Brasil

[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]I do give evolution a chance. I'm a biology student after all. Gaps in the theory do not untterly disprove it, they just prevent it from being completely proven on a largescale level. Which means there are alternative answers that should be considered, such ID. Both ideas have merit, and both have gaps/flaws. Therefore, both should be considered. Brasil, your argument was really directed at the cristian point of view of creationism, so I'm not going to argue with you about it anymore.[/color][/QUOTE] Chabi, creationism is creationism, [b][u][i]regardless[/i][/u][/b] of what religion you look at. The fact that I focus on the Judeo-Christian creation story here is irrelevant. You said Islam says the world was created in 4 days. That doesn't avoid or deflect my criticisms, because my criticisms remain the same even for Islam's creation story. And I.D. [i]doesn't[/i] have merit. That's what I'm trying to impress here. It's laughable as a science. It's laughable as a faith. It tries to cater to two conflicting viewpoints and comes off as horribly lame in the process, because it cannot reconcile those two contradictory viewpoints, no matter which creation myth you examine. There are only gaps in Evolutionary theory because macro-E takes tens of thousands of years. [i]But the evidence for macro-E is there[/i]. [i]There is no evidence that there's a creator or God.[/i] Again, if you want to explore I.D. in schools, [i]explore it in a philosophy or religion course[/i], because it does not belong in a science course, because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. There's only subjective and qualitative conjecture. Come on. Your reply here ignores what I've shown in the creation texts themselves. You're only repeating "I.D. has merit." You have no case anymore. lol [QUOTE=Adahn][/color] [color=#000000]No.[/color] [/color] [color=#000000]Some element of Buddhism and Hinduism was taught to me while I was in school. Is it so uncommon that you think it's ridiculous?[/color] [/color] [color=#000000]Your 'definition' isn't important in the social context. What is important is what I have stated above. Read it again, carefully, and argue against it if you will. The [i]origin[/i] and [i]purpose[/i] are more important than the definition. This has [i]not[/i] been explicitly established and explored, hence my post.[/color] [/color] [color=#000000] It is Christian in origin and purpose. You are correct in saying that its application and understanding do not require complete compatibility with Christian doctrine. I did not 'paint' it as such. Evolution is a scientific theory. Perhaps I should have said non-theistic. Will you debate me on its non-theism?[/color] [/color] [color=#000000]Ah, the Chewbacca defense. How I recoil at your words, and how little sense they make. My mind is all confused now. However, I will do my best to make sense of what you have just said. I didn't say I believed in ID. [b]Show[/b] me [b]how[/b] believing in ID embraces the concept of evolution, and then tell me why [b]it's bad[/b]. Also, show me how evolution explains the [b]creation of life, the universe, and everything.[/b] Lastly, quote my post and point out my contradictions, please. I do it so often that sometimes I cannot even see it.[/color] [/color] [color=#000000]Where did I say I wanted a theological idea taught in a science classroom? Quote it for me, please.[/color] [/color] [color=#000000]All that I require to be in the science classroom is that the children be made to understand that the theory of evolution is [b]fallible, incomplete, and unrelated to the origin of [i]life.[/i][/b] It is applicable and useful, but so long as it is taught to be the truth on all things related to the origins of life, it is a very convincing (and misleading) attack on all other ideas concerning the origin of life (most of them religious).[/color] [/color] [color=#000000]If it is taught in an [i]elective[/i] course, children will not be exposed to the possibility that evolution is not the answer to all questions concerning their origin. ID is unnecessary if my above statement is incorporated into the teaching of evolution. [/color] I hope you don't mind that I fixed numerous spelling errors, as it enhances the flow of your argument. Faith systems, by nature, cannot be proven scientifically. The teaching of evolution in classrooms as infallible fact disproves a number of religions. Evolution is atheistic (anti-religion) in certain cases where faith in a creation story is required. THIS is the problem we face. This is the question we must answer. Is it right to force the teaching of an anti-religious theory to children without any indication of its fallibility? ID is a [b]possible[/b] solution to this [b]social[/b] problem. You don't have to listen to me or believe me, but if you're going to argue with me, do it right, for heaven's sake. Argue against my ideas, but only if you [b]understand[/b] them. If you don't, then please, don't bother.[/QUOTE] Two things: One, I hope you don't mind that I didn't fix [i]your[/i] horrid formatting errors. Two, Adahn, drop the tone. Three, [color=#000000]"[/color][color=#000000]it is a very convincing (and misleading) attack on all other ideas concerning the origin of life (most of them religious)" is crying wolf.[/color] Oh noes, here comes big bad science to nearly completely debunk outdated religious dogma. Come on, dude. Science is only scary and threatening to the same types of people who wanted to execute Galileo. Four, "social problem" my butt. This isn't a matter of choice. Do you know why? Because a "choice" was the exact reason why Protestants and Catholics were killing each other on the streets of Philadelphia circa 1844. It was a matter of "choice" why Catholic churches were burned down. "Choice" in education, as it specifically relates to religious doctrine, was the exact reason why entire blocks of South Philadelphia had to be re-built. You want to talk about choice, and freedom? You should study history, specifically the long-established history of the twisted (and deadly) dichotomy of religion and public education. Philadelphia 1844 is proof of why religious or spiritual doctrine or ideologues in the classroom is a bad idea. Like I've said time and time again, religious mentality has not changed since the conception of religion. It's still the same damn, repetitive argument, and I can point to any number of Catholic arguments from Philly circa 1844 and the similarities will be downright terrifying. [color=#000000][/color]

Plus, then hydras also existed, and unicorns, did, as well. We mustn't forget Poseidon (considering sea creatures were his domain), and why not include the Sirens, too? Common mythologies weren't unheard of. It's why I keep talking about how similar the Epic of Gilgamesh is to the Bible. The flood, the eternal life...the god of the Cedar Forest. These are common elements of every single mythology throughout time. But there are radical differences even between those descriptions. So there still isn't any conclusive "______ giant lived there at that time." All it still comes down to is common traits of ancient mythologies. Talking about behemoths...okay, then Humbaba was real, and lived in a great Cedar forest in Ancient Mesopotamia. And...if dinosaurs were around when Adam and Eve were thrown out from the Garden of Eden...if they happened to come in contact with a T-Rex (or any carnivorous predator)...do you think there'd be humanity today? The very notion of dinosaurs during the Creation story is laughable because of that, even. If there were dinosaurs in Biblical times, Adam and Eve would have been dino chow.

[quote name='Chabichou']But we don't know how long those four days were. They could have been thousands or millions or billionsof years. The 'day' of judgement is said to thousands of years as well. So even though we read the word 'day' it really means something much longer.[/quote] I can argue both sides of this issue pretty well, but I'm always going to believe in one side. Chabi, the fact of the matter is that the "days" written of in Genesis are actual days. There is nothing in the text that supports otherwise. If each "day" represents possibly thousands or millions or billions of years, then each process on each day should be dated accordingly, and we should be able to read it appropriately in that chronological approximation. Also, I'd like to include that each day needs to remain consistent in the timeline, so we need to pick an increment of time and stick with it. For the sake of argument, let's start with 1k. You said that Adam's lifespan was approximately 1,000 years, so this fits with the day cycle of God creating man. But what happens when we apply that 1k to the other days? You guessed it. It doesn't work. We've seen carbon dating for dinosaur skeletons that date back some 65 million years. We have all types of fossils that date the earliest humanity back much farther than only 1,000 years. Your following point already discusses what I'm talking about, but your following points are pretty weak, especially considering what is said in Genesis. I'll elaborate later on. Back to the issue at hand. Pure and simple, if each day represents 1k, the story of creation isn't possible, because the days do not synch up with what we've found so far. So let's take your next increment: 1 million years. It's getting better, but again, we have to take into consideration the entire timeline, and even one million years is laughable, because one, Adam is not one million years old; two, fossil records and geology date the world as much older than only a few million years old; the processes described in the story of creation (4 days or 7)--what some could describe as evolutionary process--are not consistent with a span of one million years. The second, third, and fourth days of Genesis would take three times that, given the rate of growth in Genesis. Next increment: one billion years. Again, I point to Garden of Eden. Again, I point to the relative timescale established through each day representing one billion years. It doesn't work. Even if you were to find some similarities by subdividing one day--24 hours--and figuring out how many degrees it would take to account for that ratio of 1 day:1 billion years, I guarantee that the description of 4 days, or 7 days, was out of human necessity...not anything greater than that. The humans who wrote the Judeo-Christian-Islam creation stories chose those limited numbers of days because they couldn't fathom anything else. It was convenient for the time. [quote]Second of all, we don't know when exactly humans were placed on earth. Prehistoric species such as dinosaurs could have (and probably) roamed the earth long before Adam and Eve were ever placed on earth. Since I do believe in creationism, I would say that God created new species as time passed by and got rid of the old ones. Because we see no trace of transitions between species in the fossil record.[/quote] God created man. He did not place man. Placing man would be similar to some spaced-out version of SimCity. It wasn't like clicking a mouse and dropping a Town Hall. It's explicitly stated in the story of Genesis that God breathed life into dirt. And I challenge you to find an undeniable and clear mention of dinosaurs in Genesis. Try to avoid bringing up the whole "giant lizards" bit, too. lol I highly, highly doubt "giant lizards" is referring to 2,000 ton Brachiosaurs. [quote]Humans according to my religion lived much much longer in the beginning of mankind. The prophet Noah for instance, lived for a thousand years and Adam lived for 999. There are also about five or six generations between Adam and Noah. The dying age of humans gradually got smaller.[/quote] You do know that Sarah lived to only 90, and that was viewed as pretty near death? In fact seen as a miracle that she conceived when she was 90? Yeah...90 was really old there, and the descendancy from Adam and Abraham isn't too far. It's only about 5 generations, I think. [quote]I'm not saying this to prove creationism, all I'm saying that the idea of creationism doesn't really contradict anything. That's why I had no problem making such a 'ridiculous' statement.[/quote] And my point is that when you examine it logically, it contradicts just about every single type of rationalization/explanation one can give. [quote]Since we have not observed changes in species, only adaptations of specific species, I'd say the only form of evolution that is occurs is that contained within a species. Unless you're counting on a theoretically impossibile number convieniently positive mutations to occur.[/quote] You should check dinosaur skeletons and skeletons of modern birds. If you want to talk about adaptations within a specific species, then I suppose the lighter, smaller dinos and modern Pelicans are the same species? And again, I'm going to ask you the same thing I've been asking Jordan: so there's a gap right now in Evolutionary theory. So what? Why suddenly say "Hey, look, there's a gap! That must be where [insert higher divinity here] lives!" Why not just give Evolutionary theory more of a chance? After all, science takes time. Exploration takes time. Paleontology takes time. Geology takes time. Religion...doesn't take time. It's full of knee-jerk reactions. [quote]Oh, and when I say theoretically impossible, I mean that if we're considering there isn't divine intervention (just so you don't take things out of context ;)[/QUOTE] Take things out of context? I'm sure that I do. lol

[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]It is difficult to explain, but I'll have a go at it. I admit I should have went into more depth to begin with. Pretty much what I'm saying is that it shows we didin't evolve from an apelike ancestor. Our cellular DNA just happens to be the similar to that supposed ancestor's. If we did evolve from that apelike ancestor, than our mitocondrial DNA should be similar, but it's not. So if we didn't evolve, we must have been just created 12000 years ago. But Brasil, if you still think it's invalid that's fine. I'm just gonna leave it from there. I don't want to hijack Drix's thread.[/color][/QUOTE] It's invalid because there's an incredibly large and critical flaw in your assessment, a flaw rooted in the actual creation story of Judeo-Christian mythology: In Genesis, everything happens at the same time. There are minor increments, but overall, everything happens at the same time. It's like God snaps his fingers and there's life. Literally, it's "boom boom boom boom." Incidentally, I don't even consider the whole "days of the week" aspect in there worth anything, either, because it all seems incredibly convenient that God just happens to rest on the day that the Christians of the time were supposed to abstain from labor. According to Genesis, regardless of how metaphorical it may or may not be, the individual time increments do not add up to the age of Earth, nor do they add up when considering the appearance of particular animals, humans included. The rate is far, far too fast in Genesis to adequately hold it to Evolution on any type of chronological scale and say there are similarities. That's why your assessment is so ridiculous: The creation story in Genesis doesn't adhere to any type of time pattern, as it were. Hell, Adam's lineage is no longer than 25 generations. Figuring that each generation lived till they were 50 (which is pushing it even then), that's only a hair over 1,000 years. The timeframe in the Garden of Eden was but a fraction of that. Look at the context really carefully, and the amounts of time don't synch up, even considering your assessment, Chabi. [quote name='Drix D'Zanth']First, always a pleasure to talk with a fellow educated mind, Alex.[/quote] Jordan, you are my...shining star. [quote]You?re correct, religious indoctrination is a threat to the idea of teaching Intelligent Design. I don?t so much have a problem with the teaching of religion, but how it might be taught. I learned about the main world religions in my highschool education, it?s an important aspect of our education of worldly cultures. We?ll get to where religion has a place in Intelligent Design[/quote] It sounds like you got cut-off there, so I won't try to construct anything after the last sentence. But I will touch upon the main world religions thing. I don't think an Intro to World Religions course is really relevant here in a discussion about the merits or demerits of teaching I.D. alongside Evolution in a science course for a few reasons. One, it's almost an unwritten rule for Intro to World Religions courses that the instructor remain objective when presenting the material. The fundamental purpose behind Intro to World Religions is to expose students to a general overview that is fairly informative and at the same time, removed from the material enough so as not to focus on one religion more than another. Of course, even when there's more Christianity than Islam in a Philosophy of Religion course, that doesn't mean the instructor (a Presbyterian minister) is trying to influence his students. That's actually a true story there, total real life example from a few semesters ago. And because the purpose of the Intro courses is that general overview, rarely will you have special interest groups (who have a very clear agenda, mind) pushing for the creation of such a course. Sometimes, like we saw a few years back right after 9/11, those same types of hardcore Fundamentalist Christian special interest groups that are now pushing for I.D. in science courses were the groups pushing (and threatening to take legal action) for Intro courses to be banned because they were (rightly) giving an overview of Islam in an general overview of world religion. So, that's the first key point there. That the intent behind the development of such a curriculum and syllabus is purely objective and not at all possibly fueled by some type of religious agenda. Two, the peculiar similarities between the pro-I.D. groups today and the anti-Islamic-overview groups of 2001 are exceedingly worrisome, and I do not believe for a second that the pro-I.D. organizations are pushing for I.D. in science courses in the same manner as a high school giving a general overview of world religions in an objective point of view. This is why the entire pro-I.D. argument is such a sneaky one. They're saying they just want a fair educational process. But what's really happening (and what will happen if I.D. becomes part of a science course's syllabus) is those courses will not be taught objectively. Quite frankly, I'd be tremendously surprised if those special interest groups didn't petition to have their own designated instructors teaching the portions covering I.D. if they win this entire case. Given what I've seen coming from the Fundamentalist camp? Given that there are entire groups of people who want to "take over" South Carolina to create a Christian state, so they can do away with public education? Hell, in the 1800s, private schools were founded by Catholics because they didn't want their children learning in a Protestant classroom. I can't blame them, necessarily, because I think that's an example of why emphasizing religiosity in a classroom is just a bad idea. Those public classrooms incorporated Protestant theologies and prayers and look what happened to the society: complete division. And it's also an example of what religion does to a school population, in general. Why are Christian parents pulling their kids out of public schools today? Why are Atheist parents pulling their kids out of public schools today? Why are the families of so many home-schooled children today deeply religious in one way or another? Because historically, religious people with strong religious convictions don't want their kids being taught something they don't agree with. But the caveat there is if a parent requests their child be excused from a class...the reasoning has to be solid. And largely, excluding math courses and music courses...I have not yet seen any solid reasoning. It always comes down to religious reasons. And I anticipate that's exactly what's going to happen down the road if I.D'ers get their way. This isn't about an instructor exposing students to various ideas about world religion (or biology); this is about making sure the 1800s don't happen again. Thirdly, look what an Intro to World Religions course is. Look at the department it's listed under. You're going to find that it's listed under Religious Studies or Philosophy for a reason: because it deals with religious or philosophical concepts. Science courses do not deal with religious or philosophical concepts, unless the class is poking fun at Descartes' declaration that the soul resides in the Pineal gland. Again, this goes back to if a topic is going to depend heavily on religious or philosophical grounds...that topic needs to be explored in a religion or philosophy course. [quote]I think while a ?creator? or ?designer? is going to be inevitably identified by ID?s supporters, I suppose you are correct. [u][b]The only difference is how we this aspect of the theorem should be handled in class[/b][/u]. I?m referencing to an earlier post of mine on a possible in-class discussion (yes, sharing of ideas) on possible ?Designers?. Let people identify their designer, and continue with teaching the biological signatures that separate ID from macroevolutionary theory.[/quote] It's simple: in Philosophy or Religion courses or nothing at all. And even your suggestion about the multiple possible "Designers" echoes philosophical backgrounds, rather than any relevance to scientific backgrounds. The actual name of the subject escapes me at the moment, but it has to do with singular versus plural entities. Very early philosophers concentrated on it. I want to say...Anaximander, Thales...yeah. Pretty sure. [quote]Fair enough, Alex. In fact, except for mutation (the most basic element of evolution) evolution is [i]non[/i]random. What, then, drives mutation? if we are to entertain the idea of Teleological evlolution? [u][b]What is this purpose? Or rather, where does the purpose come from[/b][/u]?[/quote] See my response below, actually. [quote]You?re right. But when we?re talking about macroevolution and intelligent design, we both cite ?supernatural? events. Neither can be observed in nature. ID uses the excuse that the ?Designer? worked behind the scenes. Evolution uses the excuse that it takes thousands, if not millions, of years for true speciation to occur. Evolutionists say, ?Ah, but we have evidence for macroevolution. We have fossil history, genetics, a mechanism in microevolution, population genetics (totally different from mapping genomes, I?m talking allele frequencies. You know, Hardy-Weinburg stuff), etc. Intelligent Design (or at least the one that I choose to accept) claims, ?Hey. We buy most of that stuff, but there?s a few clues that all of this evolution stuff isn?t as random as we thought. If it?s not random, it must be purposeful. Purposefulness infers a consciousness.? Both ideas are ? *gasp* supernatural. Do they have a place in discussing evolution?[/quote] Very clever, Jordan. Including "supernatural" in quotation marks like that, eh? Clever, clever. Here's where I tear that attempted parallel down. haha Something is only supernatural when it transcends nature. Zeus is supernatural. Medusa is supernatural. The beast in the Cedar Forest is supernatural. God is supernatural. We can't witness macroevolution because its process far exceeds our lifespans. But that doesn't make it supernatural. The fact that we can see the evidence of macroevolution prevents it from transcending the natural realm. It occurs in nature. If it were something supernatural, it wouldn't take tens of thousands of years. Zeus would just blink it. And purposefulness does not necessarily infer a consciousness. Are you conscious of say...the nerve impulses that coordinate your arm and hand to jerk away when there's a sudden and radical stimulus introduced, like if someone tazers your finger? Your arm and hand's movement is totally purposeful, yet it's not conscious movement. I think the same philosophy applies here. We operate on instinct. I don't think single-celled organisms (or bacteria, or chemicals) are any different. Their instincts may be different because they're operating in a context that by comparison, is primitive at best, but it's still an instinct, and not necessarily a conscious one. It's not instinct like we're used to, but maybe it appears purposeful because that organism is operating under a purpose-driven instinct, and a purpose-driven instinct inherent in that organism, and not implanted or nudged along by something otherworldly. And that's also why I see the whole I.D. thing as incredibly silly, because some people have seen a type of purpose and pattern, if you will, in a natural process and attributed it to divine power, completely forgetting/ignoring/disregarding the fact that the purpose they see is actually entirely natural. [quote]You don?t quite understand the idea of mutation in terms of the commonly accepted notion of adaptive radiation. Drug-resistant bacteria, like TB, have arisen purposelessly according to the Modern Synthesis. The premise is; bacteria such as those that cause TB reproduce so very rapidly, and create so many generations per seconds, that after thousands of given generations some of the bacteria?s DNA is bound to mutate in ? say? a replication error or transposition. The antibiotic which previously eradicated the TB is suddenly ineffective on the few mutated copies, and they survive, their offspring sharing the same drug-resistant mutation as their forbears. There is not a possibility for a ?conscious decision?; no purpose at all. The only reason that some strains of TB are multi-drug resistant is because of a random mutation made just likely enough to occur given the prolific bacteria. Intelligent Design does not argue with microevolution.[/quote] Quick question, then: if you and I were to go back 5 million years ago, would our cause of death be considered the result of macroevolution or microevolution? And conversely, those we came in-contact with who died horrible, horrible deaths after we shook their hands...would their deaths be the results of macro-E or micro-E? And to continue along that same train of thought...were the Native Americans' widespread deaths due to Smallpox carried by the Europeans caused by macro-E or micro-E? Just a question or two that just popped in there. [quote]Intelligent Design, just as any Evolutionary Theory is never to be assumed ?provable? or ?true?. It is merely the most probable explanation- until disproved, that is. In fact, one of the first things you learn about the statistical analysis of biology is you can never be 100% sure on ANYTHING. The most stimulating event in a scientific community is when an existing theory is challenged. Take continental drift, it was considered outrageous and its evidence too inconclusive when it was first proposed. In fact, scientists set out to disprove the idea of continental drift and in doing so, learned more about the world than before. Science is and adversarial study and much of its ?power? proceeds through the falsifying of hypotheses. There is data to suggest that our current hypothesis of macroevolution through natural selection based on random mutation does [i]not[/i] explain the way life is today. This change, as unpopular it may be amongst the scientific community today (recall that evolution wasn?t exactly popular when it was first proposed) it must at least encourage a rebuttal? or a change in the current theory.[/quote] Clever! Your above paragraphs basically say "I.D. is good for Evolutionary theory because it inspires scientists to re-double their efforts and they'll uncover more and more." Yes, and I suppose scientists haven't already been working their geeky little ***** off to connect the missing pieces of the Evolutionary chain? ~_^ [quote]Okay, I wanted to address your argument here last because I think we should move away from the ?does intelligent design have a place in our schools?? to ?how exactly is evolution disproved?? Lets start with a single argument, open for anyone interested in this discussion: Given an early earth with very specific atmospheric and environmental conditions, how did the first single-celled organism originate? Everyone feel free to answer this one however they please, my answer will follow.[/QUOTE] I'll play with Ockam's Razor here. Isn't it obvious that the first single-celled organism originated in a space-age coffee can belonging to a race of little green men with bug eyes who just love frappacinos? Or maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or just straight-up Tralfamadorianism. Or maybe just it was merely the waste by-product of a really nasty infinite regression, where there's no cause, no effect, only loopage. Ockam's Razor has your answer, Jordan. ~_^

Y'all ain't got nothin on me: [URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img333.imageshack.us/img333/1016/elwood8xz.jpg[/IMG][/URL] My costume this year will be on a mission from God.

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f]This shows that humans have not been very long on earth and [u][b]supports the creation theory[/b][/u'].[/color][/quote] Supports the creation theory? Is that so? Care to explain? (I've got to hear this)

[quote name='kuroinuyoukai']TO BRASIL- I NOTICE YOU LIKE TO ARGUE. ARE IN THE DEBATE CLUB OR STRIVING TO BE A POLITICIAN? DUDE-I AM ONLY KIDDING. I GET YOUR POINT.CHILL OUT! :catgirl:[/quote] Whether or not I like to argue is irrelevant. Fact of the matter was, you contradicted yourself, and I wanted to point out that out. And then you reply with All-Caps and tell me to "chill out"? What are you talking about? Where are you coming from there? lol. My previous post was neither heated nor inflammatory, so...I find myself scratching my head as to why you launched into whatever it was you just replied with. And honestly...your entire argument (not yours personally, but the I.D. argument as a whole) is absolutely absurd. To even begin to argue that because there are so many complex biochemical processes in the world today, there must be some divine guiding light, one must entirely remove oneself from any rational state of mind, and outright ignore ancient mythologies. Why, you ask? Because during the studies of ancient mythologies, one will meet the realization that what one is postulating is nothing more than a modernized, souped-up version of Zeus throwing lightning bolts around. Hands-down, case closed, that's what I.D. is. Fundamentally, it's the same exact principle, because if you were to study the ancient cultures that attributed weather to particular gods, you'll find the same exact reasoning: That there's something in our world too complex for our current society and intellectuals to process, so therefore there must be some otherworldly presence directing and/or controlling it. All you have to do is know your history.

[quote name='kuroinuyoukai]I don't remember pushing my beliefs on you. I let people believe what they want.[...']My thing was it shouldn't matter what you are taught- you have to stick to your beliefs.[/quote] *cough*[quote name='kuroinuyoukai']If Christians must learn this- why can't everyone else learn ID.[/quote]*cough* ...reconcile those two quotes. lol And also, [quote]My thing was it shouldn't matter what you are taught- you have to stick to your beliefs.[/quote] Then who cares about Evolution being taught in schools? Why do you care about shoving I.D. into science class syllabi? If "it shouldn't matter what you are taught," then you just blew away your own argument and contradicted yourself, all at the same time.

[QUOTE=Mitch]Life in the short-term is purposeful, but it is overshadowed by the daunting facts of the far away future; that is, the long-term. Because existence is short-term, and mankind as a race cannot last forever, every moment is a waste of time. Everyone's effect on anything will eventually disperse into the abyss of time. Therefore it would be better we had not existed at all, because we would not have to suffer through life, a pointless debacle that has pleasure in its just being but is superseded by the fact that it is more painful than enjoyable. Life has no meaning, but the human mind is incredibly prone to desire structure and meaning. Thus there are religions and other ideaologies which brainwash a meaning and have killed more people than saved due to this (just look at how many people have been killed by or for organized religion in the past up to now). Thus there is education, jobs, and other systematic and organized institutions designed to make life seem as if it has a purpose. The world we live in is a human one, one that wants there to be meaning where there is none. We are completely ground in the physical, and trying to look into the spiritual world or anything beyond the physical world is grasping at straws and trying to see specks. From a completely physical perspective, the above theory cannot be denied.[/QUOTE] [b]Translation[/b]: You're going to throw that train ticket away when you reach your destination anyway, so why buy one in the first place. [b]Answer[/b]: Because the destination doesn't matter; it's the ride that's the fun part. And interestingly enough, the answer sums up my take on the subject.

[quote name='miyukii']well maybe yohsAnna sent his picture all over the place fo other people to see them!!!!! :animeangr .i dont know what is wrong with you people!you're all just jealeous because you cant draw that good so you have to go and bag on YohsAnna! :animeangr :animeangr :animeangr :animeangr !!!![/quote] Yep. I think plagiarism was pretty damn likely, given the random, nonsensical ranting and ramblings spewing out here. And if it wasn't, then it's the most absurd set of coincidences I've ever seen in my life. And I've been studying Literature, Philosophy, and Religion for years now, so I've seen a lot of really bizarre coincidences and crap. Anybody can run a search on Google and find what ULX and indifference found. I know because I did. Everything is stacked against the original poster here. If there was any possibility it was original artwork, some evidence would have been discovered. But as it stands, the search produced two sites that feature similar images but are entirely unrelated to each other, and in different languages. The names on those two pages don't even match. I'm no expert in translation (no background in it at all, actually), but even as abysmal as the Google Translater is, I'd expect to see [i]some[/i] type of pattern (or even a [i]similarity[/i] to the original poster's name or the "Alex" of the Xanga site) in the Google Translated version of the foreign language site. But as far as I can tell? There's nothing similar. ...[i]come on[/i].

It's certainly not the most flattering picture of the guy. I'm hoping it's just a bad picture of him, because I can't imagine that look as James Bond. If Lazenby was a stretch because he looked almost Hispanic at times...what's a big-eared blonde guy going to be like? I'm not worried, necessarily, because if he can do the role, fantastic, and they can do make-up and such if need be, but...yeah.

Yeah...I'm finding the same stuff. Run a Google search for the first Image Properties address and the main hit is a site in German, I think. Looks like an Eastern-European language, at least. It has the first image hotlinked on there, and I seriously doubt the author of that page is YohsAnna. Google search the second Image Properties address and you'll come to three sites, one of which is a Xanga with a User Info of Alex, born in 1989, who, oddly enough, also posted drawings of various anime characters--including the Yoh characters and all, even though not the specific drawing in the second image. So we have two search results that produce vastly different sites, yet we're to believe these two images came from the same person... Yeah. I'm not convinced. lol

[quote name='densuke']Taxi Driver cheated by using soliloquies. Even there the language is very flat. It's great for hard-boiled stuff but it doesn't compare to a novel by someone like Kenzaburo Oe.[/quote] What absolute rubbish. It's not only the dialogue that creates the effect in Taxi Driver; to even suggest that the film succeeds (rather, cheats) only through using dialogue demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of cinematic technique. I don't know how one can say the film cheated at all when the camera is with Travis the entire film. In earlier drafts, there were scenes the audience saw long before Travis did. It's no coincidence those scenes aren't in the final cut of the film. Seriously, man. You want to tell me Taxi Driver cheated, cut corners or whatever? You had better consider everything in the film. As it stands now, you aren't. [quote]Claiming that certain movies do a great job with certain books is too easy. Once you've experienced both you're tainted by knowledge of both.[/QUOTE] And making blanket statements that movies don't do characters and their inner thoughts justice isn't too easy? Come on. I've read a fair share of novels in my day that had absolutely dreadful characterization, so don't be so quick to tout novels as the ultimate tool for insights or window into a character. They aren't. And I find it incredibly ironic that you're talking to me about "once you experience both you're tainted," etc. Anyone here who knows me at all is laughing right now as they read that, I think, and there's a reason for that, as well, I assure you. [quote]which I take to mean that American movies can be viewed in little bits and pieces or just kind of fast-forwarded through because there is no effort put into the story. Or you already read the damn comic book...[/quote] :rolleyes: Just get out of here with that garbage. And what kind of reply is that, anyway? (Your most recent reply) I mean, seriously. At least defend what you say with more than two sentences. With the short, terse nature of your post and the extreme void of information and elaboration...I'm inclined to think you have nothing at all. It's the same type of broad, generalized answer that a Lit student tries to bull**** with when they don't have a correct response on an exam.

[quote name='densuke]Movies can only hint at the [i]inner life of their characters[/i'] while books can be packed with pages and pages of almost nothing else.[/quote]Not true at all. The Graduate. Taxi Driver. Hitchcock's Vertigo. Christopher Guest's entire film canon. Guess Who's Coming To Dinner. For the adaptations in that list (Graduate, Guess Who's Coming To Dinner), you can read the novel (or play) and then watch the film and you'll get just as deep a characterization in the film. I've read The Graduate about 7 or 8 times in the past two years, and the film is one I watch at least once a year. I guarantee you that in many places, the film actually opens up more into Ben's thoughts than the book does, and his characterization is a hell of a lot stronger in the film. I challenge you to find a novel about a similar setting that has more character depth and exploration than Taxi Driver. It's one of those films that knows whose perspective is the most important and then roots the audience in that perspective the entire time...so much so that by the end of the film, you're thinking like Travis Bickle. Or The Deer Hunter, even. You're going to feel very filthy after watching it. There's a reason for that.

[QUOTE=Charles]Well, I don't expect much from the local news, and that's the problem. Of course, it should take the time to focus on small issues related to the community, but it doesn't even do that so well. [b]I don't think it takes an honest look at politicial figures, and instead sensationalizes them[/b]. [b]It doesn't depict ongoing problems with drug abuse in the suburbs, and it generally just doesn't give viewers an accurate depiction of what's going on in the world around them[/b]. If anything, the local news seems to be more of a distraction than it is a source for information. As I said, it tends to sensationlize everything. Look at the [b]Katrina[/b] coverage. [b]Of course it's important and of course it deserves coverage, but you would think it was the only disaster going on in the world[/b]. Eventually it just gets to the point where they milk it and sensationalize it so much that it becomes a soap opera. [b]The same goes for 9/11[/b]. It [b]becomes less about the victims and more about ratings[/b]--hence the lines [b]"will you cover yourself in glory?/Don?t spare a single detail, make it gory."[/b] Even when they're [b]in an urban area covering a drive-by shooting or a case of child abuse[/b], I see little motivation to spread awareness or help the community in any way.[b] I see them turning real-world tragedies into entertainment[/b]. Even so, they're barely giving an honest representation of Philadelphia. I'm sure that come December there will be local stories that deserve attention. Yet, the Philadelphia Eagles will take up approximately eighty percent of the program. I think I did. I've made it explicitly clear when I outlined to you exactly how much time is alloted to even local news. Not much. lol[/quote] Again, though, to be disappointed by local news shows, you'd have to have expectations to begin with. Your discussion about drug abuse in the suburbs doesn't really appear relevant, because that's the type of material they have special programs for. Not to sound trite, but they do air public awareness programs from time to time. They're not ignoring the suburb drug abuse issue on the 6:00 news; they just have that focus on a different program, same with world news/events. What kind of honest look are you expecting when talking about political figures? Or for that matter, what kind of non-sensationalized look? Politics has become a circus on its own. There's virtually no way--in all honesty, it's nearly impossible to report anything in the political arena without it sounding absurd and exaggerated. That's what politics are. Regarding world events (even though Katrina and 9/11 aren't "world events," necessarily), are we looking for an Action News update on the rebel freedom fighters in Bangladesh? I'm not trying to sound glib here, Charles, but what world events is a local news show going to be able to cover? I'd be hard-pressed to find footage on Action News that isn't either local, acquired from a sister network across the country, or stock footage you could find on the 'net. Local news at 6 pm is something to get the main headlines across, just like the front page of the newspaper. If there's something going on that requires more detail, you're going to find it on shows like World News Tonight, a show that the late Peter Jennings hosted for a long time. What I'm saying, I suppose, is that there's a reason we have three, different, back-to-back nightly news shows around here, starting at 5 pm: because 30 minutes is incredibly limiting, especially considering what it takes to produce just one half-hour news show. To put it in perspective, back in high school, in TV Production, we had equipment that was easily more than 5 years old. The only digital videocamera in the class was a modern one that our instructor purchased for 1,000 dollars through a combination of different funds. Our budget for that class was less than a percent of the budget for Action News at 6. And our expenses were less than a percent of the expenses for Action News at 6. Local news doesn't go on the air without the advertising and commercials. And I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a sharp decline in everything if they sold 10 minutes less commercial time. I'd be surprised if local news programs were doing only a bit better than breaking even after payroll and such. It costs a lot to produce a nightly show like that. And really, your summation of the timecheck of the show is the precise example of why criticizing a local news show for what we see on there is appropriate yet pointless at the same time. Local news has remained constant like that for some 30 years now. That's not accidental, nor is it due to broadcaster/producer negligence or malaise. It's just how things work on that level. And I'm not sure if you've even explained the "cover yourself in glory/give me every detail, make it gory" lines, too. They give you details because that's what reporting is. If it seems like they're making something gory, it's either because it is actually a brutal subject, or they're spicing it up a bit. If it's the former, they're doing their job. If the latter, then the audience will be more inclined to watch, and if something is absolutely dreadful, like child abuse, some people will be moved to do something about it. Interestingly, when they're "on the scene," it's often after the paramedics, police, DYFS, etc., are already there. Why is that, you think? Not because the local anchors and reporters don't care. That happens that way because local news shows simply largely lack the resources to be able to go deep undercover, or investigative reporting to break a story before the police know about it. The only examples I can think of where that happened are...the recent CIA leak and Watergate, and you'll find that in those two instances, it wasn't a complete local news show (not any local news shows, actually) that broke those stories. It was rogue reporters and journalists. Plus, how does giving you all the details (something reporters want to do...that's why they're reporters) suddenly mean they're covering themselves in glory? Cathy Gandolfo (local reporter) interviewing the mother of a slain teenager is covering herself in glory, because she's interviewing that mother, or reporting the situation, or conveying what police have told her? That's not covering herself in glory; that's just being a reporter. One last quick thing here. When there are public awareness fundraisers, food drives...virtually any type of humanitarian aid specials, you're going to see local anchors on there. They're not unfeeling monsters, nor are they demonstrating "little motivation to spread awareness or help the community in any way." They don't show emotion (or at least, they try not to) on the news because breaking down and crying is unprofessionial. Stoicism is a creed of newscasting. Why do you think people are so surprised when anchors and reporters develop a quiver in their voices? Because the very nature of being a newscaster requires a certain objectivity. Some people see that as just being cold, unfeeling, or generally having a malaise about the stories and related social issues they're covering. It's not. Because that humanity in newscasters and anchors does shine through--rather, break through--in times of crisis. I remember seeing Peter Jennings not entirely composed more than once during his coverage of 9/11. So...that's why I find your reaction to be a little bit silly. These reporters and all do care. It's just that when they're holding that microphone, they need to remain objective and composed. Off-camera, they're just as human as you or me. You may ask if they actually care, why don't they cover more important stories. Their philosophy and approach to newscasting are respectable, but the industry isn't, and that timecheck is largely why most of local news is laughable in its limited scope. [quote]I'm sorry to respond to all this so glibly but although I do largely target the local news in my poem, it doesn't mean that the parties you're mentioning can't be included as well. There is a sense of general criticism I'd like to maintain. There's nothing within the poem that puts the people you've mentioned off limits.[/quote] My point is that I'd like to see criticism of the talking heads because they think broadcasting from LA, or NYC gives them the legitimacy to go into the middle of New Orleans and get scruffy. Bill O'Reilly is a complete tool, because he absolutely sensationalizes what he's talking about. Telling someone that he'll personally get his staff to help them get a lawyer? :rolleyes: That's a glory-twit right there. [quote]Anyway, at least this has proven that there's something to discuss here. Which, of course, is why I don't buy it when people use an excuse along the lines of "there's not much to say." Or complain that the poem is too long. I challenge anyone to link me to any poem on this site that I couldn't write at least a small paragraph on.[/QUOTE] Rock on. I hate whiners.

Some time until my next class. Let's have some fun. [QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]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.[/quote] It's relevant, though, because we both agree there needs to be a separation of church and state as much as possible--or at least as much as is reasonable. (Atheists getting their panties in a twist over the "In God We Trust" on dollar bills is laughable, for example). The very notion of teaching I.D. in schools is laughable--especially when said religious/spiritual concept is being proposed for science courses--because while it wouldn't necessarily be a government endorsement of religious thought, it still violates that principle, especially considering the inappropriate context of such a proposal. [quote]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.[/quote] But it does require a divine presence in the universe, Jordan. It's the entire crux of the I.D. argument: that there's some type of divine presence behind every single process, because there are some processes yet unexplained by science. To say that it "does not necessarily" define a said creator is dodging the point, I think, because the fundamental reasoning behind I.D. is absolutely identifying a specific creator figure. [quote]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.[/quote] What I'm citing is a trend I'm amazed nobody has ever noticed, considered, or conceived. I'm not a genius by any stretch, and my intellect isn't vastly superior. Teleological Evolution contradicts mainstream evolutionary theory, sure, but it is not right along the track of I.D. I won't argue that evolution is random. It fits together too well to be random. [i][b]But[/b][/i] a purposefulness of life's conception and composition (i.e., a detectable goal, if you will) in evolution neither establishes nor sets a precedent for making the leap to "Therefore there must be a creator." You see, the problem with the I.D. argument is that it derives from people figuring a purposeful process must be the work of a conscious entity who operates independently of the given process' environment. This brings me back to what I said previously about people applying a divine meaning to something grounded exclusively in the physical reality of their world, and it's why I mentioned Mesopotamia and the floods. [quote]That said, a class period of open debate as to the ?designer? of life may or may not be warranted, but [b]it never calls upon a specific creed or religious doctrine[/b]. It calls upon primarily, a restructuring of our current ideas of macroevolution and the Modern Synthesis.[/quote] God or Yahweh isn't named, but let's be honest here, Jordan: anything that proposes a higher power is a religious doctrine. It's a spiritual proposal. It's a mythological proposal. The minute something suggests "Divine Presence" is the minute it adopts a religious viewpoint, whatever that religion may be. The very act of inserting divinity calls upon religious doctrine. [quote]Intelligent Design basically evens down to: your theory is disproved, how about this idea?[/quote] Disproved how? Because someone can't accept that a gorgeous system works without the hand of some conscious, divine higher power? That perhaps that system works due to say...I don't know...Natural Selection? Merely the natural progression of things? Not even the abstract notion of "Mother Nature," either. I'm talking about a realistic "this is how nature works in an evolve-or-die" type of state. We see it already, even in something as mundane as the Avian Flu that's spreading. The thing is mutating, but not randomly, because it's adapting to new environments, to new antibiotics, to new treatments. There's a purpose behind its mutations, but that purpose is not due to any higher power or divine presence. It's like "That which does not kill me makes me stronger." Adapt or die is the name of the game; it's the ultimate conclusion. Not Intelligent Design. [quote]It is quite different; ID doesn?t need to point to anything but objective and quantitative evidence.[/quote] Jordan, I.D. goes from "Evolution sucks" to "There's a divine presence at work here" in under a paragraph. It's not pointing to anything objective and it's not pointing to anything quantitative. If anything, I.D. is entirely [b]sub[/b]jective and entirely [b]qual[/b]itative, which is exactly what the ancient belief structures of Mesopotamia were. [quote]Almost, not just unobservable, but the basic mechanics behind evolution as a current theory are 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] And these broken basic mechanics are? It seems to me that because we have thousands--possibly millions--of different species on the planet today, because over the course of 65 million years, we've seen so many different forms of life occur, looks like both microevolution and macroevolution actually do exist. We can't exactly observe micro/macro-E because they take tens of thousands of years. How does that prove (or even set precedent) for the Pro-I.D. argument? Simply, it doesn't. Like I said over AIM last week...pointing to a supposed gap--a timespan of twenty millennia that absolutely no human being could ever, ever witness first-hand--and then leaping into I.D. is jumping the gun to an absurd degree. And at least in-between those twenty millennia, we can see the results of evolution. Modern birds and ancient dinosaur skeletons featuring similar bone structures, for example. So while evolution may be "unobservable" because we can't be there every step of the way, the evidence is there. I.D. still has no evidence (and remains completely unobservable), because like every single other religiously/spiritually-founded doctrine, it requires a leap of faith, not a leap of science.

This thread should have died after Generic NPC #3 posted on page two, because he summed up the precise reasons why Alchemy is completely absurd. I mean, let's face it. The basic ideas behind the entire concept aren't related to science at all, nor are the methods. It's all pseudo-mysticism and B.S. "magick." The heavy emphasis on magical transmutations of metals should already tip people off that it's nothing but a lame joke. So why study it? Oh, to be different (or rather, think you're different)? Because some lame anime features it? It hurts my brain to imagine how gullible some people would have to be. lol

[quote name='Mitch']O.o. That would be interesting, though. O.o[/quote] Yeah. And you know...it'd be fun as hell if it were slightly satirical, too. Plus...a male's perspective on menopause has a lot of great insights. Let's see... autumn is here at last leaves yellow, falling fast the trees are naked - gloomy, vast an eerie peace, a stark contrast fall is when i'll be torn dead yet alive, withered, worn hinting death, [color=Red][showing; knowing; announcing; proclaiming - they'd all fit, I think. I'm partial to "announcing" or "proclaiming." Perhaps "a prophet for"][/color] winter's scorn when i fall, none [color=Red][shall][/color] mourn for the leaves must die again must fall freely, changed and grim life, it appears, will begin [[color=Red]This line still doesn't sound right. Maybe more like "so it goes, life will begin again"[/color]] and i hang, to ask then [[color=Red]Something odd here, beat-wise "but still i hang, asking then"[/color]] when will fall die and take me the last leaf on a tree waiting on a bough to see end of days as i onward dream

Most of you know about the online sci-fi journal I write for. I heard from my editor (God, I love saying that! ^_^) a few days ago. He's getting the next issue together and asked me for my review of The Incredibles. I finished it up and attached it, but I figured I'd post it here to see what y'all think. I'd normally post it at myO, but it's been strangely dead lately. Here's the review: [center]--- [/center] This review is slightly older and less timely than I would have liked, but there are times when you don?t have super speed, or the ability to slow down time, and there are moments when you wish you could just fly really fast opposite the rotation of the Earth to make sure you?re able to do something you didn?t have time to do earlier. Superman can do it. We can?t. It?s unfortunate we can?t be superheroes, but when you consider it critically, being a superhero may be a pretty horrible thing. At least, it may not be as glamorous as we think it would be. Super strength, the power of flight, or radiation breath all sound incredibly cool, but if a superhero?s life is anything like what we see in Pixar?s recent movie, The Incredibles, we may start re-thinking that desire. That?s one of the beauties of a Pixar film. They can take something that seems so fantastic and outrageous and transform it into a concept that is totally believable and grounded in a matter-of-factly ?This is how their universe works? reality. Whether their characters are a child?s playthings, neurotic insects, neurotic monsters, or absent-minded fish, all of them have a sincerity in their dialogue and reactions; because of that, Pixar films have been consistently better than any films from the competition. The Incredibles continues that tradition, and Pixar again proves they are the ?top dogs? when it comes to this genre of entertainment. In a genre that?s become increasingly bloated because certain companies believe it to be hip lately to insert as many pop culture references as possible into a 2-hour flick, I tend to view The Incredibles as Pixar?s rebuttal to that trend. The film takes the genre back to its roots, where an emphasis on character development was key, and whatever pop culture was going to appear throughout the film was largely based on either the characters themselves or the environment around those characters. In Toy Story, for example, there were hokey references to childhood games like Battleship, quirky allusions to Picasso, and even the occasional intercinema allusion, like Rex?s ?I don?t think I could take that kind of a rejection,? clearly a nod to Crispin Glover?s George McFly in Back to the Future. Toy Story 2 followed a similar principle. Sharp-eyed audiences will spot a Super Nintendo in one of the opening scenes (and most will recognize the Star Wars parody). When Buzz & CO. trek into Al?s Toy Barn, there are constant jabs at the entire Barbie franchise. Buzz himself is shocked by how the Buzz Lightyear action figures behave fresh out of their box. These witticisms work because those references and allusions make sense within the context of those films, because they are organic to the films. It?s perfectly reasonable to see Battleship, or have a character behave like a wallflower from another film, or to have a handful of characters playing a popular video game system?elements of a culture that is undoubtedly more child-like than adult?because the context of those films is child-like. And that is largely why movies like Shrek, while entertaining, are in fact detrimental to the genre, because rather than have jokes about a lame fairytale contrivance, we?re bombarded with Eddie Murphy singing a Willie Nelson tune, the medieval equivalent of fast-food drive-through, dated movie parodies of lackluster and lame Tom Cruise action/spy thrillers from the mid-90s, Pork Illustrated, a handful of medieval variations of mainstream and recognizable chains today, and many other distracting, forced and wholly unnecessary pop culture-isms. It?s annoying, to be honest. Programming a ?Sir Justin? poster in a bedroom is neither witty nor endearing; it?s just horridly dating the film. In some ways, I think the annoyance is a specificity issue. Those pop culture-isms in Shrek 2 are not timeless, and the jokes will become dated very quickly because of it. In twenty or thirty years from now, nobody will care who Justin Timberlake was, so that joke will be completely lost. I don?t see this happening with The Incredibles and the majority of Pixar?s film library, because many of the jokes in their films don?t rely so heavily on external popular culture. In fact, much of the humor in Pixar films is derived from that matter-of-factly ?This is how their universe works? approach, and The Incredibles is no different. The film opens with a series of mockumentary-style interviews as Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl, and Frozone (voiced by Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, and Samuel L. Jackson, respectively) give some insights into the quirks and tribulations of being a superhero. They offer their thoughts on having a secret identity, and apparently, the necessity of having one isn?t due to any safety concerns. Mr. Incredible just can?t believe anyone would want to be super all the time. Elastigirl couldn?t go food-shopping as a superhero. Frozone isn?t concerned with secret identities. He just plays it cool with the ladies, because he associates knowing a female superhero?s secret identity as the first step in a relationship, rather than a working relationship. He?s a ?playa,? so he can?t be in a relationship like that. At times, Mr. Incredible feels like the maid, because the world ?always manages to get back in jeopardy again.? He just cleaned that mess up, and sure enough, something else just went wrong. When asked if she would ever consider ?settling down,? Elastigirl will hear none of it; she explains that she?s up there with the ?big boys? now, and it?s apparent from her response that leaving the men to save the world would conflict with her soft-Feminist ideals of female empowerment in the workplace. Within those first ten minutes, the film already establishes two things: One, the main characters are portrayed as both superheroes and ?normal? people who have normal anxieties and fears. This is the matter-of-factly tone that makes Pixar films so delightful and intelligent. The Incredibles isn?t amazed or wowed by the reality in which Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl, and Frozone work, and neither are they. It?s simply what they do. Two, the individual responses set-up the later irony after numerous lawsuits and public attacks force many superheroes into hiding. Mr. Incredible?s disbelief that anyone would want to be a superhero 24/7 is immediately contradicted, as he finds himself longing for the ?glory days? after years of working as cubicle gopher Bob Parr in an insurance firm, in a mundane, kitschy suburb straight out of the 50s. Elastigirl?s?rather, Helen Parr?s soft-Feminism slowly but surely mellows as she falls in love with Mr. Incredible and they begin raising a family of superchildren. Frozone, now known only as Lucius Best, also begins married life, quite the radical change from his ?playa? days. Largely, it is these changes that propel the film forward. Bob and Lucius lie to their wives about Wednesday night poker games so they can sit in Bob?s car and listen to police scanners. When they hear about a building on fire downtown, they speed off into the night to rescue those trapped by the blaze, donning ski masks to disguise themselves, as their former superheroic counterparts are not supposed to exist anymore. Incidentally, this scene presents an interesting duality and raises a fascinating question. After Bob and Lucius inadvertently bust through the wall into an adjoining jewelry store, still fully clad in the black jumpsuits and ski masks, the police officers on the scene reasonably believe they are there to steal. We see this and wonder what the differences between superheroes and supervillains are, and if there are any differences. Surely, there are distinct differences between motivations and ideologies, but even motivations can be misunderstood. The only reason the police believe Bob and Lucius are robbing the jewelry store is due to the way Bob and Lucius are dressed. Had they worn Mr. Incredible and Frozone, the police would be thanking them for saving those people, very likely absolving them of any wrong-doing, and treating the broken wall as nothing to be worried about. If they were Mr. Incredible and Frozone, their motivations would never, ever have been called into question. They would be heroes. But that doesn?t happen, because the perceptions of the police officers are based only on what they can see at that point in time, and what they could only see at that point in time were two men dressed in ski masks who had just broken into a jewelry shop. What does this say about the nature of superheroes and supervillains? Are the differences based solely on what style of costume one wears? Is one defined by what they wear, or is one defined by one?s character? These are a few of the questions that the film focuses on. If a superhero or supervillain can be defined solely by what they wear, then the Parrs truly are normal. But they are far from normal. With the transplant into suburbia, the Parrs are required to ?fit in.? Helen has to constantly keep their son, Dash, in-check, because he knows what he is and wants to use his powers. Granted, he uses his powers to torment certain teachers at school, but this is only because there is no avenue for a positive use of his super speed. Dash?s appearance requires him to be normal. He looks like any other child in his class and yet he is exceedingly different, just like his entire family. Their suburbia life is in fact not a solution to the problem of their superheroics; it is only another costume they must wear. The problem with those new costumes is that, like we see in the jewelry store scene, one cannot be defined by the costume they wear, because with the superficiality of the costume?which is in essence a removable skin?it is easily replaced. Bob Parr goes from Mr. Incredible to a petty thief because of his costume. This superficial perception applies to the villains of the film, as well. If it were not for Syndrome?s violent philosophies and selfish ideologies, the public would view him as a superhero, because he wears the cape and tights commonly associated with superheroes. He appears in broad daylight, meaning the public can easily perceive him as having nothing to hide, even though they?ve never seen him before until the end of the film. Throughout the film, there is that constant interplay between appearance and reality, and it?s what makes The Incredibles a fantastic piece of cinema. It may look like high-gloss children?s entertainment, but you begin to think about certain elements of it and realize it?s much deeper than the Shreks of the industry. The Incredibles works because we care about each and every one of the characters, even the villains, because each and every one of the characters is fully developed. There?s character development to the extent that in the Special Features, we get to hear sound clips of twenty other superheroes not given screen-time, and they are just as human as the main cast. They all have personality quirks, fears, concerns, and even some border on sociopathic. Some are a psychologist?s worst nightmare, and that matter-of-factly realism is what makes The Incredibles believable. This is a film that has an extraordinary amount of depth to it, much like Pixar?s previous works. It?s a film that stands up to any type of critical examination and comes out even stronger afterwards. Rarely do we expect what looks like a children?s flick to raise issues about social perceptions and focus on the social perception. Shrek flirted with the perception topic, but lame popular culture seemed more important. The Incredibles is worth seeing. This wasn?t so much a review as an analysis, but that seems testament to how strong this film is. When a review can?t avoid getting into the deeper social philosophies present in a work, you know that work must be very special. And The Incredibles is a very special piece of filmmaking.

[quote name='Mitch']Also, I don't have the time to do this myself, but poetry is about saving your words and having them just right. Words aren't to be wasted like they are in prose. Poetry has more than meets the eye, is focused, compact, compressed.[/quote] Though, it should be noted that it can't become [i]too[/i] compressed. Otherwise, the meaning will become just as inaccessible as crappy and verbose prose. I don't want this kid to get the wrong idea (and anyone who reads this thread). All prose doesn't waste words, and all poetry doesn't need to be stripped down to the barest essentials. The work needs revision, of course, but a longer line (and a longer poem) can work provided the beats, rhythms, rhymes, etc., all click together.

Getting somewhere, yeah. Just bear with me here, because I'm going to be adding red text right in there. autumn is here at last leaves yellow, fall[color=Red][ing][/color] fast the trees are naked - gloomy, vast an eerie peace, [color=Red]a pleasant contrast[/color] fall is when i'll be torn dead yet alive, withered, worn hinting death, [color=Red]having winter's scorn [/color] when i fall, none will mourn for the leaves must die again must fall freely [color=Red][needs another beat or two here][/color] and grim yet all over, life seems to begin [color=Red][this line is phrased awkwardly...interrupts the rhythm of the previous two lines][/color] and i hang, asking when when [color=Red][The "when" here is redundant. See my previous edits for suggestions][/color] will fall die and take me for i am the last leaf left on a tree [color=Red][This line also needs revision--it's too long, too many beats. Sticks out in a bad way.][/color] waiting on a bough to see end of days as i onward dream I highlighted where there needs to be revision, and also added a few notes there. I think you need to start hearing how the poem is flowing...or how it's not in certain places. I'm not saying it needs to be sing-songy, but more lyrical ballad would help a lot to smooth it out. And it would probably help get rid of some of the uneven lines, too.

Well, Mitch, the first thing that should tip you off about what a "barren tree" is going to mean symbolically is the word, "barren." Think of...the story of Abraham, for example. Sarah, his wife, was [i]barren[/i] for 90 years (the text actually uses the word "barren" in the narrative). She couldn't produce children. It's a word very closely associated with fertility throughout history and literature. It means the opposite of fertile, obviously, but it's still a word that relates to the entire concept of fertility. And including "barren tree" is going to smack the audience in the face with a fertility theme...with a "motherly sorrow," because historically, the mother is the one who produces life, just like a tree does. So when you're talking about a barren tree that wants to die because it can't produce? Yeah. That's motherly sorrow all the way. lol About the tree growing in autumn thing...there's really no way to reconcile the piece in its current state by using an evergreen, because you'd have to discard the entire leaves yellowed image. Evergreens stay green because that's part of their genetic make-up, basically. And non-evergreens don't continue to grow in autumn. If they did, the leaves wouldn't die, because the tree would still be providing some type of nutrients and support through its root structure. That's not to say trees die, necessarily, but if they didn't go into a sort of hibernation, we'd have green all year 'round, on every tree we see. So to answer your question, given a regular winter/autumn? You'd either have to have a super-tree or an evergreen. And for the purposes of this piece, I don't think either of those options would work all that well. Let's see...what else... [quote]however, if i was to implement that, i would have to get rid of the leaf thing entirely, and the poem would need a lot done to it[/quote] Yeah, that's what I said earlier to Alan, because any slight variation in the final stanza is going to require major alterations to the body of the piece. If the "i" at the end is kept to be a leaf, you have the "last man standing" theme, which is a solid idea. The language of the original draft (barring edits to make it flow better and the "when i was born" trainwreck, lol) reflects that theme of loneliness. If the "i" at the end is kept to be a tree, then, like I've said, the entire piece needs serious revision to stay consistent with [i]that[/i] theme of the "motherly sorrow." If the "i" becomes an evergreen, again--honestly, I'd just write a new piece centered around that theme, and not even try transforming this current one to fit that mold. It would be more work than it's worth, I think. The transplanting idea would only work given an evergreen, because for a slightly more extreme example, if you write a poem about a palm tree being transplanted to Wisconsin and surviving...it's going to be so unbelievable that the reader will just write it off as nonsense. And now that I think about it, any tree transplanted into a harsher condition and surviving (beating the odds!) is going to sound hokey...even an evergreen. It doesn't even really make sense. I mean, an evergreen stays green all the time, so why would it be so amazing if it stays green in a climate difference of 50 degrees? Doesn't really sound like a cogent concept. [quote]but i just don't know quite which direction to take with the poem.[/quote] I think you really need to seriously consider just what you want to do with this piece before you go in any direction, honestly. You need to think long and hard about what the subject is going to be, what the language will be that best complements that subject. Basically...until you know which idea you want to use (the leaf, the tree, or the evergreen)...the piece is going to keep floundering, and it's been floundering for a while now from what I can tell, because you change one or two words here and there, because you aren't sure what to do (because you don't have a clear idea for the piece), and so the jumble keeps getting worse. Just...decide what the piece is going to be about. Until you do that--until you stop the pussy-footing around--very few people here can help at all, and a few will only further confuse things, because they don't have the training necessary, or because they just don't have the capacity to see what needs to be done--or at least to see what the current states of both the poem, and the ideas behind the poem, limit. EDIT: Hahaha, here's something for you. Work the barren tree in so the entire piece makes sense, and base the work on menopause!

[quote name='René]Thankyou, Alex, for telling me my opinion is [u]wrong[/u'].[/quote] The horror, the horror! Sorry, man, but you really make me laugh sometimes. As for the rest, I think a few references are in order. [quote]I'll attempt to explain my opinion, so you can possibly see my take on this. I saw the first revision as narrated by someone (perhaps Mitch) born in Autumn, with the line about the leaf in the last verse being a clever metaphor. When reading through it I didn't get the idea the narrator was a leaf at all. Considering the name and theme of the poem, I thought the references to Autumn were, yet again, clever metaphor. The second revision is more obvious in it's intentions to make out the narrator as a tree/leaf, however. It's less open to interpretation, and more literal - I think this is in part due to the last verse being more obvious, and it makes the tone of the preceding verses different, especially on multiple rereadings. I like it a lot, but I'm not much chop at crit, heh. Sorry.[/QUOTE] Thing is, though, Alan, the narrator is either a leaf or a tree. Not both. And since the last stanza now uses "tree," the poem makes even less sense, because the "i" isn't defined until the very end, and then when it is defined, trees aren't born in the fall. In colder weather, you can transplant them when they've matured a bit, but planting them during October is not a good idea, because they will not survive. And again, this all comes back to how the language of the piece needs heavy, heavy revision, because metaphorical or not...those words do not make sense. A metaphor is completely wasted if a reader can't get past a shoddy word selection--and the word selection is still shoddy, because things aren't born in the Fall, especially plants. I'll use two quick and easy examples to show what I mean regarding that "defined as" part. In Othello and The Usual Suspects, their endings re-define what we're supposed to think about certain characters. In Othello, you look at which characters are alive at the end, and which ones are dead, and the lack of the strong-willed female characters (because something happened to them during the play) is indicative of what Shakespeare thought of the so-called "Women's Lib" movement. He wasn't against it, necessarily, but he was certainly thinking they needed to be more cautious. In The Usual Suspects, we don't know who Kaizer Soze is the entire film. We're given a red herring here and there, but we only find out at the very end. It changes the entire dynamic of the film, and we see one character radically differently. Same thing is happening here, only the piece suffers because the language itself isn't structured to support that ending. That's why some of the ideas sound so clunky. A barren tree is symbolic of a mother figure, but there's nothing previously to begin to support that, nor is there after any re-interpretation when the reader reaches the end of the piece. Get what I'm saying? The entire piece will need a serious overhaul if the tree is kept in there, because the entire piece does not reflect that "Barren mother" theme, and considering the piece made much more sense when we still had the leaf "Last man standing" theme? The barren tree belongs in a different piece.

I suppose my biggest question is what do you really expect from the local news, though? Some of the criticisms of the poem are focused on world events, "world fractured by divide," "will you cover yourself in glory?/Don?t spare a single detail, make it gory," "You go on, give me your news./You go on, depict the world, as you choose./Report what?s to your satisfaction." I don't know what it is you're seeing on local news, but when I've watched it recently, the farthest any of those desk-jockeys have gone is...outside on their office lawn to do the weather report. Occasionally you'd see one of the reporters out in the field, sometimes down the shore to cover a storm, but other than that...they're not covering themselves in glory. And considering the entertainment journalism today? Anything you see on local news is nothing compared to the crap those more uppity shows pull. I remember seeing The Abrams Report when the host took it upon himself to report "right in the thick of things" in New Orleans. After a few days, he was really roughing it. His scruffy stubble was beginning to show. He had bags under his eyes. His hair wasn't perfect anymore. You want to criticise local newscasters for covering themselves in glory? A much more suitable target is Dan Abrams. Or Geraldo Rivera. His "coverage" of what...Afghanistan? Iraq? It was completely irresponsible. Ignoring the fact he's a simple bumf-ck, lol, that he had no reason to be out there in the first place, we all know he was in it to get his ugly mug on-camera. And he was doing the same type of crap Abrams was pulling in New Orleans: "I'm right next to _______, [insert anchor here], and I can't believe what I'm seeing!" Not to mention the big-name networks like Fox, MSNBC and their ilk who, all together, sent upwards of a few dozen reporters to cover what? Strong, gusty winds, lots of rain...a hurricane that isn't even on-shore yet. lol. After seeing what journalism is on the major networks like that, I'm sorry if I have trouble agreeing with your sentiments that the local anchors try to cover themselves in glory. lol. Because as it stands, if you're criticising a lack of journalistic integrity, or what I like to call the Asshat Journalist, the real offenders are the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Jim Abrams, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, etc. "The pot?s boiling over; give it a good stir" is what O'Reilly and Tucker do on a regular basis. They intentionally stir things up. I don't even know if I have to pull in any specific examples from O'Reilly, because I would think it'd be pretty common knowledge at this point--I would think we're all pretty aware of the major ideologic foot-in-the-mouth things he's said. But I'm not sure how many watch Tucker Carlson frequently. I don't watch too often, but his new show is complete crap, because the guy can't do commentary worth a damn. He was interviewing this one Atheist who was fighting for the "Under God" to be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance...all that jazz. Now, we all can see how silly some of that argument is, but Tucker was saying things to rile the guy up. Ignoring how Tucker was laughing in the guy's face the entire time, when he was closing the segment out, he's saying "God bless you," "God help you," stuff like that. He was intentionally saying it, just to get the reaction. The pot was already boiling over there. And Tucker was giving it a stir. And you know what happened? Nothing. The Atheist knew exactly what Tucker was trying to do and just chuckled. So, again, after watching the entertainment journalism...I'm having trouble seeing the issues you're seeing with local news, because local news isn't stirring the pot, especially when you look at Tucker and those other dicks, haha. I'm just not seeing how your criticisms as directed toward local news are valid when there's a much clearer offender out there today, and I'm not sure why you expect local news to report on world events like...well, a world event we couldn't find on World News Tonight. Are you looking for coverage of a civil war in Djibouti? There's a reason Action News here has shots of Philadelphia in their opening montage: because they're a Philadelphia-based news show, whose primary focus is Philadelphia and other surrounding local news. Sometimes they'll go outside of that and report something going on in California, but they're a local news show at heart. What I'm saying is, you're criticising a local news show for being a local news show. ...when's the last time Action News had a reporter in the Middle East, for example? And how many reporters from MSNBC have been across the globe? At least criticise the right networks and programs for the right things. lol

Well, you know what the biggest problem with this piece is? I read it and I can't hear anything other than Elvis doing a really grating and screechy Motown version of this. It's something with the opening lines that echoes "Mr. Postman." It's one of those weird-ass things that doesn't happen with me very often. I've got Diana Ross' voice in my head...and it hurts severely! Thanks a lot, jerk! Anyway. There's really not much that can be said about the piece. It's a gorgeous indictment of the current trend of entertainment journalism, where the anchor at that desk is only there for one of two reasons: Pretty face, or because they're an actor. Sometimes it's both. What's remarkable is how it nails the characterization of the proto-typical plastic newscaster. But, I think there's one mistake made in that characterization, and I suppose it relates to the comment I made previously regarding entertainment journalism. The piece is only relevant when talking about the entertainment journalism a la FoxNews-O'Reilly Factor, or The Situation with Tucker whatever-the-hell-his-name-is, Chris Matthews on Hardball, Scarborough County, etc. But I'm not sure how accurate the indictment is when considering the actual news programs on CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc. You watch those and they're actually reporting the news and not catering to a specific ideology. And I think the piece is intended to be an indictment of more the ideologic news than just anchormen: "The pot?s boiling over; give it a good stir./Deliver me to the static, the static which you provide./Show me the consequences," "Your broad, toothy smile,/White gates to beguile./The reflection of your glassy eyes,/The plastic of your lies,/Everything you say, manufactured in this way." "Mister reporter guy, will you cover yourself in glory?/Don?t spare a single detail, make it gory." "You go on, give me your news./You go on, depict the world, as you choose./Report what?s to your satisfaction." That's all Bill O'Reilly, Tucker, etc. Those are the fundamentals of entertainment journalism, and while the local news anchors certainly cater to the sports a bit more, or the violence...the veracity of those statements loses strength when compared against the local news anchors. So...my main concern is that your criticisms are missing the mark through indicting the entire anchorship, rather than indicting those who are truly guilty. That's not to say you aren't, but it could be clearer. Make it obvious you're going after the O'Reillies and Tuckers of the industry, not Gary Papa or Lisa Thomas-Laurie, for example. (For those not from South Jersey, Gary and Lisa are local news anchors who generally report it without that entertainment gloss plastic-ness.)