AngusThermopyle

Olegh. the same applies to you, we may not always agree, but we always talk.

I disagree. the man at the tiller is no more than a product of human evlution. he stands at the tiller not because he has some divine knowledge imparted to him, he stands there because he understands cause and effect and the results of evolutionary theory. That however is too cold and analytical, lets just bash the accumulation of human knowledge instead. Thats way easier to do and you don't even have to have a basic High School education to do it and still sound authoritative.

Same to you Wild Bill.

Technology is a perfect example of evolution, it does not necessarily improve anything but it does introduce factors that influence its continueing viability as a vindication of evolution. in answer to your question about the technology required to cross the Atlantic (at any time of the year). Yes, it took a highly evolved civilisation to learn the knowledge required to do that. If you aren't a sailor I suppose you will never really understand it but the Oceans are our all powerfull creationists. They can either transport you or take your life, they do both efortlessly, if your advanced guys have done their homework -properly and not forgotten anything, you'll make it across safely. This has nothing to do with "Mythical spirituality" and everything to do with us amazing creatures and our obidience to the natural laws of evolution.

Sorry Olegh but I have to disagree with you. if you understand evolutionary theory it does not state at any time that desirable results will occur. In fact the theory postulates that many "variations" will arise and fail before a viable "variation" will be produced. This is basically how evolution works, it comes back to Darwins "survival of the fittest" precept, one that has not been disproven or discredited to this date. This is just sheer nonsense. If they were so inferior how did White Anglos ever develope the technology to cross Atlantic? I can't say for sure but I'm pretty certain they didn't just paddle across in Birch Bark canoes. As for the old saw about what a crock of shit! They behaved in basically the same manner as all humans have behaved within our understanding of Human Evolution.

In that we are in 100% agreement. Now I'm starting to get worried, I'm starting to see Olegh's POV.

And I would agree with you 100%, they are bad news, just as Fundamentalists are. The label that one dons in order to supress knowledge is of little importance, what is of importance is the actual actions that lead to the supression of knowledge. That is something that hurts everyone.

Given that what you say is true then it stands to reason that they must evolve, not physically but socially. Given that we know evolutionary theory has been shown to be accurate in the vast majority of cases to which it has been applied would it not stand to reason that what we are experiencing now is no more than a blip on the evolutionary scale? A period of change and upheaval on a socially quantifiable scale? Yet another example of evolution, societal evolution, the model can be applied to all aspects of our lives.

this is a non statement, an oxymoron. By definition evolution does not claim to be or imply that it is the final answer. In fact if one looks at the definition and principle of evolution it becomes apparent that it is a label applied to a process that never ends in order to structure the idea in a form we can understand and work with. By definition the word evolution can never mean the end of all theory.

What! Are trying to say that you didn't already know that? I thought it was a well established fact!

Personally I don't believe in luck, I believe in probability and the results of cause and effect. It's just my opinion but if you find you are happy and satisfied with your life and all the various aspects of it then it is because of your actions and the choices you made, the attitude you developed, not luck. The whole precept of comparing FGM to male circumcission is flawed and false from the onset. There is no comparison, the entire practise is barbaric and cruel on several levels. It's just my opinion but I believe the only counter to these practises is knowledge, unfortunately the spread of knowledge and the enlightenment that comes with it are painfully slow.

Well I apologize for appearing condescending, that was not my intention. However do you not see any condescention in your casual dismissal of all the hard honest work some of the smartest people on the planet have done? When you dismiss it out of hand as mere "tricks"? That is a terrible thing to do, to casually dismiss one of the end results of countless ages of human discovery and effort as mere tricks is to cheapen all academic effort and discovery. Simply put, I do not understand why so many people want to supress and dismiss the growth of human knowledge. Do you understand the theory of evolution? It does not state that we evolved to our present form from single celled creatures, no where does it state this. It states that living organism will evolve and adapt subject to environmental influences. This has been shown time and time again, not just within the laboratory but within computer simulations and also in the real world. How much more proof or evidence is required? Especially when you consider the fact that those who dispute evolution offer not one shred of proof or evidence to refute it. The theory of evolution is clear on one thing though (and this has been shown many times in controlled experiments), evolution takes a long time, a long long time. So to demand an instant example of an evolving theory is simply not reasonable.

And don't forget The Bee Gees! WB: Now you mention it I can't recall seeing or hearing anything but drums, pretty crude drums. In all honesty, to the best of my knowledge I don't know if they developed wind or string instruments. If they did then they couldn't have been very good since non seem to be used today, or they just didn't develop an understanding of music at that level. You posed an interesting question, virtually all races and cultures have developed sophisticated forms of music, many of them distinct but equally good. Personally I really like some of the African Tribal music. The harmonies are amazing and the rythmes are perfect, those guys just "get it" naturally. European culture has also produced some of the most enduring and perfect compositions, as someone mentioned, Mozart, Bach, etc. etc. I also like Irish music, another bunch who knew how to use wind and percussion and strings coupled with beautifull vocals. Isn't it rather strange that the music bug never really seemed to hit North America when it was pretty much universal everywhere else in the world. In all fairness though, you have to admit that Indian music isn't really that great, I'm just not a big fan of Sitar solo's. On the other hand Indian music does use more advanced instruments than percussive ones, it does have structure and flow, so even though I personally don't like it, it does qualify as a more evolved form of music. For most people music is nothing more than entertainment, a non visual singing TV sort of thing. If you look a little deeper though, you realize that music is tied to the higher functions of the brain, this is where it gets interesting. Are the different musical abilities of different races dependant on race? Or are cultural and environmental influences more influential? All in all an interesting subject, thanks for bringing it up.

Actually you asked a question and I answered it, how does that constitute cramming down your throat? What you casually dismiss as "tricks" is actually the culmination of years of work by some of the most intelligent people on the planet. This work and research has brought us to a point where we have a pretty darn good understanding of the mechanics of Evolution, as I pointed out before the theory of evolution has been put to the test many times over in many disciplines and has yet to fail that test. It is interesting to note that you appear to regard all practical proof of Evolution in such a cavalier fashion. Wanting proof in the form of a human grown from a single cell displays either a total lack of knowledge of the subject or a rather juvenile inability to accept what has been demonstrated many times over. Just to clarify, every single human and animal on this planet was grown from a single cell It really is of no concern to me if you wish to hide from established research and knowledge, all that concerns me is the fact that I can recognize work of value when I see it.

Actually there is a huge amount of evidence that indicates precisely that. All you have to do is type 'examples of speciation" into Google and let the information avalanche begin. What I find hard to understand is the reluctance of people to accept a naturistic explanation for complex systems. I dont understand why people insist that magic was the mechanism behind existance. For instance, the common automobile. If you had never seen a car before and asked how it moves would you accept magic as the explanation? Scientists have already shown evolutionary traits in single celled creatures when subjected to environmental variables in laboratory settings. Obviously they have not grown any complex multi cellular life forms from single primitive cells as this process would require a huge amount of time even under accelerated growth rates, but they have shown that evolutionary theory holds true on a cellular level within the time frame referenced for the experiments. When discussing this topic I frequently hear the question "how could such complex creatures as humans have developed from a single cell by chance?" Well we didn't evolve entirely by chance, as stated evolutionary theory postulates adaptive change according to environmental factors, as such it is not pure chance, it is in large part an influenced change. As for the complexity of the human form, well it's not really that complex . Did you know that the genome of a single celled Aimeoba contains about three times more genetic material than the human Genome? Or that we share a huge amount of our genetic material with Apes, I believe it's about 98% or some such thing, I cant remember the exact figure right now but if you want the exact amount I will post it with a link. Another comment I hear frequently is "there are lots of Scientists who dont believe evolutionary theory". Well if you consider people without accreditation and a knowledge of the subject to be lots of Scientists you would be right. However, any real Scientist simply can not disbelieve evolutionary theory. The evidence is too pervasive and plentifull to disregard. for instance, evolutionary theory is used to design and "evolve" complex shapes and designs, things like Aircraft and Ship hulls amongst many others. Computer simulations have been written (they're actually not that complex) that illustrate the effects of evolutionary theory in a dramatically fast time frame. All these things are either based on or the result of Evolutionary theory, they all behave in the manner that the theory suggests they should, and they do this time after time with results conforming to the theory. When you start to really learn about it, not just posess some vague general information, you find that it is a truly fascinating subject. I like to read about it sometimes when I just want to relax.

What you have listed are personal definitions, not true definitions. The word redneck to describe a particular group originated in Scotland with the Covenanters. The Covenanters desired a Presbyterean church government and rejected the Church of England. Specifically they rejected episcopacy, rule by Bishops. In order to signify their position on this issue in public supporters would wear a red cloth or bandana around their neck, hence the term redneck. A North American etymology would suggest that the coal miners of West Virginia influenced the use of the term. when they marched in support of unionization they identified themselves by wearing red cloths or bandanas around their necks. This action resulted in violence but did eventually win them the right to unionize. The least likely and credited version is the one about red necks from working in the sun all day. Actually no, I would say the least likely is the one put forth by Don Cherry, truly a bastion of ignorance and uninformed opinion. Hope that clears up any confusion with regard to the origins of the term redneck.

That being true then I guess no woman would naturally come up with the idea either? Well, gotta say, some of the women I've known were taught really really well.

It would be a suicidal issue to run on, perhaps he is actually so disconnected that he will try it. That would be fun.

I agree with 99% of what you say Gosthacked. The only thing I do not agree with is this. In order to become a theory some form of observable repeatable phenomena must exist. I cant think of any phenomena or shred of evidence to support creationism that meets the above stated requirements. If a creationist were to claim that the sun rises and sets every day and that this is an observable repeatable phenomena caused by god so therefore god exists then that doesn't count. We already know why the sun behaves this way and can show exactly why it does so this can not be used as proof enough to formulate a theory. Religion is not about learning and knowledge, in fact it is the opposite. Saying god made it actually has the effect of stifling all debate in the quest for knowledge, it is a dead end street. Other than that you presented an excellent post.

well...not being Chretien I doubt I will ever get a proof of a proof, oh well. The scientific method has to be flexible or it simply wouldn't work. As I explained, new data and information can impact upon or even change the accepted norm. Without flexibility scientific research would come to a screaching halt. Who demands creationist get it right from the get go? That would be foolish to say the least, how on earth do you get a legend right, from the get go? You are correct, mathematics are less subject to change. However they are still required to a degree and various truisms of mathematical theory have been changed with further knowledge of the field. Obviously this doesn't apply to the basics, one plus one will always equal two (except in Quantum mechanics I believe, not 100% sure on that though). In the realm of higher mathematical function however there is room for variance as more data becomes availlible. This is why mathematicians do generate mathematical theorem as they expect changes to occur with advancements in the field.

Ah I see, and I thought I was pretty good when it comes to Mathematics. It was my mistaken impression that half is equal to, not greater than 50%, and vice versa. Its very interesting to note that half does not equal 50% anymore. What does half represent now?

Excellent post Rue, really can't disagree with what you said. I don't like the Khadr's, not one little bit, but I do agree that we must abide by the law in all cases. Personally I would like to see them stripped of citizenship and sent packing but that too would become a huge debate and result in little solid resolution. Bush has indeed begun a process of removing basic rights, all one has to do is read the actual Patriot Act in order to see this. Its actually a pretty scary read, in a nut shell it places all power into the hands of one man, GW himself. When you consider this person is more suited to changing a tractor tire at the side of a dusty road than he is to running the most powerfull nation on the planet it becomes somewhat worrisome. The Khadr's will continue to be problematic for us in the conceivable future and no satisfactory solution appears to be in sight. This is why I favour the deportation option, however not being a lawer I have no idea of the more subtle ramifications of such an action.

How does that work?

Actually its not beyond me to explain. I just can't be bothered wasting my time answering a post so obviously based on ignorance and lack of knowledge.

Actually sometimes I do listen to Dido, only rarely, when I just want to relax. Yep, they both look good, very cute. You're right, Dido is the better looking one. Oleg. Kates music was very elaborate and sometimes blended rock with orchestral styles and instruments. She would also use unconventional types of instruments such as digiridoo's, lots of vocal, multitracked and with backup singers, all of them very good. She was discovered by David Gilmore of Pink Floyd when she was 15 (I think). He was a familly friend and started to mentor her, he financed some demo recordings and brought them to EMI. They made an unusual decision to not release her right away and basically coached and trained her until she released Wuthering Hieghts in 78. She was an immediate hit and had a sound that was different from anyone before her.