Sorcerer

... why didnt you say so....... right I get the word now, pehnol group and actyl amine on a benzene ring.... anyway, that doesnt do anything for me, I was told to take it when I had a broken leg, never did cause the few times I did take it, no effect, can't take anti-inflam's with broken bones, it slows the healing process, but theyre the only kind of painkiller that works, that and pot and alcohol.........hmmmm marijuana the perfect hang over cure. Pity it costs so damn much.

yeah, I always thought that it was a bit stupid to call it that, since Kant used it to describe freedom of the will, but here in NZ it means when you are not incontrol of your actions and hence cannot be held accountable for them when you are in control of your actions.

Hmmm, I dont think we have any acetominophen painkillers which can be got over the counter here in NZ..... aspirin and paracetamol don't do anything for me, only iburoprofen stops pain for me.

The planck length is the smallest anything can be. Ok, so IF the universe is infinite, then anything inside of it which is finite is in comparison infinitely small. To answer this I would say that an infinite entity is required to be made up of an infinite amount of finite parts, thus in order for the universe (if it is infinite) to be infinite the finite parts which make it up must have size, even if this size is infintesimal. I.E. and infinite ammount of parts with infintesimal size is still an infinite size itself. Yes, infintesimal things do exist, infinitely small is an assymtote with 0.

The only real difference between synthetic and natural is that natural pathways are stero-isomer selective, if this could be acheived in a synthetic product then there would be absolutely no way to tell the difference. Let me ask you if I were to make a chain of nucleic acids via a synthetic pathway, then this synthetic gene encodes for an enzyme which can produce say vitamin E with stero-seletivity, would you call this vitamin E synthetic or natural? I personally think the difference between natural and unnatural is very arbitrary.

Hmmm yeah but other pain killers dont work for me........ whats the common name for acetaminophen?

Hehe, Im tired and drunk *yawn* - night.

turgid, the sucrose solution will be drawing water towards itself, provided its osmolarity is greater than that of the potatoes cytoplasm. Thus it will create a water potential which is in the direction of the water to the sucrose. The outside cells will be turgid as the water is drawn into them, the inside cells will be flaccid as the water has be drawn out of them. Note: drawing water out of the inside cells causes a chain of effect as water is then drawn from the next layer of cells to find equilibrim, this chain is continued till the water is reached, here the net flow will be greatest as the osmolarity difference is also greatest, so the outside cells will be turgid for sure, the inside ones will be flaccid untill the sucrose/cytoplasm concentrations are at equilibrium.

"However, many of the pictures I took didn't have any orbs in them. Why would the orbs show up in some of the pictures, but not in others?" Why would insects be caught in the flash of some of your pics and not others? Well.... because insects aren't everywhere all the time.

ya no ef aye tolk lyke dis den yo kan stull undistarnd mi roit?

octopiss we knew what he meant cotopuses octopi octopods octopoda octopodata whateva

Helium has 8 electrons now!!!! WOW

Na all u have to do is plead autonomy on the grounds of insanity..... stupid system.

Na, you're just hardening it up. Here in the club our motto is: "you'll live"

Chinese feather torture must drive you insane then.

Damn, no eclipse here in NZ, its overcast anyway.

Harden up and become an animal, fight or flight, don't freeze and piss urself. Don't think ahead if it scares you live in the now.

Yeah, I tickle my newphews and they seem to be tickled alright... don't think theyre gay.... dunno yet though, I doubt all are.

Dense lab conditions you say, well this is exactly the kind of environment that homosexuality would be favourable in, this is where production of excess offspring would just lead to famine and loss of more offspring than necessary, if instead only some breeders were present and a few homosexual "helpers", then the population on a whole would be more viable. Regarding the whole "its genetic, so it can't be a choice", thing, genes do not 100% determine a humans phenotypic potential, it is a combination of genes and the environment which produce a phenotypic trait, when we are discussing a trait as complex as sexual attraction I would suggest that the environment plays a major role. You have conceeded that the womb environment isn't a genetic factor, but you state it means they were also born with it and have no choice, I think you may be oversimplifing the case since there may be other ways in which people can become gay. Do you doubt that there may be some people who have chosen to be gay and just use the whole "I was born with it" thing to justify it. What about examples of gay people being married and having children and then several years later "deciding" they are gay and getting a divorce? Personally I think the genes for homosexuality are X linked and are not expressed by people carrying them unless they are exposed to the right womb environment which is determined by environmental factors effecting the same gene in the mother, then post-natal the environment must also be conducive to homosexuality, say if all the older brothers have died or the population was small then homosexuality would not be expressed because it then would be deleterious.

Hmmm odd, I can inflict pain on myself, why not tickle......wait, a slight tingling sensation when I lightly pass my hand over my skin.... hmm digging my fingers into my ribs and moving them up and down, kind of painful..... is that tickling.... you know I've never really been tickeled before although I've inflicted many a crotch wetting tickle on the unsuspecting relation.

Welcome to bingers anonymous. You'll live.

You mean ALWAYS?

Many of these facts counter the genetic determinism of homosexuality, some favour it. If homosexuality was entirely genetic then you would expect where there was one gay identicle twin that the other would be gay in 100% of cases. Fraternal twins can actually share no genes at all, it is just statistically likely that they will share half their genes, you also would expect this statistic to be higher. I guess one way this argument could be countered would be to say that society is forcing the gay people to adopt heterosexuality because it is a social taboo..... thus skewing the figures, however it doesn't really hold well in todays more liberal society. This is supposedly due to the womb environment, the mothers hormone levels can alter the development of the foetus, thus again this does not support a genetic cause, but rather a pre-natal environmental one. The homosexuals can still claim "they were born like that", and, "have no choice though". However it should be noted that if you want to use the rhetort from the previous study, that they were forced to be heterosexual, then this actually counters the argument they have no choice. Again this seems to show that homosexuality is a product of the womb environment, not a genetic condition. Finally some evidence that homosexuality is genetic, however it can be noted, that not living in the household (or not) doesn't mean there was no environmental contact with these individuals, it does not control for this and shouldn't be shown as such. I does show that homosexuality could (possibly) be X linked, wether this is due to something on the X chromosome causing the mothers womb environment to differ, or if it is causing the individuals trait is another question though. Now we are talking, this is a clear benefit of homosexuals, they can help in family groups, even if they do not produce offspring of their own, thus increasing the fitness of the family group. If the gene which causes homosexuality is carried by the MOTHER rather than the individual, it is the mother who is controlling their childrens reproductive success/motivation, the first few males will more likely be 'normal' and go off and multiply, but the others will be more likely to be homosexual and thus help with child care and gathering of food for the group, while not burdening the group with their own offspring, this on the whole would make the group stronger especially during times when resources were scarce. Environmental causes need not be molestation.... it may be likely that molestation did cause homosexuality in some cases though. Where can I find evidence of these gay animals? Are they sexually active *shudder* (sorry). What isn't a natural condition? Check my post a few pages back.

not to mention since there is not one religion there should not be one moderator........ not the mention the fact is philosophy AND religion.......... philosophy is always going to contain relgious debate, the good thing about it is that it is not dogmatic debate, it is debate based on premises and conclusions, proper arguements, not the its in the book so its gotta be right stuff. And Mab if you disagree argue your posistion, someone might just change their mind and agree with you, if not, then what do you care??

Oh harden up..... you don't see people who agree with evolution being hurt by creationist arguing against it do you? I doubt a single creationist is an expert on evolution, but we don't try to stop them discussing evolution. The same applies to anybody with any opposing view, just because they want to argue something they beleive and you disagree shouldn't make you want to go running to your room for a cry like a little girl.