through time 2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms 3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms. However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record. Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites. Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of todays invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms. Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside. Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record. In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed. The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created. http://www.icr.org/living-fossils/ EVERYTHING is a transitional stage. There is NO end-point in evolution. In addition, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html Fossils Show Rapid and Catastrophic Burial Beveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Fossils provide universal evidence of rapid burial, and even agonizing death. Rapid burial is necessary to entomb organisms as the first step in fossilization. The abundant marine invertebrate fossils throughout the entire fossil strata demonstrate extraordinary burial conditions. Polystrate fossil logs (tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers) are common in the fossil layers and are clear evidence of rapid burial. Common vertebrate fossils show rigor mortis and postures indicative of asphyxiationsudden smothering of the animal (e.g., Archaeopteryx and dinosaur fossils in the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument). http://www.icr.org/fossilization/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC362.html Fossils Are Found at All Levels The earth is covered with layers of sedimentary rock, much of it containing microscopic fossils such as plankton, pollen, and spores. The entire record of visible fossils consists mainly of marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone), including clams, jellyfish, and coral. What is surprising is that these ocean creatures are found primarily on the continents and rarely in the deep ocean basins. More clam shells are found on mountain peaks than under the ocean floor. From the bottom layers to the top layers, most fossils are marine creatures. The upper levels do have an increasing number of vertebrates, such as fish and amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, but the fossils at the bottom levels are equally as complex as any animal today. All fossil types appear suddenly, fully formed and fully functional, without less complex ancestors under them. The fossil record is strong evidence for the sudden appearance of life by creation, followed by rapid burial during a global flood. http://www.icr.org/invertebrates/ http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html[/hide] [hide=Creation]The Universe Has a Center Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions. The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design. Instead of accepting the obvious, recent models of physical cosmology assume the earth is not special and that everywhere in the universe the exact same observation of receding objects would be seen. Instead of a universe with an age measured in thousands of years, this assumption leads to billions of years. In contrast, creation cosmologies explain the data better by starting from biblically-based axioms: the cosmos has a unique center and a boundary for its matter, beyond which there is at least some empty space; and on a cosmic scale of distances, the earth is near the center. http://www.icr.org/universe-center/ http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html Distance to nearest star: 1.3 pc Distance to the Orion Nebula: 450 pc Thickness of Milky Way's stellar disk: 1 kpc Distance to center of our Galaxy: 8.5 kpc Distance to Magellanic clouds (satellite galaxies): 55 kpc Distance to Andromeda galaxy : 0.66 Mpc Distance to Virgo cluster of galaxies : 19 Mpc Distance to edge of observable universe : 3000 Mpc http://sparky.rice.edu/~hartigan/nsci11 ... ssign.html The Universe Was Created Recently The universe is only several thousand years old. Comets are an example of a natural clock within our solar system. With each orbit around the sun, comets lose considerable mass. They cannot be very old because they cannot survive many orbits. To get around this problem, many astronomers assume there is a vast cloud of comets out near the edge of the solar system, which releases new comets every so often. This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt "Comets entering the inner solar system for the first time may brighten rapidly before fading as they near the Sun, as a layer of highly volatile material evaporates. This was the case with Comet Kohoutek in 1973; it was initially touted as potentially spectacular, but only appeared moderately bright. Older comets show a more consistent brightening pattern. Thus, all indications pointed that Comet Hyakutake would be bright." We can measure the approximate amount of time a comet has been in the solar system through this method, as well as predictive trigonometry. Each year our knowledge of astronomy increases with new evidence concerning the origin of our solar system, our galaxy, and our universe. While it is possible to make assumptions beyond what can be observed and verified, the heavens continue to bear witness to recent creation. http://www.icr.org/recent-universe/[/hide] To get around this problem, many astronomers assume there is a vast cloud of comets out near the edge of the solar system, which releases new comets every so often. This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all. Huh? I always thought Atheists always had the evidence. No, but we won't stop looking. All the evidence points to the existence of such a cloud, but that's not enough for us ;). I see ad hominem attacks are enjoyable to you too. If you saw a dripping faucet, would you think it logical to estimate to the existence of a water source nearby? [hide=Earth]Earth's Core Was Created to Protect Life Our planet was created for life. A smaller planet, like Mars, would be unable to hold our atmosphere, which protects us from meteoroids and keeps the temperature within the range needed for life. A larger planet, like Neptune, would trap too much atmosphere. The pressure and temperature would greatly increase. A stronger gravity from the increased size would also trap harmful gases in the atmosphere. Earth has a strong magnetic field. This protects us from harmful radiation from the sun. http://www.icr.org/earths-core/ There's hundreds of other known planets known to be very similar to our distance in size and distance from the sun. Yes, our planet is okay for life. That's why there's life here. That's not an argument either way. Earth's Water Cycle Protects and Provides Clouds function as earth's curtains, balancing the temperature. When they form, they block the sun when the temperature on earth becomes too hot, and they let the sunlight in when it becomes too cold. When the earth is hot, more water evaporates from the oceans and turns into clouds. These clouds reflect more energy and the earth cools. When the earth is cold, the clouds cool and condense into rain and snow. With fewer clouds, less energy is reflected. The energy reaches the earth and warms it. The earth has the most diverse collection of reflective surfaces in our solar system. Simple physics. An action causes an equal and opposite reaction. It's really just elementary weather. What about tornadoes, hurricans, typhoons, floods, storms, heat waves, blizzards, and such. Water is the most abundant chemical compound on earth. Water covers three fourths of the earth's surface. Between half to three fourths of your body is water. Water is ideal for carbon-based chemistry. And? Water is transported from the ocean to the atmosphere, to the land, and then back to the ocean. The ocean is the primary storehouse of water on the earth. The sun evaporates water from the oceans, which rises into the atmosphere and eventually returns to the ocean. Copypasta of irrelevant preschool wheather, yay! The atmosphere also stores a small quantity of water. Wind blows water vapor from the hot ocean to the cool land. Cooling water vapor condenses into clouds. Water falls back to the land as rain and snow. The land also stores water. Fresh water is held for months in ice and snow. Water infiltrates into the land and is stored underground. Surface water flows into streams and rivers. Lakes store water. Water flows from the land back into the ocean. Water expands when it freezes, unlike most other substances. Ice and snow take up more volume than the same amount of liquid water. This makes water denser as a liquid than when frozen, so ice floats on the surface. If ice did not float on the surface of the water, the floors of oceans and lakes would be covered with glaciers of ice that never melt. Ice helps regulate the climate by reflecting energy. As a liquid, water's temperature range is perfect for cycling water from the oceans to the land. Water takes a lot of energy to evaporate into a vapor, and it releases this energy when it condenses back into liquid. This absorbtion and release of energy balances temperatures in the earth's climate, as well as inside living cells. If less energy were required for evaporation, streams, rivers, and lakes would evaporate away quickly. Beautiful clouds and sunsets inspire praise for the Creator who forms them. We are blessed by the water that flows though our biosphere. HAHAHAHA. Sorry, I just found that hilarious. It's beautiful, therefore god. What about unbeautiful things? Did the devil make them? :P. The reason water is so heavily used by life is specifically because of these properties, not the other way around. http://www.icr.org/water-cycle/[/hide] I think there are some very good points in here. A creationist argument here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE412.html (also a refutation) Sorry, but that load of BS made me very sad. It's taking conclusions and finding evidence to support them, rather than the other way around. A true bastardization of science. Sure ok, and Atheists have never ever done that. And fyi, you just answered the Creationist's argument with your reply to my Oort Cloud. We see evidencem and we look for more, surely if we see some water come out, we'll look for more, rather than no water at all.

Science fail. Protons are larger than electrons, and electrons are not inside protons anyway. This nerd in my class said that. And actually, technically the protons are inside the electrons. Which is what the guy said.

Magekillr, it is easy for a poor person to become middle class. It just takes good judgement, and good decision making. And yes, you're right, they do have to break the cycle of poverty, but that's for themselves to do, not the government.

Are you an electron? Because I'm a proton and need to be inside you. #-o :roll: =D> Do you miss halloween? Cause it looks like you need some sugar.

PSSSSSSSSSSST. Creationism's been around for ten thousand years. Not in a written form, although it comes somewhat close to the timeframe you mentioned. Earliest egyptian hieroglyphs that far outdate biblical, islamic or buddhist scripture were written 3200 BC which is over 5,000 years ago, and they often concern their local gods and descriptions on how the world was made/how gods should be worshipped. In an oral form amongst primitive tribes the idea has probably been around for as long as humans have been able to communicate with each other (cave paintings and archaeologic evidence of rituals, sacrifices etc. support this) Albert Einstein explained the phenomena pretty thoroughly The problem is, only proven and useful things matter in reality and the world. When you get an education at school, you can't write your personal opinion to answer a question demanding a logical and objective answer. If you refuse to believe easily proven scientific theories and facts and select religious mythology, you can't really graduate from most colleges or universities (bar religious schools or Koran colleges) Not sure how many times it has to be repeated, but accepting scientific facts doesn't mean you can't be religious. There are countless religious scientists both in the present and history. Of course science and religion can combine, and work together. Just not evolution or big bang. You guys act like I'm some luddite or hate science. Not at all, I just don't agree with Evolution or Big Bang. And actually, you can graduate from college witho ut accepting Evolution or Big Bang. I just found this great site, it's Christian, but not that biased. Some interesting things I saw: [hide=Young Earth]Minerals Have Too Much Helium The shiny black specks in granite are mica. Within mica are natural zircon crystals, only a few microns in size. Helium quickly diffuses out of zircon. If the granite is millions of years old, as commonly believed, all the helium should be gone. However, measurements indicate that much of the helium still remains. Either the diffusion rate of the helium is not uniform, the zircon crystals are younger than believed, or both. Helium in granite is evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, not millions. http://www.icr.org/zircon-helium/ The Sea Does Not Have Enough Minerals There is not enough salt in the sea or mud on the sea floor for the seas to be billions of years old. Every year, salt accumulates in the ocean from rivers. Given the present rate it is increasing per year, the current 3.5 percent ocean salinity is much too low if this process has been going on for a very long time. Mud enters the seas through rivers and dust storms. This occurs at much faster rates than plate tectonic subduction can remove it. Each year, 19 billion tons of mud accumulates. If the oceans were ancient, the oceans would be choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. http://www.icr.org/ocean-salinity/[/hide] [hide=Debunking Evolution]Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well. According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions: 1. wholesale change of organisms through time 2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms 3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms. However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record. Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites. Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of todays invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms. Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside. Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record. In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed. The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created. http://www.icr.org/living-fossils/ Fossils Show Rapid and Catastrophic Burial Beveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Fossils provide universal evidence of rapid burial, and even agonizing death. Rapid burial is necessary to entomb organisms as the first step in fossilization. The abundant marine invertebrate fossils throughout the entire fossil strata demonstrate extraordinary burial conditions. Polystrate fossil logs (tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers) are common in the fossil layers and are clear evidence of rapid burial. Common vertebrate fossils show rigor mortis and postures indicative of asphyxiationsudden smothering of the animal (e.g., Archaeopteryx and dinosaur fossils in the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument). http://www.icr.org/fossilization/ Fossils Are Found at All Levels The earth is covered with layers of sedimentary rock, much of it containing microscopic fossils such as plankton, pollen, and spores. The entire record of visible fossils consists mainly of marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone), including clams, jellyfish, and coral. What is surprising is that these ocean creatures are found primarily on the continents and rarely in the deep ocean basins. More clam shells are found on mountain peaks than under the ocean floor. From the bottom layers to the top layers, most fossils are marine creatures. The upper levels do have an increasing number of vertebrates, such as fish and amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, but the fossils at the bottom levels are equally as complex as any animal today. All fossil types appear suddenly, fully formed and fully functional, without less complex ancestors under them. The fossil record is strong evidence for the sudden appearance of life by creation, followed by rapid burial during a global flood. http://www.icr.org/invertebrates/[/hide] [hide=Creation]The Universe Has a Center Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions. The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design. Instead of accepting the obvious, recent models of physical cosmology assume the earth is not special and that everywhere in the universe the exact same observation of receding objects would be seen. Instead of a universe with an age measured in thousands of years, this assumption leads to billions of years. In contrast, creation cosmologies explain the data better by starting from biblically-based axioms: the cosmos has a unique center and a boundary for its matter, beyond which there is at least some empty space; and on a cosmic scale of distances, the earth is near the center. http://www.icr.org/universe-center/ The Universe Was Created Recently The universe is only several thousand years old. Comets are an example of a natural clock within our solar system. With each orbit around the sun, comets lose considerable mass. They cannot be very old because they cannot survive many orbits. To get around this problem, many astronomers assume there is a vast cloud of comets out near the edge of the solar system, which releases new comets every so often. This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all. Each year our knowledge of astronomy increases with new evidence concerning the origin of our solar system, our galaxy, and our universe. While it is possible to make assumptions beyond what can be observed and verified, the heavens continue to bear witness to recent creation. http://www.icr.org/recent-universe/[/hide] To get around this problem, many astronomers assume there is a vast cloud of comets out near the edge of the solar system, which releases new comets every so often. This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all. Huh? I always thought Atheists always had the evidence. [hide=Earth]Earth's Core Was Created to Protect Life Our planet was created for life. A smaller planet, like Mars, would be unable to hold our atmosphere, which protects us from meteoroids and keeps the temperature within the range needed for life. A larger planet, like Neptune, would trap too much atmosphere. The pressure and temperature would greatly increase. A stronger gravity from the increased size would also trap harmful gases in the atmosphere. Earth has a strong magnetic field. This protects us from harmful radiation from the sun. http://www.icr.org/earths-core/ Earth's Water Cycle Protects and Provides Clouds function as earth's curtains, balancing the temperature. When they form, they block the sun when the temperature on earth becomes too hot, and they let the sunlight in when it becomes too cold. When the earth is hot, more water evaporates from the oceans and turns into clouds. These clouds reflect more energy and the earth cools. When the earth is cold, the clouds cool and condense into rain and snow. With fewer clouds, less energy is reflected. The energy reaches the earth and warms it. The earth has the most diverse collection of reflective surfaces in our solar system. Water is the most abundant chemical compound on earth. Water covers three fourths of the earth's surface. Between half to three fourths of your body is water. Water is ideal for carbon-based chemistry. Water is transported from the ocean to the atmosphere, to the land, and then back to the ocean. The ocean is the primary storehouse of water on the earth. The sun evaporates water from the oceans, which rises into the atmosphere and eventually returns to the ocean. The atmosphere also stores a small quantity of water. Wind blows water vapor from the hot ocean to the cool land. Cooling water vapor condenses into clouds. Water falls back to the land as rain and snow. The land also stores water. Fresh water is held for months in ice and snow. Water infiltrates into the land and is stored underground. Surface water flows into streams and rivers. Lakes store water. Water flows from the land back into the ocean. Water expands when it freezes, unlike most other substances. Ice and snow take up more volume than the same amount of liquid water. This makes water denser as a liquid than when frozen, so ice floats on the surface. If ice did not float on the surface of the water, the floors of oceans and lakes would be covered with glaciers of ice that never melt. Ice helps regulate the climate by reflecting energy. As a liquid, water's temperature range is perfect for cycling water from the oceans to the land. Water takes a lot of energy to evaporate into a vapor, and it releases this energy when it condenses back into liquid. This absorbtion and release of energy balances temperatures in the earth's climate, as well as inside living cells. If less energy were required for evaporation, streams, rivers, and lakes would evaporate away quickly. Beautiful clouds and sunsets inspire praise for the Creator who forms them. We are blessed by the water that flows though our biosphere. http://www.icr.org/water-cycle/[/hide] I think there are some very good points in here.

Yes to one, no to two. There was plenty of poverty in USSR. Although not really, because everyone was that poor, no one could be poorer. :P But overall, yes, there would be unemployment, but it would be chosen. And also, Socialism is based on idealism, not realism. Idealisticly, everyone would love Socialism, no rich stealing everything, but in reality, name one country where it's worked. Dsavi, I'm pretty sure Obama AND McCain have been closer than that. Besides, where's that graph from?

Ooh, I know I'm not the OP, but I should try that. (I write music in my room) however, my parents always think I'm sound proofing it so I can have sex and they won't know. >.> >.> >.>

Well, I guess you're right, but I can't seem to find a better word than opinion. :-#