Emperor's Waterfall
There is a chance they are wrong, however, there are no better theories.
Obviously creationists would like to have a say, but they use nothing more than insane examples and insulting sarcasm to defend their mythology.
It is proven in a rather brutal lab experiment, that even if you cut the tails off of 50 generations of mice, their genetic code persists, meaning that even after 50 generations of having their tail cut off, they still have a tail, as outlined in their genetic code.
Willful change over time also seems unrealistic, the idea that a creature can change it's genetic code over its life time, however, some plants CAN respond to predators or the environment and it's seeds can be genetically modified within itself to be better prepared against the threats the parent plant had. However, this may be a feature that evolved through classic evolution, and may not be the cause of NEW mutations, which appear to only take light radiation to develop a small change in the genetic code.
How life started appears to be revealed with the Urey-Miller experiment, so there is no reason to think that anything besides evolution is needed. If new evidence comes up, it will surely change, but I don't think that will happen. Evolution appears to be the way that life diversified from a common ancestor. It means all life is family, and if you respect nature, hopefully it will respect you.
How so? I don't believe your conjecture.
You still have no proof. If you wish to prove it to me, then drink this kool-aid.
If your experiment is a success and you are able to influence nearby objects as your "soul" melds into the universe, I will also partake in the unholy ritual.
If you call all of the universe God, why not call it the universe?
You've invented a useless definition based on an idea that can't be proven.
As far as we know, if we remove religious concepts, we are simply sense-machines, able to conjure consciousness from matter and energy. That is good enough, but to inject statements that you cannot prove makes this no longer a theory, but just less than a hypothesis. Until you prove that this is true, it is meaningless conjecture with no basis in observed reality. It is imagination without meaning or truth. You must show why this is true in a way that we are able to observe or understand.
Someone needs to invent that thingy so I can punch people over the internet.
But seriously, that is hilarious.
I don't mind Joe though. Even though his debates are pointless often, I feel he's an important part of this site. People like Srom are important too. This is a community where we MUST be tolerant of people no matter what. If we are selective in what we read, we will miss out on new ideas and new ways to think about things.
Free speech is important, even dumb stuff like yelling fire in a movie theater. Fire drills just train you for when there is a fire.
...or a wolf eating your sheep.
I also learned this the "hard" way.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
I am happy I pleased you.
Anyways, Romney supports MORE war and weapons development, something that is the most harmful and insane thing to do, for we all all human on this earth, and building weapons to use on people is not exactly a good thing.
Romney has all the normal religious issues which take away my freedom, of course. Gay marriage, anti-abortion, he wants to ban porn, which is certainly an... interesting issue to argue against, but it must be done. If weirdos want to jerk it to japanese tentacle porn, then that MUST be allowed, simply if we wish to continue to call America free.
He supports the death penalty, which even I agree in some cases is fine, but for a president to support that... that is far too dangerous.
He is against revising drug laws, wishing to keep plants like marijuana illegal, even for medical usage.
His foreign policy is completely ...awful. The world has grown far too global now that the internet is here, along with such ease of trading to have such isolationist and greedy views. He wishes to force China into bad positions which could lead to conflict, along with a lot of other bad stuff with other countries.
But really, compared to Obama, Romney is just about equal. Obama is only slightly better because he appears to actually care.
Romney is a business man, and I don't want my government to be a business out for profit.
The only people this government can profit from are the citizens. That's a BAD thing for us normal, non-rich people.
You're a complete dumbass.
What is failure to you? Are you sad that you are not forced to fight in war? Are you sad that you have internet and food and a house?
Does it depress you that you are one of the luckiest people for living in a nation where you can say that THE PRESIDENT is an utter failure and not be arrested?
I am not always proud of America, but I am still an American always. What you are saying is complete drivel. Obama is not the greatest leader, but do you see the problem? Who else do we choose from?
The clown Romney?
Obama is the only person who has the power to be reelected and NOT start more war. No one else is in that position. There will not be any other chance of anyone else besides Romney winning the election, and Romney is not fit for any position of power.
I support Obama, not because he is a great leader or because he is all that wise, but because he is simply less insane than Romney, and has the power to make this nation great.
It is though!
You can only see a REALLLLLYY tiny part of the light spectrum, which we call visible light.
The spectrum extends in both directions, which if we had special goggles, we could see it. X-rays, gamma rays, radio. There are lots of colors that our eyes can't see. If you could see all of them at once, you would look back at "color" light as being pale and dull.
Well, although liberals are often long winded, I find that some are actually more long winded by others by a large degree. I have sometimes talked to friends who are "typical liberals" who can go on and on and on about a topic, even when that topic has nothing more to say about it. Basically, they just begin writing things just to fill in space, things that contain no actual meaning at all. They go backwards and forwards, reexplaining their points countless times, in an attempt to lengthen their argument or statement. It is somewhat of a problem how they do this, by providing an argument within an argument, all the while trying to convince others that their argument is the best, simply because they write a lot. Even if what they write contains absolutely no information at all, someone might still read it and agree with it, simply because they are also liberal. In the end, it makes almost no sense to write all this, but simply because it looks like a lot, people assume you're writing something useful, when in reality you could repeat the same point again and again, such as mentioning how pointless this is to write, yet I do it anyways simply to provide an example of useless, long winded writing. Now, even though you might think this contains no information, someone still did type this up, so you would THINK it contains some sort of objective, but it really doesn't. From the beginning, I had no idea what I wanted to write, yet in order to provide a bit of evidence for what you've said, I have decided to write all this anyways, no matter how long it takes. It is boring, yes, but I find it necessary to do such a thing, however long and drawling it is. A horrible task, yet still entertaining in it's own, twisted way. Now, about liberalism, many now days seem to think that "gay rights" or "vegetarianism" or "socialism" or "public healthcare" is good. Now, I do agree, to some degree, yet I do not think that those issues are important enough to center your entire political philosophy around. Gay rights should be expected, eating vegetables is healthy, but hardly related to politics, socialism is alright if you have the funding and support, which the USA lacks, and public healthcare will work perfectly for a few years, until it stops working and crashes into a puddle of primordial goo of some sort. It is bound to fail as soon as a republican reaches office for more than four years, so there's really no way to rectify this issue. However, I do feel that being progressive is useful, because when you break from tradition, you often require learning and new knowledge, a new, better method, which is the main reason people ARE progressive. However, if you are conservative, you are often old or rich, and do not want a newer system in place, even if it's inherently better. It looks like a risk to you, being set in the older, more traditional ways, so it would only appear unwise to support it. Of course, the strange thing about healthcare is the unemployment rate. Computers and robots have taken over many jobs, along with outsourcing, so if you don't provide healthcare, what do you do if a poorer person gets hurt? Of course, if the majority of people are poor, then that means the rich will have to pay for nearly everyone else. But then, the rich also support the government, right? They get to lobby and spend money on politicians, which makes it a very fair system of equal exchange. Now, what I've said it completely obvious, but not something everyone thinks about, but that's exactly why I said it. There was no point to it, it was only taking up space, as I mentioned above. The entire point of existence is to take up space while doing something that might look in important, but in reality is worth absolutely nothing at all. Just like you.
I think it is a metaphor for the dangers of the Catholic church, and their pedophile priest scandals.
It is brilliantly designed to convey that false sense of safety and security. A metaphor for the phrase "Let their be light", yet twisted by the priest's abusive and sensual touch.
Well, I don't see anything wrong with writing a lot. I simply have a lot to say about a various amount of subjects, along with having a well rounded and educated opinion. If by well educated one means getting straight A's in school, no, I do not do so well in my classes, but if you mean a person who is well cultured, having talked to people from Finland, Germany, India, people from Brazil, China, Japan and many other places, then yes. Not only do I talk to these people but I learn about their culture, and their past cultures, such as ancient Greece, Egypt, Mesoamerica and even cultures within the USA. I also am knowledgeable of computers, knowing a bit about programming, about the internet, about soldering, about circuits and hardware and other areas of technology, not to mention my love of science and nature, including plants and animals and minerals, not to mention the stars and interstellar space. All this has lead to me thinking that freedom and equality are important. I do not think that all people are equal, such as the fact that Asians often do score higher on tests than white people, yet I see no reason as to why that makes any difference. If a person desires to do great things, that person will do great things. From a person in a poor African village who invented electricity to provide light at night using scraps from a science textbook and a bicycle wheel, and a few other spare parts, to Alan Turing, a person who invented the modern computer almost single handedly who was oppressed and chemically castrated for being gay, I feel that freedom of information, liberty to do as you desire within reason and the ability to own property and attain funding from a helpful people's government in order to start a business or invent something, even if you are born poor is something that everyone should have. If that is being liberal, then yes, I am a liberal.
I'm a liberal and I think I have a brain.
But I suppose there are two sorts of liberals. College age Obama liberals, and the correct definition of liberal, as in desiring freedom and equality, but not a communistic equality, but the acceptance that you should treat all people as being born equal. What accomplishments or failures occur after that is up to them. I believe in human rights and freedom to do as you desire, within bounds, I believe that humans should be able to own property and be entitled to what they've worked for. And of course, free speech is necessary 100%.
I feel that humanity, despite each person being separate in body and mind, should still try to work together for a better world.
I would say I am the second definition.
It's horrible, but I partially agree.
I don't want people to die, but people will die anyways. If it is only the people who cannot support themselves, I see nothing wrong with that. In the USA, everyone is given free education and the ability to get scholarships to get into college.
If you hate having a job, you can invent things or learn programming or write books or draw to make money.
If you have absolutely no valuable talents, then you are taking up food, and when there are people born in Africa who are starving, yet want to do great things, people willing to work or invent, and we are giving food and money to lazy people or people unwilling to make an effort to live in modern society, then I do not see why I should support that with my money.
Yes, but according to the Bible, he's already used his power to drown the earth, to destroy cities, and every natural disaster today could be stopped by him, yet he does nothing. In fact, maybe they are supernatural disasters caused by him.
If there was a god, then according to real life, the fact that EVERYONE dies no matter what, and according to the Bible, where he has killed the world, cities, brought plagues upon people, killed first born sons of people, then yes, he is completely and utterly corrupted.
