At 11/19/08 06:20 PM, Seatbeltnazi wrote:

At 11/19/08 06:07 PM, Dead-eagle wrote: Great for you.. I think.. But we wont ever be able to tell how you feel for her.. so , good luck!

I love her too.

One day you'll be reading through your old posts, come across this thread, and laugh at how silly you were being.

Seriously though, have fun. This will be a valuable experience for you.

At 11/19/08 06:13 PM, FatKidWitAJetPak wrote: Now I do agree with that. Technically I didn't experience the full rave experience, because I had to leave at 11:45 to do some homework.. LAME. It closed at 3.00 A.M. What a shame... *sniff*

Raves don't close at 3AM. You didn't go to a real rave.

At 11/18/08 05:11 PM, FatKidWitAJetPak wrote: The rave I went to had cops and everything watching for drugees. it was organized by a local group who hosts parties at this movie theater.

You didn't go to a real rave.

At 5/21/07 06:07 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 5/21/07 03:36 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 5/21/07 02:36 PM, Dre-Man wrote: They called it gay cancer in the 60's.

AIDS wasn't discovered until 1981

Precisely. They had no idea what it was, so they called it gay cancer.

When people had it, and when people found out what it was are two entirley different things.

Fucktard.

Calm down dude. "Gay cancer" is an exclusively American term, and since AIDS wasn't prominent in the states until the late 70s, as trivial as it is, you're still incorrect.

But this is beside the point; if "homosexuals spread HIV like rabbits" is a proven fact, can you quantify it?

At 5/21/07 02:36 PM, Dre-Man wrote: They called it gay cancer in the 60's.

AIDS wasn't discovered until 1981

Homsexuals breed HIV like rabbits.

Known fact.

Any chance you could quantify it then?

At 5/21/07 12:58 AM, Dre-Man wrote: Any person who believes that the supernatural doesn't exist is an idiot, because there's direct proof of it.

http://www.skepdic.com/

Happy reading.

At 5/20/07 05:22 PM, mrpiex wrote: So many people care. It's just so fucking funny. YOu all really need a life.

Pfffhaaahahaha

Said mrpiex, after losing the argument

At 5/4/07 06:41 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 5/3/07 11:23 PM, Korriken wrote: then of 300,000,000 you get 40,000. thats right around 11%

That's some sexy math right there.

*gets out calculator*

329,600,00 off. Yep, sexy maths indeed.

At 4/23/07 04:25 PM, jonjon123 wrote: look, my main point was the fact that the world is in fact "winding down" if you don't beleive me you are in serios denial.

the sun is winding down as well

what i mean is things will run out. once you burn a fuel it isn't retreivable

Don't you get it? EndGameOmega is a PHYSICIST. He knows about these things.

Second law:

"The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

Note: "isolated system". Hence, the second law does not apply to evolution, as life is an open system, as is the earth, as is the earth's atmosphere. You saying that the second law in some way applies to life shows a severe misunderstanding of thermodynamics on your part.

If the second law applied to life, the cuts we get on our bodies all the time would not heal.

And the sun and earth "winding down" has nothing to do with Biblical or scientific accuracy in the first place.

At 4/7/07 04:47 AM, Alphabit wrote: I think that the brain and soul are two separate things. The brain does the actions, the soul just gives you consciousness.

Then you're actively denying reputable, scientific fact.

What is it with all these old threads being revived?

At 4/3/07 07:51 AM, Alphabit wrote: Consciousness is the biggest scientific mystery, it is in fact the ultimate question of the universe and everything.

This is also incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_frontal _gyrus

At 4/3/07 07:13 AM, Alphabit wrote: This means that our soul is without sin and remains so for all eternity, because, all it does is give us life and a sense of existence. Nothing else. Our soul is not responsible for the sins of our minds and as such it cannot be held accountable for the actions of our flesh.
And subsequently, our soul (what makes us exist) is entitles, by Christian belief, to reside in heaven for all eternity.

If the soul is what gives us a sense of existence, then the term "soul" refers to various parts of the brain that deal with sensory perception and judgement, meaning your point is both invalid and meaningless

No.

At 4/2/07 05:04 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Abiogenesis has been proved possible.

Really? Why don't you show me the records of a scientist creating life from non-living particles.

There have been several simulations of the earth's early atmosphere in which complex organic molecules were allowed to form.

Yet no proof.

It hasn't happened yet (at least not to my knowledge). Science is about the investigation into the unknown, and our current model of abiogenesis isn't complete. However, it has been demonstrated as possible - the fact that in simulations of the earth's early atmosphere, organic molecules (hint: look up 'organic') would certainly suggest that abiogenesis is possible.

One question and one question only matters in this issue. Have scientists ever created life from non-living particles? I'm afraid that it is your point of view that lacks realistic evidence, as you have none.

Again, not yet. But abiogenesis is possible, and since 4 billion years ago the relevant biochemical reactions would have been happening all over the earth simultaneously, it's definitely plausible

Why hasn't it happened again exactly? If such a process did exist it should have happened several times in the history of our universe.

Bad argument. The conditions today aren't the same as they were at the time abiogenesis would have happened

I did, came up basically blank. The only thing I got was a website about mosquitoes. Didn't say anything about evolution.

*Googles*

Shit, that doesn't bring up anything relevant. Culex molestus speciated from the culex pipiens form, meaning we have observed new species forming in the past.

And you have seen this happen where?

It happens all the time - even creationists admit that natural selection happens.

And since I'm always having to be the one providing sufficient evidence, can you find me evidence that abiogenesis isn't possible or even plausible?

Hey, how about I butt in?

At 4/2/07 03:58 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Is that so? Well, if we have not yet proven that such a chemical process is possible then it is automatically assumed to be IMpossible. Let's just say that I claim that time travel is possible, but that we simply do not have the technology to do such a thing, do we automatically assume that time travel IS possible, or impossible? Which is the more logical assumption?

Abiogenesis has been proved possible. There have been several simulations of the earth's early atmosphere in which complex organic molecules were allowed to form.

But until we can, we must assume that such a chemical process never existed and never will. And even if we could do it unnaturally, we still would not be able to explain how it was done out of the blue in the middle of nowhere in a jungle.

Yet again, Dre, you make allegations with little basis in reality. Abiogenesis is not entirely proven but we certainly know that the process for it exists; several experimental data exists in favour of this, such as the formation of long proteins.

Also, abiogenesis would have happened about 4 billion years ago, before trees were in existence. It certainly wouldn't have been "out of the blue", either - it would have been in primordial oceans in which the same reactions would have been taking place all over the earth simultaneously.

Okay, so on the topic of evolution, during man's recorded history, have we ever seen a species evolve? In the least bit shape or form? Have we ever seen them completley transfer from one species to another? I think not.

Culex molestus. Google it

And evolution does not lack science? You may have old bones, fossils, etc. But you can not say with any degree of certainty that any species has ever evolved in the history of the universe. You do not have a scientific process which explains evolution, nor do you have the recorded history of a species that has ever evolved.

The scientific process which explains evolution is beneficial genetic mutations being favoured in the gene pool, resulting in natural selection, resulting in microevolution, resulting in more significant variation in the gene pool as the environment changes, resulting in evolution on a larger scale.

At 4/1/07 11:49 PM, Imperator wrote: These two paragraphs suggest morality (and moral behaviors) as a learned behavior, derived from social situations, not an innate process.

In other words, what you said is true, but only because your intuition was formed in that context to perform as such.

I probably should have clarified this. I consider intuition to arise partially because of socialisation and partially because of instinct. I think the link supports the latter notion because it talks about conscience being absent from adults that endured injuries to certain parts of the brain as children.

No no no, I think I misprinted or you misunderstood. I'm saying that if there is no universal moral code, as the link you gave also glances at, then agents such as "Good" and "Bad" are purely subjective and only a matter of perspective. Thus, with the proper context, social setting, and cultural moral code, Hitler's behavior can be seen as justified.

It'd be a pretty fucked up culture. Like you I think that there is a degree of universiality to morals (at least in social and societal creatures), although I probably think it's to a lesser extent than you do.

I don't know the exact results, but I know the use of Nazi research is still hotly debated.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?re s=950DE5DB1030F932A15756C0A96F948260
http://www.geocities.com/pennpuab/foundations /naziresearch.html

I'm assuming a lot of it has to do with calculations and such from medical experiments. What exactly I don't know though.....

Thanks, those were interesting reads. I think the research should be used myself, but that's just me.

From your link:
"Although the contextual cues that link moral emotions to social norms are variable and shaped by culture103, these emotions evolved from prototypes found in other primates11 and can be characterized across cultures133"

This suggests a degree of universality in morality, the question is where this universality arose from, and if this degree is innate or not. Thus "good" and "bad" have cross-cultural bases, but obviously what is good for one culture will not be good for another, so where is the line drawn?

As usual matters won't be black and white, which is why I subsribe to the fencesitter stance that morals are partially innate and partially learned.

Regardless of the fact that cultures differ, they generally share many similarities. I can't think of an example right now (I'm pretty tired), though. I would say that morality is altruism is innate in that there's an instinct to benefit the society that one is born into and lives in, and is learned in terms of the specific way to benefit one's society.

I think it's an entirely too depressing view of life, hence the reason I'm trying (maybe in vain) to try flaws within the argument and evidence for a universal code of morals.

Maybe I'm just having difficulty swallowing the idea that "Pure Evil" does not exist, and use religion to compensate for this anxiety.....

Yay for self-diagnosis!

If you're looking for evidence of a univeral code of morals, here's a good place to start. Read the comments as well, it's an interesting debate.

Yeah, those [insert political leaning here]s just don't get it.

At 4/1/07 06:18 PM, Memorize wrote: And it's this kind of person that leads to dead beat dads, under age abortion, sky-rising divorce rates...

*looks around*

Shit, I'm busted. Yesiree, I am indeed an illegal immigrant

At 4/1/07 06:14 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/1/07 06:11 PM, Peter-II wrote:

Morality is a secular concept. We don't need a magical man in the sky to tell us what's right and wrong, our intuition does finely by itself

It's truely ironic that you just now defined morality.

HYPOCRICY!

I never said intuition wasn't a physical thing

At 4/1/07 05:44 PM, Imperator wrote: "There's also the question of "Good" and "Evil" inherent in this line of discussion, since an atheist perspective effectively negates such an existance of such notions.

Morality is a secular concept. We don't need a magical man in the sky to tell us what's right and wrong, our intuition does finely by itself

Hitler's behavior can be described and analyzed through scientific discovery, moreover it can be understood and even justified in some instances, since without such a polarization, one's behavior as "good" or "bad" is simply a matter of perspective."

...No. Hitler's motivations were not for the purpose of science. Hitler was motivated by hatred and greed.

Besides, what scientific discoveries were made as a result of the Holocaust other than "how many times can you hit a child on the head with a hammer before it dies"? Serious question, it'd be interesting to know what the Holocaust did for our current knowledge of science.

What do you hope to gain? If there is no gain (or no perceived gain), by what logic do you do these actions."

I honestly don't know what you're referring to here

"If you say your end goal is simply helping people, there comes the question of why that would be your end goal as to any other, what circumstances did that goal arise within? For religion, it's the moral code, the Golden Rules.

For atheists, there is a moral code, but it's not clear where that arose from, or how it differs from the religious code."

Conscience is a society-forming instinct, thus anything which is inherently damaging to a society (or individual) is considered "bad", and anything which benefits a society / individual is considered "good".

I'm not entirely sure how helping people and societies in other cultures links into it (unless the motivation is just for praise and recognition by other people). However, conscience is definitely a physical thing which doesn't have to be related to religion, hence why damage to certain areas of the brain (for instance, in the frontal lobe) during child development negates any morality they would have otherwise had in later life.

Here's an interesting article which could probably answer your questions better than I can

At 4/1/07 05:19 PM, Mourits wrote: Let me tell you what I think of life, the universe and everything...

Oh for fuck's sake.

At 3/31/07 09:03 AM, Micky9-TheForceBoy wrote: Ive got a question.
they say we evolved from apes, right?
we've got the apes. we've got the humans. Where are the in between????

They're under the ground, and in museums

At 3/30/07 01:58 PM, Imperator wrote:

I gotta hand it to you, and I am not being sarcastic, you are a lot more respectful than Imperator and Draconias.

DRE-MAN? The guy who got banned for a MONTH for being a MySpace stalker? Hahah! I'll take that as a compliment!

Dre-Man seems to have somewhat reformed since his preceding ban, actually.

It's probably due to his lack of activity in this thread.

I don't find these list things that funny, actually...must be an "American only" thing....

At 3/29/07 06:56 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/29/07 11:39 AM, Peter-II wrote: That's a pretty shitty summary. But then, I'd expect that kind of confirmation bias from a troll.

Might I add that out of the entire movie, they ONLY had 3 things to "semi-refute"?

Interesting.

It's so great how I can get people below my level. Haha!

They covered the three main points. The other link did a more thorough point-by-point refutation.

At 3/29/07 04:07 PM, ZuiGe wrote: Evolutionis a theory that hasn't been proved true. Creationism is based on what God wants us to know about the birth of world. I know that the Genesis isn't very specific, but I think that's all we need to know. I will believe in evolution, when it's proven true.

What, the fossil record wasn't good enough for you?

The main question is: "is there really a God?" Let's think logically.

You say logically and then cite Pascal's Wager, probably one of the stupidest, most fallicious of all the arguments for the existence of god...what is wrong with you people??

At 3/28/07 06:50 PM, stafffighter wrote: My topic in general is allowing me endless opretunities to knock people off the pillars of their own shit

I did my best.

Sexually frustrated, but young-faced

At 3/28/07 08:10 PM, Memorize wrote: I read the entire thing. And here's what I got in summary: "They're basically correct...". That's not very good and is essentially a waste of time on their part.

That's a pretty shitty summary. But then, I'd expect that kind of confirmation bias from a troll.