DBZgirl88

[COLOR=#004a6f][B]I have a good one:[/B] A vampire bat came flapping in from the night, face all covered in fresh blood and parked himself on the roof of the cave to get some sleep. Pretty soon all the other bats smelt the blood and began hassling him about where he got it. He told them to piss off and let him get some sleep, but they persisted until he finally gave in. "OK, follow me", he said and flew out of the cave with hundreds of bats behind him. Down through a valley they went, across a river and into a huge forest. Finally he slowed down and all the other bats excitedly milled around him tongues hanging out for blood. "Do you see that large oak tree over there?" he asked. "Yes, yes, we do, we do!!" the bats all screamed in a frenzy. "Well," said the first bat, "I didn't!" [B]Here's another:[/B] John decided to get rid of the family cat. So he drove the feline 20 blocks from home and left him. But as he pulled up into his driveway, there was the cat. The next day he drove the cat 40 blocks away from home and left him. But again the cat beat him home. At last he decided to drive several miles away, arbitrarily turning left and right, anything to throw off the feline's keen sense of direction, before abandoning him in a park. Hours later, John calls home to his wife: "Jen, is the cat there?" "Yes", she answers, "why do you ask?" "Put him on the phone", John replies. "I'm lost and need directions home." [B] One more joke:[/B] Late one night, a mugger wearing a ski mask jumps into the path of a well dressed man and shoves a gun in his ribs. "Give your money", he demands. "You can't do this, the man indignantly sputters. "I'm a member of parliament!" "In that case", the mugger replies, "Give me MY money!"[/COLOR]

Edited for privacy.

[COLOR=#004a6f]This may be a pointless and potentially spammy thread (and if it turns out to be just close it mods), but I thought it be nice for members with strange and interesting usernames to let others know the proper pronounciation. For instance, there's plenty of members who have names that can be pronounced differently depending on wether their name is japanese or not. Anyway, my username is actually a french word. So it is pronounced "sha-bee-shoo". I bet half of the members here have been thinking the whole time that it's "cha-bee-choo".[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]Hmm, I finally decided to read this thread after hearing so many complaints about it in the suggestions forum. Like a tonne of people here have said, I don't like labels. The way I see it, these school stereotypes are just a replacement for other forms of discrimination, like racism. Racism isn't normally tolerated in our society anymore, so people just pull another form of human division from their pockets and start the vicious cycle of discrimination again. Each person is unique, and dividing people into groups simply because of the way they dress or their intrests is just plain wrong. Hmm, I like sports, despite being quite bad at them. I love working on computers, I love anime and the japanese culture, I love classical music, and I play an instrument, I like working with clay, and I like Harry Potter. I love wearing black, but I also love bright sunny colors like lime green and orange. You can't really find a single label for this can you? The same goes for everyone else.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]I recently installed adobe acrobat pro 7 on my pc, but I'm having a slight problem. Acrobat keeps launching at startup. Not acrobat speed launcher, not adobe gamma, acrobat.exe is launching at startup. I tried running msconfig but acrobat isn't anywhere on the list of startup applications. Is there any way to fix this?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=Brasil] Chabi, creationism is creationism, regardless 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. doesn't 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. But the evidence for macro-E is there. There is no evidence that there's a creator or God. Again, if you want to explore I.D. in schools, explore it in a philosophy or religion course, 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] First of all, [B]Intelligent design = Creation[/B]. Intelligent design calls for a Creator, and "author" of existance. The creator can choose any method in how he creates, meaning "POOF!" things can be created out of nothing, and it's possible for things to be manipulated to create other things. Creation includes natural processes and physical laws. The creator is not bound by these laws because he created them (no kidding!). There is intelligence and wisdom behind the way natural processes and physical laws work so elequantly together. So why is intelligent design so "laughable" as a faith if it is responsible for creation? I've been doing a bit of reading and came across an excellent book: [U][B]The complete idiot's guide to Understanding Islam[/B][/U]. I will quote several passages because it explains the creation theory well. [QUOTE]How did God proceed to make the Universe? Did he announce, "let there be light"? Actually no. There is no such verse in the Qur'an. What he did do will sound very familiar from a scientifc point of view. He said the word "be", and an object like a ball (or something equivalent to it) appeared, and the He split it into pieces. The materials from this initial explosion were the building blocks for all things in the universe. The force of that blast continues to expand and spread this matter in all directions even to this day.[/QUOTE]Anything ring a bell people? [QUOTE]God finished the creation of the universe in six segments, ostenibly called days, and then mounted the throne of power to govern the universe on the seventh. He did not rest, for as the Qur'an says, he never tires. With that said, Muslims do not believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, as some religious groups assert. Islam can accept the theory that the universe is is billions of years old, however. How can this be when it the Qur'an declares it took God six days to create everything? The answer lies in the meaning of the arabic word for day, youm. The term youm can mean a day as we know it or a segment of time independent of the 24 hour Earth day. The Qur'an further points out that a day to God is not like ours. In one verse, it says a day to God could be like a thousand years. In another it says that the time it will take the angels to ascend to God for Judgement Day will be a day that is equivilant to 50,000 years of our time. We simply can't concieve of time the same way God does. After all, He made time. So the length of time in years it took for creation is negotiable. Out of the six days, or time periods, that God took to create everthing, the final two days were for creating planets like ours.[/QUOTE] The So that means that God could have created the universe in six segments, each of which could have been several billion years. And each which could have varied in length as well (yes Brasil! God created time, he has the ability to manipulate it to his liking, so anything is possible and he does not need to be consistent if he doesn't want to!) Also, note that the six days mentioned do not include the creation of life, even though they theoretically could have included it because the "days" could have varied in length. [QUOTE]First of all, Islam attributes the origin of life only to God. He is the exclusive author of existence. In this sense, Islam would say that God is the Creator. This makes us creationists in a fashion. The first match up with an evolutionary idea comes from the Qur'anic statement that God created all living things from water. The animals and plants were here before we humans were, as evidenced by the chronological appearance of Adam and Eve after the Earth was populated with lifeforms. The Qur'an even makes an allowance for the diversity of species and the extreme age of Earth. Muslim scholars unanimously agreed that the universe developed over a long period of time and that life arose on Earth through natural processes. One of God's names from the Ninety-nine names of allah is, strangely enough, Al-bari, or the Evolver. This line of argument works well and brooks little dissent among the members of our community- until we get to the formation of human beings. Here is where the battle lines are drawn. In general, most muslims are of the view that God created humans in a unique way, apart from the evolutionary mechanism. Although a few theologians argue that humans could have evolved as well, with Adam and Eve being the first of our kind in the chain of development, this view is currently in the extreme minority. So while Islamic theology can generally go along with many aspects of the evolutionary theory with regard to plants and animals, Muslim opinion leans more strongly toward creationism where humans are concerned.[/QUOTE] I personally agree it is indeed possible that God could have evolved creatures from a single organism. But I also equally think it's God could have just created them individually , because he doesn't need to make things evolve to obtain "fitness" and diversity to begin with (he might simply choose to). I also think that humans were created because God states in the Qur'an that humans were made in the best fashion (ahsani taqweem). Therefore, we have always possesed great intellect. We were "perfect" to begin with. This does not leave room for the idea that we evolved from inferior creatures that could not speak and had inferior intellect to our own. Maybe bones of beings like the famous lucy show what humans looked like in early times, but if that is the case, those beings certainly were not inferior to today's humans. And those beings certainly did not evolve from even more inferior creatures similar to apes. Also, maybe certain humans evolved to look like those creatures, if they had been placed in severe conditions that required a more animalistic anatomy. Also, as I mentioned before, a certain tribe of wicked people was turned into apes, so that could explain this phenomena. Now before you assert that if humans were on earth for only tens of thousands of years, that it doesn't provide enough time for evolution in humans to occur, let me ask this: If God is indeed the author of existance, then could he not alter things as he wills? Could he not speed up the evolutionary process? Could he not allow more mutations to occur and create an even greater selection pressure? Also, could God have not created the Earth in a short amount of time, and becuase of his supreme power make it seem like it is very old. He would have complete control over the chemical and physical processes that occur that we use to measure the age of the Earth. Honestly, if there is such things as a creator, ANYTHING is possible! But for science's sake we can stick to observing nature with the notion that physical laws remain consistent. A change in these physical laws results in the supernatural, and that alone is the concept that needs to be left out of science. Anyway I have to agree with Adahn on this. Theologians cannot impose their religion on others in the science classroom, but science should not be taught in such a manner that it completely and utterly denies the existance of a creator, because it fails to disprove it. The evolution theory is taught at a very early age. My little sister was only eight when she was learning it! Adahn's right, she is at a very impressionable age, and does not have enough knowledge to make an informed decision. If you think that I.D should remain in religion or philiosophy classes, then these subjects need to be taught at an early age too, not just in high school or university (ofcourse from a completely neutral standpoint in public schools). I know that you will never change your mind about I.D, simply because you stick to the opinion that science is quantitative and objective, and refuse to accept the fact that creation can be looked upon in a completely logical and objective way. The [B]fact[/B] remains that the universe cannot exist with a creator. Until someone disproves this, all your atheistic ideas of existance remain subjective. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=Brasil]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]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]

[color=#004a6f]Ahhh... good 'ol religion threads. I'm a Muslim. I believe in my religion because I think it makes sense to me. We are born free of sin, and people are responisible for their own sins. Everyone is equal in the eyes of God regardless of race, color, or gender. I think that the only thing that really drives people away from this religion is because it's so "restrictive". But I'm okay with that "restrictiveness" because God has forbidden everything that is bad for us and permitted everything that is good. He knows what's best for us because he created us, so why shouldn't we obey?[/COLOR]

[color=#004a6f][QUOTE=Brasil]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]You'll have to forgive me, because I don't completely undestand the cristian/judeo point of view about how the world was created. All I know is that Islam Judaism and Cristianity all agree that we started out with Adam and Eve. I would like to address some points from my religious prespective, not that I'm trying to prove anything. It is stated in Islam that the world was created in 4 days. There is no statement that God needed to rest. 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. 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. 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. 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. Sorry for dragging theology into this again Drix, but I had to clear up any misconceptions. 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. 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 ;)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Drix D'Zanth']So, Chabi, considering your previous history on this thread? I humbly request that you stop posting here. Please. Same goes to Warmaster, unless you are willing to provide a more reasonable argument that?s more than a single sentence per post.[/quote]What, and leave you and Brasil to have all the fun? I don't see how my arguments are any less logical than yours. You're right that I did bring theology into this, but if the creation theory is true, then that would mean intelligent design is true. What's the title of this thread? That's right, intelligent design! So, I'm not really going off topic am I? But for your sake I won't bring up that subject anymore. [quote name='Brasil']Supports the creation theory? Is that so? Care to explain? (I've got to hear this)[/quote]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. So I'll just answer Drix's question: [U]How did the first single-celled organism originate?[/U] Interesting question. Certain molecules of the cell could have formed spontaneously. Of course the chance of those molecules forming is very slim, but still by a very very very lucky chance, these molecules formed (like phospholipids). The phospholipids automatically form a bilayer when placed in water. So we have the cell's membrane at least. But when it comes down to protiens and DNA that's where it gets tricky. What came first DNA, or proteins? Neither can exist without the other. Enzymes (protiens) are required to make DNA and DNA is required to make protiens.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]Is it all right to delete files in your "Temp" folder? Not temporary internet files, the ones associated with applications?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Decadence][color=dimgrey']PPS: Also teaching ID makes a test on it moot, because the answer to every question is "A Higher being created it." thats the entire depth of the subject. [/color][/quote]You're right about that in a sense. However, there is some evidence that supports creation over a short period of time rather than evolution over a long period of time, but this kind of supports Christian/Judo/Islamic perspective. When tracing back our cellular DNA, it seems like the "Eve" of mankind is millions of years old years old, like the evolution theory claims. But when tracing back our mitocondrial DNA, the "Eve" of mankind is only thousands of years old. This shows that humans have not been very long on earth and supports the creation theory. Oh and about the apelike human bones we've found: There is an Islamic story (maybe it's stated in christian and jewish books too) that a certain tribe of wicked people were turned into apes and pigs. So that would explain the tranistion of apes to humans (or should I say humans to apes). Pigs are very similar to humans too, which is why we can accept organ transplants from them. Interesting eh?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]Gee, alot of people are afraid of spiders. Just a question to the arachnaphobics, are you afraid of all spiders, or just the big ones? Cause there are those really little ones that are smaller than bees. I personally okay with those really little ones. At night when I'm sleeping in my bunk bed (I'm on top), there's usually a spider on the ceiling. I chase it away simply cause I fear it'll crawl into my mouth at night. Believe it or not, I've never really come across any spiders larger than a bee. I've seen a few medium size ones but they were outiside the window.[/COLOR]

Edited for privacy.

How do you feel about bugs? Which ones creep you out, which ones annoy you, and which ones do you like? Do you have any strange or interesting experiences with bugs?

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=Brasil]"Believed that it will deter sexual desires, and thus a woman will be 'pure' (i.e., a virgin for marriage)" should tip you off that culture isn't the only thing driving it. Culture and religion go hand-in-hand. Religion influences culture. Culture influences religion. Considering that deterring sexual desires is not exactly something purely cultural, and how it's an ideology found in just about every religious doctrine on the face of the planet... ...you may want to reconsider saying female circumcision is purely cultural, because in that cultural aspect, there's a religious aspect and vice versa, and so on. Think about it.[/QUOTE]There is no religion that says that women should not be sexually pleased as well. And there is also no religion that says that only women should not have premarital sex. And there is definitely no religion that encourages or condones the practice of female circumcision. Hence, you cannot blame relgion. Women have been mistreated by men and seen as sexual objects before any of the major religions came into play. Even in atheist societies virginity before marriage was important. Certain cultures take that one idea from religion: Virginity before marriage, and use it to oppress women, even though the religion teaches not to oppress. Anyway, back to ID. As I have said before, there is a line to draw between religion and ID. There is a completely logical and non-faith based way of looking at Intelligent design, leaving any specific religion out. Most of the ID non-supporters say that there is no "proof" and no solid evidence for ID, and that's why it shouldn't be taught in science class. But there are many ideas taught in science that do not have solid evidence. The ideas are simply taught because they are logical and possible. Take for instance, the big bang theory. It is a [B]fact[/B] that the universe is indeed expanding. Hence, that is solid evidence and [B]actual proof[/B] that the universe was indeed smaller before. But how small? Why do science books claim that it was zero volume and infinite (well, almost infinite) mass? Because logically, it's possible. But there is no evidence to actually support this. It's perfectly possible that the universe started out with a finite volume and mass, and began expanding from there, is it not? This idea is also perfectly logical and possible too. Hence, both these ideas should be presented as possible in the science class. No one has adequately explained how the universe came to be. It is impossible for it to appear out of nothingness. The science books do claim that you cannot create matter or energy. It must have come from something, but what that something is we don't know. We have observed that there is a logic behind the way everthing works, there is indeed something intelligent about it. Hence, it is logical to assume that an intelligent being created the universe. It is possible, and therefore, it should be presented in the science class.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Brasil']You've heard about female circumcision, I trust? Yeah...that's a case of religion dictating how a society works, from a quasi-governmental state.[/quote]Correction, that has to do with culture (well, it does).[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]Sigh..... Why is it when someone makes a suggestion to improve Otakuboards so many people start defending the staff at otakuboards and claiming how little time they have on their hands? We all know that the staff have little time on their hands, and that they do have personal lives. And we should all appreciate them greatly for their effort on this network. But the suggestions forum is just that, a suggestions forum. So all anyone needs to do is comment on the suggestion itself, not on the staff's lack of time. Sage's last thread recieved far more bashing than neccesary (in fact, he shouldn't have been bashed at all). All anyone needs to say is, "Sage's idea of adding more rules is good/bad". We understand that the staff has limited time when we make these threads. When the staff has time, they will (or will not) implement those suggestions. Got a problem with that? We don't need 20 people reminding the thread starter about the staff's personal life. That's spam.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Siren]*cough*bull****!*cough* Sorry, Chabi, but unless you got a lobotomy within the past two months...I find that incredibly, incredibly, [i]incredibly[/i'] hard to believe.[/quote]Find me a quote where I tried to force people to convert to Islam and then we'll talk. [QUOTE] Pointing to changes between species, pointing to purposes of bodily functions and claim they don't support Evolution, rather supporting the idea there's some omnipotent creator? Do you know the biggest problem with your argument? Just because something is Teleological (i.e., goal-oriented, purpose-oriented) does not mean there has to be a creator, nor does it make the idea of Intelligent Design any more valid. There's a reason that different squirrels across the globe are different: they've inhabited a different area, with different climates, different physical requirements, etc. The purpose of their evolution--of those differences--is survival.[/QUOTE]Look back at my previous post, and you will see that I am comparing two squirrells from [B]different ancestries[/B]. The australian flying squirrel is a marsipual (it has the pouch like kangaroos and koalas). It has the same common ancestor as the other marsipuals, while the north american flying squirrel has a different ancestor. That's where I question evolution. By chance, you get 2 very similar flying squirrels, that aren't even related to eachother? [QUOTE] And the purpose of their evolution, their need to survive, is indicative of one thing and one thing only: that they evolved because they had to, because in a previous form, their bodies were not capable of dealing with their environments. Evolution works because it's a good system, and it's a good system because it works...not because there's some omnipotent power pulling its strings. And frankly, I don't see why it's so difficult to understand. Evolution is both chance and purpose. Some animals will evolve; others won't. Which ones will evolve and which ones won't is a matter of chance, but when they do, they evolve for a specific purpose: survival, whether they consciously do it or not, and whether they are consciously aware of it or not. It's survival of the fittest. Your evidence doesn't support anything remotely related to Intelligent Design, because it more points to something far more relevant and earthly: Teleological evolution.[/QUOTE]I didn't say that evolution is completely wrong. I just don't think that all creatures evolved from one ancestor. Second of all, why not try making up a decent argument rather than ranting and raving about how others form theirs? I'm not going to let you decide for me how to argue. I think teleological evolution supports intelligent design, also, the faults I see in the evolution theory suggest that something intelligent is required to make evolution a reality, so therefore I decided to use these as arguments. Rather than trying to provide an explanation for my questions about the eye evolution (because you don't have an answer), you simply dismiss it because it's "not relevant" (in your opinion that is) to intelligent deisgn.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]Being a muslim who lives in Canada, which is a country ruled by secular laws, I understand that there is a great diversity of people living here, and people who follow all sorts of religions. I personally do not think that [I]religion[/I] should be taught in the science classroom, at least in public schools. If parents want their children to learn sceince from a certain religious prespective, then they should send them to a religious school. If I had kids, I personally wouldn't want the christian/hindu/jewish/[other religion] perspective taught to my children in the science classroom. That can be left to world religions class. And I wouldn't want my religion's prespective of science to be imposed on others. But I do think the concept of intelligent design (not from any specific religion) has validity in the science world. If our universe was truly created, then intelligent design would be a fact, not just some "faith based doctrine". Therefore, since it is a possibilty at least, it should not be considered "crap". I personally see alot of evidence that suggests that intelligent design is true. Everything has a purpose. The sun gives us light to see and for plants to photosynthesise, and heat to keep us warm. We need air to breathe, and it controls the temperature. If there was no atmosphere on earth, it would be schorching hot in the daytime, and freezing at night. Even our actions have purposes. A baby smiles so that its parents want to give it attention, which it needs to live a healthy life. I find it difficult to believe that all of these things [B]with purposes[/B] came to be by mere chance. Other things I see as evidence of intelligent deisign is how two creatures, lets say the australian flying squirrel and the north american (or is it europen?) flying squirrel, are very similar, yet apperently come from different ancestors. So these creatures, and a whole bunch of other examples, evolved this way by mere chance? Also, if all creatures originated from one species, how does this explain the evolution of certain organs? According to the evolution theory, at one point in time, no creatures on earth had eyes for example, and eventually some evolved to have eyes. The eye is a complex organ, and it requires all parts to function. It would be impossible for creatures to appear suddenly that have eyes with all their functioning parts. But at the same time, what role would natural selection play if eyes had to evolve over time, considering that they would not function without all the neccesary parts? Having an eye that doesn't work is no better than having no eye at all, so it would not be "naturally selected" would it? Evolution as a theory is correct, it has been proven, but I think there is a limit to how much it occurs.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=Godelsensei]You mean exactly like what happened a couple weeks ago? Don't fret--last I heard, there was a chance that we wouldn't be affected by the thing [i]at all[/i]. If we do get rain like we did during the storm, though, avoid Lake Ontario like the plague. o_o;;[/QUOTE]That's good to hear. I always hear about hurricanes turning into light storms for us, but the news made it seem like this time it might be worse. We might actualy get flooding! We never got flooding in my city before.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE]I can't imagine what it would be like to experience anything like this. I don't watch TV anymore, but I remember vividly the accounts and footage for Hurricane Andrew (1992) when I was a little girl. By all statistics and accounts I've drug up, Katrina's kicking Andrew's butt. Not that that's a good thing, mind you. I believe Andrew was Cat 5 on landfall. Katrina hit Cat 5 over water, but chilled out a bit before landfall at Cat 4. Thank goodness[/QUOTE]I thought hurricanes were named based on their disctructiveness or strength. I was told in geography class that Hurricanes whose name begin with A are stronger than those whose names begin with B. So why is this hurricane named Katrina if it's so strong. The the hurricane is moving north to Canada, specifically to southern ontario, where I live (YIKES!). But it's looks like its going to die down significantly. It could still cause flooding, and traffic disruption though.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f]I first got introduced to the internet in elementary school. I was about 10 I think. All elementary school children had an email address with the board of education's web address. We simply used those emails for educational puropses. I only really started using the internet for fun when I was 13. I had just gotten into anime then, and I liked using search engines (my first search engine was mamma.com) to find dragonball z websites. I tried to make my own site at geocities.com, but I didn't even know what html was back then. A friend helped me sign up for a hotmail account, but I didn't have a computer at home then, so I didn't know what msn really was. I've never really used chat rooms before either. A year later we got a computer, and I finally got introduced to the lovely msn messenger client.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Morpheus']The truth is, not everyone needs a seperate country to live peacefully. Why can't people just skip the bloodshed and work at something? Have the leader try to get into the current government. People are much more willing to negociate when they aren't being blow to pieces.[/quote]Well, Israel is intended to be [B]the[/B] jewish state. Jews only. They don't want palestinians there in the first place. It would work out much better if two states were developed. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed']I agree, I hope that the this all goes off without another massive war and blood shed, I hope that the local militants don't get any anti-semertic ideas. We'll see. But the two main religious groups, especially Islam, will never get along. In the Qu'ran it even says that the Jews are the 'Greediest human beings alive' or somthing like that, and that they are all bad in the eyes of Al'lah. I'm not exactly sure, but devout Muslims will most likely always hate Jews, because to not hate Jews is againts the fundimentals of the Religion. Unless Islam goes through a major reform, like the Catholics did, the Muslim nations will never get along with Isreal.[/COLOR][/quote]"It's fundamental to hate jews"? :eek: Sorry, but what source are you getting this garbage information from? The Quran mentions many tribes and nations, all of whom were sent prophets to guide them to the right path. Of all these tribes and nations, only few actually listened to the prophets and the rest didn't. Of all these tribes, and nations, the jews were sent the most prophets, and the gave the most trouble (they've been around a long time). That's it really. So there were jews that were good. Many of the prophets and their followers were jews. [B]Edit: Sorry, I worded the above paragrapgh incorrectly. I meant that [B]within[/B] these tribes and nations, most people didn't listen.[/B] And that doesn't give us the right to hurt jews for no reason at all. But still to this day, many of them, (in Islam's view) are still defying God. The term "jew" can be difficult to understand, because it refers to both a race and a religion. There are jews who are athiest, and there are arabs who are jews. I haven't heard of this, but there could be jews who are muslim too. "The muslim nation aren't getting along with Israel" because we believe the jews (jewish religion, not race) have been denied that land because they defied God so many times. Those who are followind judaism are still defying God now. And in addition, they did invade land that palestinians were living on. Now I understand tha jews believe that the land belongs to them, and that they actually must fight and remove those living in the land and build that nation called Israel. I respect those believes. But muslims believe otherwise, so at the same time we must fight them and stop them from invading the land we call ours. In my opinion, I think palestinians should fight back, but not by bombing civilians. Not a drop of blood should be shed from the innocent. The only way is build up an army and conduct proper warfare. But of course, we'd all like peace right now. And the only way is for both sides to compromise. If jews don't want to compromise, neither will the palestinians, and vice versa. It's a bit difficult. Jews believe they must actually remove palestinians. That's why the arabs are so keen to keep fighting. It's a matter of mistrust. Even if the jews just want to live in the land right now, they will eventually try to get all palestinians out, and even take over jordan, lebanon, and syrria, because the all used to be one with palestine. Anyway... As a palestinian, all I want is rights for my people, and to be able to go back to my homeland peacefully. I have no problem living alongside jews, as long as they don't deny us our rights, and allowing us access to jerusalem and the mosque peacefully, and a palestinian state. [/COLOR]