Drix D'Zanth

[QUOTE=kenshinsbabe][SIZE=2][FONT=Georgia]Foolish humans? And what are you, some god? But that's not the point. All that nuclear bomb stuff was done in a lab. Knowing alchemy is like being a walking nuclear reaction. It's having the power of a nuclear reaction at your fingertips.[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE] Well the degeneration of one radioisotope to another is fairly testable, predictable, and dangerous. I mean... how does Alchemy work mechanistically? What exactly do you do to "transmute" metals?? Obviously the power to have a nuclear reaction at your fingertips would be quite a painful power indeed, especially considering extensive work in nuclear chemistry could easily increase your chances of acquiring genetic deficiencies and cancer. Unless Alchemists just wear lead suits and I've been in the dark the whole time. So tell me, how exactly would one perform alchemy? [QUOTE=MangaFan007]私　は　人間　です。 ( わたし　は　にんげん 　です。 ) I am human, and as a human, I possess the foolishness of the specie. The power of a nuclear reaction is indeed in your fingertips (check the theory of relativity and quantum physics for this).[/QUOTE] I gotta love the effort, but someone here is trying to [i]sound[/i] intelligent. Unfortunately, anyone reasonably trained in even basic chemistry and physics have to smile at your parenthetical claim. The theory of relativity has almost [b]nothing[/b] to do with nuclear chemistry; or thermonuclear reactions for that matter. The theory of relativity, specifically "special relativity" (In reference to the published works of Einstein in 1905) deals with the postulate that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum to every observer. This also carries with it, the idea that the Laws of Physics are the same for all observers. Quantum physics also has pretty much nothing to do with the claim "The power of a nuclear reaction is indeed in your fingertips". Quantum physics refers to electrochemistry and the movement of electrons. It also has a great deal to do with energy diagrams and energy potential of various atoms. This information is usually quantitative based upon wave mechanics and photochemistry because of the nature of wavelengths and light. I?m being incredibly brief on both theories, and leaving out several key bits of information. However, I?m trying to generalize these in order to reveal how grossly MangaFan007 misunderstands actual science.

[QUOTE=Tyler Koregaten]Actually it is legal because I count as a soldier. Even so, the State Alchemists' Treasury covers research and all of that, so I guess that's why. By the way, I don't make elixirs or transmute metals, that's not even alchemy. That's an Ancient Egyptian practice called [I]Al-khemi[/I] whixh was the practice of creating elixirs and transmuting base metals. As you see, many people confused that word as a typo for alchemy, so they used that definition. Almost every source and text uses that definition. This is alchemy's true definition: The complex science of transmuting objects of certan masses into objects of the same mass through use the of alchemic energy. This science follows a code of laws called the [I]Magnus Opus[/I] and is a rare science which is practiced by less than 1,000 people worldwide. Most transmutations are done through the use of a transmutation circle, which harbors alchemic energy based on the arrays within the circle. Th only object that can bypass a transmutation circle is a Philosopher's Stone or a Red Stone. There. You should be getting a clearer picture of my occupation now. Oh, yeah, to become a State Alchemist, you must pass the Stately Certified Alchemist Exam, which takes about 4 and a half hours to do. Oy. :animeknow[/QUOTE] Anyone else here as allergic to this ******** as I am? Over the summer I work as a paramedic-certified Emergency Room Tech/med. I recently received my ACLS certification, so now I'm allowed to defibrillate (shock) people and better interpret ECGs. I can start IVs, I perform CPR, assist on many procedures, suture, draw blood, trauma response, bag-and-vent, intubate, and pretty much whatever people throw at me. I'm about as capable as an RN except that I cannot administer medications without a (RN, MD, or DO) witness. In fairness, most RNs are absolutely incapable of proper splinting and casting, I was trained and certified by an Orthopedic Surgeon. Sometimes the doctor will let me stick someone with.. say... Tetanus for practice. Doc's also let me work under their license so I could perform some cool procedures, like a chest tube placement- I basically made a small incision near the 5th intercostal space and rammed a large plastic tube into the lung to drain it of blood. Lots of muscle work that day . An added perk is that I'm allowed to attend any surgery at the hospital because I'm a budgeted employee. So I've been able to witness many surgeries; from an aneurysm repair to a full-hip replacement. This experience has been invaluable. At the moment I'm working on my undergrad studies and preparing for Medical School

[QUOTE=Brasil] And it is a separation of church and state, because the ammendment establishes that the government will not attempt to restrict religious practice and freedoms, in that it will not act with regards to religion. Public schools are government insitutions, and therefore, by extension, they also will not endorse or suppress religion or religious freedoms. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to say that there is certainly a very clear separation of church and state as it applies in this situation. And if that's not a valid reason why to argue for religion or religious doctrine not being taught in public school? [/QUOTE] I shall only address certain key arguments that I might have with your overall point, Alex. You make a very reasonable and valid argument. We agree more than you may think concerning the establishment of religion in governing people. Church and State are separated for an important reason; as bureaucrats will often use religious zeal to manipulate or excuse often tyrannical actions. But that is a digression from the current subject matter. I would agree that religious indoctrination in highschool is obviously an abuse of the First, however, not the education of said religions. That being said, I must point out that the Idea of Intelligent Design does not necessarily call into specific bearing the identity of said creator. You cite ?teleological? or purposeful evolution as perhaps a valid option. The idea of a purposeful evolution flies in face of current evolutionary theory, and right along track of Intelligent Design. The idea is that the designer isn?t nearly as important as the purposefulness of life?s conception and composition. That said, a class period of open debate as to the ?designer? of life may or may not be warranted, but it never calls upon a specific creed or religious doctrine. It calls upon primarily, a restructuring of our current ideas of macroevolution and the Modern Synthesis. Intelligent Design basically evens down to: your theory is disproved, how about this idea? [QUOTE=Brasil] So why should a concept like Intelligent Design, which is no different than the people of Mesopotamia blaming the gods for floods, a concept that [i]relies[/i] on a belief in a higher power that is unproven, be taught in a modern classroom? I.D. is no different from ancient superstitions. For all intents and purposes, it's the same thing. [/QUOTE] It is quite different; ID doesn?t need to point to anything but objective and quantitative evidence. [QUOTE=Brasil] To point to I.D. and say that it should be taught in a science course because particulars of evolution can't be observed? If unobservable particulars of evolution deem that evolution shouldn't be taught exclusively in a science, and if I.D. is just as unobservable, seems like it makes that pro-I.D. argument moot.[/QUOTE] Almost, not just unobservable, but the basic mechanics behind evolution as a current theory is broken. This isn?t the first time this has happened, and it is important to all scientific theories to re-evaluate each as new evidence becomes available. While I?m not saying these problems with the theory warrant disproving it, you must consider that if an ?unprovable, unobservable? evolutionary force is to be taught, why not the same ?unprovable, unobservable? idea of ID? [quote name='Morpheus]The thing is that the Big Bang [B]Theory[/B'] is a scientific theory: A theory of something happening in our physical world. Intelligent design is based on thought while the big bang is based on sciencentific evidence.[/quote] Well, you demonstrate a misunderstanding for Intelligent Design. It uses the same information that Evolution uses, and doesn?t disprove the vast majority of evolution. Instead, ID. Proposes a necessary [i]means[/i] behind the current biological unity and diversity. Ah, Ilium. Good to see you?ve made your return on this thread. I can see that given time, you?ll take away plenty from this discourse. But it?s time to educate : [QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed] Evolution is based on reactions and forces and various other effects that are going on now and have been documented. Thus it can be concluded that these same processes were going on billions of years ago - barring the laws of physics getting changed somwhere down the road. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Evolution is an emergent property at the [b]population[/b] level based on selection pressures acting on specific gene frequencies. Many evolutionary functions are only emerging following the more complex emergence of eukaryotic organisms about 1.5 bya. While certain biochemical processes may be evidenced dating so far back as 3.8 bya, the actual processes of more complex evolution did not arise until much later. That?s not much of a concern, however, to either of our arguments. [QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed] Than it's simple a matter of determining which is the more likely course of evolution based on discoveries and natural observations. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Now, what if said discoveries based on ?natural observations? prove to be out of line with the current evolutionary design? Is saying, ?We haven?t discovered it yet? any less of an excuse than ?because god willed it?? [QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed] ID, on the other hand, is based on the one unprovable: the existence of a god. Therefore, teaching it in science class is preaching - preaching is somthing we need a lot less of. If you have a class that discusses religions, than it's fine. It's not telling you to believe that there was some creator who created us and these natural processes. It's saying 'X believes Y', not 'X happened'. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] You?ve learned of Socrates and Plato in high-school? Correct? Now, the two Greek philosophers relied on ?reason? to argue the vast majority of their claims. However, each of these philosophers staunchly defended ?piety? (with regard to Greek mythology) as a virtuous trait. In fact, Socrates defended his own piety when put on trial in Plato?s Apology. Now, is it necessary to accept the dogma of Greek Mythology to put their philosophies into context? It is not. Neither is it necessary to examine or determine an applicable dogma to the purposeful design and co-ordination of biology. So, enough about that worry, let?s try to look at it from a scientific standpoint, please.

And the wonderful, and misconstrued, idea of ?The separation of Church and State? rears its ugly mane. While, of course, there is really no such thing as a separation of church and state in the constitution? but wait? there isn?t? Well, let?s examine the constitution: ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That doesn?t sound like we shouldn?t teach religion in schools at all. Let?s examine the historical context behind the claim. Many people do not truly understand the historical context of this statement. The vast majority of America?s first settlers were the Puritans, who left England for *gasp* religious differences. Of course, England is a perfect example of how government and religion do [i]not[/i] always get along. So our framers thought it wise to prevent a religiously-dictated government within the first amendment. How exactly does this support the argument that religion should not be taught in public schools? Now the tune changes from ?No religion should be taught? to ?Religion is fine if it?s in a religion class or history class, not science?. Why is that? Surely, as long as there is no law prohibiting such a ?religious idealism? as Intelligent Design, it should be allowed in our science classes? ?Of course not, because it?s not science. Science is objective, rational, and relies on proof. Religion is faith based, subjective, and relies on testimony.? So then, the idea of all of the complex life on earth evolving from common ancestry through allopatric speciation (macro-evolution) is objective and provable? Certainly, to be taught as a science it must be. Because we all have empirically observed an example of macroevolution and can most certainly test the theory in a laboratory, right? The truth is, the modern synthesis is no less faith-based than any of the major religions.

Chibihorsewoman, There is only so much one can tell a person in grief before the words fall short of an earnest destination. I can only offer so many condolences before the validity of my conviction fades. Much of the advice that you will recieve is going to be the stuff of [U]Chicken Soup for the Soul[/U]. But beneath the sometimes banal and archetypical "therapy" we may offer you, know that suffering as a human condition we can all share and empathize. Know that I, for one, care sincerely about your difficulty. I think about what it means to be a Christian when I see how evil the world can be to you. It has dawned on me exactly what that means, how short we fall as Christians. You and I disagree almost completely on many social, ethical, and religious issues- and we've clashed multiple times, exchanging often hurtful words for the sake of discourse. I want you to understand that despite my past behavior, I truly have love for you in your moment of need. I know that if an insignificant person like myself has such a compassion for you, Jesus certainly does to. Please seek him out.

Wow. I havent seen such a double post bananza since...must have been when chibi first started posting here in OB (haha, just a joke). I suppose I used to be easier to anger than most until I started realizing exactly what a virtue patience is. I suppose it occured after the first significant fight I got in. I was a pretty short, scrawny, awkward kid during middle school. I always avoided conflict out of my own insecurity and fear. Somewhere between that time and my senior year, I grew a pair. A particular tormenter was visiting his alumni when he spotted me. Thinking I was easy prey, he started prodding at me again. He said the usual "What you gonna do." And I [i]smiled[/i] at him. Why? Well, besides growing a pair.. I had also learned how to fight. In fact, my friends and I had been practicing unlicensed boxing for months (fun, fair fights). I told him to take his best shot. He did, and he knocked me to the ground, breaking my nose. I stood up, spat the blood in his face, and one-punched him. He went down and he didn't get up. He started crying. He was crying because I broke some of his teeth. It struck me that I didn't feel good about my actions at all. Yeah, the guy deserved it. I felt guilty at that moment because I had the capability to walk away, but I chose to float to his level. I was no more a thug than he. Two days ago a frat guy issued me the same challenge. He misintepreted something I had to say (fishing for insults) and threatened to throw me through a wall. I looked at him and said, "Listen, I wasn't trying to offend you." Here's the key folks, you don't owe your bully anything but honesty, but don't be afraid of him... look him in the eye and don't back down. He said it again, he was going to kick my ***. So I looked at him and said, "Sure, I'll let you **** me up. But only on one condition: you beat me in a debate." Obviously he started laughing, and his buddy started laughing too. I said with solid intent, "You just don't understand, do you? You're at college. You think this muscle matters here? (I pointed at my bicep) You're here for the wrong reasons. You should be here to exercise this muscle. (I pointed at my head) Think about it." Then I walked away. He hasn't bothered me since.

[QUOTE=Raiyuu][font=Trebuchet MS] Drix, what's Macroevolution? I haven't come across it before. From what you said I guess it's another alternative theory to evolution? [/font][/QUOTE] Macroevolution is merely the progression of microevolutionary processes such as natural selection, mutation, and allele shifting to produce two, or more, divergently independent species from one common ancestor. The problem most people have is not the mechanisms that support the idea of a common ancestor yielding species diversity, but the idea that one species can evolve into two different species. Macroevolution, requiring estimated tens of thousands of years to occur, is not testable or reproducible in a laboratory. It remains, therefore, far less objectively valid than the processes that purportedly generate macroevolution. Natural selection, on the other hand, influences microevolution. Let?s address a few recent posts: [QUOTE=Dagger] Of course, not all alternative viewpoints are right. Not all will survive the test of the years. The theory of evolution itself took a very long time to be accepted. As far as I'm concerned, the scientists are being too defensive, and the IDers are expecting too much to happen in a rather short period of time. I think it would be just as much a victory for them to make ID a major part of the curriculum of philosophy courses; people shouldn't need science's seal of approval to believe in God (or consider the idea of believing in one), anyway. :animesigh ~Dagger~[/QUOTE] Well that seems fair. But let?s throw macroevolution, the big bang theory, and every other pseudo-scientific theory in with it. There?s no argument to microevolution. I?m not even opposed to macroevolution, but I can?t help but think that some creator had to drive it. Does this creator need an identity? Maybe classroom discourse would be nice. [QUOTE=ForgottenRaider] Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and has never tried to be, it hasn't submitted any evidence or research to any recognised source... It just rocked up one Friday afternoon when every one just wants to knock off and get a beer from a bunch of guys who thought they could do some thing interesting one day. And that is why it is so laughable in the real world, at least when some one pushes it as a non Christian scientific theory instead of a faith based adaptation of Evolution that sits nicely with the Bible which when you get down to it is all it is. The community of scientists has never had a chance to formally put this theory to death because it has never been presented to them for logical and straight forward debate. (I wonder why?) This isn't ID vs Evolution. This is a bunch (and a small one at that, they just have big mouths) of Christians putting down Evolution because it doesn't fit their nice safe world as described by God. Scientists know that it is a joke but they are fighting it because the implication of taking science out of the science class room is unthinkable. RAmen.[/QUOTE] Hey now, Raider, let?s not be harsh. No need to patronize the scientists, scholars, and authors who oppose the idea of a random control over the generation life and it?s diversity. Take Kurt Vonnegut, who appeared on the Daily Show Tuesday (which is running a week-long series entitled, ?Evolution Schmevolution? watch it. It is very entertaining); esteemed author was quoted in response to the idea of Evolution that he was ?Scientifically trained, but had to believe that there was some sort of intelligent designer behind the process of evolution.? Surely you aren?t one to call Mr. Vonnegut- author of renowned works such as Slaughterhouse-Five and Cat?s Cradle- a ?big-mouthed? and essentially [i]stupid[/i] Christian. Obviously Vonnegut, who is not only a self-proclaimed humanist and supporter of the ACLU would have an obligation to push his republican religious-right agenda? You are going to have to accept the fact that Americans are almost equally divided with this issue, including a great many Scientitsts. There?s nothing wrong with justifying your faith against the indoctrination of high school, is there? Isn?t it a place to learn and grow? Why not provide students with this alternative, so that they may be taught the mechanisms of evolution without having to fear the undue dichotomy of science and religion? Thoughts?

[QUOTE=Siren] And as it stands? Something tells me there wasn't an "eye poof!" Do you get what I'm saying here? You're making an argument that is more the complete antithesis of an argument supporting the idea of ID.[/QUOTE] Alex has a valid argument here. While Chabichou and I may agree with regards to ID, I do feel that her representation of the ID ideologue as a whole is in fact detrimental to the point that I?ve been trying to make. While Chabichou?s arguments may not be so antiphonal to ID as Alex has described, they do represent a short-sightedness in the community that supports the implementation of this new idea in our schools. Case in point: the ?eye? argument. This has been a wide topic of debate within the scientific community, one which will indubitably end in an ?acceptable? theory from the Evolutionary Biologist?s standpoint and a continued ?rebuttal? from the ID Biologist. In fact, this argument doesn?t necessarily illustrate exactly [i]why[/i] ID has any bearing in a scientific forum, aside from being the voice of dissent, whatsoever. Why don?t we think critically about the possibility of Intelligent Design based on reason? For instance, Alex brought up the fact (somewhat) that bats are blind. It is true that while some bats have poor vision (only able to identify variable shades of bright light, or pitch black) others have more acute vision than our own. However, most (70%) bats rely on echolocation as a specific navigation and hunting mechanism. Echolocation is an irreducibly complex system. That is, if the physiology of the bat (let?s say, through mutation, for instance) is manipulated slightly; or a piece of the system were to be removed ? it would fail entirely. Evolution explains that echolocation is a result of many random mutations occurred in the ancient bat ancestor (who invariably relied on its eyesight). After millions of generations, many of the organs and muscle systems that echolocation rely on were somehow expressed in some of the earlier bats before the mechanism was even capable of functioning, finally the first bat with the primitive echolocation (which, is incredibly complex as it is) was born. It must have beat the odds, and relied on its new advantage to acquire a successful nocturnal lifestyle (where typical visual sight is impaired). This seems reasonable and all, as the bat with a complete echolocation system must have had a [b]dynamic[/b] nocturnal advantage over the bats relying on visible light. However, what about the bats resting in-between the developing echolocation. Why were they evolving physiologically to accommodate a system that wasn?t even functioning for them? Evolutionists could conclude that the actual developments were purposeless until Natural Selection [b]made[/b] it important. Those supporting ID could say that it is neither any more likely nor unlikely to say that some creator had designed this function, than it being a result of random mutation and non-random selection. Now, I hope that Chabichou let Alex have this last word and please walk away from this thread. If you want to debate evolution, that?s probably another thread. ID is not supposed to be a giant rebuttal, asking questions. It is merely another postulation to a question which is far too complex to definitively answer within our lifetimes. Instead, I ask you to return to my thesis on page 2 of this discussion thread and respond. Is there a valid reason behind it?s discourse in even a science-environment? If ID should be reserved for a social-studies class, why not the idea of Macroevolution (Modern Synthesis)? Why can?t they both draw upon the same science and draw separate conclusions?

It has been very interesting hearing all of your ideas. I think everyone here is at least thinking critically about the issue and arguments between the current Modern Synthesis and the idea of Intelligent Design. The questions of course are as follows: -Is Intelligent Design Valid? -Should Intelligent Design, if it is valid, be taught in school? I think we should all clear up a few ideas first about what [i]should[/i] be taught in school. Every concept that is, and has been used to evidence a theory of macroevolution is valid, and empirical. Science is a study of objective and empirical evidence in order to rationalize the way the world [i]is[/i] (has been, and will be in the more advanced sciences). Concepts such as microevolution, allele frequency, genetics, gene mutation, heredity, hybridization, ecology, and natural selection are all very real processes that can be studied. In fact, for this debate to continue, we must identify the specific ideas that are being argued. The theories I?ve listed before of mutation and natural selection (what are considered the engine behind our current all-encompassing theory) are valid, testable, and to remain in a scientific setting. And while science could easily be interpreted as a search for the ?truths? of the world, it does assume knowledge is fallible and every theory (including gravity) is possibly incorrect. For instance, while Gravity seems such an obvious idea, physicists don?t actually know [b]why[/b] it occurs. There have been many opposing theories and complex explanations, but if one continues asking ?how? and begins to divide each concept, the basest elements are still not understood. Macroevolution as a result of the Modern Synthesis of paleontology, genetics, geographical biology, and biochemistry is the postulation that the very real changes of microevolution and natural selection explains the fact that there is an abundant diversity of complex life on this Earth. This is what is known as an ecological ?emergent property? much as flocking behavior could not be observed at an individual level of biological organization; neither, then can macroevolution. The most intimate driving force, however, behind the change is based upon the random mutation of various alleles. Intelligent Design as a result of paleontology, genetics, geographical biology, and biochemistry is the postulation that the very real changes of microevolution and natural selection do [b]not[/b] adequately explain the abundance of complex and diverse life on Earth. Intelligent Design concludes that there are biochemical mechanisms (such as those irreducibly complex) so complex that no amount of random mutation could explain our current perception of life. Instead of a random chance-driven ?fate? as Microevolution concludes, ID rides the assumption that microevolution and natural selection are only ?mechanisms? used by some creator. Macroevolution is neither more nor less empirically true than the Big Bang theory, or for that matter, Intelligent Design. Why is that so? Because both Intelligent Design and Macroevolution accept the same- mechanisms; genetic change, natural selection- neither is any more valid than the other. The Pope has accepted Evolution as an acceptable explanation of how God created this earth. This is Intelligent Design in a nutshell. Can you objectively test macroevolution? No, you cannot. You can only credit the mechanisms behind macroevolution to evidence it?s existence. Intelligent Design does the same thing. I think [b]both[/b] should be in school if they can be managed correctly. I think Intelligent Design should not attempt to identify the creator. I think it should be open to a class discussion; what then, do you think is the creator? I think the discourse is an important element of the educational process even if it is on such esoteric ideas as theology or perhaps a logic-driven philosophical explanation of being (Parmenides? notion of One, for instance). Overall, I hope that what remains objective (genetics, microevolution, etc) should remain in Biology. Macroevolution and Intelligent Design should be reserved for a discussion, or perhaps another class entirely.

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed] Furthermore, the Bush Admin's protectionism has killed another prime industry of Canada: Lumber. By completely disregarding NAFTA and illegally ******* over the Canadian Lumber Industry they've already cost us 5 Billion or more and caused hundreds of plants to go out of buisness, thousands of jobs have been lost. Again, and this one is more of the US' Government in general, the US completely disregarded legality and fairness by patroling Canadian waters in the Artic with it's subs. As little a deal as this is now, once the North West Passage opens up it's going to be a VERY big deal; the US has a 'If we can't have it, Canada sure can't.' attitude on the subject. Arguements to declare it international waters, thus killing Canada's right to taxes of ships passing through, are already in progress. In closing: The Bush Administration makes me sick. They prattle on about spreading democracy and peace and making the world a better place, and than turn around and do exactly what they claim to be stopping. Two-faced rotten bastard. I've heard people say Bush is worse than Hitler, and, though I don't necessarily agree, they do have a point: at least Hitler addmitted he was going evil. There's nothing worse than somone who says 'Don't worry, I got your back!' and than shoots you. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Hitler never admitted he was "going evil". He was so staunch on his beliefs he let his country die before he realized that the war was lost. Even then, he killed himself instead of being captured. Illium, while we can both agree that the US Gov't was too slow to react to this disaster, and that we should have been better prepared- blaming the lack of relief on Bush is both irrational and infantile. Don't take advantage of a truly tragic situation to push your political agenda. This is exactly the wrong way of going about this the wrong way. If you think President Bush is Hitler, take it to another thread... I think attacking him EVEN while he is working at this very moment to help NO is not only innappropriate, but misplaced.

[QUOTE=ChibiSaki][COLOR=Plum][FONT=Comic Sans MS]okies.do u think ghosts exist?for me i dunno.i mean if u think about it,its not totally ridiculous.i mean dead souls unable to rest wandering watching...its believable.and i think a part of everyone thinks they do exist.i mean when ppl walk past in a dark places all alone more or less they get the creeps.like cemeteries and other dark places. and then there are those tv shows and books that say that their real life ghost stories...i just dunno what to think.tell me what u all think.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] I wonder why people think that ghosts would hang out in cemetaries??? Think about it, if the dead are somehow fettered to whatever unfortunate event caused their death, they would logically be found near or around their deathplaces. Who dies in a cemetary?

Well I was reading Time in New York and it was dominated by a picture of the Sistine's God (you know, god touching life into Adam) touching fingers with a monkey. In bold letters was the phrase Intelligent design. What ensued was an interesting article illustrating the dialogue between differeng philosophies on the way our next generation should be taught. Is intelligent design an acceptable alternative to Evolution? What do you believe? I took these questions to several renowned biologists here at Hope. I was able to sit down for a satisfying discussion with a nobel laurate, Dr. Thomas Bultman... head of the biology department and engage in this very topic of conversation one on one. He had some interesting things to share with me. I'll give the population here at OB to answer the question first, in fairness... what are your opnions?

*Shrug* Screamo music is only so much fun. I actually gagged when I saw the "Helena" music video. They seem to be buying into their fame more than the possibility of creating some sort of meaningful sound. I think they should take a lesson from the Dead Kennedys.

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed] Notice I said etc.? Coming home safely seems to be a major factor in supporting the troops, since if you don't support them coming home safely what can you support them for?[/COLOR][/QUOTE] Well you can support them in a variety of ways. You can support them by making sure our government appropriately allocates tax dollars to keep them well-equipped and trained so they are at their safest during combat. Even if you disagree with the war, you could encourage them to finish the job. You should at least extend the dignity to these soldiers; a dignity that, in recent history, was stripped of soldiers before. [QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed] Supporting the troops isn't about just supporting their actions. They don't have a choice about their actions, usually. Just because they're aware of it doesn't mean that they agree with the war. Or that they have the chance to go to war in the war they don't agree with. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Do you realize how infantile you're portraying these troops as? You're saying that they had no concnious decision in their career! That's like telling a fireman that he even though his job description is extinguishing fires- he probably wasn't expecting to put out fires, nor would he have any inclination to agree with his job expectancy. Sure, there's troops who don't agree with the motives behind the war, but the simple truth is that they are involved in open conflict. Until it's resolved, I'm going to support their actions, regardless of whether or not I agree with the conflict. Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with the conflict in Iraq either.

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed] I think that your logic doesn't really make sense. You can support the troops, that they come home safely etc, but can disagree with the war. It's not the Soldiers choice to go into whatever conflict; it's decided by somone else and they don't have a choice but to do it. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [these discussions move quickly!] Actually, you aren't supporting the troops. You are supporting the end of a war. You are supporting their coming home. You aren't supporting their current job whatsoever! Oh, give them the credit they deserve. Soldiers are well aware of the possibility of entering a conflict with any possiblity of a rival nation, or threat to our nation. I'm not saying the Iraq war was justified. I'm just saying that the soldiers have made that choice beforehand.

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]So, you can [i]only[/i] support the troops [i]and[/i] the war, but not just the troops? That doesn't add up to me, I think it has to do with the whole, I supported my ex through this whole army thing, but I really don't agree with this war. I think the war is wrong.I think the reasons for going to war are wrong and I think Bush is as dumb as a bag of hammers, but that doesn't make me the bad guy. I supprot the troops, I'll support them because they're doing their job, not because I agree with what their boss told them to do. Okay so give me a cookie since I'm going to put something you said in my signature for a while[/color][/QUOTE] Your philosophy doesn't quite make sense. There's not a draft. Everyone who is in the military is there on their own volition. Therefore, everyone in the military accepts the responsibility and the consequences of their own actions. I'm not sure how one can support the troops in Iraq without supporting their actions. That's like saying you support the doctor, but you don't support the surgery he performs. If a man is defined by his actions, and you don't agree with their actions (or think they are morally wrong, of which the supporters of Cindy Sheenan believe) then how can you justify calling him "virtuous"- or "supporting" his behavior? Hey, I'm not about to say that actions of a soldier are the only qualities that define the soldier as a moral being. However, Cindy Sheenan is basically saying that, as far as her late son is concerned, she opposed with her son's actions (and choice to fight a war she considers unjust). But Cindy won't go out and say it. She's passing the blame up the ladder. She's disrespecting the choice her son made and the risks he accepted. She's not supporting the actions of the troops in Iraq, she opposes every second they remain in the foreign country.

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed] I meant that now when we see somthing we can't explain we don't just right it off as an act of God, we can adaquitly explain most things or at least do somthing to try and find out. Religion was created to explain the then-unexplainable and is more or less usless in this day and age. [/COLOR][/QUOTe] We can try as we may, but the truth of life... and the more you study what we already know, the more you'll run into the same knowledge barricades that we all share... is that there are still many concepts that cannot be explained. Not only this, the information that remains unexplainable often is far too important to ignore. Basic Chemistry is 99% of all the concepts you'll ever learn. Often this is covered in a couple semesters of college. All more advanced chemistry classes deal with more esoteric processes that are still open to debate and discovery. Much of life and the universe still remains fairly mysterious. I don't use God as a scapegoat. I don't [i]need[/i] an explanation for earth's creation. God is more of a philosophical and character guide than anything, besides his forgiveness and relationship. [QUOTE=Ilium] [COLOR=DarkRed] I don't understand what you mean, I've studied a lot about evolution and it makes a hell of a lot more sense that humans just... were. Human Evolution probably makes the most sense. How life came to be is considerably more complicated, I don't fully understand it, but the basics make sense. [/COLOR][/QUOTe] How about we look at blood clotting! [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_clotting[/url] Every protien involved in blood clotting is a critical, and irreplacable, factor in the cascade resulting in our bleeding being stopped. Were any protein missing from the cycle, it would fail completely. Not only that, the proteins in blood clotting each require their own specific line of genetic code on the strand of DNA. Are you going to tell me that this critical process of blood clotting evolved over thousands of slow mutations and somehow the jigsaw fit itself to produce a closed circulatory system capable of clotting? Gee, believing in a concept so outlandish sounds kinda like.... faith. Yup, you've got faith in these scientific theories and you are eating up every scientist's educated guess like it's God's word. [QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed] As for the argument about faith, well, I just find it fun. Argueing about fairy-tales always makes me feel like a scholar.[/COLOR][/QUOTe] Intriguing how you can patronize my faith when you don't even recognize the simple fact that we both share the same goddamn thing.

I?ll give Gavin credit? few floors in the hospital are more sober than the Oncology (cancer) wing. My worst day was exactly two weeks ago in the Emergency Department at the hospital I work at as a Tech (ACLS paramedic-level). Working in Emergency, you get used to your first code [i]quickly[/i] (a code is, roughly defined, cardiac arrest rhythms). I remember the first code I set foot in and froze up, seeing the pallid human lying on the cart, watching them defibrillate (yes, they shout ?clear?), and the ET intubation (breathing tube insertion). One quickly becomes driven out of the emotional shock. Now the overweight fifty-old-rolls in from the ambulance class 1 (aka code blue in the ambulance) and we strip, sticker, shock. Easy push of the epinephrine, bicarbonate, and we?ve got him hooked up to our monitor. The patient is most likely in ventricular tachycardia (v-tach), ventricular fibrillation (v-fib), and very rarely? the ever deadly Asystole (flatline, aka dead). Charge the defib to 200 and the patient hops a couple inches off the bed. Chest compressions, clear, shock. Usually the doc orders respiratory to stand-by and he intubates, charge to 300, and shock. I?m usually running the ECG, working the defib, or performing CPR. Like I said, after the first one, the shock of the moment melts away rapidly and the staff becomes calm, focused, and driven. Nothing could have prepared me for my Wednesday shift two weeks ago. I walked into a fairly abandoned ER. Now that means one of two things: -We?re terribly short-staffed and the nurses are tied up in multiple, tedious duties. -The majority of the nurses/doctors/PAs/techs are in the trauma rooms. It seemed close to disaster. As I walked down towards rooms 1-5 (our trauma/critical rooms) I could hear the beeping of heart monitors alarming and the high pitched beep of a defib charging. I walked into the nearest room, slapped on gloves, and inquired the charting nurse (usually there?s one nurse tracking every type of statistic, drug, or procedure during the code). The guy looked pale, diaphoretic, and ? well? dead. Apparently I had walked in twenty minutes into the resuscitation. I didn?t even get to lay my hands on the guy before they shocked him the fourteenth (yes, four-*******-teenth) time. Even if he had pulled through, his brain would have been so cooked it?s doubtful he would?ve even woken up. The doctor called time of death and I thought to myself, ?What a great start.? The MedCom beeped signaling an incoming ambulance. The nurse took the report and the entire station (where doctors and nurses hang out) went DEAD silent. Two-year-old, priority one (a step away from class 1), hit by a truck. We stabilized the kid without shocking him, but few things can prepare you for a pediatric trauma. We were lucky to get any perfusion, by the time the kid arrived we noticed the distended belly. The RRT on staff immediately said to remove the lock on the ET (breathing) tube, he pulled back and we listened. The paramedics, in their haste, intubated the wrong tube? the kid wasn?t getting any oxygen. His oximetry sat was in the low 80?s? not good. So a kid, bleeding from his ears, fixed pupils, obvious closed-head injury wasn?t receiving nearly enough oxygen for close to 10 minutes. After stabilizing him as best we could, the AeroMed was called to ship him off to DeVos Children?s hospital. I didn?t get a chance to see him off before the next ambulance rolled in. Make that two. One priority one respiratory arrest, and another priority one attempted suicide. The respiratory arrest turned out to be a hemorrhagic stroke, the little old lady was quickly circling the drain. Hemorrhagic strokes, unlike the more common Ischemic, usually have a far higher mortality rate. The little old lady was intubated, ventilated, and we watched and crossed our fingers. Across the hall, the ambulance crew wheeled in our attempted suicide. Most of the attempted suicides that we encounter are usually the depressed people downing every medication that they have. This case was quite different. This particular teen sliced his wrists with some sort of serrated blade. Blood was saturating every pad we held pressure to, and as we changed dressings it would squirt clear across the floor. Somehow the depressed teen had severed both radial and ulnar arteries. This kid either knew his anatomy, or he had some terrible luck. He was scared too, I could see him shaking, and the tears staining his cheeks. He shook again and said ?I?m scared? as I held his bloody wrist in my hand promising him that he?ll make it. His lips were the color of his face, and his blood pressure was dropping. Finally the hemolytic cream kicked in and the bleeding stopped. Another tech relieved me and I washed the blood off of my hands and arms. I snagged the emergency release from the doctor, ran to blood bank, and picked up two units of O-neg. I decided to check on the little old lady, after the attempted suicide seemed stable. Gorked. That?s the vulgar expression that the nurse whispered to me. The old lady would make it up to the ICU, but she wasn?t leaving the hospital alive. CT revealed only a matter of time before she went into multi-system failure. The family walked in, and I had to walk out. If there?s one thing that can draw a jaded, machine of a medical professional out of his psyche, it?s the family of said patient. MedCom beeped again, another MI (myrocardial infarction, aka heart attack). They had already shocked 4 times in the ambulance and were less than two minutes away from the hospital. The patient arrived, I started chest compressions and helped the nurse hook up the ECG. He was infracted, yes, but it wasn?t a shock-able rhythm. Asystole, AV block, left main coronary artery block. There are a few arteries supplying blood to the heart, one of which is the Left Main. We call the Left Main Coronary Artery the ?widow maker? for good reason. It supplies the heart with 2/3 of it?s blood supply. When it is blocked, the heart dies and nothing but emergency cardiothoracic surgery can save someone. That?s if you catch the block before a total occlusion of the artery. Alarms rang on our attempted suicide, and I ran into the room with a few other staff. The nurse had pushed an angiotensive drug to raise the low blood pressure (obviously due to blood loss), and the patient had a massive allergic reaction. Like the previous four patients, there?s nothing like the continued feeling of hopelessness. His body?s reaction to the drug sent him into arrest. We shocked him, pushed the antihistamines, bicarb, atropine?no pickup. The doctor didn?t even try to muffle his discontent shouting, ?God Dammit? before opening the door and walking out to the now backed-up, emergency room. A few hours later registration paged, ?Code blue Emergency Registration?. I grabbed a crash cart, and Michelle (the charge nurse) grabbed a bed and followed out to the lobby where a man, nearly 300 pounds lay comatose, and blue on the tile. Shelly, another experienced nurse felt for a carotid pulse, felt it fade, and pulled open the shirt. She charged the defib, and I ?thumped? the guy twice. A precordial ?thump? is used to interrupt a possibly damaging heart rhythm. Basically I strike the sternum [i]very[/i] specifically above the zyphoid process. It?s success rate on it?s own is quite low? then again, so is CPR. We managed to get a decent rhythm, after about three shocks, much to the horror of a packed emergency lobby. We wheeled him back to a trauma bay and stabilized him. Finally, a success story, I thought. The man had little perfusion the doctor decided to do a femoral artery puncture to establish a central line. I peeked over his shoulder to hand him a betadine swab and ?squish?, a femoral spray landed right on my check and I tasted the metallic flavor of blood. I rushed to the sink and cleaned off. Hopefully this guy would be disease free, but one can never be too careful, right? I drew his blood for a routine screen and the doctor (being QUITE nice to me) ordered lab to test for pretty much anything disease-wise. Meningitis?a lumbar puncture revealed that the 35-year old man had meningitis. Well, time for a spinal tap. Well time for me to get a spinal tap! Hurray! I waited a few days, monitoring my symptoms? and the lucky day came. I was tapped, the fluid sent to lab and it came back negative. That was icing on the cake of the worst day of my life. [in fairness, for every unsuccessful case we have fifty successful cases, that day was just one hell of a glitch]

*sigh* Why are people debating about this anyway? I mean, consider the fact we don?t all go Hume on each-other for a moment and humor one another?s beliefs for once? Why should I, as a Christian, have to explain or [i]prove[/i] my faith?! Isn?t that kinda missing the point? I don?t choose Jesus because I?m forced to, or I cannot refuse man?s evidence of his being the Son of God. I chose Jesus because of my personal desire and [i] relationship [/i] with him. I know what you?re thinking; ?relationship with Jesus?? I can only explain my relationship with God as easily as I can explain the color purple to a man born blind. No-one?s ideas are beyond question or scrutiny, which seems to make someone?s arguments against a specific religious philosophy (at least beyond the particulars) rather fruitless. Take evolution for example. I think the more one actually examines the evolutionary processes and the irreducibly complex biochemical systems that exist, it begins to seem like your arguments are walking on water. I?ll give Chibihorsewoman some credit. Satanists or more alternate philosophies are often subject to gross misconception. Take Christianity, for example, probably the most misunderstood religion of all. Why are people so prejudiced against the idea of Christianity as their religious choice? Most likely, those ?Christians? they have met weren?t so ?like Christ?, were they? Besides, anyone who claims that we can explain ?explain everything or at least study them? probably has a lot to learn?

[quote name='Who?']Just f.y.i., don't let anyone tell you cussing is a sin. It isn't. That's an old wive's tale that some 18th century redneck mother stuck to a then-obscure Bible verse to stop her children from saying words that she didn't like. (This is coming from a Christian, mind you.)[/quote] Well considering that to be a good Christian one should try to honor God through his/her actions, including speech? If so, is a loose tounge really honoring God? In fairness, cursing is usually subject to the vernacular of the culture... so I think that "cursing" sinfully falls under one's intentions. Cursing someone is a sin, but is saying "I bite my thumb at thee" at your friend a sin? Probably not... I'm speaking from a Christian perspective...

[quote name='Rasetsutaisho']the fact is most of the ppl in this world are lame.. in one way or another... we all do things that tottaly annoy other ppl... for some its sexuality... for others its the way they drive... the point here isnt how ppl dont need to be gay... its that not enough ppl give concideration to how their actions directly effect the lives of other ppl... thats the basics of karma... its more than just some magical force... its a system of cause and effect... [/quote] Rasetsutaisho, did you just imply that these two young men died because they [i]annoyed[/i] the religious/political leaders of Iran? Couldn?t your argument be contextually supporting the decision of said Islamic government? I mean, ?who are these two gay men, and why do they think they can rupture our status quo?? [quote name='Rasetsutaisho']i didnt actualy bother to read much of the posts here... but i think i gathered enought to know that two kids were hanged for being homosexual? [/quote] That?s vividly obvious. [QUOTE=Rasetsutaisho] am i right... we'll the only thing i can think of right now is tactics... kinda like ninjas... you dont need to be obvious about everything you do... and if you're aware enough about your suroundings then you can use it like a tool... its not always wise to bust out and be like "BAM! IM GAY WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT!!?!?!" thats how you get hanged when you're in a place that doesnt accept the way you choose to be... but if yer tactical about it you can be secretive and live...[/QUOTE] Not only did you imply the two young men were killed for ?annoying? the tyrants responsible for their deaths, but you also cast them as ignorant fools who openly paraded their homosexuality. I think most people would agree with me in saying, if you carry an unpopular belief, why should you be afraid to hide it? Two men are killed in Iran for being homosexual? Honestly, big surprise there. I mean, if anyone is the poster-child for diversity and equality it?s the Islamic Theocracies of the Middle East, am I right? Although I?d hate to label Islam as a religion of intolerance; there are millions of Muslims willing to forget a few lines of the Koran and live their lives in relative peace.

To quickly answer your question James: There's the Warrior, Renegade, Rogue, Mage's, Druid, Burning, Dead, and a few others I cannot remember. All in all, there's about 10 islands to choose from.

First, welcome to the game Warlock! I can't wait to see you all joining the fellow QKT in saving Humanity from extinction. [b]Guild Islands, Island One...[/b] (please click on hyperlinks to see my medium-resolution screenshots) The Warrior?s Isle is probably my first pick for the Kabuki Troupe?s guildhall. Thematically, the Asian-inspired architecture seems most appropriate, or Kabuki-fitting. The island is gorgeous. Set in a jungle, the soft burnt orange walls contrast the large sun frozen descending in mid-afternoon. [url]http://img298.echo.cx/img298/4709/gw0098yo.jpg[/url] Upon arriving at Warrior?s Isle, I was greeted by the welcome possibility of our future guildhall (?). The initial fortress is somewhat empty, but well constructed, and the center building is quite impressive. [url]http://img298.echo.cx/img298/2570/gw0105ls.jpg[/url] Just outside the protective walls and iron-lattice gateway are the pathways deep into the town. Bamboo and jungle foliage crowds the dirt roads leading into a town. The town, filled with several appropriately-oriental buildings surround a large empty post, obviously designed to hold the Guild Banner. [url]http://img298.echo.cx/img298/3833/gw0128zk.jpg[/url] I noted with interest that there are also several catapults (unusable, however) in place around the island, giving our beautiful getaway a more destructive appeal. Finally, the road leads all the way down to the dockyard where a large galley is anchored, waiting to take us to the adventure waiting back in more tumultuous regions of Tyria [url]http://img229.echo.cx/img229/4171/gw0123rv.jpg[/url]

Alright Kids, a few updates: -Mr. Esten and I had a lovely time a few days ago grinding several thousand points of experience in various quests. I think it?s worth mention as he and I cleared a spectacularly large army through cunning lure/crush strategy. -Today Sen, Annie, and I went through some of the main quest. The lovely Belial Hades is now a respectable level 8 (congrats, by the way). Currently, she?s at the frontier gate. From what I can tell, most people are hung up on Yak?s bend (with the exception of myself and sen) My character, Drix Dzanth, is on his way to level 15 at the moment. I managed to make it through a decent amount of the main quest and have reached Lion?s Arch, the principle capital of Kryta. The land of Kryta is absolutely breathtaking. Easily one of the most beautiful worlds produced in a game setting. Lion?s arch is an especially appealing town, skills, equipment, and a fair batch of missions to go around. Getting this far along the main quest also gave me an opportunity to explore the exciting future for Quantum Kabuki Troupe: A Guild Hall. I?ve learned a few things about gaining a guild hall: You purchase the hall and your own personal island. The means to acquiring a hall are in the form of a Celestial Sigil. This can be acquired through changing the God?s favor in the hall of heroes; or cold, hard change. As few of the QKT seem to be taking the game extremely seriously? I would assume money is our best bet. The islands themselves vary in design and expensiveness, probably depending on popularity. I took some time and toured all of the available locales to see what would be a desirable home for QKT. An insider?s guide to guild islands will be coming soon? once I acquire some screenshots. However, at this point it?s the ?warrior isle? or ?druid?s isle? that get my pick. Now each of these locations are [i]extremely[/i] expensive. So that means we all need to save up our money! I?ve managed to save up about 5k of a whopping possible grand total of : 70-80k, depending on the island? On another note, perhaps it would be nice to schedule a time where the guild could all meet and rush some of the members through the main quests? I?m always willing to help catch people up, and now that I?m at Lion?s Arch, I?m going to concentrate on helping out the guildmates. Hope to see you all in game :animesmil .

Intriguing. I was certain that a thread had been started about Guild Wars considering the OB population that has been playing. Well, I for one have had a wonderful time adventuring with my OB friends including Tony (Semjaza), James, Alex (Siren), and Annie ^_^. Does anyone else here on Otakuboards play? Most recently, it has been a moderate grind for levels, I have had most of my playing time with Annie or Solo (as we are a bit behind James and Alex). However, earlier today I was able to play some story quests and managed to catch up with the beta veterans. The playing episode came to an eventful end as James, Tony, and myself finally settled on a Guild name. This is a big deal, obviously, one that James and Tony (in particular) had been planning ever since the beta (I?m assuming..). The glorious, quirky, and obviously Japanese-inspired name of our guild? ?Quantum Kabuki Troupe? This name is perfect, really. It uniquely displays the lighthearted nature for which we approach this game. You can probably spot us donning our recently created Guild Cape. I?ll post a screenshot eventually. Basically it?s a shapely cape with a magenta-light purple gradient (some may contest that it is pink) with a lovely silver hand emblem. The hand, comically whimsical, would remind most people of a Dreamcast logo with fingers. Anyway, if anyone?s on GW and looking for a friend just send Drix Dzanth a whisper. Perhaps the elderly Elementalist/Mesmer might lend you a hand in a quest or two .