Drix D'Zanth

[quote name='Garelock'] If anyone hasn't been reading, it has been you. If you read what YOU wrote every now and then you wouldn't make as many spelling errors as you make nor would you look as stupid as you do. On a countless amount of occassions I've proven you to be wrong over and over again. You can't debate with me because you're not even on the same intellectual level as I am; you're a mere child compared to me.[/quote] I know your rebuttal was in response to Zeta, but really... this is pathetic. Don't double post. Not only that, who are you to even comment on spelling errors? You've got the grammar of a 5th grader. Not only that, your last post just affirmed the fact that your desire isn't the exchange of ideas or information.. but an ego trip held up by shoddy points and half-truths. You're [i]on[/i] an intellectual? You mean.... [i]sexually[/i]? *shudders*

[quote name='Garelock']RIIIIGHT! You don't support abortion at all. Like I said, until you speak out against the senseless killing that goes on in Iraq, I don't want to hear a dang thing about abortion. Death is death, you don't sway your way around that, you don't talk your way around that, you don't see it from any other view, when someone gets killed, dangit, they get killed. [/quote] War isn?t the answer? I keep hearing this? war?s just not the right thing to do. I don?t know, Garelock, we were all fooled; you, me, Bush, Kerry. I don?t know what we need to do to stop militant Islamic terror (there, I?ve said it), but we cannot ignore the fact that they have, and continue to attack our nation. Was going to Iraq the right thing? Well, we declared war on terror WORLDWIDE.. ?Wherever it exists?. If that means Iraq, we go to Iraq. If the war on terror should mean Iran, we should go to Iran. People who oppose abortion, do so with the same philosophy they oppose murder. If you want to say the troops in Iraq are over there to senselessly murder the innocent, well, then we have something more to discuss. Abortion has killed nearly forty million people since legislation in ?73. That?s the entire population of Canada, plus a couple million. They could have been learning, growing, walking, loving individuals like you or me.. but they were killed by the whim of another human. We chose a life separate from the mother, a life with it?s unique DNA, and potential to become as any of us to be killed without any regard to it?s basic constitutional right. The two issues are a bit different? [QUOTE=Garelock] Kerry is a WAY better candidate than Bush, or at least that's what the majority of America thinks. Gay marriage, dude, once again, I'll say this. MARRIAGE IS NOT SACRED IN AMERICA. Like Chris Rock said, Marriage is nothing sacred when you got TV shows with people wanting to get married just to get rich. Take Joe Millionaire for example, the woman only married the guy just because she thought he had 50 million dollars. Now that's my case and point about gay marriage. I'd much RATHER have gay marriage than heterosexual marriages because at least gay people don't showcase their stuff on TV like heterosexuals do! I don't believe America has a right to tell people who they can marry and who they can't marry because simply, that's discrimination without a doubt. The fact of the matter is we have the Bill of Rights, we got all this stuff, we have this and we have that and yet no one has THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Damnit, what business is it of America who I marry and who I don't marry? That's my damn choice, that's like telling someone, "Hey, we keep saying that you have free rights and you can pursue whatever you want but just don't try to marry a guy or else we'll get mad." That's stupid and you know it! [/QUOTE] The next time I play soccer I?ll be sure to walk around the field, ball In my hands, before I dash into the goal to score a point! I can?t wait! I?m sure they?ll be bothered that I?m not following their rules, but they have to accept me, Garelock, cause I?ve got my freedom of choice. I?ll play soccer however I damn well please! Don?t you get it? You can be opposed to Joe Millionare, Brittany Spears, and other derogatory representations of marriage as well as supporting those marriages that are for a purpose! The government isn?t giving tax breaks to married couples because they are in love. They are giving those tax breaks because a monogamous couple BENEFITS SOCIETY. A homosexual couple is a detriment to society, I?m not even talking religiously. I don?t care if gay people get married in institutions or religions that accept them. I just DON?T want to pay for benefits I don?t believe they deserve! [QUOTE=Garelock] I repeat, YOU CANNOT RUN A COUNTRY BASED OFF RELIGION! That's what so many leaders have done wrong for years! That formula JUST DOES NOT WORK, IT WILL NOT WORK AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE WILL IT EVER WORK! America is a country that has so many religions, cultures, religion misunderstandings and cultural misunderstandings. How the hell do you run a country with so many beliefs off ONE belief?! It's impossible, you have to learn how to accept and tolerate any culture, creed, custom, belief and sexual orientation. If Bush can't accept people of other religions, if Bush can't accept gay marriage, if Bush can't accept anything that he doesn't believe in then that's all the more reason why he shouldn't be our commander-in-chief. [/QUOTE] Theocracies? Ever heard of the Divine Right? What?s the difference between a person citing the Bible for his ethical answers, and your ethics? Please explain exactly what distinguishes a ?religious point of view? from any other opinion. Is it God? Is that?s what bugs you so much? Don?t you understand the merit of having absolutism? Or do you believe that man is the measure of all things. Governments HAVE been run religiously, and atheistically; both have worked in some situations and failed in others. Quit generalizing when our own government recognizes atheism AS a religion! [QUOTE=Garelock] You know Justin, the Bible says alot of things. The Bible also says: Well, we try to remove Saddam and Osama before we tried to remove the KKK, the new black panthers, the crips, the bloods, folk, Jersey devils and ALL those people who are more of terrorists to me. I mean it was just last year where the KKK dragged a guy up and down the street in Texas, ripping his body to shreds. Now, if that isn't terrorism, I don't know what the hell terrorism is! We need to worry about the terrorists we have at home before we worry about the ones that other countries have! I mean, no Iraqi or Afghanistanian ever put dogs on my people, they never shot at my people, hung them, castrated them or anything, it was the KKK that did that so I think their regime should be taken over before anything else happens. I'm more afraid to walk around in New York City than Iraq right about now because at least in Iraq you'll only get shot, in New York, you'll get shot THEN mugged for everything that's valuable on your body..hell, I wouldn't be shocked if they stole my internal organs and tried to sell it to a hospital; hustlers are desperate you know. America is so worried about Al Queda, well, the fact is when you can get shot for wearing the wrong colors in a neighborhood then what goes on in Afghanistan should be your LAST CONCERN and what goes on in America should be your FIRST. We're so busy taking care of everyone else that we haven't stopped to take care of ourselves for once. [/QUOTE] Ah yes.. the KKK wants to destroy America! So do the Crips, Bloods, etc. I?ll agree? Yup.. we?re doing nothing about it right? I dunno, maybe you should go down to your local police office and tell them to stop fighting terrorism and concentrate more on the gang warfare in our own cities! Go out now, Garelock! Fight the gang warfare! Do you really even CARE about your current situation? Sounds to me that if you really gave a **** you?d join the police force yourself! Oh, and in Iraq, you?d probably be tourtured, imprisioned, poisioned, walked over a mine field (only for kids under the age of ten  ), and mutilated BEFORE you were decapitated. Mugged? HA! First you need something valuable. [QUOTE=Garelock] Jesus says: Let he who has no sin cast the first stone? Well, Bush has alot of sins so therefore, he didn't have a right to cast a single stone at Saddam. Bush and his daddy have screwed America up so badly that more than half the country doesn't even like him and that's even some of the Republican party who doesn't want anything to do with him. [/QUOTE] Garelock, I hope you aren?t trying to be a hypocrite here. I suppose you can?t be... because according to what I can tell, you?ve been flinging many stones! That?s not very becoming of an individual who, like Bush, seems to have many sins. Don?t you read the context of the parable that you cite? You fail to distinguish between the law of that time and the law of today. Jesus saved an innocent man from death because of false accusations and hypocrisy. This was an example of false persecution and hatred for ones enemies, not a retaliatory attack upon another culture! You pick up the sword, but you do not know how to wield it! [QUOTE=Garelock] The bible says: No man has the right to judge another unless they be perfect. Bush judges other people like he's perfect. Well, he is perfect, A PERFECT LIAR! [/QUOTE] Garelock, I suggest you read the Bible again if you want to misquote it. The parable concerning judgment refers to spiritual judgment. At the time the Jews believed spiritual judgment was in the hands of the Temple leaders. Jesus corrected them by saying that all judgment was by God, who is PERFECT. This doesn?t refer to the law at all! In fact, Romans distinguishes between law and God?s law. The judgment that Bush is taking is the law of the land, not the spiritual judgment that Jesus warned against. [QUOTE=Garelock] I mean, he keeps talking about No Child Left Behind. Well, of course, WE ALL KNOW that doesn't work and that is pretty pointless. As an education major, I've seen too many children left behind every day of the week. Not enough money is spent on education, not enough money is spent on improving our schools, not enough money is spent on America period. We live in a nation that will rather build a prision bus than a school bus, a bomb before a book and a gun before a peace of mind. That's the way Bush wants to run this country, hell, lets be honest, he did come from TEXAS, a place that kills more people with the death penalty than any other state, a place that builds prison buses like crazy but children are still walking to school and a place that has more gun violence than New York. [/QUOTE] Really? Where did I read that No Child Left Behind didn?t work? Hey, I?ll agree that not enough is spent on education. I?ll also agree that we should re-instate chain gangs instead of prison buses. I?m glad you had the courage to come out on that point, but I?m sure others will rally to your cry. Correction: the Government doesn?t build (write) books or ? ?peace of mind?. I don?t know, I feel a lot better knowing that we are fighting terrorism, despite the slow and inevitably difficult conflict. I?m so glad you seem to support America when you just bashed (by generalization, no less, such a talent for it!) an ENTIRE ******* STATE. More gun violence than New York? PER CAPITA? Nice run on sentence, Mr. Teacher. [QUOTE=Garelock] So in closing, I'd like to say that everyone should vote but before you do, and if you WILL vote for Bush just imagine America in complete ruins then cast your vote; therefore, you'll make the right choice.[/QUOTE] ?. That was touching really. I liked the part about ?America in complete ruins?, that drew a tear. [quote name='Garelock']You know I normally don't like these long debates but this just gets easiier and easier for me. If there was a person who's a juggernaut at winning these types of debates, well, it's hard for anyone to argue that it's not me. So far, I've been making Bush look like the IDIOT he really is. So I'll just address a few points. [/quote] You are actually one of those ?special? people that belives someone WINS a debate! I love that! This will be a sad reality check, it appears, my friend. [QUOTE=Garelock] Some say that they don't understand why people criticize Bush for the war, well, I'll give you a few simple reasons why he's criticized for it: 1. He DID NOT have to send the troops to Iraq nor did he have to send ANY troops over to any place. 2. HE'S THE DAMN COMMANDER IN CHIEF! If you can't understand that then you got some serious mental problems and I don't mean the minor types. If anything goes wrong wtih a nation it is ALWAYS the leader's fault. A leader TAKES THE BLAME FOR THINGS LIKE THAT! It's the way things have been since the first dang American president so I don't see why people get so shocked when Bush gets blamed for everything. No matter what the problem is with America, IT'S HIS FAULT. He can DO something about it, he can CHANGE things and he can quit putting off the blame on everyone else but himself. But as he has proven in both debates with Kerry, he does nothing but say "That wasn't put in place because of my administration." I'll the illustration of the milk again. If you come home and see spilled milk on the floor aren't you going to clean it up? You aren't going to go around the house, trying to get everyone else to clean it up, no, YOU CLEAN IT UP! You're aren't going to let the damn milk sit there for [B]4 years straight[/B] are you? That's what Bush is doing, he's letting the milk get sour on the floor and he's not getting a mop to clean it up. [/QUOTE] You are the epitomy of a whiner. All you do is piss and moan about how ?Bush does this and Bush does that?. Ever heard of a free market economy? Guess what Bush can do to control that! NOTHING . He can only work indirectly to help ?stimulate? it. I don?t care where tax cuts go? the economy is it?s own device propelled by the laws of economics. Don?t you understand the importance of voting? The importance of Congress? You think Bush is responsible for EVERYTHING? Kerry voted for this war, too. If enough people, INCLUDING Kerry had voted against it; perhaps we wouldn?t be there. If the nation hadn?t supported attacking Iraq prior to the invasion (one of the highest support rates for our president at that moment), why didn?t our congress reflect that? No, congress reflected America?s choice, maybe not yours, but the majority of congress?, executive body, and the people?s choice. As far as I?m concerned.. we?re cleaning up the milk right now. [QUOTE=Garelock] 3. We are indeed the most hated country in the world and it's all Bush's fault. 9/11 didn't make us the most hated, our international ties didn't make us the most hated, hell, even the Clinton and Monica scandal didn't make us the most hated. What made most countries in the world despise us so? Well, it's Bush. His whole make-up is what pisses people off. You have to admit that all these other countries can't be wrong. Now, when you got one or two countries criticizing you, well, that's not bad but when you got half the world saying they hate you and even your allies hating, well, it's tough to argue that something isn't wrong with that picture. [/QUOTE] Who cares? Why would other countries give a damn about the Lewinski scandal? We were the mockery of the world during that time. As far as I?m considered we are taking a policy that invests in the interests of OUR state.. NOT Europe. The Eiffel tower wasn?t bombed, the WTC was. Kerry has stated a unilateral precedence over multilateral in his last two debates claiming that we may have gone in early, but he STILL would have fought a war despite the UN?s ire. Speaking of the UN.. what the hell are we listening to them for anyway? Their usefulness has decreased DRAMATICALLLY since the end of the Cold War. They didn?t do jack **** in Latin America, Rwanda, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, South Africa? nothing. The UN is nothing more than a supplement, not a world power. Europe is suffering superpower envy.. look at the EU. As far as I can tell, the only ?Great Satan? was the U.S. according to the caliph. [QUOTE=Garelock] 4. Some people seem to think that Kerry is more war-proned than Bush. No, that is very much incorrect. The reason why Kerry wants to send more troops over to Iraq is so that he can get this stupid war over with and get our people out of there faster. With the current head count of American troops we have in Iraq now isn't exactly enough to end this fast, quick and in a hurry. With the increasing amount of deaths in Iraq, more troops are needed to finish off the remaining resistance. At least Kerry has a plan...as we've seen with Bush, he's just like his daddy, he doesn't have a damn clue what the hell he's doing as president. I mean, I've heard Republicans say that, most of my family are Republican. My brother is a Navy Seal and even he doesn't like Bush. Sorry, but once again, all those people can't be wrong... [/QUOTE] Both presidential hopefuls care to finish the war. Bush?s daddy won the Gulf War within months considered one of the greatest military victories in history?. Bush dominated and continues victory after victory on the terrorist cells in that nation. Every new battle the casualties may read one or two Americans? to their three hundred or so assailants. As for the innocents.. I have two remarks. How many innocent people die in wars that you aren?t whining about? How about wars that aren?t bothered fighting? How can the democratic agenda be against policing the world, then pick and choose it?s pity-trips when it comes to foreign policy. Where was the demorcratic recorse during Kosovo? Sure people are dying, more will die. Every sacrifice is worth something, Garelock, don?t let your pessimism darken their heroism. They ARE fighting for our homeland because it WAS under attack, and as long as the terrorist network perpetuates, will be vulnerable to future attack. Sorry to hear most of your family is so misled . [QUOTE=Garelock] 5. I got reasons to dislike Bush for this war. He's telling me that I should be against terrorism and stuff, well, I'm more against America. Al Queda didn't enslave my people for almost 300 plus years, Al Queda didn't sick dogs and spray water hoses on my people for trying to vote, Al Queda didn't hang my people for trying to read a book, Al Queda didn't shoot at my people for trying to go to the same schools as whites did, no, American citizens did that. I know this stuff is pretty old but alot of it is still going on today. In Clariton county and Marlboro county, once again, in South Carolina, there's a court case currently taking place that's bigger than Brown v.s. Board of Education and it's about, once again, equal rights for minorities in schools. Now, isn't it funny how things like that can pass along? I'm led to believe that racial inequality only took place back in the days of Dixie, the Maurice Bessingers and Jim Crow years, well, from what anyone with a brain would see, it's not over. Not if you have to go to court if you want the same amount of funding that the white schools seem to get in such a high abundance. Now, this is what Bush calls fair. He lets the neighborhoods pay taxes to fund the schools. Know how biased that is? Suppose your school is in a low income or "ghetto" neighborhood? Just how much funding can a school get then?! NOTHING! It's like asking a homeless person to fund the war with Iraq! If this is Bush's view of fair and equal for all, then that's just another reason why I don't like him. [/QUOTE] What the hell? I may not be supportive of the idea that neighborhoods pay for their own schooling, I have to ask the question: If paying for your own schooling was such a big deal, then why do you expect the burden to be laid upon others to do it for you? If you really want to improve your neighborhood, stop whining about your president and DO SOMETHING. [QUOTE=Garelock] 6. People call Saddam a terroist, bad person and a dictator, more or less and among the other things that he's called. Well, what is Bush? I mean, he comes from Texas and when you look at the amount of death penalty sentences that Texas gives out a year, well, Bush doesn't have a right to talk about how others are killed in other countries. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that you'd get the death penalty if you litter over there; lol. I know some people would probably say something like tihs, "Well, those are criminals." Know what I'd respond to those people with? [U][B]DEATH IS DEATH! NO MATTER HOW BIG, NO MATTER HOW SMALL! YOU KILLL SOMEONE AND YOU'RE JUST AS BAD AS HITLER![/B][/U] I don't care what you did wrong, I don't believe it's worth killing someone over. That's wrong no matter how anyone would see it. Killing for any reason is wrong, from my Christian point of view and my moral and universal point of view. Just think, if you kill everyone who has killed someone then what have you accomplished? You've just managed to killl a whole bunch of people, plus the people that those people have killled and then all you'd have is a bunch of dead people on your hands. [/QUOTE] Hey.. bravo. I?m all against the death penalty. But you seem to sidestep reason when you compare the death penalty with Sadaam?s torture and murder. Your brother is a Navy Seal, trained to KILL and blow things up. You now imply that your brother is Hitler? Be careful when picking the speck out of Bush?s eye before you remove the plank from your own. So you are saying the soldiers that fought the third reich are like Hitler? You are saying the men and women of the Union fighting the Civil War that would eventually lead to abolition were just like Hitler? If the world was perfect, killing wouldn?t need to be justified. What do we do against another force that is capable of hitting us at home? What about what the terrorists could do next? I?m not going to throw around ideas, but they hit us on our own soil, the first time since the war of 1812 (or the Aleutians if you want to be really technically). A dirty bomb in NYC harbor is going to kill plenty more than the deaths in Iraq. [QUOTE=Garelock] 7. Some people say that Bush cares about America. Well, as his actions in 9/11 goes to show people, he doesn't give a hill of beans about America. Now, most leaders would be on the ground leading their people and advising the armed forces in such a situation. Now, where was our "fearless" commander-in-chief? High in the sky aboard Airforce 1...riiight...some leader...I bet if a mouse came into the White House and had a bomb strapped to it he'd get loaded on that plane and they'd fly to the nearest safe house as possible. Meanwhile, the American people are on the ground getting bombed and killed. [/QUOTE] What the hell? The whole point of Airforce One, the Secret Service is to keep our LEADER ALIVE so we don?t fall into GOVERNMENTAL CHAOS! What the hell? Do you even think before you typed this point up? What are YOU doing to fight terrorism Garelock? I don?t see you taking up arms if you are so pissed off about one person?s seeming non-involvement. [QUOTE=Garelock] 8. Bush justifies what our allies do. Correction, what the allies who support us do. Let me give you a prime example. Israel attacked a guy in a wheel chair. Now, when you wake up in the morning, the last thing you want to open your window to see is an Apache helicopter with missiles ready to be launched at you. The guy was in a freaking wheelchair and was [U]PARALYZED from the WAIST DOWN![/U] They launched two Amran missiles at him and blowed him to smitherines! Bush doesn't do a SINGLE thing to stop actions like that but he has room to criticize Saddam and Osama. If blasting a guy in a wheelchair isn't a terrorist attack then what the hell is?! As a matter of fact, Bush even JUSTIFIED that attack. Yeah, who wouldn't vote for this guy? :laugh: [/QUOTE] Your point is mute. First, give a source. Secondly, Apache helicopters are not a presence in the Isreili military. Thirdly, Apache helicopters do NOT FIRE AR-120 AMRAAM missiles! Lastly, AR-120?s are Air-to-Air missiles only, they lock onto another fighter by radar, an object the size of a person cannot be fired upon. Not only that, you cannot dumb fire them (you need to establish lock before you can fire). Maybe you should consult your brother before spouting BS like this, ok Patton? [QUOTE=Garelock] 9. The Iraquis don't want us in their country. Well, common sense tells you that if there's STILL RESISTANCE there. I mean, take it from my brother who's currently serving in the military. He personally said that when he talked to the Iraqis that they didn't want us in their country and they wished that we would leave. If someone came to your country and tortured your people as those American soldiers did, well, would you want them in your country? American troops have a history with doing that. It's one of the reasons why Japan hates us so much. We have troops still stationed in Japan but the Japanese have openly expressed and laid down a record that they don't want us in their country. Not after certain American troops were caught raping little Japanese girls and using them for sex slaves and of such. That's a known fact, I don't even have to offer proof... [/QUOTE] The entire terrorist network doesn?t want to lose the country. This is religious for them. If they win.. and push us out by force alone, they win against the ?great satan?. No one likes WAR, the Iraquis have mixed opinions of the American occupation of their country just because the terrorists that are attacking us now from other nations (within Iraq) aren?t going to accept a free democracy! American troops torture people? Dear god, that?s the most ridiculous thing I?ve ever heard! I understand this Abu Grabe crap was an exception, but comparing us to Japanese brutality of WW2? Ever read [u]The Rape of Nanking[/u]? Check and Mate. [QUOTE=Garelock] 10. People love to say that Kerry is a flip flopper, well, I'll officially put that to rest by calling Bush the very same thing he calls Kerry. Now, he says he's pro-life with the abortion issue YET he won't stop to launce bunker busters at a crowd of innocent people. And yes, innocent people have been killed in this war, the death toll of innocent bystanders, according to the military and my brother who's IN IRAQ NOW would be over 20 thousand people. 20 THOUSAND PEOPLE?! I wish someone WOULD try to justify that many people being killed because of a stupid war that they weren't even fighting! Anyways, Bush says Kerry is too much into science. Riiight....is this the same president who tried to spend 4 billion dollars on a space shuttle and Congress rejected that bill? Bush says Kerry wants to bill the American people too much with taxes. With the war deficient WELL over 100 billion dollars, hmm...I wonder who Bush thinks is going to pay off those taxes. Maybe his rich buddies who he's giving tax relief to will or maybe the poor guy you see walking down the street will pay off the debt. Either way, he can't say Kerry is charging Americans too much and turn around and put America in over 100 billion dollars worth of debt. He says that a lot of American people don't like Kerry. Dude, HALF THE WORLD DOESN'T LIKE YOU! How the hell can you criticize someone George? The only people who really likes you are the ones who either don't know what they're talking about or truthfully believe in what you're doing. Why do they believe? You got me on that one...Bush says that Kerry isn't Anti-war and his plan will take longer to go into success. Well, first off, AT LEAST KERRY HAS A PLAN! Bush's cabinet and Bush himself has proven time and time again that they are unorganized with their methods.Second of all, George, when it concerns you and war, you shouldn't even mumble when someone talks about war because between you and your daddy, I'm surprised that the 3rd world war hasn't already taken place. [/QUOTE] Tell me where Bush orders the launch of Bunker Busters on crowds of people? Just like he shoots Air-to-Air missles at disabled people? Your entire point is pathetically debased. Think about it: You are an American soldier. There is someone shooting at you from a building. You return fire. Oh, the building has a few other people in it, you notice. Are they terrorists? Innocents? Do you try to run away, or do you return fire? The terrorists have NO REGARD for the lives of their own citizens! They are in full genocide in multiple hotspots around the world as we speak! Look at ISRAEL! Half the world doesn?t agree with us, that?s a real shame for that half of the world. Maybe if they were on Al-Queda?s target list, they?d change their minds (cough Spain). Bush never said Kerry was Anti-War.. just inexperienced. Kerry doesn?t know what the hell he wants as far as I can tell. Then again, how could he know what he?s doing if he missed 118 senate votes out of a total of 132 last year! [QUOTE=Garelock] Now, you can try to argue these points if you want to but most people have simply decided not to reply to my comments. Most of them are either known facts or hard to dispute when people live these Bush lies everyday. [/QUOTE] Most people realize most of your information is made up, just plain wrong, or they suffer an epileptic seizure from the sheer frustration of reading such puerile posts! [QUOTE=Garelock] Signed, A dude that's unbeatable in a debate...[/QUOTE] *snicker* [QUOTE=Garelock] You may as well. It's what the rest of the world is doing now and officially, we are the #1 most hated country in the world according to a recent poll by ABC news. I used to say that the UK liked us but even they don't like us now. 9/11, terrorism, global warming and all that stuff doesn't have a hill of beans to do with the American image. Who do you think other countries judge us by? The actions of Bush. You can't really judge the people if you don't judge the leader. It's why Christians are sometimes looked down upon for discrimination and why God gets blamed for it so often. [/QUOTE] You keep repeating yourself? Do you think the other countries would not hate us if Kerry were president? If you were given the same information Bush was.. wouldn?t you make the same decision.. or would you ignore the (unfortunately flawed) CIA. [QUOTE=Garelock] Yes I can really say the blame lies at his feet because that comes with the job description. Suppose you saw a platoon in the US Army acting like idiots and performing recklessness. Whom do you think would be questioned and dealt with first? Don't even say those people doing the deed because my bro, who's in Iraq curently, just told me about how a Battalion commander was relieved of his duties for not keeping his men in line. That's just how it works in America, that's how it has been since the beginning of the US leadership and chances are, that's how it will end. [/QUOTE] He?s everyone?s whipping boy. If he did invade, he?d be wrong. If he didn?t invade, he?d be wrong. I doubt Kerry, who hasn?t led a war for nearly three years has the same experience Bush does in fighting the war on terrorism. [QUOTE=Garelock] Of course one man can be responsible for running a whole country. Ever heard of a dictatorship? :laugh: I'm just kidding. Anyways, yes, the US Congress tried to stop the war with Iraq and Afghanistan but Bush has the power to veto them and overstep them. It's not the Congressional powers' fault if Bush is a stubborn person and doesn't want to listen. If you KNOW he didn't listen to the UN, then what makes you think he listened to Congress? [/QUOTE] ?.. Please tell me you really aren?t going to be responsible for teaching the youth of our nation. Do you know what veto means? It means that you put a proposition forward, then it may be vetoed. A bill is not passed by veto, it is stopped. Bush can?t force anything to pass if congress doesn?t pass it.. they can VETO HIM. Didn?t you ever take a government class back in high school? Not only that, congress VOTED for the war! KERRY VOTED FOR THE WAR! Is Kerry any less stubborn and unyielding to the UN? And concerning the UN.. see previous comments concerning it. [QUOTE=Garelock] Americans are known for one thing; being hypocrits. Isn't it funny how we're still mad over 9/11 and just last week a line of US bombs destroyed a whole neighborhood, killing an amount of people that even I, a person in college couldn't count. We're hypocrits, we say things like 9/11 aren't supposed to happen to us and yet we cause Iraq's 9/11 every single day. It's the truth, take it or leave it. Again, the whole world can't be wrong... [/QUOTE] You can?t count your tens and hundreds? More people died in two days in Somalia than the months we?ve been in Iraq. We took an entire nation from a dictatorship believed to be creating WMDs but wasn?t. Hey? don?t forget that we declared war on ALL TERRORISM! The whole world can?t be wrong? Ok, how bout this? a good 60% of the world is NOT Christian. You believe Jesus is God. Are they wrong? Comon?? all those people can?t be wrong can they? Sometimes you have to stand up for what you belive in despite the fact that others around you don?t agree with you. The countries that oppose us in Europe turned their backs on us?simple as that. As soon as we picked our enemies, they didn?t want to fight the war with us [QUOTE=Garelock] Need I bring up the fact that just last year a black man in Texas was tied to the back of a pick up truck and dragged up and down the street? Need I tell you that just last week a black man was hanged out in front of his lawn? Need I tell you that people are still running around with white cloths on their head? Need I tell you that not are Nazis are dead? Need I tell you that people are STILL trying to make it so that we're back in slavery? Need I tell you that the Confederate Flag still flies on South Carolina's statehouse dome, the very symbol of black oppression? People say "The flag is my heritage" and I respond, "Your heritage was my slavery." [/QUOTE] ?Need I tell you that not are Nazis are dead?? what college do you go to, really? Hey, I don?t like the Confederate Flag just like you, but with the freedom of speech comes the freedom of speech. People die every year in hate-related crimes. Aren?t all murders hate related? What?s with the dichotomy? You get pissed that we fail to generalize murder into a single category, yet you make it a point to mention racial hate crimes? [QUOTE=Garelock] Riiight..and what has Bush done that Hitler hasn't? Hitler has had innocent people killed, Bush has had people killed; it's all the REASONS why they did it. Again, a life is a life, death, prematurely, is something that you cannot excuse or try to justify. And yes I do know lots about Bush, most stuff that I'm not even mentioning because I want to make this a fair debate and not completely destroy his reputation like Kerry has done so often; again, polls don't lie. Bush didn't personally sentenced these people to death?! What do you call a war?! You understand perfectly clear that when you start a war, people are going to die! What?! Did Bush think that there would be no casualties? That the Iraqis were just going to put their weapons down and surrender? HA! Not in a million years! [/QUOTE] Bush killed innocent people. FDR killed innocent people. You like your lunchmeat sandwich? That could?ve saved a starving boy?s life in some mid-African country. Read John Donne?s ?No man is an islande?, then comment exactly how you can selectively criticize one man without criticizing yourself? Bush is sentencing the people who wish to attack and are related (guilty by association, if you will) to them. That?s the Sept 12th declaration of war. [QUOTE=Garelock] Oh I don't know...the White House where all the REST of the American presidents had? I mean, lets be honest, if anything comes without 5 miles of the White House it'll be shot down immediately so I don't know what the big worry about that is. He could've went to the Pentagon, after all, there's a nuclear weapon-proof chamber down there where you can command the troops all over the world. He could've simply stayed on the ground where he wouldn't have been criticized about being a coward. What better way to make our enemies think that we're nothing more than cowards than to have a president who goes ducking and hiding everytime America is attacked? [/QUOTE] How is hiding in a hole any less cowardice than commanding from the air? Don?t you realize that Air Force One is actually far safer than a little bunker underground? It?s undetectable by conventional standards, and a untouchable by enemy aircraft? What exactly are you criticizing here? What did they do to Johnson after the Kennedy assassination? Rushed him to Air Force One. Do you think they would have spared that precaution on any president threatened like that? [QUOTE=Garelock] Bush is the leader, yes, I've said that lots of times before. But the problem I keep running into is that he's not leading! He's only placing the blame off on previous presidencies. PEOPLE! OPEN UP YOUR EYES! The president can change things if he wants. It doesn't matter if Congress passes a bill, it doesn't matter what Bush's cabinet members do and as the last election proved, it doesn't even matter what the American voter does, the American president is the most powerful man in America. He can change things instead of complaining, moaning and griping over them. You don't like a policy and you're the president? Here's a thought...CHANGE IT! You changed the tax bills a hundred and one times, why should you stop with the changes now? [/QUOTE] ?. You just bypassed 98% of our important governmental procedures. This war wouldn?t be possible without the Join Chiefs or Congress. He is changing things with our economy now, and has plans to continue. The war also has plans to continue, and has actually be an overriding success? ignored because of everyone?s disposition against it. What? You have the nerve to classify Americans of hypocrisy, and you are a subject of it right now?? [QUOTE=Garelock] Oh that isn't the first time America has supported an ally that's worth supporting. Remember the UK? The country whom, at one time, actually liked us? 5 people were killed in a massive raid. Want to know why they were killed? For holding up end the war signs in front of the Parliament building, though I can't recall the name; hell I don't live in the country. People getting shot over something stupid like that? I'm sure there was more involved but there's no real reason to shoot an unarmed person. What's the matter? You're so weak to the point where you have to shot a bullet into someone to overpower them? [/QUOTE] Cite source. Secondly, how is this of relevance to OUR involvement in Iraq? The British government hates protesters? I would just love to see if this was true. [QUOTE=Garelock] Which news reports I listen to? Naw, I don't really listen to news reports when I got a brother who's serving in the military calling me every 2 months or so and giving me a primary source on the matter. It's hard to argue with him when he's actually THERE. He said that the people don't want us there, he has been shot at by people over and over again. Now, common sense tells you that if a citizen shoots at you, then another and then another and then the count of people shooting at you gets past 100, evidently, they don't want you in their country. Living free? Constant terror? What the hell do you call the current status? They're even worse off than when Saddam was there. We got grandmothers shooting at the American soldiers because simply, the Iraqis don't want us there. You call that freedom? Freedom to get bombed by "Big, Bad America?" How would you like it if one day you're sitting at home, minding your own business and a US war jet flies over your house and sends a bunker buster to blow you up? OH! Doesn't seem so fair now does it? [/QUOTE] Wait, you don?t listen to the news? What the hell? How does your brother know exactly what happened with the parliamentary building then? How about the AMRAAMs being launched at the crippled person? Did your brother give you that juicy one? Your brother?s account is dubious at best from what you?ve shown me. Then again, the problems with our news agencies are another issue entirely. ? Worse off when Saddam was there? What the hell? You think a nation that slaughters it?s own people, tortures and rapes women, imprisons children, harbors terrorist networks is better off than the nation Iraq COULD BE? That?s like saying Germany under Hitler was better off than a Germany in the midst of war. SURE IT WAS! We?re STILL FIGHTING, lets finish before we draw conclusions! As for fairness on the battlefield, anyone who?s firing on American troops is still FIRING UPON THEM! We don?t suddenly open fire on grandmas and random passersby. You know why so many Americans die in conflicts? Because we follow the rules. Your brother will tell you this too. Soldiers do not fire until fired upon. Usually that first burst of automatic fire could kill a few soldiers before the Americans can retaliate. You think the militant Islamic organizations flooding Iraq care about the Geneva Convention? You think they care if they are firing on unarmed military personnel? How about the Iraqis they live with? They fire from the homes knowing that the U.S. would target them. Why, if they are so concerned with the well being of their people, not taking their war to the open ground without civilians? You think the U.S. isn?t fighting fair? Balderdash! [QUOTE=Garelock] DAMNIT BUSH! Yet another person has to suffer because of our president's STUPID policies. He killed Superman! He could've been saved damnit! He could've lived! But on well, I guess when you have an idiot for a president...things can't go your way. Then again, heart failure isn't something that can really be prevented. Christopher Reeves could've walked again if Bush had funded the research. Hell! He funds billion dollar spaceshuttles that have proven to kill more talent astronauts! Why is abortion so bad again?[/QUOTE] What the hell? Do you even know how the drug companies work? Do you even consider that he spends lots of money on a space program so astronauts DON?T DIE? The astronauts that died in the Colombia were flying a craft designed in the 70?s and popularized in the 80?s, that flew under approximately 5 presidential terms without stop?. You claim to be the king of debates, but all of your points are terribly hypocritical, infantile, and just plain pathetic? I pity the future of our education. Sorry I bunched this all together, I wanted to pick up all the crap in one swoop. Looks like Garelock had another accident.. I?ll be posting again shortly to pick up those pieces again.. *sigh* Don?t make me sick PT on you? Burninated >:- )

Oh boy, Guitar. I'm not kidding.. playing guitar will get you laid in college, easily. I do admire the guitar player, and considering the only instrument I play is my voice, sometimes envy the guitar player... :\ As for learning it, just keep playing and eventually you'll get the hang of it. The cool thing about guitars is the ability to jam with a few other guys who play. I usually stand and nod my head to the rythmn when the jam sessions start up... *sigh*

[QUOTE=DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Actually, Godel, if you were a true Geek, you wouldn't sacrifice guenia pigs; you would eat them. The word geek was originally a term for circus freak-show performers who would eat any and all kinds of items for the crowds. I myself will eat any and all types of pizza for the crowds. Listen, people who use labels as their definition of self lack the self-confidence necessary to exist as a unique individual unto themselves. The people who define others by labels lack the ability to percieve others as anything beyond a shallow apperance. This discussion is kinda' lame. So, who knows where the word 'dork' originates from?[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE] A Dork is a Whale's cock. Some of the largest Dorks are some 13 or so feet long... iinterstingly, it is the Sperm Whale who posesses the largest dork.

[URL=http://www.otakuboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=86]Try this forum instead[/URL]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet] I think he's done more than his fair share to prohibit a woman's choice to what her options are as far as her reproductive rights as well. (read a few of my posts) I hope if Kerry is elected he'll fix up the wording of a few laws Bush passed, maybe even over turn the FDA's descion on not allowing the morning after pill without a dr's perscription and that stupid law that says that pharmasists can refuse to fill a woman's birth control perscription based on their beliefs.[/color] [/QUOTE] Not enough, in my opinion. I understand that the war to make abortion illegal is one of attrition, but it's hard to rest until the finality of making that practice illegal occurs. As far as FDA regulations, they aren't necessarily meant to restrict birth control, as much as controlling a potentially dangerous substance. Birth control pills should be handled very carefully, the reprocussions on hormone levels alone should be enough to require doctor perscription. I would be interested in seeing the "belief" dictated law

[quote name='SkylarkHangtime']For one, he might be against abortion but is for a women's right to do what she wants/needs. Your entitled to your opinion but a women should be entitled to her rights, your opinion stops her from being able to do that.[/quote] Please.. let's save the A-Bomb for a dedicated thread... I'm opposed to abortion just like I'm opposed to murder. Murder is a personal choice, a choice to kill another person. Who am I to tell a murderer not to murder some random person that I might never meet? Isn't that the point of a law, or society? The gov't tells us what to do .. or tries to , because that seems to be the primary responsobility of the government. I don't see any distinction between abortion and murder.. that's my perspective, so I think it should be illegal, just like murder. I figured this would happen though... with all the issues, it's difficult not to pinpoint a certain one.

[QUOTE=Neuvoxraiha][COLOR=MediumTurquoise]Being on Honor role is nothing but an ability to process busywork given by teachers. I know. I was a 4.17 GPA in high school. Being an Honor roll student in junior high/middle school means jack. Science also, has very little to do with politics, so I don't see a point in bringing that up either. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] That's harsh Raiha. I'll just have to tell my friend Katie, that her Political [b]Science[/b] major.. well.. isn't. As for my vote. I'm going to vote Bush. I'm pretty conservative when it comes for most things, and despite my personal unhappiness with the war, I realize the fact that we need to stand up to terrorism eventually. I just don't like the way Kerry votes both ways on several issues. He claims he is against abortion, then votes for it? Bush, although partisan, doesn't seem partisan enough to vote against his heart. "My name is John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty"... wait, he missed 118 of 132 senate votes this year.... Hell, even Kerry believed the intelligence concerning Sadaam and WMDs... I don't think he's a capable leader... Bush has the experience. A few issues I just can't support: -Abortion Wait... that was one issue! That's right.. I can't stand abortion. This isn't an abortion thread, but it should just be noted as a CENTRAL ethical issue in our society. Bush hasn't done enough to stop abortion, IMO, but Kerry will do nothing. As for the problem with religion belonging in Gov't and Law... it's almost impossible to demand that someone remove a predominant ethical attribute of themselves in anything they do. All moral decisions are determined and decided by an ethically-driven choice, to remove a religion from such choices would be like demanding myself from removing your founding moral perspective from your choices. The point Midnight was trying to make is that even atheists use a sort of moral foundation, it's flexibility is irrelevant except for the determining ability to choose something over another. If my religion says what is right and what is wrong, how is this any different than your relative perspective determining what is right and what is wrong. George Bush isn't making people turn christian, he isn't making Christian laws, he's just making laws and electing people who he share the hsame moral structre as himself. This is as legitimate as a scientologist electing a scientologist...

[quote name='Heero Darkangel]I have nothing against Gays (as long as they keep their fingers to themselves) and Lesbians, I have an uncle who is gay, he also as a partner, they very cool, They have alot of gay friends which I've told them that [I]if they touched me i'll break their fingers[/I']..![/quote] Hmm... well if gay people hit on you/touch you, just make like the ladies when [i]you[/i] try to hit on them. Simply say "let's just be friends", walk away, and give them a fake phone number. I've got to agree with James on this issue. The prejudice against homosexuals is quite unbased... and severely excessive. I'm not going to defend any sort of presumed "rights" (wrong thread anyway), but far be it for me to hold their sexual orientation against them. Funny story, I walked into a gay bar... unbeknownst to myself at the time, and was hit on several times before I realized there were no women around... I'm usually not that un-observant, but I didn't really get grossed out or pissed off. Hey, I may not agree with their lifestyle, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hate them for it. This is coming from a pretty solid anti-homosexual-marriage guy, too.

[quote name='mangakiwi']Dwermer Bretheren: Drix D'Zanth[/quote] Aye.. he is my dwermer brother (long story, Steve and I are 'ol chums IRL).

[QUOTE=Dragon Warrior]To get music onto your thread, you must upload them onto a site first. You're not capable of doing it on OB, sadly, but I'm sure you can find a host somewhere that'll store your music files (maybe a friend owns a site?). Doing it directly from your hard drive won't even work for you. So if you plan on having music, upload it to a site and copy and paste the URL into the HTML pattern. Also, the music HTML only works in the Arena ;)[/QUOTE] Thanks much Dragon Warrior.. I guess I'll have to get myself a site. I was planning on getting a domain name anyway. I checked out the coding you and James both used in your rpg's to somehow use in a future project of mine. Once again, thank you for your help.

[QUOTE=Semjaza Azazel]When did this happen? lol [/QUOTE] ... All of our years Tony.. all of those AIM conversations... Me: Hey Tony Tony: Hey Me: .. sooo anything new? Tony: Why do you keep messaging me? Me: You're so funny Tony! Hey I listen to Nine Inch Nails!! Tony: Congrats Me: Yeah! Thanks for getting me into them! Tony: What? Me: I owe so much to you Tony: ... [b]Semjaza has logged off as of xxx p.m [/b] Me: Well got to go my 'ol chum. Me: Nice talking to you. Me: keep in touch... If that's not brothership... well, I don't know WHAT is. But if what we [i]have[/i] isn't good enough.. then fine... you don't have to be on my list :(

Now, forgive me for not really trying the idea out.. I promise I will after posting this message. But concerning the embedding of sound files (mp3, .wav, etc) in posts; would it be possible for me to embed them directly from my own hard drive and upload them onto OB much like images? Or does it require an alternate URL? I know with certain rpgs, like DW's new one, he's got a URL to reference his mp3's from. Am I going to have to upload my mp3's onto a website before I can use them? Now, even if embedding is possible directly from my own hard drive, would everyone be able to hear the file, or just me? Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Drix

Well, my sisters are probably Annie, and Japan_86... when they were on Jenna and Juu were probably very sister-ish... Those were back in what Drix calls the golden days of Jenna... -_- I consider Boba Fett, maybe Deathbug, and a few others "cousins". Mitch, Lynx, Baron Samedi, Chaos, and Tony (semjaza) would most definately be brothers... even in a metaphorical sense. Finally, I'm Siren's daddy... :laugh:

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darlviolet] Perhaps a bit off topic, but I think the reason that Health care in the united states is so damn expensive is because we've become a country of sue happy people so the doctors have to pay more for insurance so they charge more and then those charges are then passed on to the employers who then can't afford to get health insurance plans for all their employees. [/color][/QUOTE] As far as I can tell, malpractice is certainly on-topic. And as far as I'm concerned, you are right on target concerning our lawsuit-happy nation. IS malpractice necessary? Sure.. bad doctors should be removed. Has it been manipulated to the point of crippling our medical eqilibrium? Unfortunately. Anyone here want to solve the healthcare problem in America? Become a doctor and work for 30,000 a year. Some doctors do, some doctors choose not to. Some doctors are overly generous in providing healthcare, and hospitals like the one I work at lose well over 2 million dollars annualy because of people skipping out on paying their $20 dollar co-pay. If you get the government involved, you force these individuals to yeild and accept poor healthcare and, as medicaid patients understand, are legally hunted if they do not pay their bills (as I mentioned before, doctors can't just credit the bill).

Don?t think I?ve lost interest in this thread. My current work schedule (which has now ended), and my recent development of strep throat has deterred internet activity. Sorry for the late post, I?ll keep them on a more regular basis once I?m settled in. I?m moving back to college Friday, and have plenty to prepare during that weekend. I?ll do my best to remain fairly active. With regards to James and AzureWolf; yeah, this is getting pretty redundant when defining theory. Hey I agree, the argument over esoteric expressions is getting neither of us anywhere.. let?s continue on with the debate. As for the overall purpose of the debate? I?m not going to boldly claim that evolution is bunk. I agree with microevolution. Variation within species and genetic code is tested, and concluded theory that I would readily accept as any other. I see this thread as a challenge to dogmatic evolutionists. Those who believe the current theories being taught in our textbooks and don?t actually realize how LITTLE we know about macroevolution. The more we continue to explore our own hypothesis, the more even the most fundamental macroevolution evidence appears to be wrong! Sciros disagrees, claiming that current scientific evidence has done nothing but improve our understanding of evolution. I agree, if you mean the understanding of our failings. I?m going to start slow and use this thread to learn his reasons for accepting evolution. At the same time I?ll present arguments that may challenge his assumptions on natural selection, the peppered moth testing, vertebrate homology, the evolutionary tree, and a few other key concepts. I plan on covering everything, but patience is a requirement. What we all must understand is that despite our sarcasm, wit, vitriol, and resentment; we will both walk away believing in the same things we came into the arguments. I?ll see more concrete evidence for evolution, and sciros will see the opposite. But the earlier posts indicate that our opinions are going to inevitably change very little. As James mentioned, this should be a learning experience for myself, [i]and[/i] whoever wants to read this thread. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Yes, they can produce fertile offspring, but in some cases they are plagued by physical defects due to things such as an overabundance of various growth hormones, etc. (if I remember correctly). This would lead to a divergence, as intermixing between such breeds would not add anything to the gene pool when natural selection took its course. But that's off topic; let's leave the dogs alone. There's a good amount out there about the evolution of dogs. What you mentioned supports some biologists' classifying the domestic dog as a subspecies. As far as the "exact nature" of dog evolution, it's been decided that it was some common ancestor to the dog and wolf (based on DNA evidence) if I remember right. [/QUOTE] Hey, I?ll agree with you here. Dogs are wonders of the manipulation of genetics. A dog is born with a shorter tail, a trait seen attractive to breeders, and so the dog is bred and generations of selecting the shorter-tail dogs from the litter result in the change from a recessive gene, to the only gene. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] If I may present a counterexample which it turns out you are unfamiliar with: ?. Anyway, there goes your whole "behavior patterns changing" not being "evolution" argument. Don't be offended, just treat it as something new to learn. [/QUOTE] I do appreciate the bit of information, and while an interesting read the sense of nostalgia tickling at my brain reminded me to Biology 150?s lab on adrenal gland development within animal species. This very experiment was summarized and mentioned, if briefly, during a lecture. That being said, I did learn a lot from this article and how genetic evolution is linked to behavioral evolution. Am I about to say behavior is restricted to the animal once neo-natal? Well, if my arguments claim so, then that was my error. There are some things from this experiment, questions, that need some answering. Genetics, as we can both agree, are linked not only to development after birth, but actual organ development. As this article has illustrated hormone levels and adrenal glands are examples of genetic-controlled behavioral influencers. But I wonder, is the manipulation of the behavior the factor that controlled the docility, or the selectivity based on pre-existing genetics? They seem to pick the foxes that have smaller adrenal glands, and lower levels of hormones usually associated with a ?wild? natured fox. Now, could this recessive population, as it is bred away from the control population, continue to pass along the more recessive traits (for all I can see, they continued to remove groups I, II, and III from each litter) and in effect just creating a stable environment for that recessive gene to become more dominant? Isn?t this analogous to dog breeding? Greyhounds aren?t prided for having blue coats, so whenever that recessive trait arises, they don?t breed the dog. They instead buy dogs with the grey or black coats, effectively ?breeding away? the recessive gene. I would be interested [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Again with the insults. Drix, read my first reply to your post again. [i]Notice[/i], dammit, that it says NOTHING about YOUR religion. [/QUOTE] Interesting how you can?t seem to understand why that bothered me. When I mentioned nothing about my religion (which we can agree on), and yes you mention religion in a passive remark, and then continue to debate my opinion. Hey, if it wasn?t directed at me, I took you for more diabolically subtle than I should have. I was just figuring this was the same as any other subtle insult you?ve thrown my way. (i.e. ?I figured that was common knowledge?) [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Why did you take such offense? I said that religion is becoming progressively aggressive towards evolution (though not in those words), and you took it altogether the wrong way. [/QUOTE] Really? Read your next statement. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Maybe you took offense because you ARE religious and ARE filling in the gaps you see in evolutionary theory with a metaphysical belief. [/QUOTE] It seems you [b]can?t[/b] bear to bring yourself away from that possibility. Unnecessary accusations such as these are what attract my ire, sciros. Who says my religion must be so opposed to the sciences? I?m really not, if anything, witness evolution as a supporting argument to the existence of God, or some sort of divine individual. If you are going to draw your conclusions on my religion, allow me to reveal to you mine. But this will come in due time?. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Here is the link: [URL]http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm[/URL]. You'll notice its definition of theory is not exactly what your "people learn this freshman year of highschool" link provided. And I think I see why you don't consider evolution a theory so much as a model. It is because you're hung up on the technicality concerning the word "observed," which you'll notice is not in all definitions of the word "theory." Many definitions say "validated" or "supported" hypothesis, not "observed." If you want to say that evolution is not a theory based on that, then go right head, but I'd imagine few folks in the field would agree. [/QUOTE] I imagine you are as irritated in defining the word ?theory? as I am. If anything this reminds me of the philosophies of Gottlob Frege. The way we associate words with ideas or objects can be simple at times and complex others. Basically, it reveals an inadequacy in the scientific community to define itself on varying levels of evidence. Meaning, the theory of gravity, and the theory of relativity are quite differently approached. While gravity remains consistent throughout all of nature, relativity is a very individualistic mechanism. In short, I?ll stop defining theory and get straight to the logical points. Pinky swear that you will too ;). [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Un-observed in real-time, perhaps, but certainly not un-observed in the fossil record. Don't get so hung up on such a strict definiton of the word. There's no reason to. [/QUOTE] Are you talking about vertebrate homology in the fossil record? Oooh! After I get through my arguments concerning Darwin?s Tree of Life, fossil homology is next on my list. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Criticism of the Miller experiment is very widespread, and I've read something like your account before. BUT, there are a couple of things you must realize in relation to that material. First of all, it merely serves as criticism of Miller's experiments, and does not discount any other theory for the origin of life on the prebiotic earth (although they do assume that somehow some process allowed the constituents of nucleid acids to appear--it is what that process was that is unknown). Secondly, disproving one theory for the origin of life does not suddenly "shake the foundations of evolution," because evolution is NOT a theory on the origin of life, but [I]the process by which all living things have developed from primitive organisms[/I]. How evolution's "first common ancestor" came about is certainly an interesting subject (especially to anyone who researches DNA/RNA), but is ultimately irrelevant in this discussion. If reading a criticism of the Miller experiment is what caused you to start to doubt the validity of evolutionary theory, then you need to rethink how the two of them are related.[/QUOTE] Hey, we are around? somehow life had to start. This is indisputable. That example illustrated two things: -Current theories, as science has progressed have been consequentially disproven. The Miller experiment was a huge jewel in the Darwinist crown for it supported the ?first common ancestor? proposed by Darwin and his colleagues. -It goes to illustrate that the random nature of life and its self-reliant quality isn?t so random, or self-reliant. Right now, we haven?t the faintest idea of how life could have been created. As the article stated, the very makeup of our atmosphere was deadly to early bacterial life. A simple point is that believing in evolution is basically believing in God. I was also supporting one of my previous claims, that current science is having doubts concerning evolution. Don?t think this is my only argument? heh. While the Miller argument will be disproved time and time, experts are so dogmatic in their beliefs that they disregard the counter-evidence completely? search most biology or molecular biology-related book? most of them will most likely present, and support the Miller-Urey experiment. My second argument: Uprooting Darwin?s Tree of Life. While I?m stealing the title of this argument from one of the sources that inspired this challenge, I think the pun serves its purpose. I hope the cheesy humor is forgivable. Now opening up my sister?s AP Biology book to the section on taxonomy revealed a tree of life in all its glory. The smallest of the Prokaryote bacteria at the very bottom, branching into the complex multicellular [i]Homo sapien[/i]. Once again, in response to your previous challenge, here?s another example of how current science has revealed a misunderstanding in our previous hypotheses. Does it disprove evolution? That?s not what I?m going to try to do, and just as faults in the Miller-Urey experiment don?t mean life couldn?t happen on earth. Merely that, we aren?t as confident in our theories as once before. The problem with the theory is that it seems so perfectly designed that it is difficult to dispute in hypothetical terms. That slowly life went from a single origin of life, to few variations, until branching into more and more diversity. This idea of starting small and growing has been turned upside down nowadays. As your revered Stephen Jay Gould even claimed: ?The phylogenic tree is now less perceived as a tree, than it is as a bush?. (I?m sure George W. would be proud) The pre-Cambrian period is a very difficult period to trace, when concerning fossil evidence. Theoretically, the heat and pressure over such a long period of time would eliminate most of the evidence supporting the simple-multicellular organisms that preceded the Cambrian explosion. However, the strange fact remains that paleontology has been able to uncover plenty of fossil evidence dating back billions of years, obviously able to endure the same geological effects pre-Cambrian fossils were not? While that is insubstantial in itself, the obvious fossil records lie directly in what is known as the Cambrian explosion. This period, beginning 544 million years ago, lasted a mere 5 to 10 million years. An incredibly short period of time, geologically speaking (2 percent of the time elapsed since the beginning of the Cambrian), that ended up giving rise to most of the phyla alive today, as well as some that are now extinct. Rather than helping Darwinian evolution, this posed a serious challenge. The event was remarkable because it was so abrupt, and because so many major groups of animals made their debut in it. But its challenge doesn?t lie in its abruptness or its extent, as in the fact that phyla and classes appeared right at the [i]start[/i]. Darwin?s theory claims that phylum and class level differences emerge only after a long history of divergence from lower categories. Biologists have described the current model as top-down evolution, where the higher levels of hierarchy appeared [i]first[/i]. Molecular phylogeny has proven inadequate to date the events from which the phyla should have appeared. According to geneticist Kenneth Halanych mentioned the period of difference between the original evolutionary requirements of phylogenic creation and the biological evidence is too distinct to be ignored and too large to be explained by molecular phylogeny. Now posing these issues and the current changing model of evolution as it has apparently occurred in nature, rather than it has occurred in theory; have seriously challenged current theories. I will get more into molecular phylogeny, and the fossil evidence supporting the evolutionary ?lawn? if necessary.. but I think I should give you some time for a counter-point. As Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing remarked at a lecture in the California Academy of sciences, ?In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin Is that the truth, or what: [url]http://encyclozine.com/Evolutionary_tree[/url] ? Although such views are discredited now, the imagery is too well established to be readily lost.?

[QUOTE=Inuyasha7271] Also have you noticed that guys think two girls is sexy yet girls think two guys is not.[/QUOTE] That seems debatable nowadays. The most common demographic group for Queer as Folk according to the most recent VH1 report on homosexuality in the media is single women age 25-40. One of the research groups claimed the women watched the show to see "hot guys make out"... heh.

Once I knew how to spell... then I posted on Otakuboards.

Finally nice to see a few replies... i figured this was just going to atrophy. Since it's late, and I just got home from work, and I've got strep; I'm going to keep this fairly breif... forgive me. GS, the United States does have universal healthcare. If a guy walks into the ER with a splinter in his finger, we are required by law to admit him and provide him the ability to see a doctor. Am I against this? Heck no. As long as we keep it privatized, that is. Deathbug is right, privatized healthcare is far superior to the socialized programs of other nations. Italy, Canada all have the same hospitals, the same medicines, and nearly the same acess to medical equipment that the United States does (X-Ray, MRI, etc). Why then, are approx. 1/4 of the patients in Detroit hospitals from canada paying FULL prices because they don't have American insurance? Becuase if the government can avoid paying it, it won't pay for it. I'll give you a few examples from Italy, a westernized, modern country with socialized healthcare. If you are put on the open-heart surgery patient list; the average wait time can be well over three years. Do you know why? The governments is literally hoping that you die before the surgery date arrives. Our Italian friend had a problem with his shoulder, a minor joint lubrication problem. My dad (an orthopedic surgeon) took a quick look at it and said all he needed was a simple injection. Our friend (his name is Mimo) said that he went to the hospital and that is what they said, but the doctor said she couldn't treat him in the hospital. He would have to go to her private practice and pay a few hundred dollars for the treatment. Socialized healthcare will never be truly social.. the real treatment will be in private practices and that is far more expensive to the individual than privitized hospitals and healthcare. Let's look at Medicare. My dad has written off $600,000 just this year for patients who cannot pay their medical co-pays. He could very well have pursued these individuals for that 20 or 50 dollar co-pay, but he didn't. He, coming from a poorer background, empathizes with them and in the spirit of generousity decides to help them out. Let's say t his person has medicare... where normal insurance pays, say , 60 dollars of a 100 dollar procedure, the person can easily avoid paying off the rest. My dad can easily and legally just credit the patient and let him walk out of his practice. Medicare will pay for 10 dollars of a 100 dollar procedure and he HAS to accept it.. not only that he cannot let the person just walk out of there with credit. The government effectively prevents my father from an act of generosity. Socialized government screws its doctors as much as its patients.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] That's a shame, because it appears that your college education and the fact that you're majoring in biology have very little influence over what you know or think. You can't even write scientific names properly, lol. [/QUOTE] Well , ya got me there. I guess college really is for dumbasses considering you derived my entire knowledge of molecular and organism biology from a few post referring to the differences between macro and micro evolution. I?m surprised you started a debate, because you seem to have everything figured out just fine!! I?ll try my best to keep up with your impeccable expertise on the subject as best I can. Bear with me, I?m a very slow learner and usually need several people to explain the same thing over and over before my brain seems to connect the dots. Oh, and use lots of pictures. I like colors.. lots of them, but don?t use crayons, they smear. I didn?t realize you demanded term-paper quality posts. I?ll try to keep up with your obviously enlightened demands. ?Aren?t book titles underlined? Oopsies. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] True, we do not have written historical records that describe the domestication of the dog, nor did we in 14,000 years create a different species (and I was saying that some biologists view the domesticated dog as a subspecies of wolf, not different breeds as subspecies). But, through the domestication and breeding of dogs we have created breeds that when mixed produce offspring that could never survive in the wild due to numerous defects (effectively leading to a divergence). In other words, not far away from what would classify them as different species. And if we decided to outright engineer different species out of them at this point, I'm betting it wouldn't be too difficult. [/QUOTE] Ahh, but such a species change has [i]not[/i] occurred in the last 14,000 years. Despite an impressive record of species variation and still has not experienced a true macroevolution. Hey, I said it before, and I assume I?ll be repeating it many times within the course of this debate: I do not oppose the theory of microevolution, it?s macroevolution that I have issues with. Now, if you think you can somehow get the [i]Canis familiaris [/i]to evolve into an entirely different species, by all means show me. Now, besides the physical inhibitors (large dog, small dog, dog doesn?t want to get down and funky) every breed of dog can successfully interbreed with another. One more problem, in neither support nor refusal to either of our arguments: The [i]Canis lupis[/i] and [i]Canis familiaris[/i] can actually breed and produce stable offspring, which some scientists and zoologists use as evidence to question the exact nature of doggie evolution. I?m not sure what my take is on this, but it?s a pretty interesting fact. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Oh, and I also love the way you drew a distinction between "change of behavioral patterns" and "evolution." As if there's a distinction to be drawn, lol. A change in behavioral patterns is often the first step towards a larger-scale evolutionary change, which I would think is common knowledge. [/QUOTE] Incorrect. Darwin himself admitted that multiple factors would influence evolution from one species to another, however, ?natural selection is the most definite cause.? Now if you are looking at this from a cause-effect situation, the cause (genetics) brings about the effects (instinct-driven behavior). Is there anything genetically different between a wild dog and domesticated dog? Besides subspecies, there is not. Look at how we continue to domesticate dogs today. The behavioral patterns are a result of the canine?s ability to react to stimili including fear, group nature, stress, and docility. By manipulating the dog (beating a hostile dog, rewarding a docile dog) the dog will naturally respond to a change in stimuli in order to survive. This doesn?t result in any sort of genetic mutation, I?m referring to the very first domesticated dogs. Look at how dogs behave now. Puppies all display fairly aggressive behavior, biting, wrestling, achieving dominance amongst the litter. These are all behavioral patterns imbedded within a dog?s genetics; it?s just the way the cute little thing ticks. Wild dogs learn how to survive by the social group that the dogs may remain in (early mastiff fossils in northern Germany reveal dog populations traveling in packs much like wolves). By domesticating the dog?s primary source (the mother) of the behavior-through-imitation found in wild dogs, wolves, and other group predators; you effectively remove the stimuli that would result in an un-domesticated canine. Can you raise a wild dog? Yes. You can raise a vicious dog by manipulating the stimuli around it (rewarding aggressive behavior, or provocation, etc.) The genes are doing what they are supposed to, Sciros, we aren?t encouraging any sort of macro or micro evolution by controlling a canine?s behavioral patterns. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Actually, the mechanisms really become only more and more clear as genetics research becomes more established and explored. There aren't too many mechanisms required for nature-driven evolution: natural selection, sexual selection, genetic mutations, and heredity. How they come together for the various evolutionary chains is what much research tries to figure out. And, as I've said before, I can't think of any that has to scientists questioning anything other than preestablished [i]specifics[/i] due to this research. And when they do, they only arrive at something more conclusive, more definite. [/QUOTE] Oh really? So everything that?s been tested with reference or in support of macroevolution is a truism? Ooh even better.. a challenge: [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] If you can refer me to some research which suggests that "the mechanisms required for nature-driven evolution aren't as definite as one might assume," I would appreciate it. It would be an interesting read. [/QUOTE] See my closing argument. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Lol. So your religion [i]does[/i] have to do with your view on evolution. And your correction was not based on current secular theories because there wasn't a shred of factual information there. You simply gave a definition for the word "theory" and said that there had to be a tested hypothesis for it to apply, saying that hence evolution should be referred to as a "model" rather than a "theory." [/QUOTE] Did you even read the post I was referring to you? Are you really that lazy to assume because I had oppositions to the validity of macroevolution it had anything to do with my original post on the thread? Do you even know the entire post was just explaining the mechanisms of [b]micro[/b]evolution?? So then you claim it has to do with my religion, to which I reply in a SEPARATE post, my opinions concerning evolution, and you attribute it to my original post? Trust me, I didn?t really have such a complex ulterior notion against macroevolution to begin with when I posted for the first time, I regret even defending my position on evolution in the first place. You are like the little four year old neighbor my sister babysits. She always has to put the jigsaw puzzle together [i]for[/i] him. Wrong again. Macroevolution is a model and a part of the larger theory of evolution. When I refer to the theory of Biological Evolution as the ?biological change within organisms over time?, I?m referring to multiple extremities and hypotheses such as the Theory of Microevolution. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Done and done. Do you want to discuss what it means to be a "theory," then? Let's get to it. The Journal of Theoretics has an interesting little line: "the scientific method should only be applied to experimentation when appropriate and not be used in the determination of what is or is not science, nor should it have any application in defining what is a hypothesis, theory, fact, or law." [/QUOTE] Ok Sciros, take a deep breath. Read this passage over again. Eat a protein-aboundant meal, maybe some carbs just to rev up those typing fingers. Read this passage over again. Now drink a glass of water, at least eight ounces. Read this passage over again. The first time I read this I was stunned. Is the Journal of Theoretics, a fairly legitimate peer-based source of scientific article galore actually testing the validity of the scientific method? I mean, considering the fact that the WHOLE PURPOSE behind the method is to test hypotheses and create theories! [URL= http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html][color=blue] People usually learn this in their freshman year of highschool [/color][/URL] All that quote was supporting, if you would have interpreted it correctly. Is that the scientific method isn?t greater than the sum of its parts. It cannot be used to define ?science?, ?theory?, or even ?hypotheses?. I?m sure if you include the rest of the article in full context (please link, I checked the site, but could find no line) it would support my argument. Let?s say I?m wrong. Well then, your wonderful Journal of Theoretics just contradicted the any and all theories and models resulting from scientific method. Is [i]that[/i] what your reference is trying to tell me, Sciros? That scientific method proves nothing? [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Then there's Stephen Jay Gould's [i]Evolution as Fact and Theory[/i], which I'm sure you'd rather not read in favor of sticking to your college education and the fact that you're majoring in biology, lol. [/QUOTE] I like how you discredited my entire education by quoting a single book you read. ?So far the ScirosDarkblade evolutionary book count is up to 4 published titles?? Are you really going to claim the debate on the notion that the book you read refutes all of my previous and upcoming arguments? I hope not, let?s try to keep our egos in check and stick to the topic rather than throw around unsubstantial accusations. Nietzsche isn?t a philosopher I tend to admire but for a few of his ideas, including this quote: ?The greatest threat to truth is not the lie, but the accusation.? [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Then there's dictionary definitions of the word theory: "Noun 1. theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; 2. theory - a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena"[/QUOTE] Exactly why are we using dictionary definitions on the word? : [url]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory[/url] Oh look, mine's a little different. Scientific theory is a big deal, Sciros. Hell, gravity is a theory, relativity is a theory? these are all regularly observed every day. When referring to macroevolution, an un-testable and un-observed phenomenon you cannot so easily classify it as a theory. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] There is no universal agreement as to where to use the words "theory," "fact," etc. in science or technical writing, and as a biology major you should know that. It is important to make clear what your definition of those terms is in whatever context you are discussing, but it is a mistake to maintain that others must stick to your same definitions. As far as evolution is concerned, it is a well-established THEORY for the vast majority of the scientific world. In actuality, scientists consider the existence of biological evolution as a [i]fact[/i], as it has been demonstrated today and there is a huge amount of evidence suggesting it ocurred in the past. What is lost on many people is a certain distinction: the existence of evolution vs. the [i]mechanism[/i] of evolution. The various mechanisms people have come up with, assuming they have something to support them (i.e. not the creationist views) can be called theories. Natural selection is such a theory, for instance.[/QUOTE] Hey, I?ll give that one to you, just look at [URL=[color=blue]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#6[/color]]Scientific Realism[/URL] However, it can be accepted within books explaining science, its methods, and its theories; that theory is: -A conclusion based upon the testing of a hypothesis in according to the inherent laws of nature (physics, chemistry, biology, etc) that can continue to be evidenced upon, yet lacks the merit to be counted as a law. [url]http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html[/url] : here?s another website briefly going over the differences between scientific theory and hypothesis. (Gee, I would think this is common knowledge) [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] If you can refer me to some research which suggests that "the mechanisms required for nature-driven evolution aren't as definite as one might assume," I would appreciate it. It would be an interesting read. [/QUOTE] Remember this? Here?s a little slice of pie. This article refers to the VERY ROOOTS of evolution, the very beginnings of life on earth and an experiment that was (and still is in most school biology books) heralded as a definitive supporting argument for life (including evolution) as a natural and random occurrence: The Miller-Urey experiment involving the stimulation of gasses was based upon the theory of earth?s early atmospheric composition. It should be noted that the present atmosphere of Earth is approximately 21% oxygen, which is now associated with life because of the redox reactions within cellular respiration. Ironically it is this gas that would prove to be the absolute inhibitor of the very beginnings in early cellular development and organic synthesis. Free oxygen, because of its fairly volatile nature would inhibit the electromagnetic spark necessary to catalyze enzyme production in a primordial liquid or atmosphere (based on the Oparin-Haldane scenario, that lightning created the earliest building blocks of life). Why? Even a minute amount (1% eppu) of oxygen in any sort of contained environment like an atmosphere, combined with the high levels of methane and hydrogen of Earth?s infancy would cause an explosion. ---------- The nature of oxygen can be seen today as medicine continues to encourage ?anti-oxidants? included in your daily vitamin regimen. Free oxygen prevents, and even breaks down organic synthesis. So Miller-Urey tested the postulation that the early atmosphere of hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapor could easily create life with the correct stimulation. Upon testing it in a closed container for a week, the water had grown ?deep red and turbid?. He tested some of it for chemicals and found extremely trace amounts of the amino acids glycine and alamine, the two simplest that can be located in current living organisms. Other organic compounds were found that aren?t found in living cells. Wow! Sounds like they got it right! The very building blocks were in place and evolution didn?t even need to take a hint to get started! Remember my schpeel on oxygen and its inherent quality to inhibit organic synthesis? Well this is where Miller-Urey went wrong. In 1960 a University of Chicago geochemist named Harrison Brown published an article concerning the early atmosphere of Earth. According to the Oparin-Haldane scenario, earth?s atmosphere would be a composition very similar to the interstellar gas clouds. Brown noted that Earth?s atmosphere contained levels of rare gases neon, argon, krypton, and xenon were at least a million times lower than the cosmic average, and concluded that the earth must have lost its original atmosphere (if it ever had one) very soon after its formation. Princeton University geochemist Heinrich Holland and Carnegie Institution geophysicist Philip Abelson agreed with Brown, and their theories coincided with the conclusion that Earth?s atmosphere was actually derivative of gasses released by volcanic activity. All scientific evidence concludes that they released the same gasses that volcanoes on earth to this day release. This would create an atmosphere composed primarily of water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and trace amounts of hydrogen. Because of the lack of a static atmosphere, Holland concluded that hydrogen would have escaped into space. So the earth?s atmosphere is primarily composed of water vapor. Here?s the cooker: high levels of water vapor equal trace, if not moderate levels of oxygen through a process known as photodissociation. This is the natural even in which a water molecule separates into two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen. The hydrogen would escape into space, and the heavier oxygen would remain near the earth?s surface. In 1965 Texas scientists L. V. Berkner and L. C. Marshall argued with California Institute of Technology geophysicist R. T. Brinkmann before conceding to the current scientific postulate that earth?s early atmosphere contained ?appreciable oxygen concentrations as much as one quarter of the present level?, this is before photosynthesis and the time where the bacteria began really pumping oxygen into the atmosphere. The scientific community has been back and forth over the issues until the 1982 conference on the origin of life and molecular evolution when the participants agreed that the theories were a non issue in rebuttal to the Miller-Uley experiment. Why? They agreed that the Miller-Urey mix of gasses was inherently incorrect because, according to Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkin, ?the concept of a reducing primitive atmosphere (one of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor) has to be abandoned, and it must be conceded that it is not geologically realistic due to the evidence indicating most of the free hydrogen dissipated into outer space and what was left of methane and ammonia could not have oxidized.? Here you are talking about the way evolution flies, and the plane can?t even taxi. Any thoughts?

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]This has nothing to do with the thread, but this paragraph is just plain bad and simply betrays an ignorance regarding the subject of evolution, no offense. You say that we've never observed "the change of an animal from one species, to evolve to another as a result of thousands, if not millions of macroevolutions." But humans have, over thousands and thousands of years, domesticated the dog, taking a very large part in bringing about a different species (Canis familiaris vs. Canis lupus, the wolf). (Well, some biologists will view domesticated dogs as a subspecies (although even some dog [i]breeds[/i'] mixing can't produce healthy offspring), but far fewer and at that point we get into "what's a species?" and as genetics research progresses the answer to that is going to change. But that's a different topic altogether.)[/quote] Pardon me for putting evolution in simpler terms. As for your rebuttal, i wonder if you have even READ anything concerning what you speak of. So even if dogs evolved from wolves (which science currently supports), bear in mind that Canis Familiaris despite the vast amount of breeds, is a single species. As for humans bearing witness to the evolution of wolf to dog... well, I sincerely doubt any records date back as far as 130,000 ago (the hypothesized appx. time wolves evolved into wild dogs), so for all humanity can guess is the same for any theorized occurance of macroevolution. As for the domestication of dogs, wich occured approx. 12,000 years ago is a change and manipulation of their behavioral patterns, not any sort of evolution. Whether domesticated dogs, undomesticated dogs, terriers, retrievers, etc are viewed as different subspecies is perfectly fine. Just look at humans and the myriad of differences from one area of the world to another. However, we are all homo sapien. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] As for the "growing scientific problems arising in the validity of macroevolution," well that is just a lie. Some evolutionary chains may turn out to be more complex than we once thought, or DNA research might lead to some things being switched around, but believe me at no point has the evolutionary record been [i]less[/i] complete than at an earlier time. If you replace "growing scientific problems" with "growing religious problems" then you'll be barking up the right tree, perhaps, lol.[/QUOTE] Not true, the more and more science digs deeper into the mechanisms required for a nature-driven evolution aren't as definite as one might assume. Look above, I never said I have any real problems with evolution, just my doubts. Assuming my religion had anything to do with my previous post is nothing more than ignorance on your part. I believe in theological evolution, I belive in the change of species, but that instead of natural selection, God shaped the world as it is. Why the hell does this even have to be brought into question anyway? My correction to his example on microevolution was based on the current secular theroies. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Drix, if you have any personal qualms with macroevolution you can read a book on it, such as "Almost Like a Whale" by Steve Jones. It will help. Also, your definition of "theory" is by no means the only one or even the proper one. If you want, I'll provide a dozen from reliable sources which will show that there is NOTHING wrong with discussing the "theory" of evolution.[/QUOTE] I appreciate the book suggestion, but I think I'll just stick to my college education and the fact I'm majoring in biology. If you really want to get into evolution, start a different thread. As for evolution being a "theory" well you should probably study up on your scientific method before you go sputtering off again. Once again, take it to a different thread if you really want to debate.

Well, some of you know I'm on my way to becoming a full fledged physician. And evblen less of you know that I have been working as an ER Tech at the local hospital during the summers for the experience, and money for college. I?ve traded my fair share of stories with people I talk to every day and figure maybe it would be fun to trade stories on OB, so.. here?s my attempt. Do you have any unique, interesting, good, bad, horrific, hilarious experiences involving hospitals or medicine in general? Here?s your opportunity to joke/vent/share them. Here?s a few of my ER stories (I?ll save some of the best for last): -I?ve seen 5 abulances come in during the night shift when we were pretty understaffed, they were all involved in the exact same auto accident so the injuries were pretty horrific. The most interesting part of the night is that all 5 lived. (we had to send 2 to emergency cardio surgery) -I?ve seen a few chests cracked open? not for the queasy, that?s for sure. Basically they saw apart the sternum and it pops right open, you can see all the parts in there moving. The guy lived, too (a rarity when they need to do that). Funny: - I was working in triage (where they ***** ER patients before admitting them) and a little boy walked up to registration. When the registration clerk asked for the chief complaint (the clerk was still in the orientation phase, really new. Note this.) the kid vomited all over the desk and floor. The clerk ?claimed? he saw blood in the vomit. Well he freaked out and called a ?code blue?. A code blue is basically a cardiac arrest, so about 6 nurses, 2 staff doctors, myself and another tech came running out to see what was going on (wheeling a stretcher, cardiac defibulator [shocking thingy] and everything) to see a little boy staring up at them. The little boy looks at the nearest nurse and whined ?my tummy hurts?. We teased that clerk for a good week afterwards.

[QUOTE=DeathBug] A fox manages to climb a tree to the birds' nest, and kills and eats the parent birds. Their babies die. The fox passes this skill onto its' offspring, and within one generation, then bird population in that area rapidly declines. [/QUOTE] Deathbug, this post is slightly off-topic and not intended to flame either of your opinions in the slightest. A quick lesson on evolution: The scenario you presented above was flawed in that it mentioned the gaining of a "skill". Skills, or attributes not associated with genetic property have nothing to do with evolution (I cannot pass down my ability to type on the computer to my son through my genes, but I can pass down my eye color). So in order for it to work the fox would have some sort of genetic mutation such as, say, a climbing claw. This would be an example of microevolution, or change within the species: as you have noted a commonly occurring event in nature. The problem with evolution as we see it now is macroevolution; or the change of an animal from one species, to evolve to another as a result of thousands, if not millions of macroevolutions. The only problem with this is that we have never, nor ever will observe macroevolution as it is hypothesized, to the extent that it is the "theory" of evolution is in fact a misnomer. It is not technically a theory, as the hypothesis can neither be observed, nor tested (it is known as a model). And I?m not even going to get in with the growing scientific problems arising in the validity of macroevolution, that?s a different thread entirely. Just here to clear a few technicalities up.

Thanks for posting Transtic, always good to hear a nearly polar opposite viewpoint than my own (except, as you should have found out, in the case of this thread). This is what makes threads like these exciting. [quote name='Transtic Nerve']I dunno why you just gave me the deffinitions of gay and homosexual. They both had nothing to do with what I stated. I said why do heterosexuals automatically associate a different sexual orientation with the ACT OF HAVING SEX... not all gay people have sex all the time, many are virgins... I just don't assume every heterosexual is having sex witht he opposite gender. Just as you should not assume every gay/bi person is having sex with the same gender. As I stated before and on MANY occations before hand, having sex with the same gender does not mean your gay. [/quote] I wasn?t giving the definitions as a rebuttal, TM; I usually follow up with some sort of harsh vitriol. I was merely providing them for mine, yours, and the other poster?s sake. In order to clarify the way I approach these two terms later. Being homosexual is engaging in sexual activity with a member of the same gender. Being GAY refers to the lifestyle that doesn?t actually require sex at all, that refers to the lifestyle. See what I mean? Hence, being bisexual or homosexual doesn?t mean you are gay. We both agree with that, I think. This is why I posted the most current PC definitions (reference: Dictionary.com). If we are going to debate the words themselves, then **** it, because language is far to imperfect for that. [QUOTE=Transtic Nerve] I never said anything about a list... I said there are millions of people who have had sex witht he same gender who remain heterosexual. Why do I find myself repeating what I already said? [/QUOTE] ?Originally Posted by Transtic Nerve As if anyone who goes and has sex with the same gender is automatically gay. This is not the case,[b] I could point out millions of people who have had sex with the same gender and who remain heterosexual to this day.[/b]? My [URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm][color=navy]sarcastic[/color][/URL] comment was merely pointing out how wildly unsubstantiated your claim that there are millions of experimenting people. Are you referring to the world? All of history? The United States? You are referring to the adolescent population (from which you referenced multiple psychiatrists, right?)? [QUOTE=Transtic Nerve] That was my point.... Thats what this whole topic is about... again it amazes me that everythign I said is being repeated again.... [/QUOTE] No, I was merely correcting a pretty terrible analogy. Having homosexual sex makes you a homosexual. Now? you can stop having homosexual sex, have heterosexual sex and then you ?were? a homosexual, but are now a heterosexual. Get it? A man who drives a racecar is a racecar driver. When he decides not to drive racecars, well that doesn?t eliminate the fact that he DID. [QUOTE=Transtic Nerve] Yes and its completely normal to think about sex and its completely normal to engage in the activity of sex... Are you saying that if two 12 year old boys engage in a sexual activity that they are now considered gay? Judging by your comment I would guess your answer to be yes. The reason i use the example of younger boys is because at that age curiosity in sexual development is at its peak. Just because someone is curious and tries something doesn't make them whatever they try. Am I the only one who understands what I'm saying or is it flying over everyone elses head too? [/QUOTE] Engaging in sexual activity for curiosity purposes? Isn?t that a bit antipodean of the nature of sex itself? Sex has one ?natural? purpose (don?t confuse this with normal purposes): to reproduce. I?m not arguing whether it?s right or wrong, but it is certainly not ?natural?. Humans are endowed with the ability to CHOOSE their actions, maybe not their sexual drive, erotic responses, and so forth. What they do with that natural sex drive is a conscious decision. Playing it off as ?natural experimentation? isn?t an excuse that I?ll let pass. Besides, I believe sex is a much more significant activity than, say, mountain climbing, even used as an analogy, it?s too important an ordeal in my opinion. [QUOTE=Transtic Nerve] I could tell you what activities were done, it was just stated as "sexual activities" and the reason doctors think it's normal is because ALOT of children going through those stages end up in some sort of sexual activity with another member of the same sex. [/QUOTE] Does anyone here see something strange in this? So because a bunch of kids have been recorded as sexually active with members of their same sex, it is suddenly deemed natural? So a because a large group of kids sneak into R-rated movies, we should **** the ratings system because it is ?normal? behavior? So because a large group of kids in our nation like to try the harder drugs, we should acknowledge this as normal activity and not bother enforcing the laws against it? I?m not saying that homosexuality should be a crime at all, it?s just that we are forgetting the fact that these kids are growing up to be adults. They NEED some sort of adult guidance to tell them what is right and what is wrong. When so many parents believe that homosexuality is wrong, and unnatural; who are these doctors to say that it is perfectly acceptable behavior? Because that is what homosexuality is a behavior that involves an activity, a behavior that is reliant on the PERSONAL CHOICE of the individual. I don?t want to debate if people are born gay or not, that?s not my argument. But something is seriously wrong when doctors say it?s ok for kids to just fool around and have sex, heterosexual OR homosexual. That?s the parent?s job. [QUOTE=Transtic Nerve] If you don't believe me, call your psychiatrist or just go to Barnes and Noble and get one of the bajillion books on going through puberty or sexual development and read it for yourself. Don't ask questions, do the work for once.[/QUOTE] That?s exactly what I want you to do TN. For all intensive purposes, your argument could be bunk. It?s your responsibility to support your evidence, especially when referring to a professional opinion instead of your own.

Holy Christwagons! This thread has turned into a full-fleged homosexuality debate. I thought this was about experimentation? [quote name='Transtic Nerve']Sometimes I can't understand why heterosexuals automatically associate the different sexual orientation with the act of having sex. [/quote] I suppose the closest PC definitions are: Gay=the lifestyle associated with an attraction and relationship with a member of the same sex. Homosexual= Having a [i]sexual[/i] orientation to a member of the same sex. [QUOTE=Transtic Nerve] As if anyone who goes and has sex with the same gender is automatically gay. This is not the case, I could point out millions of people who have had sex with the same gender and who remain heterosexual to this day. [/QUOTE] There?s a list for these people? Why wasn?t I told you had a list? [QUOTE=Transtic Nerve] Just because they dabled into the unknown to them doesn't automatically make them part of it. Its like if you decide to go mountain climbing, does that automatically make you a climber now? Or if you dive off a diving board for the first time, does that automatically make you a diver? [/QUOTE] ? Sure it does. I think you are confusing the verb with the professions orientated with them. A surgeon performs surgery. A mountain climber.. well.. climbs. Even if you don?t do it on a regular occasion, for that brief moment, you were a climber. Now I?m a firm beliver in the power of change. I don?t think that when someone ?tries? sex with a member of the same sex, then decides heterosexuality is the path for him/her, then I don?t believe he/she is currently homosexual. [QUOTE=Transtic Nerve] Of course not, so why would having sex witht he same gender automatically make you gay? It doesn't, so to answer the original question AGAIN, no, experimentation does not make you gay or bisexual, it simply is completely 100% NORMAL... and anyone who has never thought about it before is abnormal.... do you think gay people don't think about straight sex at least once in their life? lol. Its the same for both side, just one of those sides is to ashamed to admit it. [/QUOTE] Hey, I agree with you up until the ?normal? part. I?m not going to debate the merits and flaws of homosexuality. But I would not say having sex flagrantly for that matter is normal at all. It?s one think to think about having sex.. but to commit to the act is an entirely different arena. [QUOTE=Transtic Nerve] I was reading this book once on adolescence... actually it was two books (written by a straight male doctor and a straight female doctor).... both of which had similar subjects within the books. Both books brought up the subject of same-sex experimentation. Both books said that experimentation with the same sex was a normal activity during adolescence. It's part of growing up. It's part of being curious. It's part of finding who you truely are. You can't find out who you really are until you find out what you're not.[/QUOTE] I?m curious as to what activities were engaged, and why these doctors think this is a normal activity? I mean, if so many people are so morally or philosophically opposed to it, on what basis do these doctors call it ?normal?? Once again, my doubts aren?t on the right/wrong of the issue, but the validity. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]That can be debated. Every hear of hermaphrodites? There are babies born with both male and female parts (if you will). I'm one of those straight people who's of the opinion that you're born that way. Argue with me if you must. I also don't think therapy helps to change a person's sexual orientation. Al lyou get is a really angry person.[/color] Hey Chibi, do you even research what you are talking about? Pick a letter in this ENTIRE thread. That letter is a hermaphrodite. Next?. Flip a coin. If you flipped tails, you?ve got a penis and a vagina. If you flipped heads, you?ve got another common sexual gene-disorder (XXY for instance), or atrophied sexual organs (the tissue is there, but they aren?t working parts). This is the differentiation between synchronous and sequential hermaphrodites. Now, if you got a full fledged hermaphrodite with full working parts, guess what? Its genetic makeup has actually DETERMINED what gender it will be born as, and what it turns into (based on hormone development). Thanks to the sensitivity of modern medicine in realizing this gender confusion, usually a sequential hermaphrodite will be introduced into the correct hormone theropy and raised as the gender he/she will eventually develop in. Icing on the cake: There?s a good 70% chance of infertility. [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman] [color=darkviolet']As for natural...well, it's not really natural for humans to live in houses, drive cars or tell someone to go **** themselves when they don't agree with something someone else said, but we do it anyway. So, maybe we should stop doing that because it isn't natural. Hell, it really isn't natural to stay married to one person for the rest of your life so maybe all of society should just do like Britney and J-lo. [/color][/quote] Hey, no one?s telling you to drive a car or live in a house. I?m not making up excuses and calling cars or houses natural. They are unnatural. That may be a personal reason for why I?m opposed to the behavior, but I?m not going to pass it off as normalcy. Is it normal for everyone to go to school? In our society it is. In most others, it is not. Biological functions, it?s all elementary. Be sure to distinguish between natural and normal. In natural, I mean the functions of human beings in their.. well.. biological roles. Normal? For all intensive purposes homosexuality could (and probably will) become ?normal? in the near future. Do I think it is wrong for j-lo and Brittney to marry and divorce? Yes. Do I think it?s natural? Well, we aren?t creatures of instinct. So there is no solid answer to this. All lions are polygamous. All Emperor Penguins are monogamous. Humanity doesn?t have instinctual sexual behavior patters like that. Civilization gave them to us ;) . I don?t tend to use normal as a reason to do, or not do something. However in the case of sex or sexual relations, it is biologically abhorrent. Now?do I care if anyone does it? Not in the slightest, just don?t tell me that it?s natural. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman] [color=darkviolet] I think normal is just in someone's perception of what is deemed normal. That doesn't mean that you have to accept it, but you shouldn't try to change someone to suit your ideals. [/color][/QUOTE] Who?s ideals am I trying to change exactly? I?m not going to debate if it?s right or wrong to have sex with more than one person, or a member of the same species. This isn?t the thread. It?s getting irritating that I have to dodge this flak from you. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman] [color=darkviolet] Final note: I definately have to agree with TN about the whole sex thing. You aren't suddenly gay because you slept with another guy or another girl. [/color][/QUOTE] You?re right. Gay is a lifestyle change including the sex part. But for that moment in time you we?re a sodomizer/cunnilingus-izer. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman] [color=darkviolet] Just like you aren't automatically a director because you video taped your sister's birthday and you aren't suddenly a race car driver because you tore down a back road at 110mph. [/color][/QUOTE] Time for a lesson in perspective. What exactly makes someone a director? [url]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=director[/url] So because the person doesn?t have the million dollar productions, actors, film crews, etc. , they aren?t directors? So what does that make low-budget theatre people? Or reality TV? Is it the act of ?putting on a show? what makes someone a director? What do you call a birthday party , then? Sounds like a show to me, or at least some form of entertainment. The dictionary backs me up. All it says is that you need a film to direct. Even the camcorders have film in them! So my answer is YES, you are (to a lesser degree then those in Hollywood) a director. And so we return to the difficult task of assigning labels to individuals. Does committing a crime make a person a criminal for his entire life, even after he gets out of jail? Some people say yes, some say no. *shrug* Silly, to be a racecar driver.. you need a ?race? car. Or to actually ?race?. Tearing down a back road at 110mph just makes you a criminal. ;) [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman] [color=darkviolet] And it's not like homosexuals go out and have sex with everyone they see, just like heterosexuals don't go around sleeping with everyone they see. There are such things as standards.[/color][/QUOTE] The hell? So it is ok to call homosexuality a ?standard? even though it is far from the realm of cultural normalcy.. then defend promiscuity by pointing out to me that monogamy was ?not natural?? then you get your rocks off by claiming that ?sleeping with everyone they see? ISN?T normal? (promiscuous sex is far more common, I?d say, than homosexual sex) Sounds to me like someone can?t make up their mind. Do you have some sort of handbook you are following telling you what is normal and what isn?t? How exactly are you determining what is right and what is wrong; what is your moral base for such an argument? And how the hell did this topic turn into what is normal and what is not? Oh yeah? someone said it was, and I got fumed ;).