In My Memory

Back on topic: I used to be irrationally frightened of "socialists" (I blame my conservative parents and Ronald Reagon), but now I've actually flipped. My new extreme view is that I fully endorse socialized medicine with one objection - that the US already pays twice as much than the UK and Canada for the same health care, so the US is as socialized as it will possibly become. I've considered that one way to reduce the cost of American healthcare is to reduce the malpractice insurance for doctors, but I've been told that is an outrageous idea. Another extreme idea is that I dont really feel that its a bad idea to give people a kind of test before they vote. It just seems to me that if you arent informed enough to be able to name the 5 rights granted in the first amendment, or understand the basic differences between local / state / federal government or between a mayor / governor / senator / representative, then you shouldnt vote because it would be harmful to the legislative process. Some people feel that the right to vote is intrinsic, but we might have a better government if the right to vote were earned (in the same way the drivers license is something you have to earn). More on animal rights: according to many people in animal rights movement, I have "extreme" views by their standards: - I would fully endorse making it illegal to hunt animals, experiment on them, or breed them for food. I do not endorse, however, the current efforts by many animal rights groups to encourage "cruelty-free killing", because those movements only undermine the animal rights movement because it leads people to say "I dont feel guilty eating an animal that didnt suffer". - I think vegetarians who drink milk or eat eggs produced commerically are hypocrites, because the cows and chickens are treated horribly. - I'm skeptical of people eating eggs or drinking milk that come from freerange farms. Because initially, to get a cow to produce milk, it has to become pregnant - meaning the calf has to be removed, which is emotionally traumatic for the cow mother, and I suspect that many of the excess calfs (especially if they are male) are sold to veal producers. And I'm not sure what happens to freerange chickens when they are no longer able to produce eggs anymore, I suspect they are sold off to be chopped up and sold to delis. So, unless you dont milk your own cows or raise your own chickens, I would suggest if you are going to have an ethical diet, then become wholly vegan without exceptions. Besides, soy milk is very good (it comes in many flavors too), so soy milk is the ethical (and very healthy) alternative to milk; and just dont eat eggs.

Yourdad, The trick is to eat right, exercise daily. Pangloss,

YT, You know, I dont think you actually have to hold beliefs that are out of the mainstream to really be an extremist. I think in some since, even for reasonable ideas, if you cannot speak rationally about it then that makes you an extremist. For instance, I know people who cannot speak rationally about pedophiles or child abuse - it becomes emotionally overwhelming for them, and they become violent or irrational when trying to talk about the topic. Its not necessarily a bad thing, but if you cant speak rationally about something, that makes you an extremist. Perhaps, YT, there is a hotbutton issue that exists for you that makes you incapable of speaking rationally about?

Hmmm, lets see if I can bring out the extremist in you? Choose any of the following strongly agree with or strongly oppose (divided by color as loonie lefty, radical right, and neither): - All guns ought to be elimated from the planet! - Homosexuality should be a federal crime! - All drug users should be mandatorily sterilized! - Death penalty should be option for all crimes! - The ACLU is a terrorist organization! - Everything IMM says is the gospel truth! - Woman shouldnt work in the military or office! - Hospitals shouldnt be treat the poor! - People who develop cancers from smoking should not be treated! - HIV/AIDS is God's punishment against the homosexuals! - Immigrants should be deported or thrown in prison! - Abortion doctors should be put to death! - Government is an unnecessary evil! - Taxes are a form of theft! - Michael Moore for president! - Voluntarily childless couples are evil and selfish! - Legal drugs! All of them! - Socialize medicine! - Israel, as we know it, should have never been created and ought to disappear! - Nuke the Middle East! - Yay monarchy! - Laws against child pornography are mind-control! - Censor obscene material on TV, radio, and Internet! - Free public education for everyone! - I see nothing on this list to disagree with!

I thought the You might be an extremist... thread was clever, but whats even more fun is to admit that on the inside almost all of us hold an extreme view on one thing or another. Please note: this is a place to confess your own extreme views, not to post other peoples views. And if you try to say that you dont hold some kind of weird view or support something that may be just out of the mainstream of your party, or even worse try to pass yourself off as an "independent", you will be forced to wear a dunce hat for the rest of the day If you want to criticize someone for their extremist views, be nice about it I'll go first: I'm generally a reasonable person, and although I'm probably not as aware of politicians names and the things they do as much as I ought to be, I hold several extreme political views: - In conversation I happened to mention that am a supporter of the animal rights community, and that I consider the killing of sentient animal to be no different than the killing of a human being. Apparently, that and PETA donations make me an extremist. And maybe once or twice I might have said "fur is murder". The animal rights one is always a conversation starter - I try not to be indignant, but I almost always find someone joking about wanting to kill things makes me very upset. And even more, people ask really strange questions about it, like "do you think plants suffer" or "how do we know that animals can really feel pain" - never once have I heard seriously anyone ask these questions outside of the context of animal rights or veganism, but they always come up as soon as I say "I dont use animal products, I dont like to kill things". Look at me, I'm already starting to become indignant - As a humanitarian, I do not under any circumstances buy things made in countries like China, Portugal, Taiwan, Korea, or Japan because they have a miserable record of human rights abuses. And I will not accept gifts from those places. I just cant bring myself to support directly or indirectly places that work frequently underage employees in miserable conditions for low pay. This is one of the major reasons I will not shop at Walmarts or similar places, and instead choose to buy everything from local providers. - And finally, one of my other extremist views is that I just cant stand religious conservatives. I get along with religious people perfectly fine, but it makes me die a little inside everytime I hear 8 out of 10 Christian conservatives oppose gay rights (including marriage and adoption), try to endorse force governments to recognize the 10 commands as the inspiration for our laws, or try to transform our country into the United States of Jesusland. Separation of church and state is a very important issue to me. If it werent for the Christian right, I might vote for a Republican every now and then. Your turn

Ku, Speaking as someone who knows a thing or two about social contracts, moral obligations, philosophy of government, and feminist philosophy, that was seriously the most pathetic - laughably pathethic - essay I have ever read in my life - so much so it does not even deserve any further refutation. He even refutes his own essay in the statement "those who cry out for equality between male and female are just expressing opinions", because he concedes that nothing in his essay is morally binding, because it is nothing but an expression his opinion. However, Ku, as you requested, here are the arguments to against his essay: "Firstly, women and men are different. They are not equal. There are obvious underlying biological differences between the two sexes" This is a superficial fact - that men and women are biologically different and have different general abilities, and therefore not "equal" to one another in the physiological sense. If this is his reason for refuting women's equality, then it is wrong for four reasons: 1) When people talk about being "equal", they dont care about the physical differences. The word "equal" means equal treatment before the law, equality of opportunity, and equal consideration of interests. So, the author completely misses the point of equality. 2) The authors reasoning is a basic example of what is called the "naturalistic fallacy". Its a fallacy that has a very strong philosophical tradition from David Hume to G. E. Moore. In general terms, it means you cannot logically deduce an "ought to be" from an "is". You see him commit this particular deductive mistake over and over again in his essay when he states that women are statistically more likely to be homemakers and calls women in the office "unnatural". 3) The whole argument begs the question, because he says that women and men are unequal, but never explained how this physical inequality implies that women should be lesser than men and not the other way around. Why shouldnt the physical differences imply men's subordinance? 4) Every individual man is different physically and mentally from every other individual man, it is pretty much undeniable that there are definite differences between the physical body and abilities of men between other men. The author argues that all men should be treated equally, despite the physical and mental differences between them; but he argues that women and men should be treated unequally, because of the physical and mental differences between them. This is an irresolvable contradiction that undermines his entire essay. The whole first paragraph should be crossed out for those reasons. After talking about the crumbling of traditional roles, the author states "This is bad because it effects an atmosphere of uncertainty. Young people start to get confused over their roles in society." Not only does the author refuse to explain why gender roles are such a moral imperative that they ought to be maintained, he does not explain why the crumbling of gender roles is a bad thing. He simply says the crumbling of gender roles is a bad thing because it confuses people about their roles - this is an obvious example of circular logic (actually I would not say this is circular logic because the author really just rambles without logically connecting his ideas, meaning he doesnt actually deduce anything. So its not circular logic, just a vacuous string of words). "Young people start to get confused over their roles in society. This creates tension between the sexes. This creates the 50 divorce rates we see today." This is just smug. The author claims that the divorce rate is so high due to women not keeping their place, but he does not offer the least amount of evidence to or reason to back up this statement. There are lots of reasons people get divorced, see this page which names off at least 2 dozen reasons for divorce, including infidelity, loss of intamacy, failure to resolve important differences, unrealistic expecations, or just drifting apart - nowhere will you ever see on a psyche paper explain the reasons for divorce as something along the lines of "gender role confusion". Furthermore, the author doesnt even explain why divorce is bad thing. In fact, it might be very good to allow two unhappy people to seperate and go on their seperate ways. "Another reason why we should prevent women from working is because of the bible." Unfortunately, when people say "I believe such and such because of the bible", there is nothing you can say to reason with such a person. I've personally studied bible apologetics for years and years, and I've been able to persuade people that some of the bibles commands have no rational explanation. And, I've frequently noted that morality is zilch if it commands are left unjustified. But, I've never been able to persuade a bible-believer to say that the commands in the bible are wrong. The closest I've ever seen is someone say that we should not follow some commands in the bible is when they argue that some commands are outdated or not applicable to the modern era, or that we humans are so simple that we couldnt possibly fathom the explanations whatever they may be. But I've never seen anyone say the commands are wrong. At the very least, the only counter-argument to the "bible" argument is that there is no reason why the commands in the bible (or any holy text for that matter) ought to be considered morally binding without a reasonable explanation. If no explanation is given to obey the command, then obviously no explanation is needed to disobey the command, making the unexplained moral prescriptions in the bible completely moot. "Atheists often go on about how it is wrong to use the bible to back up the segregation of women but why are the atheists criticizing our opinions when they have opinions themselves? Those who cry out for equality between male and female are just expressing opinions, just as those who cry out for inequality between male and female are doing." First, not all atheists believe everything in the bible is wrong. I personally find the bible gives practical advice sometimes, but if the bible cannot say the right things for the right reasons, the bible is not a reliable moral guide for anything. And given that, there are some Christians who believe that the men and women are equal despite what the bible says. Second, by admitting that cries for equality are nothing more than expressions of opinions, the author refutes his entire essay. The point of his essay to provide reasons for why he believes women should be subordinate, by stating that he has nothing more than opinions then obviously the purpose of his essay is necessarily unachievable and outright defeated by the authors own admission. The persuasive influence of his essay is wisped away in a whirlwind of subjectivism. "When you sign a contract with someone else for gas service or electricity service you are bounded by contractual obligations. You don’t have the freedom to just break the contract." What contract? I'd love to see the "contract" that woman signed or even tacitly consented to that says "we will make babies and never work in the office". "The convention of segregating women and assigning them to certain tasks is deeply ingrained in our society." There is not an inkling of explanation why todays social mores dictate the moral way we should treat people. In fact, it could be just the opposite, it could be that certain societal mores are very very immoral (for instance, in some ancient societies, it may have been considered the right thing to do by sacrificing live infants in a fire, and in other societies it is considered acceptable to kidnap a pre-pubescent girl and make her your wife). If I was that author's philosophy professor and I read his essay, I would have given him an F. And if it makes any difference, I am happy to say that I am single, work nights investing in the stock market, I have yet to learn how to cook or apply makeups properly, probably make several hundred thousand a year more than the author of that essay, and never ever do what people command. All the best

Thomas Kirby,

Cambrian_exp, These "proofs" have been around for decades. In a nutshell, they dont find their way into textbooks because they arent scientific. In fact, back in 1998, the list had a few more items: Notice in all of this, the author doesnt give a single number, nor indicate how fast the galaxy is rotating. Just for the record, the solar system takes 220 millions to orbit the galaxy. That isnt so fast. But, more importantly, this information comes from a man by the name of Humpreys whose methodology is seriously faulty: the author was a guy by the name of Humphrey, who deduced his conclusion by following a model from a supercomputer. The problem: he made all the starts attract to the center of the galaxy, but not to each other. (I apologize that I dont have a reference, I lost the link when I lost my post after an IE crash.) Also courtesy of Nasa' date=' this page titled Refuting the claim that Supernova Remnants are only 10,000 years old: The author makes the claim that supernova remants "should remain visible for over a million years" - but, this isnt true. The remnants have a upper-bound lifetime of about 100,000 years. The TalkOrigins Supernova page confirms this, stating that fewer than 20% of all supernova explosions last more than 50,000 years, and fewer than 1% last more than 100,000 years. The reason why we dont see so many is not because they havent happened yet, but because we only have a 100,000 year window to see those that have happened. The author makes the claim that we've only seen enough supernova to account for the last 7000 years, but I'm willing to bet if the author inflated the lifetime of supernova remants by 10x, he very likely deflated the number of expected supernovas by a similarly absurb amount as well. Its wrong to assume all the comets that exist today are the only comets there have ever been - many new comets are formed all the time. The author also takes a few potshots at the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud, known sources of existing comets - I dont know what the purpose of this has been, those two objects have been a unique area of study for astronomers for years. It almost seems as if the author is trying to suggest that those objects are "hoaxes" created by astronomers for their own conspiratorial needs Its not uniformly distributed. Some places like river deltas have a lot of mud' date=' and other places like the faultlines along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge have almost no mud at all. And then there are some places where the mud has accumulated for hundreds of millions of years, leading it be many kilometers thick. See NOAA Ocean Explorer: 400 meters is a far cry from 8 km. There isnt much more I can say except the math to base this claim just wrong. Salt goes in the sea, but salt is also taken out of the sea in roughly the same amounts. Also, there is no reason to suspect that the amount of salt deposited in the sea is constant, it could be very erratic throughout the past several ice-ages, so it probably isnt a very good clock to measure the earth with. This one has been around for years. The reason why its false is that is just uses an inappropriate model of the earth's magnetic field: "Electrical resistance in the earth's core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth's magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly" In other words, the author interprets the origin of the earths magnetic field as being the result of a decaying electrical current. However, no one seriously entertains that idea anymore. Today, we know the earths magnetic field is due to convection currents beneath the earths crust. A simple explanation can be found at MadSCI - What is the origin of the Earth's magnetic field (that page contains many links to more detailed explanations). There is no point arguing for a young earth based on models that no one uses any more. Rocks break and crack if you manipulate them quickly. However, they will give somewhat if their shapes are manipulated under subtle pressure for several million years. The claims in this proof are just factually inaccurate. See the article written by Dr GH - Dino Blood and the Young Earth, and it becomes very clear: the preservation has been exaggerated. Soft tissue has never been discovered intact, although we have partially-fossilized tissue residues. We've never discovered intact DNA greater than 10,000 years old, and we have very rarely discovered broken DNA fragments of things roughly 300,000 years - DNA has never been recovered from things as old as dinosaurs. Besides, the YECs are doing a number of things that are methodologically flawed, such as trying to date the age of fossils by how well-preseved they are - thats unscientific. And if a young-earth implies dinosaurs fossilized with soft-tissues, then the discovery of soft-tissue would be routine and mundane - but that isnt the case. Billions of years of radioactive decay produces billions of years of byproducts. To compress billions of years into a few a few months would vaporize the planet. TalkOrigins has a very detailed page on this. In short' date=' the minerals that appear to have excess helium were contaminated, usually because they came from sources sitting on volcanic vents. Carbon 14 is created all the time. See TalkOrigins Feedback Oct 1999: Fossilization is rare. The current number of skeletons is nothing out of the ordinary. This isnt a measurement of the earths age. However, in general, early humans were nomadic. When it comes to tending crops, you have to remain in one place for months at a time, and there is a certain amount of skill that goes into growing plants, and it isnt so easy to cultivate plants during ice-ages. Adding to that, the difficulty in cultivating plants really comes in the tools: it requires domesticated animals, a small number of metal or wooden tools like a ploy, etc. I might also add that there are a number of inventions that I find to be incredibly simple, even for the prehistoric people, but wonder why they werent invented sooner: steam engines (how hard is it to say "when I heat water, the steam pushes things; I think I'll wrap this jet of steam around a wheel to turn a paddle"), bricks, writing, etc. Heres something to consider: the number of internet documents was close to zero before 1985, therefore the earth is only 15 years old. The flaw in this methodology is obvious: the age of the earth is not measured by the discovery of the internet. Likewise, the span of human writings and paintings is not a measurement of the earths age either. There really is no point in asking "why did history start at this time, and not at this other time"; that question is arbitrary, and could apply to any hypothetical timeline. In short, the list of proofs for a young earth have been around forever, but they contain so many fundamental errors and factual inaccuracies that they'll never see their way into any scientific textbook (except for possibly reasons of historical curiosity). If someone says "theres an average of 400 meters of mud", and two seconds of google searching reveal that there are several kilometers of mud, you can be sure that the author didnt research too well.

Ku, Absolutely wrong. Very wrong. Very very wrong. There is no excuse for blaming poverty on laziness. Poverty is widespread because years ago (1800s through 1900s), industrialized nations used up the natural resources of these countries through predatory colonization - meaning they set up private investments and infrastructures that were so one-sided that the host countries never benefited. When there was no profit left to take, the private investors left, leaving behind a third-world nation The reason many of these countries have never recovered is because they have been unable to participate in competitive market or international trade. You cannot have economic growth without anyone to trade with, so the obvious solution to poverty is to introduce third-world nations into the competitive world market. There is plenty of incentive to promote economic growth: the threat of starvation. Hunger is torture, it is a terrible way to live and a very awful way to die. Being lazy with promise of a small amount of foreign aid is not an idea to entertain seriously in light of starvation. If these people were capable of promoting growth to end starvation, they would do so - but they cannot do that because they are unable to enter into the competitive market. Your plan will not work because neither increasing nor decreasing foreign aid has anything to do with international trade or market competition, and no amount of foreign aid is enough to enrich a countries economy to make a country self-sustainable - specifically, foreign aid is not used by countries for economic consumption, but rather to help fight the spread of disease and increase education, so it isnt worth talking about third-world poverty and economy in terms of foreign aid in the first place. Adding to that, no amount of foreign aid will put third-world nations into the world marketplace. Here is a better solution: The first way to get third-world nations into the competitive market is to stop governments from granting agricultural subsidies to industrialized nations. There is no earthly way that African or Latin farmers can compete against the multinational corportations, and as long as governments keep giving subsidies to these corporations there will be widespread hunger and povery. I'd also suggest doing many other things, like forgiving the past debt that these countries have owed (it would have a barely noticeable impact in the economy of any developed nations), and eliminate all protectionist policies in terms of trade with third-world nations. There are a few risks involved, for instance we wouldnt want to see an African nation sustain itself through deforestation ( as no economy can be sustained by those means), and we also have to be very careful countries that manufacture things through sweatshops. (There are ways to prevent and counteract these problems, such as setting up tariffs against countries or corporations, but they often lead to terrible diplomacy problems.) But, the benefits gained by introducing African nations to the competitve market are usually immediate, and increase exponentially with time: - Povery decreases and hunger will decrease substantially - As economic sustainability goes up, so does the incentive to educate citizens. It is a well-known fact that education and overpopulation are inversely proportional to one another. More education and less overpopulation are two good things for the price of none. - More capital being traded means an overall increase in net worth of all the worlds economies.

Do I see the sparkle of an up and coming environmentalist? [insane Environmentalist Mode = On] All the food I buy comes from organic local providers rather than large corporations. That means, when I buy my food, all the money I spend goes straight to my local providers and reinvested into my surrounding community - that is good for my community, and good for the environment. (If you buy from Walmart, all the money you spend is hemmorraging out of your community and into the hands of execs you'll never see or meet, and thats bad for your local economy.) Also, if the government would stop giving huge agricultural subsidies to developed nations, then organic growers and farmers in third-world nations will have a fighting chance to compete against these large corporations. That would do so much good for free market capitalism (fiscal conservatives would like that), it gives a chance for all the third-world nations to develop a robust first-world economy, and more organic growers in the mainstream means fewer destructive pesticides and steroids in our food and in the environment (insane environmentalists would like that ). Yay capitalism! Yay environment! [/insane Environmentalist Mode = Off]

Pangloss, The government needs a certain amount of income to build roads, schools, buildings, etc. At least in the US, a flat tax isnt practical, we just wouldnt be able to meet the needs of government income unless without making the flat tax rate absurdly high - for instance, my 15% of taxes that I pay ever year might incrase to 20%, and the 33% that billionaires pay decreases to 20%. That would make far more people very unhappy (and poor) than it would help. A flat tax is much too drastic for the US to cope with. It would probably be much easier to eliminate tax deductions, so that there would be an overall increase in tax income flowing into the government (presumably this means the government can reduce the tax rate by several points, reducing the tax burden on everyone). Douglas,

From that article:

- You think the ACLU is a terrorist organization - You think Bill O'Reilly's views are too liberal - You also believe the FoxNews slogans "fair and balanced" and "no spin zone" - You think liberals are communists - You think God shares your political opinions - You believe there is no seperation of church and state - You think poverty in third world nations is due to lazyness - You wont let your kids read Harry Potter because you're afraid they might cast spells and begin worshipping Satan - You use phrases like "declining moral standards" and "moral decay" in response shows like "Queer Eye" and "Will and Grace" - You've got a bumper sticker that says "One Nation Under GOD" but think people with the stickers "Freedom and Justice for ALL" are traitors - You are quick to call people on treason for opposing the PATRIOT act - You kill and eat animals but call yourself "pro-life" - You cant think of any liberal examples of extremism, so you write a bunch of silly things in the hope that no one will notice - You used artificial catchphrases like "Seacrest OUT!" and "Thats hot" - You would boycott a cable network for cancelling one of its reality shows - You've met your celeb lookalike - You take your username after the song you were listening to at the time of registration - You thought you could make a jean skirt by cutting up an old pair of pants, but only succeeded in ruining a previously wearable pair of pants - You describe yourself with one of the following adjectives: evil, hottie, punk, rocker, or "totally" appended before any conventional adjective

MetaFrizzics,

Thomas Kirby, It just isnt productive to start a thread on partisan reasons to like Bush, it only reaffirms prejudices. Its good to focus on non-partisan reasons, because it means Bush does things not because he is a mindless ideologue, but because they are the right things to do.

Pangloss, Bush gets big points from me for that And big points for that as well. I remember one of the big worries I heard about Bush Jr was that he was going to be a lot like his tariff-happy father. He kept his promises a lot better than Bush Sr, and I got a few hundred. I'll give him that much A lot of people criticized Bush for untactful when he refused to rollback his taxcuts during wartime, running up some of the most outrageous deficit spending we've ever seen. But, I dont think there is any way Bush could have avoided the criticism - if he had rolled back the taxcuts, then people would be upset with him for paying so much for a war that they did not approve of (to translate that into proper anti-Bush rhetoric, people are happy that "Bush hasnt squandered American tax-dollars to finance his illegal war for oil" ). I give Bush credit for at least trying not to offend social liberals and trying to keep a coherent fiscal policy, but if I he can do more positive things for the environment and natural resources then I'd be very happy with him.

I hate Mr. Bush just as much the other 57% of USians, but in his defense I dont find him that bad. There are a lot of things that Bush does (and doesnt do) that are very praiseworthy. One good thing I've come up with is: Bush's AIDS relief in Africa and developing nations: To put this in perspective, the US committment to fighting AIDS before Bush took office was about 1/3 as much. It shows a genuine interest in the welfare of others, and this concern is very commendable. I find this to be a pretty good non-partisan reason to like Bush. Are there any more reasons?

I definitely nominate Bettina and AzurePhoenix, they are very kind and very sweet. I also want to mention Pangloss, from his posts in the politics section, he is very well-rounded. And Phi for All, who has been so kind to me, especially via PM *wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more * I admire Hellbender's maturity, and I find Sayonara's cynicism and sarcasm to be humorous and refreshing.

Jowrose, [steve martin] Come brother, let us impress the foxy ladies with our tight pants that increase our bulges! [/steve martin]

This is the thread for self-loathing, self-demasculation, and self-denial. With happy face of course Tell why you - as lovable as you find yourself - are still single every Friday night. I'll go first: My worst habit is that I'm just not an interesting person to talk to, I have not been blessed with the gift of small-talk. And I rarely start a conversation with people for fun - there are people who I've known for years but never called them, emailed them, or said more than "hello". People like a talker, but I'm not one, so I'm single. Pity me

Calbitero, Its a joke, its been around for years. Type "is your child a hacker" into Google, and you get almost 2,000,000 hits. Its funny because the person who wrote it is insanely computer illiterate (i.e. claiming that "Lunix" was based on the Microsoft software "Xenix", and claiming the AMD chips are inferior to Intel). Dont question the joke, just laugh. In other news, here is how to tell if your kid is not a hacker: 1) He communicates in l33t 2) He calls himself a l33t h@><0r (or if he's a girl - or wants to be really badly -, a ch1><0r) 3) Uses file sharing programmings to search for keyloggers to put on friends computers 4) Has used "WindowsNuke" 5) Claims to "program in binary" 6) Claims to have "hacked into the Pentagon" 7) Cant install Linux 8) Thinks programming a TI-83 makes him a computer programmer 9) Is a registered Republican 10) Uses Windows98

Hmmmm... What seems less crazy to me: the idea that all forms are the product of descent and modification, modeled after the selective pressures that are acting on them --- or, a talking snake and mysterious apple. This is really hard! Selective pressures, or talking snake? Selective pressures or talking snake? Pressures or talking snake? *pulls hair out* Zahizahi, you make the baby Jesus cry!

Newtonian, Two things: 1) My links had a thoroughly documented bibliography, and were perfectly scientific. If someone wanted, they would be perfectly adequate to cite in research paper (I think EvoWiki could be used, as it is a carbon copy of the TalkOrigins site), and they are perfectly suited to post in this thread. Perfectly. 2) "posting links whose authors are so pro-evolution", if you can find information debunking creationist pseudoscience that isnt pro-evolution, you will make my day. Cambrian_exp, 1) Suicide: Reproduction is more important than survival - all that matters is getting your genes out before you die. So, it really isnt that harmful that some animals mate and die immediately afterwords (such as in many insects, squids, salmon, and other animals). If you mean suicide as in a 1-800 suicide hotline, its a social phenomena wholly unrelated to evolution. 2) Homosexuality: In social animals, sex has more than just a reproductive purpose. It is just another form of non-reproductive sex that is used to bind societal relationships. We see it primates, in swans, and elsewhere in the animal kingdom. In fact, in humans, most people will have sex 1000+ times in their lifetime, but on average have about 2.4 children. Obviously, sex has a more important purpose of social binding, and homosexuality is no exception.

Yes. In fact, countries should be doing what they can to help take in more refugees from abusive countries. Countries have an ethical imperative to do so.

Lance, Yes.