Slavik44

In your poll you have asked if people with a BMI over 25 deserve healthcare, the inherrent problem with using a BMI is you would also be excluding athletic individuals from health care services. You might be able to base it on BF% but that, often, is highly dependant on the method used and the person who tested you. So we are left with no universal way to truely test for fat people. Likewise who else do we screen out? All unhealthy individuals? Maybe people in wheelchairs? What about people with medical conditions? These are risk factors, do we start assessing premiums to these people as well?

I might be a theif, depending on your definition, but I am not guilty of breaking any laws...downloading pirated music is no more illegal than using public washrooms. According to Canadian Law, it is perfectly legal to download music off the internet. Infact if you are not downloading music, your being irrational, your being conned, your giving money away. Every time you buy a blank CD, every time you buy a blank tape, every time you buy an MP3 player, every time you buy an IPOD, every time you do this, you pay a fee. This fee is given to artists as compensation for lost revenue. I am convinced that I am not getting my moneys worth, the music industry has gone through and destroyed most P2P downloading networks, but they still get the charges I pay on blank Cd's and MP3 players. Then they run around calling people theives and actively attempting to prevent individuals from participating in perfectly legal behavoir, but are depriving individuals from realizing the full legal benifiets that they have paid for when purchasing certain items.

I suppose I am one of the worst offenders when it comes to profanity in my post, so my defense of such use may not mean all that much. But I don't necceassrily know if we should be runing around talking to each other as if we were meeting a potential mother-in-law for the first time, it might lead to a fairly lame duck discussion of politics. I think their is a tendancy to pick certain words label them as profane for whatever reason that might be...this labelling of course seems to change overtime, and within our lifetimes. Honestly, I don't know if they should be excluded from vocabulary. I have heard it said that if person uses a profane word, it is a symbol that they couldn't come up with a better word to use, however, it could be just as likely that it was the best possible word to use. I mean hell I don't know...is that profane? unnacceptable? or just a little expressive? Certainly I can see Go to hell as a problem. So then could it be said that this is largely dependant on the context within which the post is being interpreted and written? An offensive word might be present, but perhaps it is better to ask about the context of that word. Although again I am certainly no great example when it comes to profanity in my posts.

Although personally for all intents and purposes I am an Agnostic I don't see there as being a big issue between the existance of God and evolution, as long as person acknowledges that God is outside the realm of scientific understanding, and is not trying to skew science in the name of literally interpreting the bible or any other religous holybook. I suppose Collins may be able to do this with Science. Unfortunately I think he runs into a number of issues when talking about his faith. For instance he talks aobut how science was unable to answer certain questions, he then lists off some of them. That is like saying hockey plays are unable to score fieldgoals and therefore it is not a true sport. He was asking philisophical questions in a field that is concerned with a scientific process, that while it may contribute to the study of philosophy, it is not philisophical, and is not interested or concerned with providing people with philosophy. He also possess a number of presuppositions, such as who created the world. It could very easily have been what, it could very easily just have been a process, we just don't know. But the absence of a concrete answer is not evidence to say God did it, it is just the absence of a concrete answer, it is not grounds for a conclusion, certainly not scientific grounds for a conclusion. Likewise he talks about how one could build a strong case for the existence of God on purely rational grounds...shortly thereafter he is saying reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. This is not a consistent, clear, or SCIENTIFIC message. It must also be mentioned that he brings up Jesus Christ and says that there is strong historical evidence concerning the Life of Jesus. This simply is not true, as far as I know we have no primary records written about Jesus during the time in which he is thought to have lived. I am not saying that Jesus did not exist, but that to suggest that we have strong historical knowledge about Jesus' actual life is nothing but a falsehood. He says he doesn't take Genesis literally, but what about the other 60+ books? Does he take them literally? It is one thing to maintain your faith in god and accept scientific evidence of the natural world. However, he goes beyond this, by picking a specific God, and a specific book, and obviously following, atleast some of, its tenets. He attempts to conform it to his scientific understanding of the world, by building his own bible, through ommiting the literal interpretation of certain parts. But you could do that with any religion, so why this one? Apparently becase he saw three strands of frozen water in the wilderness, that is not science. Lkewse saying its complicated god must have done it, is not science either. He is basically saying our DNA is complicated, it must have come from God, it must be a part of Gods plan. Although his views are more rational than what I would call Bannana Creationism I would say they have a similar relation and ancestory rooted in a desire to find God in places he may not be. Of high importance is the fact that he avoids making any sort of true testable hypothesis on the existance of God, which must be demanded for this to be science and god.

As far as I know, Telus is the only company around here with the old-fashioned landlines (but I could be wrong on that). With new technology, like digital or cell phones, there is more competition. I prefer a cell phone because it is the cheapest option. If you don't mind me asking where do you live? That sounds kind of odd...I am assuming western Canada, but there is generally alot of options available for landlines. Particularly because Telus owns almost all landline infrastructure in Western Canada, but is required to allow other companies to purchase the rights to use them (you might want to check me on this I am not 100% sure) if my understanding is correct...it would mean that if telus can reach you, than inherrently any phone company could offer you services, if they wanted to (again my understanding may be a little off on that rule). As well, I believe deregulation is dependant on their being competetive options available(?)...so if that is true that your only option for phone service is Telus, I would assume that the test for the presence of competitive infrastructure would not be passed and therefore the problems you are raising not really an issue.

I have a couple of historical problems I would like to address with your original post.... Germany since 1870 had been increasingly agressive.... Well yeah because when you go from non-existant to existant....you tend to automatically become "more" aggressive. As well you tend to ignore the 1870's context..... Germany wasn't the bad guy, The british hated the French, the French hated the British, and Germans just kicked some French ass...are the british going to get pissed off? The British had been fighting the french for a very long time. Germany is going to get a pat on the back...A new natural enemy for the French....great. Colonies This was a whole game of brinkmanship...and at the time there was no rigid alliance between the British, French, and Russian's. You outlined previously how Prussia destroyed France...do you really think France wants to fight Germany again. Germany was not a country to pushed around with in continental affairs....especially by parties that were not officially allies. Colonization by bismarck was very much a diplomatic strategy...It was hoped that it would prove the British were dependant on Germany, or it would get the British and French pissed off at each other...and under Bismarck it very nearly did both. However, by the 1900's Germany was powerful...a war would have been a war, they had machine guns, they had WW1 technology. So now all you are really talking about is moving the war up in time. When war with Germany was possible for Britain, France and Russia...they were not allies (in fact for a long period of that time Germany and Russia were allies). When the triple entente was formed, Germany was a strong continetal millitary power, and the technology at hand would have led to a fairly bloody war. --------------------- WW2 There was one oppurtunity to stop Hitler without bloodshed....that was when he decided to publicly re-millitarize/march into the rhineland...after such an instance, it is very likely....milltary action would be met with millitary re-action. The difference in time and context between czechoslovakia and poland is not so great as to make germany so much strong then it previously was. Yes, it might have been easier to fight a war at that time, but you would still be fighting a war. Likewise, there is no gurantee that marching on Germany over the Rhineland would have led to peace in our time either. It is vitally important to recognize that communism was a very real threat, communist parties were extremly dominant in Germany. Had you marched in and destablized Germany one more time, you stood a very real possibility of facing two communist countries in Germany and Russia. At that time Communism was percieved as a bigger threat than Nazism. So in such a manner Russia was percieved as the bigger threat than Germany. So policy was geared towards being lenient towards Germany in order to stand as a barrier to communism. What can we learn from that? Well notice how we are using other countries as pawns in a war against a big country. And than suddenly your pawn switches sides in the middle of the situation and kinda F's the whole thing up. Yeah its been happening for a while now, and this strategy tends to bite back every now and again. Needless to say this is also somewhat true with the middle east. Maybe that should indicate that diplomatic and millitary relations need to be analyzed very closely and dealt with in a very carefull manner...and that War might not always be the best option...particularly when you don't have Britain, France, and Russia (for that matter Germany)on side. In the case of North Korea having China millitarily on your side.

It is tough to say wether or not he is "100%" right, but it is very accurate to say that most christians have done a cut and paste job on their holy book and selected the verses they like...and decided to call that the bible. Most people try to work around the old testament...try to find a way to exclude certain verses (in both the old and new), or try to explain away certain parts of their book. Because lets face it, alot of it is morally repulsive. Just like the Phelps.

I absolutely hate how people try to equate spanking with punishment, it is not the only form of punishment, and it is not neccessarily the best form of punishment...it is in fact a risky form of punishment. That is not to say that nothing should be done when kids misbehave, but that "the something" doesn't have to be spanking. IMHO, spanking is the lazy punishment, oh I can't think of anything better, so I am just gonna smack you. You can be a better parent than that, get creative. I would like to put a couple caveats into this, I have mentioned this previously and been asked what if your kid sticks his hand near a hot object, would you not swat it away? Yes, of course I would, but I wouldn't define that as spanking. How many kids are there in the world? How many different personalities do they have? Are they all the same? Is one kid the same as the other? The exact same? Are we all carbon copies of each other? Maybe, a one size fits all punishment is not the answer. Certainly no punishment is even worse. But I think we can do better then physical punishment. It is lazy, we can see that in this thread...someone critisizes spanking and its as if they are trying to rob the world of the only way to punish children. some people have talked about waiting ten minutes... Well let me ask you this, someone says something/does something that really makes you angry. Give yourself ten minutes...are you calmer? Or have you spent ten minutes building your anger up? Can you control kids with out spanking? Of course you can, I once watched a couple episodes of that Super nanny show. Taking the biggest brats in the world and turning them into well behaved children in less than a week. Using non-violent methods, often taking over from parents who did use spanking and violence as the answer (not to be unfair, often times it was also parents who did nothing). But maybe the conclusion should be that doing nothing is a horrible choice, and perhaps spanking is not such a great choice either, better than doing nothing...but not the best and certainly not the only option. Lets face it we don't use the medical practices of people 6,000 years ago, we don't use the political practices of 6,000 years ago, we don't use the civil practices of people 6,000 years ago, we don't use the economic practices of people 6,000 years ago...so why does the so called best (often times painted by proponents as the only) method for child rearing have to come from the bloody dark ages of history?

Actually it is Carbon

You are one funny troll if you believe it is revolutionary thinking to associate rain with clouds

Okay for starters I have again reported you for plagarism, please take the lesson and stop doing it. ---------------------- Anyways Mountains.... Honestly I am shocked at your ignorance, like literally shocked.... This is the verse you posted concerning mountains.... This is wrong... Infact if we look at converging plate boundaries particularly subduction zones we would find that mountains exist as a result of the oceanic crust being subducted under other crust....The earth moving under the earth. Next..... This is also wrong... An even elementary understanding of plate tectonics would tell us this is wrong.... Why? Mountains created at converging plate boundaries...(Himilayas and the Cascades) Where plates are pushing towards each other or into each other. Mountains cannot glue or peg these plates together...because these plates are being propelled together and mountains are simply a bi-product of this process. At diverging plate boundaries, you get rift zones...This can be seen in The Great rift Valley in East Africa. Key word being valley. Not mountain. Plates pulling apart...try taking a piece of bread and pulling it apart...no mountains. Likewise at the mid atlantic ridge...we have two plates being pushed apart....this is the well documented case of sea floor spreading...likewise not being held together by mountains...Instead new magma pushes it's way up through the crust, hardens, and new magma comes up pushes the old rock and hardens. We get rock that is created and is pushing plates apart not binding them together.

Your ignorance of plate tectonics amazes me.

I am sorry again to hear this language… You know what I don’t like most: blindly following some opinion and accept it as a fact, while never pay attention to check references and loot at names of people and their scientific weighs who oppose it…. I respect you ideological choice and your strong defense, but, excuse me, just because you studied that as a fact, does not mean that other very respected scientist do not accept it… How many scientific theories have been taught for people for decades and many scientific papers and researches have been accepted them as facts.. and then science discovered that they were not accurate or correct? And again you don’t have to reply to my posts… but it is not your right to prevent people from expressing themselves…. You are not expresssing yourself you are lieing, after beign informed of the truth, I already demonstrated this recently with a reponse to your claims about the Australapithicus, homo Habilus and homo erectus in another thread it is you who are not checking your references. And even after I pointed out the problems you continue to make the claim...one that is false. furthermore you made anothe rmistake when you claimed tha tI approached evolution as a fact. That is simply not true, I approached the subject of evolution as a Young Earth Creationist who adarently believed the bible was the literal word of God. So again you are demonstrating a tendancy to speak with out knowing or bothering to check what you are saying for facts.

I will say this very simply you are a BLATANT LIAR and should be ashamed of yourself, please do us all a favour and leave these forum before you are removed. What you have done is made post after post of creationist falsehoods, thats what they are...your claims about the australapithicus, Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus, and your misinformed opinion about gran dolina...all of which are FALSE. As for karl marx it was a bloody joke reflecting your blatant misrepresentation of self interest.

While CPC voters might be over represented at roughly 50%, I think this is ultimately a good thing.... It leads to a good balance, in the forum. Sort of a 50/50 left-right split. Anyways I still put a vote in for the green. Still subject to the same conditions.

It is not supported by science at all and it is arguable to say the best… Evolutionists have always failed to give any fossil that holds transitional forms. When talking about Humans, they mentioned some fossils that most scientists said they are either for Human races as we know now or Australopithecines. No transitional forms have ever been found. As I mentioned in another post they found a fossil Spain in 1995 that revealed the face of an 11-year-old boy who looked entirely like modern man. That boy died 800,000 years ago.. Unfortunately every time I tried to quote any fact that scientists stated, guys in this form did not like it as it was clearly undermining their thoughts… Now your just lieing, and being sensational, you are making claims that are not true and do not hold water. BTW Self interest is not inherrently a bad thing, maybe you and Karl Marx should stop hanging out.

Your ignoring a number of points 1. There is no biological justification for race...we are all of the same race 2. Morality is a human term, that we attribute to humans. But we can see animals acting in terms we would describe as "moral" 3. When a predator attacks a group of elaphants...all elaphants circle around the young and attempt to protect them from the predator, they put their life on the line for children, that are not always their own. 4. If we look at other animals we can see that they form social bonds, partnerships, and work together. Animals are not simply savage beasts. When you say evolution proposes that humans are animals (true) so Humans should be really savage...that would be false. Animals can form social bonds, provide for their young, help other animals, even help other animals of other species, hunt together, protect each other, etc... Very simply evolution does not dictate that we have to act like un-caring animals, because that is not how animals act either...it is again a false dillema. In some cases animals act more "moral" than humans do. The ability to show "compassion" is not a phenomenon belonging solely to homo sapiens.

I do believe this post identifies a problem you are encountering, you read articles from Kent Hovind, or Answers in Genisis, darwin refuted....and say oh look they proove evolution is false. The problem is you are failing to research these articles and see if they stand up to the truth, to the facts. When you do you will find that these people are being extremley decietfull. The ignore the variety of fossils found and their categories and sub categories, they twist the quotes of individuals, they ignore more recent studies that proove the claims false, and they ignore the flaws in how csome of the studies were conducted. ex. Have you read spoors 1994 study? Have you read scientific summarys of Spoors 1994 summary? Probabley not because if you had you would have known that... He found the skull of the Australapithicenes to be similar to that of the great apes. This falls in line with evolutionary theory and is actually would be what is taught about evolution...that the Australapithicenes had a more ape like skull. Nothing new. The homo Erectus also had a more human like skull, that would also be in-line with evolutionary theory. THIS STUDY DID NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE AUSTRALAPITHICUS AND THE HOMO HABILUS WERE APES AND THE HOMO ERECTUS WAS A MODERN HUMAN. The inner ear was also used to proove that the australapithicus was infact as scientists expected capable of bipedalism. If you had done your research you wouldn't have needed to post that point on here. ex. Zuckerman concluded Australapithicus was an ape and not bipedal Zuckerman was wrong, it is that simple have you researched this? looked it up? Coutless studies have been done that have proven that Australapithicenes were 1. Capable of bipedalism 2. niether fully ape or fully human--as would be expected. In fact one of the studies you cited as "proof" informs us that the Australapithicus was capable of bipedalism and was not fully ape... ex. Homo-sapien in spain Just more sensationalism, It was in fact a homo in spain, not a gay fossil, but one that belongs to the genus homo. I believe it is currently called the Homo antecessor. There are infact differences between the homo antecessor and the homo sapien. I would like to finish this post by giving you a link to a PDF document. You have said you ahve many of them on your computer, I assume you have also read many of them. I wonder if perhaps you would be willing to invest some time in reading another one, one that might give you a basis on human evolution, it is fairly long (170 pages). But 10 pages a day and you will be through it in just over two weeks. http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/fossil-hominids.pdf

It's very new - as you can see, it refers a lot to Gore's movie so it's made in the last 6 months. What makes you think that there is less warming in the troposphere - did it scare you that it might be true? No, I questioned how old it was because recent evidence prooves the troposphere is warming at what would be the expected rate and faster than previously thought.... as per...http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/threat/threat6.htm As of 2004 So if this movie was made recently than it is using old information now proven false. I am not a big human cuased global warming junky, I have not read enough information on it to make a truly informed decision, but I did feel it important to mention this, yes.

My post was not lifted word for word from another website, it was written in my own words. As I have already demonstrated in the first section of your post 276 of the 277 words were not your own...that is plagarism. You were not stating a fact, you were lifting text. Honestly its insulting that you continue to play the fool.... You LIFTED text word for word that is not your own...that is far different then stating a fact in your own words. Yes this does matter, because I could go on to talk origins and fill this thread with post after post on why evolution is correct.

You are not quoting you are plagarising If you look at what I posted I have also shown you that you have text on your post that is not sourced but is still lifted from another place. the only word that is yours in that whole block of text is "more?"

I am not lying... I have not really known any thing about that website before…but it seems that the author of the books I am quoting from have their websites and publish their books materials there… The book I am quoting from named “Darwinism Refuted” Author Harun Yaha. You can Google it and see if you cam download a copy or buy it… I still do not understand to me a plagiarist while I mention the reference names and page numbers… So when anyone quotes from ‘The Origin of Species’, is he a plagiarist? So strange logic…. You guys should accept that other people have other opinions and accept the others…. Please answer my valid questions rather than reporting me to the administrators!!!!! Okay even though you are very good at playing the fool, stop. You are directly quoting...as an example...here is the first half of your post in response to me.... Now lets eliminate quotes ---------------As written by you-------------- Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. ----------------------- -----------as written by DR.com------------ Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. ------------------------- ------------As written by you-------- Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. -------------------------------------------- ---------------As written by DR.com Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. ----------------------------- ---------------As written by you------- The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] ------------------------ ----------------As written by Dr.com------------ The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.19 --------------------------------- -----------As written by you----------------- The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] ----------------------- --------------As written by Dr.com---------- The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20 ------------------------------- So quick review First half of your post as it was originally Now your post after romving Plagarism No, I cannot handle anymore have fun at Banned camp

I like this post, because this is one that you wrote, so congradulations... However it is still very inflamatory, your previous post was ripped from other threads not just what you put citations after but what didn't have citations. I am more than willing to debate people, my 1000 plus post count should indicate that I do debate people, and do so with my own words. You accuse me of wantign to talk but I made a post in my own words. You replied to that with a post that was so blatantly plagarised that it wasn't even funny. Now to Answer your questions 1. Humans did not descend from chimps I am not, nor is anyone else, claiming that Humans evolved from chimps. Human and Chimps share a common ancestor, this lack of insight into evolution is very charachteristic of someone who has not bothered to look into the subject all that much. 2. Is there any evidence of natural selection? Yes 3. Transitional fossils Yes... There is a very complete record in reguards to horses We can also view fossils like the Australapithicus, Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus, Homo sapien and thier continuance Rhizosolenia also shows a record of transition over the years This can also be seen in species of trilobytes There is a fiarly good record of transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds We can see this Whales, fish etc.... Honestly if you say you have enver encountered evidence of a transitional fossil, I would question wether or not you have actually looked. 4. Do I have any evidence we came from chimps No, no one does BECAUSE WE DID NOT COME FROM CHIMPS 5. Why have other chimps not become human Because Humans and chimps diverged from a different ancestor 6. If you agreed we came from chimps I hope you don't that would be ignorant, because we did not come from chimps, you wouldn't be agreeing with me 7. HUH? The rest of your post is slightly incomprehensible, and I cannot reply because I do not know what you are saying.

...

Yes I have written acedmic papers...I just finished writing a number of them. As someone who has written academic papers I know that it is considered plagarism to take others people work and call it your own. My profs also consider it plagarism if almost all my paper is taken from another source, even if I quote it and give credit. Because it is not my paper, it is still someone else's. The vast majority of the work should be your own. In your case it is not.... http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html First half of your post on evolution is lifted from the link above http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_03.html http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_04.html Second half of your post has arrived almost entirely from there ----------------------------------------- Link wars are pointless and are not educational, anyone can post a link, with a bit of training my dog could post a link on mapleleaf web. But it contravenes the rules of Mapleleaf web. This isn't about backing your post up with references...although darwin refuted is not a scientific or academic source....this is about lifting your post...two different things. I am more than willing to debate you... I am not willing however, to debate endless quotes and articles you lift off the internet for me, simply because I have a bloody life...