The13thMan

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Oui, ca va. Ja'mappelle Nick. Je suis pomme fritte! Mmm! Oh ho ho! A-oui oui! Je voudrais tower l'eiffel? Pizza pizza! God... i haven't the slightest clue what i just said. Sorry for ruining your little french thread. =P [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Even though this is more a job for the mods i'd just like to say that you misspelled naruto in the thread title. Not to mention how messy the title already is, even with the misspelling. I don't believe this is the sort of matter where blame needs to be assigned. It's not the parent's fault for not educating their child. It's no one's fault. It was an accident. And the simple fact that you decided to blame the parents is a horrible tragedy in it of itself. There are going to be many people out there looking at this and assigning blame where they judge. If a story like this got enough attention it could even spark a lot of unnecessary debates. Sometimes there's no one to blame, this i feel, is one of those cases. I also think the news article was shallow and over all quite crappy. =D [/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote name='Chaotictwilight']Hiya, this is my first thread-ish type thing so if this one already exists, please don't hate me *hides* :animeswea Anyways, let's say that something happens between you and the person you love (if you don't have one, pretend you do) and it escalates to the point where they try to kill you with a sword (what...? I like swords...) and you dodge the first swing. Then you have a chance to save yourself by killing them knowing that the next swing they take will take your life. That's the scenario. I know I know, very unlikely and of all the things they could use, why a sword? But hey, that's the beauty of boredom mixed in with an imagination. [COLOR="Red"]And I know what most of you are probably thinking, "Why Kill them when I could easily injure them and then run away/call the police"...well....IF this was a "what would you do in this situation?" type thing, then yes, that would be a valid argument. But....the choices here are either kill or be killed.[/COLOR] So in other words; you're basically chosing between your life or theirs...which would you choose?[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Hahaha, i like how you put in red exactly what i was thinking. I hate it when someone poses a this or that situation and they go and over complicate it, thus missing the entire purpose of the question in the first place. Same goes for whoever it was that said it would matter on what the reason the other person would have for killing me. That's missing the point, my friend. It would be a perfectly valid question to ask if it were a real life scenario, but it isn't one. And as a matter of fact, that's exactly what ChaoticTwilight said. What would i do? Man... i don't know. I suppose i'd kill the other person. I'm not the kind of person that believes in absolutes, and that includes love. If i kill someone i love in self defense... i'd eventually get over it. And it's in our nature to survive, there are examples of this in all sorts of places. One that i can think off from the top of my head is when two people are drowning often times the stronger person will climb on top of the weaker one to stay afloat. It's not a matter of not loving the other person or being a bad person, it's a matter of survival and instincts. So yes... i think i'd have to kill the person. How sad. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Let me start off by saying that i generally don't like politics and am quite ignorant of it. It bores and frustrates me, at once. Seems almost contradictory! But don't take this to mean that i don't care about a lot of potentially political issues. I've participated in my fair share of abortion, gay marriage, stem cell, and so on debates. It's just that the politics of it all don't mean a lot to me. It's not, "should we make a law against abortion?" it's more like, "Is abortion immoral?" I think once we answer those core questions the politics should come without any problem. Who do i support? I'm not sure. I typically lean to the left. Hm... screw this crap, why should i tell you who i support? What kind of absurdity is that? There's no way any presidential candidate is going to feel exactly the same as i do on every issue. Instead let me point out the most important qualities i feel my ideal president should have. First and foremost i believe that the president should be scientifically literate. I'm not saying he needs to have a degree in physics or biology, i'm just saying he needs to understand the scientific process and not be completely ignorant of science news. He should also take the side of science when it comes to evolution/ID, global warming, autism/vaccines, stem cells (which is less of an issue now than before), and many other things. Let me say right now that this is why i strongly dislike Huckabee. He's a creationist and he doesn't believe in evolution. Evolution is one of the strongest and most supported scientific theories we have and is the entire basis of biology. How he can sit there and tell people that he thinks all of the science is fooey is mind boggling to me. The ideal president should also feel strongly about changing our education system. I don't know how exactly, i'll leave that to him/her. What i do know is that it's crap right now and needs to be changed. On average our kids today are at the bottom of the international barrel. It's pathetic. I don't know the stats off the top of my head, all i recall is a feeling of shock and awe when reading through them. Seperation of church and state should be something he firmly believes in. I personally am an agnostic. I don't care what religion my president is, just so long as he keeps it to himself. I actually really don't want to know what religion he is! I believe relgion is a private matter. I wouldn't go so far as to advocate removing "In God We Trust" from our currency, but if he decided that would be for the best i wouldn't object. Morally speaking he needs to be in the same ballpark as me. This really shouldn't be hard for anybody to fulfill. Just as long as the president is a cold hearted baby killer, i'm ok. And lastly he must not be black or a woman! Just kidding. =P [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]1. What was the first choice you’ve made that you can remember? Should i stay or should i go now? Ok, honestly, i just looked around and saw most people gave crappy half-joke answers. My answer was in honor of those brave souls out there making them look stupid so that others may look better. 2. What was the best choice you ever made? I don't think this can be answered. To truly know the best choice you'd have to know what would've happened if you chose the other thing(s). But i guess my best choice was not racing Biff at the red light, cuz if i did i would've ran straight into that car ruining my career as a guitarist and professional musician for the rest of my life. 3. What was the worst choice you ever made? I decided to go shot for shot with vodka with my roommate one monday ago. I got obliterated, threw up everywhere, and had a hangover the next day causing me to miss class. And it's not fun cleaning up puke while hungover. 4. What was the hardest choice you ever made? I'm not sure. But right now i'm trying to decide on whether i want to change my major to physics, to remain in biomedical engineering, or to choose some other science related major. I was also thinking about astronomy and biology. Astronomy is related to physics so i was thinking about physics with a minor in astronomy. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]When you say you're going to use coke and mentos do you mean you'll shake it up and throw the entire bottle as it erupts or just let the eruption be the means to getting soda at people? I wouldn't recommend throwing it in the crowd, that'd be scary if people got confused. I also think you're supposed to use Diet Coke. I've never done it myself, but i always see it done with Diet Coke. MythBusters did an episode on it, you should go watch that. Otherwise, good luck with your last day prank. =D [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I just want to start off by saying: Holy Crap! Lunox is a hot asian chick! All this time and i had no idea... These are just some pictures i messed around with a little in photoshop. I used the cutout filter after liquifying. I like 'em. [/FONT][/COLOR] [URL=http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b89/vash331/Picture031-Liquify.jpg][IMG]http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b89/vash331/th_Picture031-Liquify.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b89/vash331/Picture031-LiquifyandCutout.jpg][IMG]http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b89/vash331/th_Picture031-LiquifyandCutout.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]L'eggo my eggo. I don't eat waffles in restaurants, i'd much rather have some eggs and a giant slab of meat. But i do eat frozen waffles. And i always liked those. I like them more than Belgian waffles. I have a box of blueberry eggos in my freezer right now, good stuff. And to Allamorph's pentecostal-esque rant. Demons be-gone!!-ahhh! [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]1. What have your experiences with rudeness on the internet been? I've had my fair share of experience. I've also encountered the moron on Youtube posting extremely rude and hurtful comments on my videos. Of course, my videos were made by me and my little brother just for the sake of fun. We posted them on youtube just to get a response at our stupidity. Though i have posted more serious videos on youtube and gotten horrible responses. The youtube crowd is notoriously wicked, they're a bunch of a$#-f*^$s. Of course there's also online gaming. Online gaming isn't at all personal. Halo 2 and 3 are just filled with jerks. But whatev. 2. Do you get affected by them, generally? The youtube ones pissed me off immensely. They're a lot more personal because they're critiquing your work, whatever it is. But you get over it given some time and the realization that they're just trying to be mean and critical. 3. Have you ever been deliberately rude to someone over the Net, and why? I probably have, i feel like that kind of person sometimes. But it's never been uncalled for, i don't think. Typically it's someone with a ridiculously stupid opinion or just blatantly wrong. 4. Do you think there are times when it's justified? Yes. 5. Why do you think people feel the need to make unecessary comments online? I blame MTV. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Oh lame, you didn't tell me you were going to be in Nashville! I live like 30 minutes from Nashville and have been to the airport there numerous times. Well...that's not entirely true, i'm in Knoxville now so it's more like i live 3 hours and 30 minutes from Nashville. Aw well. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]******* the duck joke. I say throw her in the pond and see if she floats. If she floats she's a witch. If she's a witch, burn her. Who doesn't love Monty Python? But in all seriousness, beat the crap outta that b****. Some people need a good beating to learn their place. Or perhaps you could tottally go passive aggressive on her b**** a**. =D [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]In the words of one of my favorite comedians, Mike Birbiglia, "Cracka, please!" [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I don't know what to think. My first impulse is to think you're overreacting and just need to chill. Buuuut, it's not like you gave a lot of info, i have no idea in what context he calls those girls those names. And i also don't understand the kind of relationship he has with those women. So, my advice can only be as useful as your information was. The only reason you'd be mad at him, so far as i can tell, for calling those women those names is that you think there might be something behind them, something more than what goes on between friends. You need to find out either on your own or by talking to him whether this is true or not. If it's not true then i would say that you should probably just let it go. If it is then obviously you've got issues with your husband that need to be sorted out. But i suppose the bottom line is to find out who has to sacrafice the most and make sure the one who sacrafices the least is the one sacraficing at all. If it really really really bothers you and it wouldn't be a big deal for him to stop then it's obvious who needs to do what. If it's the other way around then once again it's obvious. If you're worried about bringing it up in a way that seems like you're attacking him you could always just express that to him straight up. Just say, i'm not trying to attack you and if you feel that i am just tell me and i'll rephrase or explain further. Just be sensitive of each other and talk like adults. If all else fails, i'm always here for you, baby. ;) [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I?ve fallen a good deal behind in this topic, I?ve been busy. So forgive me if I restate something someone else has stated or miss something somebody directly addressed towards me. I have a problem with people comparing the faith required to believe in the existence of a supernatural being and the faith required to believe in a physical law or theory of science. They are not at all synonymous. They are as different as apples and Chinese finger traps. The faith required to believe in God (or any other deity) is more like blind faith. You?ve got very little to go on and absolutely no hardcore evidence for it. Of course, that alone is debatable, but that?s a different matter. With science there is very little ?faith? involved. It?s like saying it requires faith to believe that I have 5 fingers or that the sun is actually a giant ball of fire and not a tiny marble of? I dunno, that stuff that makes fireflies glow. This is basically the same problem I have with AzureWolf?s statement that people believe blindly in science. Anybody that?s done the research doesn?t believe in science blindly, they believe in science after observing many things for themselves. But perhaps he is talking about those out there that preach and point to science without ever looking at any of the stats for themselves. Those people aren?t much better than the creationists and others out there - the blind followers of science just happen to have made the mistake of being correct. =D Azure, to your statement of people simply saying ?studies show? and then believing anything that follows, I can understand your stance. I know and have witnessed many many times where the media will take the bottom line of a scientific study (often times poorly performed or preliminary ones) and spout it as truth. It?s a real pain to see, but by no means should we blame science or the scientists. We should blame the sheeple out there that accept everything without question and don?t care enough to look with their own two eyes. [/FONT][/COLOR] [QUOTE=AzureWolf] This begs me to ask you your own question: Do YOU know what science is? Entropy is NOT complexity! It is randomness! You may think it's semantics, but if complexity didn't mean thinks like computers, AI, and other things that call for energy, you might have a point. And holy hell, that's NOT at all what the second law says about the gas and boxes. It says it will be in ALL possible situations, but closer to 70% of the time will be within equilibrium, 29% of the time it will be close to equilibrium, and the other percent is shared (not equally) by different gradients and extremes (including being only in one box, or even in a corner). Those percentages may be off, but the point is it fluctuates into all possible states, but the amount of time spent is different. Hence, that's what the second law says: randomness. And advancement DOES defy entropy. Living organisms actually contradict entropy: their existence reduces entropy. The only saving grace is that more advanced (less entropic) beings have a tendency to generate more heat, waste, and entropy, so their net output is more entropy. Please don't preach science to others if you don't know what it is yourself. I'm not even going to bother with your evolution one... Good lord... Like I told Retribution, it's not exactly science I'm concerned about, it's people's blind faith in it (or I guess wrong understanding of it too).[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic] Oh wow, you totally dissed me and I didn?t know! Ok, let?s see if we can get this worked out. Admittedly, my understanding of entropy is very new, I was only introduced to it last year in my chemistry class. So in my defense, I?m a nub. =D Perhaps complexity was off, I think I was trying to relate it in layman?s terms. You?re right, it?s the randomness. It says so very clearly in the small passage I quoted about entropy. Ok, in response to what you said about the gas and the boxes. I don?t believe I mentioned anything about the percentages and how it fluctuates over time. I also have never heard about the physical law that states that after reaching equilibrium gas likes to dance around, away from equilibrium, all of its own. Now, in my ignorance, I very easily could have missed this. So, I?m going to put it on you to prove that it will do that. Go find a quote or some link that I can look at on my own. I?d really appreciate it. It?s just that in all that I?ve learned so far about the physical laws of natures is that typically, when crap?s left alone, it?ll move towards a state of equilibrium. Never have I heard anything about a closed system moving away from equilibrium in the slightest on its own. It requires some work to move away from equilibrium. But I could be misunderstanding what you said or I could just flat out be wrong. Educate me. =D Your next paragraph confuses me because it seems very blatantly to contradict itself. You say that living organisms defy entropy and then they don?t? Well which is it, man!? What I?ve learned is that they do not defy entropy, and it?s basically for the reasons you stated, if I understand what you stated correctly. I think when people say living organisms defy entropy they generally are overlooking the fact that our system includes things like the sun and the Earth. My biology teacher used the example of the science building we were in. If the building were left alone for years it would eventually start breaking down and rotting away. This is an increase in entropy. It requires energy from an outside source to reorganize the building and make it pretty again. Another way to describe the second law of thermodynamics is by examining energy. Total energy = usable energy + unusable energy. When energy is converted from one form into another, some of that energy becomes unavailable to do work. The unusable energy that is lost in the conversion is considered to be lost to disorder, which is where entropy comes in. Entropy is the measure of disorder of a system. My friend, I am trying to understand science, this is part of the process. We learn more from our mistakes than our successes. And my mistake of using the word complexity over randomness wasn?t a huge one, like you believe. When I think of randomness I think of complexity. Which seems more complex to you, when all my altoids are in my little altoid tin on my desk or when they?re spread out all across the galaxy? I guess part of the reason I see complexity and randomness to be somewhat similar is because of what I?ve been exposed to in information theory. But that?s irrelevant. Also, AzureWolf, what do you do? I know it shouldn?t be important and it wouldn?t nullify anything you?ve said before if you were, say, a preacher. I was just curious. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Experimentation is the observation and collection of data of a [I]controlled[/I] situation. In order for an observation to be called an experiment, and thus hold any weight at all, [I]all possible confounding variables must be eliminated.[/I] Anything short of this is mere observation and subject to high levels of bias. There will be a test over this tomorrow.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic] Certainly you're right. I hadn't mentioned it before when perhaps i should have. You can't get a conclusion from an experiment if there are still things left unaccounted for. Sometimes it's the confounding variables that makes experimentation so fun. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in the past have been due to strange anomolies during experiments. Of course, most of the time when scientists carry out experiments they know how it's going to end up or have a good idea. The scientists who tested to see the deal with the chromosomes i quoted previously had a good idea of what they would find. They expected to find telomere DNA in the center of the chromosome, and they did. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote name='ZeitGeist'] Heh, you're missing the point. Evoultion is not a testable hypothesis because you cannot observe it, specifically macro-evolution. [/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]:animesigh I just got some wicked strong deja vu just now... odd. I got your point, quite strong. And then i put forth a great example given by a biologist from Brown University. Then you dismissed it as me missing the point. That's not at all cool. You need to tell me why evolution is not testable and specifically why the example i quoted is not a test of evolution. You can't just claim that it's inherently untestable. And actually you can observe evolution. Now, the example i gave was on a micro scale, but there are plenty of macro scaled examples. The galapogos finch is the classical example that Darwin himself observed. Another one that he observed was the Xanthopan morganii praedicta: [QUOTE=PBS]Not all of Darwin's conjectures were so broad in scope or so earth-shaking; some were simple predictions. Take the case of this species of orchid, Angraecum sesquipedale, from Madagascar. When Darwin saw this orchid in 1862, he, like anyone who saw it, was astonished by the length of its spur, which can reach over a foot in length. (See long, slim tube in photo.) "Astounding," he wrote. "What insect could suck it?" For some as-yet unknown insect must, he insisted, and it had to have a foot-long tongue to get at the plant's nectar, which pools at the very base of the spur. Entomologists of his day were skeptical, for no such creature had ever turned up. But more than 40 years after Darwin's death in 1882, scientists discovered a giant hawk moth in Madagascar, and it lapped the orchid's nectar with, yes, a foot-long tongue. The moth was named Xanthopan morganii praedicta in honor of his prediction. Once again, Darwin was right.[/QUOTE] And here's another one, the finch. [QUOTE=PBS]Suitably, one of the most striking examples of natural selection in action concerns the very Galapagos finches that Darwin made famous. Since 1973, biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant, working on the tiny island of Daphne Major in the Galapagos, have studied a species of finch called Geospiza fortis (upper right in illustration, which appeared in Darwin's 1839 book about his five-year journey aboard the Beagle). After a drought in 1977 devastated plants bearing small seeds, more than 1,000 of the 1,200 G. fortis finches on the island died. The Grants discovered that larger G. fortis, which could break open larger seeds than smaller G. fortis could, survived better. The survivors mated in 1978, and, on average, their offspring had beaks 4 percent larger than those of the previous generation. Following another drought in 2003, G. fortis with smaller beaks survived better, in part because of stiff competition for bigger seeds after a larger finch species, G. magnirostris, settled the island. Between 2003 and 2005, the Grants found, G. fortis beaks shrank by 5 percent.[/QUOTE] I highly recommend you look through some of the stuff i gave in that link. Click around some, answer some of your own questions before coming back. [/FONT][/COLOR] [QUOTE=ZeitGeist]My point is that you can interpret all the figures you want, and you can put an evolutionary slant on them, but you can't really test it. All this is, is data gathering. The way you interpret what the data means is how you come up with this conclusion, but to test it, you would have to simulate the environment and note it's progression[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Experiments are basically observing things and collecting data. I'm not sure you understand that. You can label it as "data gathering" if you want, but it's more accurately and commonly called experimentation and the scientific process. Besides, most middle school and high school science classes even list out data gathering as a part of the scientific process, i think right after experimentation. Go figure! It's not just putting an "evolutionary slant" on them. It's explaining what is observed through experimentation the only way possible, through evolution. Biology and evolutionary science does not make any sense without evolution. Plain and simple. Why would you have to simulate the environment? What's wrong with just observing our current environment? I realize most major evolutionary changes on the macro scale take generations to observe, but who says we can't or haven't observed them? I already posted two examples where they have been observed, and even one that gives specific stats (the finches). There's also tons and tons of fossil evidence to support evolution. The evidence is everywhere. EDIT: Actually, those two examples that i gave are both of microevolution, my bad. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote name='ZeitGeist']By this measure, evolution is not science. You can have all the supposed evidence in the world, but how can you test the hypothesis of a process that takes millions of years? You don't, you can't. Think about that carefully before you completely dismiss me for being a zealot. Evolution by it's nature is [I]untestable[/I]. You can collect data and interpret it, but there's no way to physically test the hypothesis of evolution, to see the pieces fit.[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic] I'm actually quite glad you asked me this. It's good for me to have to go out and cite proof to back up my own statements, and that's exactly what you've caused me to do. So then, here it is. [/FONT][/COLOR] [QUOTE=Dr. Kenneth Miller]Q: One of the lines of evidence that you pointed out at the Dover trial is the organization of our own chromosomes. How is that evidence for common ancestry? Miller: We've known for a long time that we humans share common ancestry with the other great apes—gorillas, orangs, chimps, and bonobos. But there's an interesting problem here. We humans have 46 chromosomes; all the other great apes have 48. In a sense, we're missing a pair of chromosomes, two chromosomes. How did that happen? Well, is it possible that in the line that led to us, a pair of chromosomes was simply lost, dropping us from 24 pairs to 23? Well, the answer to that is no. The loss of both members of a pair would actually be fatal in any primate. There is only one possibility, and that is that two chromosomes that were separate became fused to form a single chromosome. If that happened, it would drop us from 24 pairs to 23, and it would explain the data. "The closer we look at our own DNA, the more powerful the evidence becomes for our common ancestry with other species." Here's the interesting point, and this is why evolution is a science. That possibility is testable. If we indeed were formed that way, then somewhere in our genome there has to be a chromosome that was formed by the fusion of two other chromosomes. Now, how would we find that? It's easier than you might think. Every chromosome has a special DNA sequence at both ends called the telomere sequence. Near the middle it has another special sequence called the centromere. If one of our chromosomes was formed by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, what we should be able to see is that we possess a chromosome in which telomere DNA is found in the center where it actually doesn't belong, and that the chromosome has two centromeres. So all we have to do is to look at our own genome, look at our own DNA, and see, do we have a chromosome that fits these features? We do. It's human chromosome number 2, and the evidence is unmistakable. We have two centromeres, we have telomere DNA near the center, and the genes even line up corresponding to primate chromosome numbers 12 and 13. Is there any way that intelligent design or special creation could explain why we have a chromosome like this? The only way that I can think of is if you're willing to say that the intelligent designer rigged chromosome number 2 to fool us into thinking that we had evolved. The closer we look at our own DNA, the more detailed a glimpse we get of our own genome, the more powerful the evidence becomes for our common ancestry with other species. [/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]That's only one example of course, out of many. I'm sure next time you'll do some research before you make such a claim as "evolution is not a testable hypothesis." Here's a link to the page i got the argument from. It's from an entire interview from the guy, i recommend reading it if you're interested in learning more. He goes over many things, including why ID is not science. [URL="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html"]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html[/URL] And i would never dismiss someone as a zealot or dismiss them at all if they sincerely misunderstood something and was specifically addressing it towards me. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Oh wow... i couldn't read all of the posts (the last page), some were so painful. So many of you have misconceptions about science, intelligent design, creationism, evolution... it's ridiculous. I've looked into the subject a good amount and have heard many extremely intelligent people argue on both sides. [/FONT][/COLOR] [quote name='Sakurasuka']There is about as much scientific evidence for each side. The only difference is that one side chooses to believe that we were designed, and one side chooses to believe that we happened. Niether side has an ironclad argument, and niether side is without holes in their theories.[/quote] [COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]This is way way off. I mean, it just proves that you have either very little idea of the truth behind these two subjects or you were brainwashed by ID and creationist propaganda. Evolution has tons and tons of scientific data supporting it. As a matter of fact, all possible experiments that have ever been carried out to prove or disprove evolution have all come out the same. Every single one supports evolution, 100%. If even one disproved it that would be enough to shake the entire foundation of evolution and call into question the theory, that my friend would make big news. Intelligent design on the other hand has absolutely no scientific evidence supporting it. This is because ID is not science. Ask any scientist out there and they'll tell you. ID is not science. It has no testable hypothesis. You can't have science if you can't test a theory. How do you test the existence of God? You don't, you can't. [/FONT][/COLOR] [quote name='AzureWolf']And just so you know, the so-called "independent thinkers" merely follow the religion of science: whatever is said in the name of science is believed without question to them. Because "studies show" or "some study of which I understand and know no details of" were done. As a person who is forced to actually read and digest this BS, I am astonished at how ignorant this generation is. It's worse than those who blindly follow religion, seriously.[/quote] [COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Oh man, that is insane! Blindly following religion is worse than following science? Do you even know what science is? Science is all about carrying out experiments on your own to prove or disprove another's own theory. The entire process is called peer review and every scientist takes part in it constantly. Science is sort of like a process to get to the truth of things. Religion on the other hand is about faith. You can't test the existence of God. You can't even compare the two, they're in such different leagues. It's like comparing apples to oranges. [/FONT][/COLOR] [quote name='AceBurner']Besides, science can disprove evolution just as well as it can prove it.[/quote][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]This is a misunderstanding. Science is capable of disproving evolution through the experiments scientists carry out, but they don't. Every test ever carried out by scientists for or against evolution have all come out the same way, as i've said before. [/FONT][/COLOR] [quote name='AceBurner']Pretty fancy language-talkin', huh? Well, here's a paraphrase: Things break down over time. Rock erodes, plants wilt, and organisms die. evolution speaks of things advancing over time, which is contradictory.[/quote] [COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Oh wow... you obviously don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Let me break it down for you. It's all about entropy and the principle that states that in an isolated system not at equilibrium entropy will increase. Entropy is kind of like saying how complex a system is. If an isolated system (like the universe) is not at equilibrium then the "complexity" of the system will continue to increase (or possibly remain the same, but never ever decrease). The classical example is this: consider a box full of some sort of gas, think of each individual atom bouncing off the walls and off each other in a seemingly random order. Now a small hole in the box opens up into another box of equal volume. Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics states that the gas will move from one side of the box and into the other (not all of it, about half) until equilibrium is reached. Because of entropy we know that there will never be a case where all the random movements of the gas will cause the elements to bounce around and back into the first box. [quote name='Hugh D. Young and Roger A. Freedman']The increase of entropy in every natural, irreversible process measures the increase of disorder or randomness in the universe associated with that process.[/quote] You say "things advancing over time" is contradictory to entropy when in fact it isn't in any way. "Things advancing" does not mean they are in any way effecting entropy, if anything they become more complex which supports entropy. [/FONT][/COLOR] [quote name='Aceburner']Also, evolution is based on mutations. However, most mutated animals studied today cannot reproduce.[/quote] [COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]...This too is wrong. When evolution talks about mutations that change the evolutionary line of a species it's talking about small mutations that makes an animal better fit for its environment. It's not talking about physical deformations and retardations. Ever heard of Darwin's natural selection? To what MistressRoxie says in her first post, i have to mostly agree. The word theory used by most people is different in connotation in the manner that scientists use it. When most normal people use the word theory they usually mean something that could or could not be, with maybe a 50/50 shot. When scientists use the word they simply are stating that there's not 100% certainty. It's more like a 99.99/100 shot when scientists say it. [/FONT][/COLOR] [quote name='Gavin']My whole take on the evolution vs intelligent creation ? Doesn't really matter, neither of them can be proven conclusively.[/quote][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]ID cannot be proven or disproven and evolution can very easily be disproven but has not. I don't really know how much evidence people need to ever see that evolution is real... i think most people are just ignorant of how much evidence there is supporting evolution. There's also too much ID/Creationist propaganda out there. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I only use internet acronyms when i want to mock people who actually use them. Hah - Humorous, though maybe not "lol" funny. Haha - Pretty good. Hahaha - You get the effin' idea, the more "ha"s on the end of the thing the funnier i think it is. I usually straight up tell somebody if i actually laugh. Then i give them many kudos and shove lollipops and popsicles up their arsses. It's all in good fun. [SIZE="1"]stfu[/SIZE] [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Nick T. Died doing what he loved - bestiality. This tombstone will be placed in front of a petting zoo. Oh my god, i'm twisted. No, seriously i have no idea. I think i'd rather have somebody else write one for me. Who cares about what i think is important in my life? I'd much rather have somebody else tell everyone else. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]When i'm thinking health i roll with the apple and cheesy sticks. Tasty and healthy! Plus it's always a nice contrast to the beer and other intoxicants my roommates so indulge upon. When i don't care about my super ripped body i just eat junk food. Zebra cakes are good, cereal out of the box (Cappy Crunch), M&Ms, fruit flavored anaconda snack bites, lead based paints... Theeeeeey're great! For the record....eff tony the tiger. He gets kids addicted to frosted flakes, which everybody knows is the gateway cereal. It starts out all fun and games and then next thing you know you're passed out in some inner city alley with empty boxes of Count Chocula littered all about. Just say no! [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I haven't read the article or any posts beyond the first one. I just wanted to jump in and say that studies are so often misinterpreted that it really is difficult to filter out the bs without going in and looking for yourself. A gross amount of people fail to realize the complexities of interpreting data. And the general media love to take one underqualified person's opinion and represent it as fact. This is why i hate the media. I love walmart, i went there today... bought some zebra cakes. I love those damn things. And i love walmart for providing them. Now if only walmart would start dealing crack i wouldn't have to go to two different places for my evenings of ecstacy. Oh ho ho, he he he. I'm just kidding kids. Crack is wack. Walmart might flush out the tiny businesses but who knows what effect it has on the overall economy? There's just too much information to decipher. Who the flip cares? ...well, don't answer that. Instead let me just add that i don't. Wink. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I view cooking as a sub-discipline of chemistry. In chemistry as a novice scientist all you really have to do is be familiar with what you're doing, what you're using, and how to do it. That is no problem for me because i have the internet and any time i ever cook something i use a recipe. Sometimes the recipe is found on the internet, sometimes it's found on the back of a box of poptarts. Whichever it is the food usually ends up pretty tasty. I've tried being creative before with leftovers... this is not recommended. =/ I made some ghetto chicken cordon bleu the other day that didn't taste like monkey rectum, so that was nice. I'm pretty good at the omelette making. I can make the hell out of sandwiches. Oh, and if you need cereal, i have the perfect cereal to milk ratio down. My bro watches the food channel all the time. I've been trying to encourage him to cook and explore the possibility of a culinary future. But he's still young. So we often times get together with some recipe and try to make food. I think this Christmas break we're going to try fondue and a few other things. It should be fun. And one of my friends that started college this year discovered the joys of microwaveable muffins. I've yet to try this, but according to him they're quite good. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']I'm not sure if I follow you, I don't really consider ratings true censorship, other than they give someone the ability to censor what they view. More like informed censorship instead of outright cutting out ideas. I consider that beneficial and yet not limiting. :p So it is censorship and yet it's really more of giving people the freedom to choose what they want instead of someone else making that choice for them. Though since censorship usually includes outright banning or deletion of said offensive materials, that was probably not clear on what I really think. XP[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I agree with ya here. I just thought you said that ratings were the same as censorship and i was saying that there was a difference. I guess it was a misunderstanding. I don't consider ratings to be outright censorship. And at the same time it can restrict some people's ability to view the stuff as in rated R movies or pornography. In my mind, censorship in its most purest form is the altering of material to conform to moral, political, or some other standard. But i think i'm repeating myself here. Oh, and Heaven's Cloud, i think it's FCC, not FFC. But don't feel bad, i had to google it to make sure. ;D Probably just a typo. It seems to me that most of us here agree to the main points at the heart of the debate. How boring... [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Woohoo! Reading some of these were fun! Aw... poor Deus, somebody picked on him and everybody came to his rescue. Hah, i back you too man. Captain dragoon was totally out of line. You silly goose. Heaven's Cloud... why did you ever leave? I've known you for only a few days and you're already one of my favorites here. I laughed out loud while reading your post. That takes mad skillz, dawg. Anyways... that post was effin' epic. Congrats. Eh, now i feel spammy and off subject of this topic. I guess i'll answer some. 1. Why does this site exist? Because God willed it so. Actually, the flying spaghetti monster had a hand in it too. Which is creepy... Severed hands do not belong in spaghetti!!! 2. What does this site do? It brings people together. 5. Do you believe this is the best forum site around? It has its flaws, but as far as the ones i visit it's way up on the list. 6. Do you have fun? I think Heaven's Cloud has enough fun for all of us. And finally... just because i have to. [/FONT][/COLOR] [quote name='Goodbye, Face']Your mom.[/quote]