Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Here is the link to said video. It has multipul parts and deconstructs the various size issues of normal holocaust advicates. Take all the time you need.

Okay, listen. The executions of Jews took place across all of Germany, Poland, and Austria. There were dozens of concentration camps, and more then enough gas chambers. This is not debatable, because THESE EVENTS OCCURRED WITHIN RECORDED HISTORY AND MY FAMILY HAS SEEN THESE CAMPS.

We went there last summer on a Euro-spree and saw 6 concentration camps, and dozens of gas chambers in each. They were enormous and easily sizable enough to house the necessary amount of people to take place in the Holocaust.

When you post your 'facts', you post from biased websites from anti-Semites. You are an anti-Semite. Why else would you disagree with 70 years of fact and arbitrarily decided that 5 million Jews didn't die, and it's all a hoax to further Zionist agendas?

This board is a place for FACTS. Here, we post arguments that have structure to them. We defend our positions from other people. We do NOT support our arguments with speculation and bigotry.

Getting-to-the-point productivity would skyrocket?

No, it would turn into an enormous flamewar, be deleted, and would have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this topic.

At 7/22/09 11:44 PM, RDSchley wrote: TL;DR
you could have just said "People who believe in God are dumb"
but you tried to make yourself appear intelligent by adding all of those words.
BTW i'm an athiest.

No, he couldn't have said that, because that isn't an argument, it's an incorrect blatant generalization.

Adding all those words is what us proper folks call the 'meat' of the post, and it's the most important part.

Can you imagine how this would have gone if he just put what you wrote?

how is light coming from one side different from light coming from another? these are not multiple situations, it is a single situation with single response; go toward the light.

Well, I also meant food dispersal, chlorophyll dispersal, and because moving towards the light is a full movement, that's like saying dodging a punch is the same regardless of the direction it comes at you from. It is irrelevant, because DNA doesn't do these things anyway.

do you believe sperm is capable of making conscious decisions in the same manner plants are (as described in the situation being discussed)? or that they have some form of nervous system and/or decision making apparatus?

Well, sperm have to swim, and they're single cells, so they have a nucleus, which is like a tiny brain- so yeah, I guess sperm cells do think. On a very basic level.

I really don't want to continue this discussion.

Here is a link to a website that proves that jewish people get pampered alot more than any other people and the jewish mass murders are hidden while white mass murderers are seen as "normal for the crackers".

QUOTE FROM WEBSITE-

One Of History's Most Hushed-Up Events

Why did the most diabolical mass murder in history get so little coverage? The simple fact is that Harold Shipman appears to be Jewish.

-----------------------

Totally unbiased, neh?

At 7/22/09 08:49 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 7/22/09 08:28 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Obviously, this is impossible, because plants have to respond to different situations.

Right, because DNA can't possibly have different programming for different situations. That would just be silly.

...That's not what DNA does.

DNA is the coding of our genetic traits. It does not have a list preprogrammed into it to respond to any possible situation.

I don't even know why we're talking about this.

At 7/22/09 07:48 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 7/22/09 07:41 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: So everything a plant does is automatic, predetermined at birth? Then how the fuck does it lean towards light?

because it does so consciously, in the same manner my skin consciously tans.

?

He said everything is predetermined. As in, a plant's DNA will determine exactly what it does throughout the course of its lifetime. Obviously, this is impossible, because plants have to respond to different situations. I'm not saying that somewhere in the plant's plant-brain it decides to lean towards the light, but somewhere along the line some change had to have been made.

Movement is different than a cellular response to damage.

Yes.

So everything a plant does is automatic, predetermined at birth? Then how the fuck does it lean towards light?

Then maybe you shouldn't talk like you do. Because so far you're very, very wrong.

You're the one who's saying plants act like wound-up toys.

but they do have a form of a nervous system... A plant may use this system to determine it needs more sun, and leans towards the light.

Responding to stimuli is not the same thing as making conscious decisions. The only way you could possibly prove your point is to show me a time when a plant decided to NOT lean towards the sun.

1. Responding to stimuli is a conscious decision. Like I said, it's different for plants. When have you ever responded to anything without a conscious decision involved? And providing an example of a plant not leaning towards the sun would be like posting an example of a wolf deciding to not eat the dead deer at its feet.

It doesn't happen. Maybe what you're thinking is instinct, not pre-programmed.

How did we get on this discussion again?

At 7/22/09 12:57 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 7/21/09 08:53 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Plants are capable of making conscious decisions

If I had any room left in my sig, I'd sig that line. My god.

Thank you for quoting half the sentence.

*Ahem*

-Just not like we do.

What, do you think everything a plant does is preprogrammed? See, evolution is gene-related, it doesn't direct an organism's actions. And a plant's actions can't be programed, because situations vary. I don't know how exactly plants do what they do, but they do have a form of a nervous system, to tell them how much of what they need and are getting. Not 'nerves', persay, but something similar. A plant may use this system to determine it needs more sun, and leans towards the light.

Right... insignificant difference. Whatever you say, boss.

Like I said, that's maybe a few million years, maybe a hundred million difference. Nothing serious.

You're equating conscious decisions with unconscious instinct. That you eat when hungry is an evolutionary trait, that you crave fat and salt is also an evolutionary trait, that it results in you enjoying bacon is not.

The bacon thing was a joke. Plants are capable of making conscious decisions, just not in the same way we do. Furthermore, isn't evolution defined as gene changes in a species? Maybe a plant stretching it's neck is a RESULT of evolution, but then ,what isn't?

You might want to re-read my first sentence. I included it in the quote for you, but let me say it again: You cannot predict, you can only determine probabilities. I said nothing about predicting evolution, I merely took issue with your attempt to separate two random events as though they used different mechanisms, when the only difference between the two was scale. Quit shoving more import into a discussion than is actually there... kinda like you're doing with the Miller-Urey experiment.

Okay, fine. I'll phrase it the way you want me to. It is impossible to determine the statistics involving evolution. We can make accurate guesses in select scenarios, but we can't set an actual RATE of evolution. It varies based on statistics we can't calculate. We can't even determine the odds of a certain sperm actually making the cut, let alone everything else we'd need to do.

At 7/21/09 05:13 PM, ReligiousZoo wrote:

At 7/21/09 05:12 PM, Crumption wrote: If this place is "full of them", then you should be able to give us a definition yourself.

A guy that hates everything with no beliefs and would rather see the human race dead.

I don't know a single person like that and my group of friends is lousy with atheists.

AAs are the basis of the proteins which are the basis of RNA which is likely the first self-replicating "life". The experiment did not prove that the early conditions of the earth could produce life, only that they could produce the very first step in the chain of events we speculate created life. The difference is HUGE.

Actually, it's a fairly insignificant difference. The only factor remaining once amino acids are created is time, and hey, they had a lot of it.

No it isn't. A plant leaning towards sunlight is an action an organism performs to maximize it's food consumption. Evolution is the development of a gene code in a species. Adaptation is when a species learns to do something new with the genes it already has.

If a plant's DNA didn't program it to follow sunlight, it wouldn't, and would survive less well than other plants whose DNA did have that program. Thus the leaning is evolutionary.

But then you could argue every action ever is evolutionary. I eat bacon because I am evolutionarily programmed to eat when I want bacon. Neh? If THAT is that standard by which you define evolution, you're already admitting it exists.

Yup. 'Random' means events that cannot be predicted. You can predict a 1/6 chance on a roll of a dice, but when dealing with actual organisms, the chances involving each individual variable are so low it is impossible to calculate what will happen.

You can't predict, you can only determine probabilities... the only difference between the two is scale, the mechanism is identical.

But once the scale becomes large enough, it IS impossible. You don't seem to understand the probabilities we're dealing with here. One in a billion gene mistake code/ one in a thousand chance of it doing something/ personality of creature/ living conditions/ same for all other creatures/ wind patterns/ food/ amount of sperm/ which one is fastest? Ect. It goes on FOREVER.

We are dealing with numbers larger than any computer can calculate, and this is for one generation of one animal in one moment. And you want us to PREDICT evolution.

And how are we going to measure these things? Like the sperm count of an animal, and which ones carry the gene?

You're asking WAY too much of science.

At 7/21/09 11:21 AM, Ravariel wrote: Couple nits to pick...

At 7/20/09 07:56 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Completely right. The Miller and Urey experiment showed that living material can be formed from lifelessness.

No. It showed that conditions of the early earth could naturally form complex amino acids, a buiding block of the proteins necessary to make self-replicating material. It's 2 orders of magnitude away from self-replication and a hell of a lot longer than that to actual cells. Don't try to shoehorn in conclusions the experiment was never meant to find. Is it possible that had they been able to run the experiment on a global scale for several (hundred... thousand? >_>) years that the jump to proteins or even self-replicating "organisms" could have happened? Sure it's possible, but the experiment only goes so far as the Amino Acids.

Amino Acids are the base of DNA, which is the code of living creatures. The question was whether any structure of life could be created from out of the blue. The amino acids presumably grouped together, formed covalent bonds, and grew an exoskeleton. There are many theories on the subject, we weren't exactly there at the time.

A plant leaning towards light isn't evolution or adaptation, it's the action of an individual. No different than a wolf hunting for food.

Um, that's pretty completely incorrect. All of those are instances of the effects of evolution, natural selection and adaptation.

No it isn't. A plant leaning towards sunlight is an action an organism performs to maximize it's food consumption. Evolution is the development of a gene code in a species. Adaptation is when a species learns to do something new with the genes it already has.

Once again, random here does not mean a roll of the dice, it means the process of events that cannot be predicted.

Wait... what?

Yup. 'Random' means events that cannot be predicted. You can predict a 1/6 chance on a roll of a dice, but when dealing with actual organisms, the chances involving each individual variable are so low it is impossible to calculate what will happen.

At 7/20/09 11:40 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: This page shows screenshots of the worst forum I've ever heard of.

It's basically an online gay community where men want to meet each other and have sex for the sole purpose of spreading/receiving AIDS and HIV. The most disturbing one I saw was a guy who posted a photo of a former boyfriend who'd died from AIDS.

And here we have a perfect example of people who honestly, completely, absolutely, need to die.

At 7/20/09 11:17 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/20/09 09:08 PM, BillyShakes wrote:

Every time Bush made a gaffe, it was headline news. When Obama gaffes, its covered up.

To be fair, Bush's mastery of the English language is comparable to that of a dog's.

I can understand being tolerant towards lard asses, but the site ACTIVELY ENCOURAGES fat gain and a sedentary lifestyle. They refer to documented proof of health disorders associated with obesity as 'propaganda'. The obesity epidemic across America is a 'scam designed to fund the weight loss industry', when they are the very proof of this epidemic.

Christ.

This shit is intolerable.

No, I mean it's a cop-out ESPECIALLY when used in the "scientific sense".

No it isn't. Mistakes happen randomly. Because DNA Polymase makes mistakes. You can't predict that.

Uh, not quite. You do realize there's a difference between organic molecules and full-fledged organisms, right? It's real neat that amino acids can form under those conditions, but it's still quite a LARGE step away from being "living cells".

Completely right. The Miller and Urey experiment showed that living material can be formed from lifelessness. Everything after that is evolution and growing. In fact, it has been speculated, I believe, that Cellulose and Mitochondria were once their own living organisms that combined with other molecules to form cells as we know it. Even the most miniscule lifeforms can learn to work together.

As for evolution, 'random', in this case, means that DNA forms a set of genes, and imperfections in the gene code cause mutations. These imperfections are random, in that they have a blank/blank chance of occurring with no outside stimuli. These gene changes also occur when chromosomes are crossing over during Meiosis, or the production of sex cells.

No outside stimuli? LOL.

I said MISTAKES occurred without outside stimuli. Cancer isn't a mistake, it's a direct mutation. That's like saying a worker makes a mistake by dropping his hammer when somebody kicks him in the face. Furthermore, DNA self-corrects itself, but not perfectly. After correction, mistakes are about one in a billion. And there is a LOT of DNA in the body, so, mistakes actually occur fairly often.

The truth is that our genetic material is affected by an untold number of external forces and that our bodies do in fact attempt some defensive measures in response to them. Since scientists cannot neatly explain what factor was causative of what change, or why one change may go uncorrected versus another that does not, so on and so forth... they call it "random."

What you fail to understand is that some things ARE random. Not everything can be predicted, CERTAINLY not the unintentional actions of living creatures. DNA is affected by external forces, but, as I said, those are not mistakes.

In science you're supposed to follow the whole A) CAUSE leads to B) CONSEQUENCE pattern. Introducing the term "random" instead of identifying what factor is responsible for what effect is indeed a cop-out.

But some things ARE random. Let's say 10 rabbits, are, for some reason or another, sent to run for a carrot down a perfectly smooth floor in the name of science. Say one trips. And another wavers slightly to the left. These actions can be traced down to the molecular level as causation, but we CAN'T trace it beyond that. By your logic, we couldn't ever make any conclusion about anything because we don't understand the most absolute minor molecular decision that caused the outlying factor.

All that matters is that 8/10 rabbits got to the carrot first.

Furthermore, one of the problems I have with evolution (which doesn't make me reject it outright but does suggest to me that there's SOMETHING wrong or missing in the "accepted model") is that there is literally no known timescale for how "fast" or "slow" evolution occurs.

Well, yeah, it's a process directed by mistakes and random selection. Of course we don't know how fast 2000 birds with an obsolete wing span are going to die out. There is no way we can predict that.

Does it take several generations to aggregate enough minute changes so as to be a visibly different species... or several THOUSAND generations? Which is it, and why? No one really knows, and scientists downplay the importance of this question.

Answered above.

There are different ideas about it --

Still addressed above. Scientists cannot possibly be expected to measure a RANDOM process. You know, something that is ACTUALLY, DOWN TO THE LETTER, RANDOM. We would have to somehow predict molecular mistakes, chart the heredity of it (Which sperm will get there fastest? How the fuck should we know?) Chart the ancestry, and predict how this will effect the species, which would also require us to chart the actions of every member of every species in the area hundreds of years in advance. I'm sorry we can't predict the actions of unborn animals. If that is what you want, I'm terribly sorry.

I'm not in denial of natural selection -- that the environment and the eventual "working out" of the organism is what determines if the changes are passed-on to subsequent generations -- but I honestly can't bring myself to believe that the changes themselves occur without any sort of impelling force behind it. A species' eyes may become weakened or vestigially nonexistant after many generations of living in the dark -- whereas that would be an example of "use it or lose it", I suspect that the sort of evolution that produces wholly new forms (as opposed to minute changes within forms) is driven very much by necessity.

You just described a textbook example of evolution, so I don't see how that supports your point. Your two problems are that,

A. You want scientists to chart random variables.

B. You suspect a creator, or director.

Directing WHAT, exactly? Natural selection can account for almost every situation found in evolutionary development, and you don't have a problem with it. I'm not going ot have this turn into an argument about God.

We easily recognize that living organisms consciously strive for survival. Sometimes that means survival of the individual and sometimes it means sacrifice of the individual for the survival of the group... whichever case it is, we know that life tries its damnedest to keep-on living. A plant doesn't "randomly" lean towards light, it is impelled to lean towards light since absorbing more light means it has a better chance to keep on living.

A plant leaning towards light isn't evolution or adaptation, it's the action of an individual. No different than a wolf hunting for food.

I think it makes very little sense to say that the very blueprint of life would act any differently; that genetic change itself is something that happens randomly without purpose or intent, as opposed to changing because it had been impelled to change for its continued survival.

But you are failing to account the fact that 99% of genetic variation is either negative or unsuccessful. A hundred random changes in the gene code can come and go, and most of them will either do nothing or kill the host. But if 1 good one comes along, and that one organism happens to survive, and has some shiny-ass feathers for reproduction, the gene has a chance of passing on. Once again, random here does not mean a roll of the dice, it means the process of events that cannot be predicted.

We did not 'randomly' get here. We started from amino acids that slowly developed minor changes and eventually became us.

The odds of humans having existed as they are in about one in infinity. Seriously. But do this. Go to a random number generator, and set the sliders from one to one billion. Now roll. What number did you get? Whatever number it is, there was a one in a billion chance of it appearing! Do you know why you aren't amazed that 3467446845 got chosen? Because any other number could have too. Now say that number slider is always rolling, except the sliders are set from one to a trillion, and they've been rolling every second for 8 billion years. We are one of those numbers.

You can't have a girl that you need to tend to every moment of every day, and when you don't, she bitches out.

Dump her ass.

"Random chance" is just code-word for "uhhh we have no idea how or why."

It's as much a cop-out as anything else.

Wrong.

You're thinking of random in the practical sense, not the scientific sense.

As for abiogenesis, the Urey and Miller experiments showed that over millions of years, extreme amounts of energy, and with matter, living cells can form out of the blue. This is the currently accepted ground point. Do we know why? No. Do we know that it works? Yes.

As for evolution, 'random', in this case, means that DNA forms a set of genes, and imperfections in the gene code cause mutations. These imperfections are random, in that they have a blank/blank chance of occurring with no outside stimuli. These gene changes also occur when chromosomes are crossing over during Meiosis, or the production of sex cells.

These gene changes can be beneficial or detrimental. However, natural selection prefers the beneficial genes. Say there are two traits for mice- brown fur and white fur, and they live in a forest. Well, because brown is the color of DIRT, the brown mice or more likely to blend in with the ground, making it less likely for them to be caught and eaten.

The white mice will either thin out, die out, evolve, or migrate.

That is how evolution works.

Other occurrences are aggressive evolution, where beneficial gene changes allow a species to do something it wasn't able to do before. Say a bird, during meiosis, produces a batch of sperm cells that contain the gene for a thicker beak. Let's say that bird has babies, and those babies have thick beaks. Those beaks may allow the bird to crack open nuts, a food source it was previously unable to obtain.

Over several generations and prolific breeding, thick beaks may become the norm, and, in response, the thin-beaked birds will adapt and learn how to pluck termites out of hollows in wood, a food source thick-beaked birds cannot reach.

Hey look guys, it's the troll of the week again!

Poor people aren't lazy. Not all of them. Poor people work 7 days a week to barely scrape by a living.

Rich people sit poolside all day and watch their stock climb.

Those are all lies! I am brilliant! Sociopathy helps me! Infact if our world was nothing more than sociopaths then we can become super humans! Have you never seen a hero who isn't a sociopath?

All of them? Except maybe Deadpool?

Quit using that stupid fucking girl-typing and you'll be fine.

He looks sad, probably single, desperate, and drowns out his need for companionship by having a bunch of 'bros' and attending a lot of partied where he may or may not score but doesn't love.

At 7/17/09 04:06 PM, ninja2142 wrote: crap..., does anyone know how I can post tabs on NG, without them looking like this...

Write it on a piece of paper, scan, post picture.

The sad look in her eyes made me feel stronger and more powerful thats why.

...You are disgusting.

Wow another brilliant humanitarian with the "people need obstacles in life" mindset to justify just about any evil and disaster you can name.

Why don't you break your own legs and poke your eyes out.

Enjoy.

I think the point he was trying to make was that the decision to end a fetus's life is still a hard one because people often illogically become emotionally attached to their unborn babies.

I don't think he was saying that we should willingly have retard babies, just that it's still a tough decision for most people.

The Ultimates
Marvel Zombies

The regenerators from Resident Evil 4 in the hospital.

Breathy little fucks.

Her job is to interpret the law, and she argued that the states can ignore the constitution as they so choose. That's not interpretation of anything, that's legislating from the bench, and I don't want somebody like here within 1,000 yards of the Supreme Court Building in DC.

I agree, I was mostly referring to the sudden sweep of e-panic that gripped all the small conservative websites. They were all acting like our guns might as well be forfeit.

I don't like what she did, I'm just saying it's not that big a deal.