Dan L

[quote name='Chaos]Eh, I see your point, but the thing of it is, if it evolves, the previous form no longer exists. We come from [i]Homo erectus[/i'], but is it not considered extinct, even though we share the same bloodline?[/quote] Although I consider homo erectus to be extinct, the bloodline itself continued, so although I [i]would[/i] say that homo erectus, as a particular form of human life is "extinct", I would not say that homo erectus died out, because their children lived on, and continued going until now. But then, maybe the better way of saying it is to consider all species of homo whatever to be a form of Man, although not modern man as we know it. Even though the species, that is the evolutionary stage, became extinct, Man kept on going in a different form. A little like how empires around the world rise and fall, constantly changing the structure of our civilisation as a whole, eras come and eras go, but Man has not died out yet. So for me, the matter isn't so much whether the species carries on in it's exact form forever, but whether or not it carries on at all- which determines whether or not it has died out. Thing is, I see exactly where you're coming from too.. And I don't believe you're necessarily wrong so much as viewing it from a different angle. Note that Roxie also said "The Creatures of the Earth will carry on without us".. I may be completely wrong, but what I thought she meant by that was that homo sapiens would die out, and then that would be it- no more Man. Rather, a new species of "homo" would take Man's place. The thing I'm trying to get at is that homo IS man, and thus as long as the homo species is evolving, Man has not died out yet, regardless of how many sub-species become extinct as evolution goes on.

[quote name='Chaos][size=1]That, generally, is the same thing as saying we died out. Our current forms were not fit for current lifestyles, so we changed. Thus, [i]Homo sapians[/i'] as we know them no longer exist.[/size][/quote] I class "dying out" and evolving into something new as two seperate things. Assuming evolution to be absolutely correct, the forms of man which came before homo sapiens never died out, but they became homo sapiens- their previous form was no more, but the bloodline itself has carried on. Whereas "dying out" itself is something I'd only really associate with complete extinction, not just the "extinction" of a particular species because another evolved out of it, but the extinction of a species which prevents a further one from doing so.

[quote name='MistressRoxie][color=#9933ff]I mean, think about it - We are delicate creatures that die so quickly. If I'm not mistaken, a few other members of the genus [i]homo[/i'] out lived us by a couple more thousand years, before dying out. Homo sapiens will eventually die out, and the creatures of the earth will go on without us until either an asteroid or the sun engulfs it. Woo.[/color][/quote] Problem with what you're saying there is that it's to do with evolution. Homo sapiens may well have disappeared in a few thousand years, but the bloodline itself will continue, but a little further down the evolutionary line. So we won't have died out so much as we will have evolved out of our current state

In all fairness, the only reason a lot of 14 year olds think they're ready for sex is that they haven't the faintest idea what they think they're ready for- in terms of possible repercussions, that is. The mind is a very decieving thing, particularly when it's getting used to having hormones flooding through it.

..,.,..,.,,,,..,. Sorry, just felt the need to adjust the punctuation level in this thread. (those two paragraphs were quite lacking) anyway- welcome to OB. In case you didn't gather from the last sentence, proper punctuation is generally appreciated just so you're more easily understandable. Other than that, happy posting. Personally I'm not much for the philosophy you're talking about for various reasons, but unfortunately I have to go right now, so for the time being that'll have to be a statement without elaboration.

[quote name='Black Moon']I didn't say that she didn't have anything wrong with her life, I have be friends with her since we were two, and I know that her parents smoke excessivly. But you can tel by the cuts if they were meant to do harm to herself or just to get people to look at her.[/quote] What you said was, "she may have deeper issues, [b]but[/b] the things she does are to get us to notice her". Though you openly said that there may well be an issue there, what you [i]also[/i] said was effectively that the evidence for there being an issue is only really there to draw attention, not because of any issue. So although on one hand you said she may have issues, you also effectively said that they're nothing to do with the cutting. That is what was being disputed, not whether or not you actually said there may have been an issue. And I'd agree completely with the thought that actually, cutting yourself for attention is as big an issue as any.

For the purpose of this argument I am going be anti-everything. Reasons why we should just burn them all: -WITCHES -PAGANS TOO -THAT MUNKIE ISN'T FULLY EVOLVED YET -REI MAN HAS A THIRD NIPPLE -THEY ALL EAT BABIES -THEIR SUPPORTERS USE LISTS AGAINST EACH OTHER -THEY'RE ALL WORKING TOGETHER TO DIVIDE THE OTAKUBOARDS AND THUS CONQUER IT -DRAGONWARRIOR IS FROM MARS!!!

[quote name='Lore][size=1]As for people not talking to you...be [size=3][b]proactive[/b][/size'], kittling. You'll go far. You might want to start by talking to your troubled friend...hit two birds with one stone, as it were.[/size][/quote] *Proactive sensor goes off* BINGO! That's the exact same word I was going to use in reference to that comment... Then again I've heard it so many times this last year, it's practically been engraved onto my memory for life...

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']Oddly enough I've heard of Baptists being prejudiced against Catholics becuase the Catholics also pray to Saints.[/color][/quote] There's a lot of intra-Christianity prejudice between denominations. Ireland is probably the most prominent example, with the whole fighting between the Catholic side and the Protestant side (even though a lot of people have these labels more to say which side they're on- not as a sign of what they believe) In England, Anglicans and Baptists are generally prejudiced towards Catholics, Traditional Anglicans and Catholics are prejudiced towards the free churches, Traditionalists and churches who don't follow tradition exchange prejudices with each other... And then in America practically everyone is prejudiced towards the MCC, the main church denomination which allows homosexuals into it's membership. All in all when it comes to Christians in unity.. we're a bit screwed at the moment :p

A lot of guys think that you shouldn't get to know a girl before you ask them out- or you shouldn't be friends first. The thing is, it introduces a lot more risk- in that if you break up with her, then if things go weird after that, then you're worse off than you were in the first place. However, it is far better to be seeing someone who you already know. You really don't want to be fooling each other about who you are and giving false impressions. Because some day, you're each going to find out. And it's far better to know all along than to become disillusioned about each other.

[QUOTE=lava lamp]This is where I lecture you on not reading the entire topic considering I addressed that point in my reply to CHW. Thank you; drive through.[/QUOTE] I wasn't adressing the post in which you replied to CHW- if I was then I would have read it :p. And besides, I see no harm in making the same point as somebody else, as long as that somebody else hasn't been well and truly proven wrong of the point they made.. and as long as I'm not just blatantly copying you.. umm.... it's about time I actually posted something on topic.. [b]Things which people do which get up my nerves[/b] 1- [b]Answering my question by questioning my question :eek: [/b] Chris, one of my neighbours, is the best example of this. We'll be talking about something and I might say "does it [i]really[/i] matter?", and he'll answer with "Does [i]anything[/i] really matter?". It throws into question the validity of the question I asked, thus meaning that he doesn't have to answer the question. :twitch: 2- [b]Being purposefully told by someone's body language "I know what I'm doing. I'm great. Trust me"[/b] My housemate Jude is classic at this. He took Psychology at A-Level, so he knows a lot of basic body language, and thus he's taken to using his own to get the message across that he is confident or good at what he does. The problem is, it's not the most subtle thing when he does it, and after living with him for a year and seeing exactly how brilliant he is, the effect has worn off a fair bit and we throw into question every statement where he bigs himself up in some way... edit: good job I did decide to go for the "on topic" option, otherwise Panda would have probably kicked my arse :p. Didn't see that last post when I started writing this one

[quote name='doukeshi03']I don't think its cool or normal to be that way at all..[/quote] I think a lot of people on OB seem more intelligent than average- or at least, they don't tend to go with what is considered "cool" by the masses. To be a little more specific than my last post, I was talking more about the masses of teenagers who have a kind of intentional, played-up angsty sort of thing going on. As I said, in some cases it's true. But in a lot of them, they just need to stop whining and get their act together. Life doesn't suck half as much as a load of people make out, but somehow the attitude that it does has become fashionable in some perverse kind of way. Again, this doesn't necessarily have to apply to everyone, but it certainly seems to apply to a lot. (And as I said, there are some genuine depressed people- often the ones who keep quiet about it to most people)

[quote name='wrist cutter']It's also known as being a normal teenager.[/quote] I never thought teenagers did so much of the hiding it away, in fact they often openly claim "I'm depressed" for some stupid reason or another (don't get me wrong, there are some genuinely depressed teenagers too..)- hence everybody knows teenagers are often like that :p.. Sometimes I reckon the worst thing that happened to teenagers was the discovery, or rather hyping-up of "depression" and "emotional problems". It somehow became cool or normal to be that way.

[quote name='lava lamp']I don't think he really needs your approval to "have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding as a decent rap artist" considering the fact that his LP not only sold 872,000 in it's first week, but went on to be the best selling album of the year with 6.5 million copies sold.[/quote] The key word was "decent".. and well.. that's too subjective a thing to ever achieve anyway (ie- what I say is decent, you might say is a load of crap, and vice versa) If you ignore that word though, and focus on him succeeding rather than being a "decent rap artist"... you've already made that point pretty well..

[QUOTE=lava lamp]OK, that is it. I am officially offended Dan L. I saw this on X Files and I know it's possible... Jerk.[/QUOTE] Very well. You can have your virtual cake and eat it :p But don't blame me when you come back from pixel-land to find that the laser messed up and you're now a pile of goo on the floor. You were warned! (And if you saw it on the X-Files, it's almost guarnateed that it went wrong :p)

[quote name='(Tsukasa)][COLOR=Blue']I know more[/COLOR][/quote] I sincerely hope so- judging by what you've already displayed you won't get very far :S. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but 'tis true. Your idea has a great number of technological and scientific flaws which basically summarise as "we don't have the technology" and "scientifically it wouldn't work anyway". I could go into more detail but I don't really know if it's necessary.

[quote name='BlueYoshi][color=teal']Also, I heard that he refused to finish his tour of England because there was a shooting in Manchester -- of course anyone would be scared to tread grounds where bullets were exchanged, but when the shooting has nothing to do with you and you've got a phoney rep to live up to then that's just plain ridiculous. :rolleyes:[/color][/quote] This is off the topic, but that reminds me- apparently a few [strike]weeks[/strike] months ago there was an incident here in Sheffield where someone shot his balls off (effectively even if they were still attached...) by accidentally pulling the trigger when he was holding a gun in his pocket... edit: [url]http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=822214[/url] 2nd edit: "Pints", when said that someone drank a number of pints, always means the said volume of beer. And yes, it is illegal to possess a firearm in the UK, hence the jail sentence.

HOLY CRAP! [url=http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/australia.shtml]LOOK![/url] That's about all I have to add to the current comments on things on the internet not being necessarily true. If the link is serious though, yes it's sick, but what exactly are you supposed to do about it? Legally, that is. The kid certainly has some extreme opinions, but he's not really said anything that can prove anything except that he has some pretty controversial ideas (as opposed to acting on them)

[quote name='Sir Auron]Actually, according to the Bible, God made woman out of Adam's rib. Man[i][b] didn't[/b][/i'] come from woman..[/quote] I noticed that too, but I think you'll find that biologically, man comes from woman. So even though James got the order mixed up, his point was still correct. [quote name='Sir Auron]Religion doesn't teach that, in fact, the Buible never says that God put things the way they are and they haven't changed. I was just trying to put forth the possibility that he might have, and that the special features that have evolved on the specific animals to help them survive [i]may[/i'] have been designedx form the start. It is also a possiblity that these advancements are the product of a micro-evolution. Sorry if it sounded like I was coming off as being decidedly one-sided here.[/quote] Firstly, there is more than one religion. James didn't even specify in his quote. Bear in mind, Shinji.. er.. Sir Auron :p that although you and I are looking at it from a Christian point of view, when James says "religion", he probably means religion on the whole, not only Christianity or "other religions" as we would probably see things. Also, James said that [i]relgion[/i] taught that, not the Bible. You and I both know that although the Bible is the source of the Christian relgion, the religion itself as it is known today, isn't the source of the bible. Firstly because it is God-inspired (but certainly not without it's human influences), and secondly because all of it was written (though not compiled) either before people were even called "Christians", or before it was so mainstream and corrupted as it has become today. The Christian religion in various forms has been known to teach a lot of things which are contrary to it. Examples include the KKK, the infamous crusades, the spanish inquisition?.. none of them have anything to do with evolution, but they're all examples of things which religion teaches, but the Bible doesn't.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']The fundamental flaw in what you said, my friend, is you figure that the theory of evolution tries to explain how life originated. There's a different theory for that.[/quote] [quote name='Dan L]There is the fundamental flaw, [b]not in evolution[/b], but in the theory of evolution [b]as a substitute[/b'] for creation.[/quote] I thought that last paragraph or so more than covered my intentions- but obviously I need to be a bit more clear. There [b]are[/b] a large number of people (often the ones who know nothing about evolution itself) which use evolution as an "anti-creation argument". As I already said in my post, I have no problem with evolution itself, only the extent to which some poelple apply it, such as a means of producing life rather than adapting it. It was this application of evolution, not evolution itself, which I was arguing against, and that was my intention from the start.

I'M A CHRISTIAN. I DON'T LIKE CHANGE. THEREFORE I DON'T LIKE EVOLUTION!!!!!! sorry, kidding :p just couldn't resist making fun of the more conservative people of my faith. Not necessarily the ones who oppose evolution, but those who do so for stupid reasons. The actual answer to the question "is evolution really the way it happened or not" doesn't particularly concern me any more. I did biochemistry at uni for two years- so I'd like to believe I have an above average grasp on the concept, seeing as evolution is a vitally important part of biochemistry. I know a great deal of both the pro-arguments and anti-arguments, and trust me, there are fundamental flaws in [i]both[/i]. And it's not as if either one has flaws to a lesser degree. What can not be disputed is that things change. Fossils and history, and experiments, have already proven that. What [i]can[/i] be disputed is the degree to which things do change. Shinji's "missing link" point is half correct. There is no "missing link" as such- the majority of the chain is missing, and only a few links have been found. The reason people refer to a "missing link" in evolution is that the fossils which have been found, all tend to be clumped around certain species. Thus, the theory goes, if they were all clumped into a certain species, where are the in-betweens? the things which are vital to find in order to prove that new species are actually being formed from the old ones, and not just appearing all of a sudden. This isn't so much small changes like a longer neck or some kind of adjustment to something that's already there- but rather completely new things which define the species as a seperate type of species altogether. In all honesty, the theory does hold some backing, but at the same time, fossils are only left in specific circumstances- most dead animals just rot over time rather than being preserved as fossils. If those circumstances came about at a certain time, then it makes sense that all the fossils would be grouped into certain species. If it happened randomly, then it doesn't. So though it's a good argument, we don't know quite enough to say whether it's scientifically sound or not. Personally I'm all for micro evolution, unsure about macro evolution, but completely opposed to the idea that evolution brought about life, rather than just keeping it going. The reason for that is simple. Even the most simple, unicellular life, contains massively complex protiens. They are amazing in what they do- often they operate by means of transforming their shape when bonded with a substrate, which will make them act like a little moving arm in one case, it will make them open up to allow things into a cell in another, and it will break a moelcule into several chunks in another. In order for a cell to properly function, it must have these proteins, and have them enclosed within a protein wall. DNA is the other crucial element, and this contains all the coding for the proteins, so that another protein can go about construcing the proteins from the code. In order to have a fully functioning, reproducing cell, you [i]must[/i] have: - DNA containing genetic information and the coding for ALL the necessary proteins, so that they can be reproduced when the cell splits. - All the necessary proteins, so that the cell will actually do what it's supposed to - The particular protein which uses the DNA code to produce other proteins- and amino acids with which to build the proteins. (This protein must also be reproduced so that it can make more proteins in the new cell) - A cell wall, made of proteins, which must be built by yet another protein, which is constructed by the one which uses the DNA code. -Yet another protein to split the DNA and replicate it so that the new cell can have it's own copy of the protein coding to pass on to it's duplicate. ALL of these components must be present before evolution can even occur- because without these things a cell cannot reproduce, it cannot pass on it's genetic code, and thus it cannot evolve. Everything is necessary, with the possible exception of the cell wall, which is necessary only to contain the cell, not to evolve. The proteins are dependant on the DNA in order that more of them can be made, the DNA is dependant on one particular protein in order that it may be split, and both are dependant on the protein-building protein in order to actually get anywhere. As I've said, evolution can not produce that, it can only build upon it. There is the fundamental flaw, not in evolution, but in the theory of evolution as a substitute for creation. (I haven't used any scientific names for the proteins- sorry about that. I did do biochemistry, but it was a while ago and my books are back in stoke on trent so although I remember HOW it works, I don't remember what the technical names for the substrates are..)

I fancied a change from my old avatar and frankly imageless signature- so I pulled off some pics which Jude (my housemate) and I have taken at a place called Castleton, in the middle of the Peak District, and I made a theme around that. The avatar pic was taken from where we were staying, looking towards the setting sun over one of the peaks, and the banner pic was taken from the trail leading up into some of the peaks, looking over at one of the ridges Thoughts/construcive comments?

UK Prices are apparently about £3.70 per gallon. Most places go by the Litre- probably because it's only £0.80something for that, therefore it looks cheaper. That works out about $5.50-$6.50 per gallon. No wonder we always complain, compared to you lot and your low prices :p edit: apparently we pay just under 70% tax on every bit of petrol

My most memorable dream is from when I was 7 or some age when I was still relatively gullible in more ways than now. I dreamt that it was Christmas day, sometime in the middle of June.. it's not so much the dream itlself that's memorable, but rather the fact that I woke up, ran down the stairs, saw no Christmassy stuff, ran back up, and asked my Dad if it was really Christmas. Unfortunately it turned out that it wasn't.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']I'm sure Dan and the rest of the Eurpean and even some Canadian memebers may not feel so sympathetic towards us since they pay quite a bit more than Us states people do[/color][/quote] Yeah, but that's because we're being ripped off, we're used to being ripped off and not enough people believe it can change to actually do something about it :p Whereas you guys on the whole are charge more reasonable prices, so when someone charges noticably more, it's more of a specific thing to complain about (as opposed to our generic petrol price rip-offs problem)... That reasoning sounded [i]far[/i] better in my head than it looks in post form... That and, at the moment I don't pay for petrol personally so I have neither sympathy nor a lack of it- I just plain don't have much to go by from personal experience at all ;)