silkworm

Well, it's unlikely the link is in your pocket. It's very unlikely the link is in your living room. To find the link you must study biological anthropology. Biological anthropology is not going to hunt you down, and hold you down and explain itself to you. You have to actively participate in understanding this information. Please do. And enjoy.

Sounds like you were into her personallity from the start... Your bullshit is too poetic and everpresent in mainstream "art" to have any meaning. I'm trying to give you hint. Women like men, be one.

It's something you do in high school that allows you to skip basic courses in college.

I'm from the US and I don't know what those are either. But we didn't have AP (advanced placement) at my highshool.

Whoa now. Just to make a point here, every one I've ever used is because I was asked to. I'm not some jerk going around lying to get laid. If I like a girl, and she likes me, we have a fling. What the hell is wrong with that? Is the honesty and reality too harsh? When it's over, it's over. Who cares? Why should I punish myself because of someone else's values?

Can you cite that? An argument can be made that herme3s idealogy is what makes the divorce rate so high. No one should get married until they're living what's real and not what's ideal. AP somehow manages to hit a Pinata underwater, blindfolded, and in the dark here. Climb the ladder boy. Amen. There are girls with good personalities' date=' just not very many. An equal statement can be made for men. Of course she's not offended, everyone loves her. If you want us to believe that you see women as people, as you seem to claim to, then why are you acting like they're robots. Women are complicated, sick people, just like all of us fellas. They're no one's angels. They're people, and generally selfish people, just like all people. You have to gain some perspective. Just like anyone, women have their own interests and someone as innocent as you will always have his heart broken by treating them like their somehow preprogrammed robots. Women fall in and out of love, do good and bad things, and at times smell horrible, just like everybody else. Put it into perspective. I never said all there is to a woman is her looks. I said that's what's best to go on. Even if a woman "loves you with all her heart," she'll screw up, just like any normal person will. The difference between you and me is I'll be able to see it because I'm only attracted by her beauty, and not trapped or confused by it. Anyway, herme3, I'm just warning you. Don't take it seriously. You need some spring training if you expect to function in the big leagues. Go get em, Tiger.

Wise up, kid. You generally have to take a girl for her looks because you won't be able to find one with a decent personality. For all of this notion about Ms. Right and all of this idealism concerning human relationships... I used to think the same thing. The truth is, all that is bullshit. You'll figure that out for yourself. Just remember I told you and try to look surprised. We're toys to each other, and we use each other to reproduce. That's about all of it. You have to make yourself happy or you'll always be miserable.

He lost it. It appears this was a pretty normal guy that just flipped out. This could happen to any one of us. What he did is horrible, but the death penalty here serves no one. He should get some serious jail time and intense psychiatrc treatment. If he does anything like it again though, goodnight Mr. Tyson. I'll be happy to do it myself.

How could we do anything with him? He's a prisoner of Iraq right?

I second that. A follow up would be, what are the requirements for a scientific theory? I think it's important, as well, that these kids understand completely some fundamental theories of science. Evolution, Plate Tectonics, F=ma (and gravity), Gibbs Free Energy, PV=nRT are not too hard to grasp and essential to not releasing an idiot into the world. I don't think any of those are too heavy to grasp in high school. They also should make it through Calc 1 or not graduate.

Bone is constantly breaking down and rebuilding. Constantly. That's a bad question. Do you go to a creation science school?

I'd like to add to the list. ICR: Evolutionists claimed that they could ride a lightbulb to the moon during the Apollo Space Program. However, Tom Hanks refused citing that such an effort would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law that states bricks can't stack themselves. Hanks won an Oscar for his efforts. Behe: The screw and the socket are irreducibly complex, and I can't figure this out. We shouldn't screw with stuff like this. AiG: God seperated the night and the day, and a light bulb from an evolutionist will never light the world. Ken Ham: Screwing in a lightbulb condones homosexuality, and is ripping this nation apart. ICR: We're not denying that some lightbulbs change amongth themselves over time, different wattages, different sizes, different shapes. Even any evolutionist can see that. What we're saying is a lightbulb would not turn into a donut. That's hogwash. How would a lightbulb know a donut? For more information about boobery and misrepresentations of science, please consult this link http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20337 and join the project of myself and many other SFNers to make organizations that endorse "A Question of Origins" take responsibility. I agree. Am I the only one who sees that science and religion have absolutely nothing to do with one another unless either is drastically misapplied?

You seem like you're intelligent, so I don't know why I have to repeat myself so much. Natural science does not consider the existence of God because it can not control for God. About all the other comments you make about most scienctists, many scientists, you must understand that science holds no position on the existence of God. Every scientist's faith, or lack there of, is his/her own. Science has no religion, science is just science. Individual scientists each have their own faith or lack of faith. Do you understand the difference? Just because Richard Dawkins is an atheist doesn't mean that all scientists are atheists. That argument is a sad one. It's strange you'd make that sort of statement since you already knew that. For the rest of it, really? How so? Judging by the content of the rest of the video, the problem isn't with the Bible. It's with the fact that the producer's of this video do not know, or are misleading about what atomic fission, etc, is. Defining atomic fission as "melting of elements" is incredibly incorrect and needs to be addressed. It's not the Bible's fault it was misapplied by people who either do not know what they're talking about or are conciously misrepresenting science.

Notice the all capitals for "GOTTA BE" and the tandem punctuation of "!?" You don't read this sentence. You feel it. YT isn't just some guy on forum. He's an artist. Congratulations YT. I wasn't sure if it was possible, but you've done it. I hope you finally get the respect that you deserve.

Are you responding to the nature of forums or about what is going on in the letter? If you're talking about the content of the video, I think we, and by we I mean everyone independent of their views, deserve to not have information falsely represented to us. There is accepted, textbook science, and we can check on that. What is being presented in that video as accepted science is not, that's what we are addressing.

We're leaving religion out of it, and only correcting misinformation by showing what is generally accepted in the scientific community. Are you in?

Please do, and this letter doesn't have to be time consuming. We are focusing only on misrepresentations of generally accepted science. If you have a moment, please review the area of science you know most about and at least give us comments about what is inaccurate so we can include it. Correspondingly, if you see anything on the working page that may be inaccurate please let us know. I would like everyone who agrees with its content to sign it. As soon as it starts shaping up I'll start presenting it to as many working scientists as I can and we'll post it and send it as soon as it's perfect.

We need a good Big Bang guy to really look at chapter 1. Here are 2 of the statements implied to be generally accepted among the scientific community. “In the beginning, there was nothing. A vacuum, void, empty space.” “And in this empty space emerged a primordial fireball. Billions of years ago this fireball exploded.” It then goes on and makes statements about matter formation which I can't go into right now. Who's a Big Banger?

I have no idea how to edit WiSci stuff. Anyway, I've written a draft for intro and conclusion and they are now here and on that page. Let me know what you think.

Cap'n, I'm a net spaz. Is there any way we can get the entire thing on one page so that there is no chance for confusion? I'm mainly concerned about the conclusion being on there as well. And Cap'n and Dak, I seriously need your help with the Wiki Site. Somehow the edit link has disappeared for the intro and I can't pretty it up. I have no idea what I'm doing.

I can think of 3 off of the top of my head. I'm sure we'll have more.

Here's my first draft for the introduction and conclusion of the letter. Please excuse formatting issues and the blanks at the end, as I'm not sure specifically where each will go.

Sweet. Thank you for joining Cap'n Refsmmat and Ryan J. That makes you two, me, Dak, Azure Phoenix, yourdadonapongo, and Insane Alien. Any other takers? This should be pretty stress free, and hopefully the introduction I'm writing will show what I find to be the best approach to such things. I was thinking, if we had a page named "A Question of Origins" on WiSci, would it come up in a Google search if it got enough hits? I also found two other places to find this video. So Creationists.org and ICR will also be included in the address.