tifosi

:P

I feel happy that you'll be second to the finishing post behind Stephen :D :P I'll take 'behind Stephen' anyday :laugh3: Ah, but my dear, that all depends on whether you have a behind like the classy bird I'm gonna ask out this weekend ;)

X-factor!!! :rolleyes:

simple really... wipe your saab93 hard drive to get rid of all the shareware programs. Reinstall drinkingmates7.0 - comes budles with ladsNightOut1.0 and freeWeekend0.1 browser. Upgrade your hardware with NewClothes1.0 - you can afford it when you get rid of the costly Wife1.0. Treat yourself to Holiday2.0. :)

waste of bandwidth! :stunned:

"Nothing is worthy of believing unless there are facts that support it and there is more evidence for intelligent design than there is for molecules to man evolution. Charles Darwin had no knowledge of genetics when he formulated his theory and we now know that molecules to man evolution is impossible as there is no mode for new genes to be added to the genome." Some very bad inaccuracies. Genetics as a science postdated Darwin and was borne from the huxley/darwinian hypotheses of the origin of species by natural selection. In it he hypothesised the mode of transmission of hereditary material, later identified by the work of crick, watson, and franklin as DNA in 1953. Weve come a long way since then in genetics and genomic research. You've missed the point of evolution. Evolution is brough about by the natural process of point mutation, and genetic drift, not by the addition of new genes. The subtle changes in the proteins coded by these mutation may infer an advantage(or disadvantage) on the recipient. An advantage may result in the advantageous survival and propogation over others of the same species. Remember the timescales here. This is evolution as work. If eventually a breeding population.. seperated by for example distance inherits a number of genetic changessthey would not be able to interbreed, and a new species is formed. A theory is just a hypotheses without a empirical basis and method of experimentation. Science doesn't deal in theories they deal in hypotheses. the media deal in consiracy theories. There's the difference.

that my coments or the avatar? :) I LOVE YOU!!! :kiss: do me and it get it over with... oh, um.. yes.. both, comments and avatar. :P Oh goodie, got my very own virtual stalker!! :)

I was just wondering how he started running along a road in kings cross London... and the next second seamlessly bound onto the stage in Bolton!! it's 180miles!! Chris for the Olympics!! that's bloody fast! :)

that my coments or the avatar? :)

who's this god bloke anyway? religeon's only a social construct. Darwinian Evolution is a scientifically progressed hypotheses. Calling it a theory is wooly. 'Theory of evolution' was a term coined by the media to encompass a much broaded and more detailed set of hypotheses(sp). I'm shocked and disturbed and the propensity of the US education system trying to take education back to the dark ages. Let's just get it clear. Creationism and evolution are not linked as topics. One's a last grasp at keeping the fixed and non progressive traditionalist stance of religion and trying to piggy-back it as a pseudo-scientific fact. That's plain wrong. Evolution is a scientific peer-reviewed hypotheses which encompasses multi-scientific disciplines, from genetics, microbiology, physiology, zoology... just to name a few. Want to study evolution? get yourself a petri dish, some bacteria, and a few antibiotics... It just scares some people that there's no 'reason' why were here apart from the biological fluke that was borne from the biological / chemical / physical processes of nature. Get past the ideology and open your eyes to the real wonders of nature and you'll realise just what a fallacy religeon is! S

we had something similar recently in a similar thread. My stance is the same. The evangelical right in the US have far too much power and influence on the minds of the young. (then again all monotheistic relegious societies have... ) evangelical right wing = flat earth society. 'bit by bit, day by day, science brings us closer to the truth. That scares a lot of people.' S

Eloquently put. Humanity has a need to put a label on everything we percieve through our senses. Light/Dark, sweet/sour, danger/safe. It's the product of our evolutionary background and the fight for survival which is inherent in the development of any competing species. The natural world shows this in a multiple forms - 'nature red in tooth and claw' The need for a belief system follows that patterm. It is unfortunately very naieve in its simplicity and it's need for polarisation of those labels... the conflict between religious groups bears that out. The argument that science's search for truth (essentially the core definition for a religeon) has lead some (usually non-scientists) to term science as its own religeon, with the search for truth the belief system. With this they can say there's no difference between religeon and science, essentially science validating religion as a partner in that search. It's a politically correct thought which nullifies the debate. I don't consider this valid. Faith is belief without evidence. Science doesn't deal in faith. The beliefs of science are the temporary hypotheses that scientific knowledge builds on. Science deals in probabilities. For a scientific hypothesis to be accepted it must repeatable (by peers) bases on a technical specification (or experiment). Only by rigorous examination and a statistical significance can it be 'proved'. But then it is still only a significant probablility. That is the nature of science. It is one the media hang on, who only deal in black and white, so when some experimental evidence comes out which has a high probability of statistical probability, there is always confision over whether it is 'fact' or not. It's a dificult one, but I draw the line when the religeous right condemn scientists for 'playing God'. We're not, were just using the tools at out disposal to further the development of the human species. Science and religeion aren't the flip side of the same coin. Yes, I was quoting the work of Richard dawkins. I urge sceptics to read his works. They're hard going but will open your eyes. The works of Steve Jones, R Gould, Richard Sykes are also worth looking at. Doctrinated religeon has been the glue that has held societies heirarchy in place. But globalisation and post-technological age we're living in today is driving society into a secular pattern, especially in first-world countries, which is leading to the fear of change pattern in first-world religeons (primarily christianity in its various forms) and the apostacy/heresy patterns of third-world religeons (primarily islam). Religeon and politics are the bane of society.

Yikes, tifosi, that's a terribly grim outlook, have at least a little faith, even if it's only in your fellow man. ;) Ah, but that's part of my point. Once you cut to the chase you can enjoy nature, science, and for what it is without the blinkers we force on people. Just a hardened realist. :)

:) Even David beckham didn't screw it up!! ;) excellent

what frightens me most (and more than the pseudoscientific crap above) is the power that the evangelical right wing in America has gained in the last few years, and especially in relations to the ability to corrupt the minds of the young. In all of this the deepy disturbing aspect is the 'fact' that religion is said to be an absolute truth. It is nothing of the sort. It is a social construct born out of a rapid growth in the human species in the last 250000 years, and especially in the last 25000, post-agriculturalisation. Monotheistic religions - such as Christianity, as the MOST recent incarnation for the need to explain the fundamental questions: 1. where do we come from 2. why are we here 3. where do we go when we die. Science explains these well through evolution and empiricalism. Religion through the abdication of personal responsibility by the construction of a mythical being(s). What is most interesting about religion is the etyology of them, especially the flux from multiiconic religions tthrough to monotheistic (normally through quite bloody forced conversions and conquest) Science's 'failing' is that it is based on the empirical accumulation of knowledge, and governed by the search for 'truth' by the constant testing and refining.... and in a lot of cases the abandoning of hypothesis. It is also a failing that they aren't as vociferous as others in progressing their views, just happy in the knowledge that another piece of the jigsaw is in place. It is said that nothing is ever proven, only disproven. The accumulation of knowledge has lead to a more complete understanding of the 'reality' we live in than ever before, and one that is becoming more complete as we progress. It is this absolute that is most frightening to the religeous fundamentalists - of whatever persuasion. My greatest sadness is the way in which society has developed in such a way that religeon is ingrained into society, but that, ironically, is a result more of our evolution and the way our senses perceive our outside world, and the way in which we interact with each other and our surroundings. Oh, yes and I do have the right, and background to say this. A degree and PhD say so. And I haven't even go to the bad science above! point2? You haven't even taken into account magnetic polar shift. North and south aren't always as they are, and polar regions have 'flipped' numerous times in the last few million years. Magnetic fields by their nature aren't constant. "EARTH'S ROTATION The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth. " - The earth is deformed. The equitorial circumference is larger than the polar circumference. "8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood. " You can make artificial diamonds like this as well. Proves nothing. This is a known chemical process of vhigh pressure molecular rearrangement using pure seeded starting products. Fossils require certain optimal conditions which is why the're not common, or evenly spread. They occur most prevalently around the edges of ancient seas, and in areas of ancient high tectonic activity. What's this obsession with Noah's ark? Remember that at the supposed time of writing ~300-5000 years ago post-agricultural society was in it's infancy and the population at the time was numbered globally in the 100000's. Noah's 'flood' has been geologically traced to the breaching of the Gibraltan straights due to increased sea levels at the end of the last Ice Age. It is far more likely to be a locally catastrophic flooding event... other non-religeous societies also document cases like this in their passed down history "12. DINOSAURS Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons. Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in Texas. Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world. Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged. However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists. " Oh, dear. "SUN'S DIAMETER The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago. " Remember that the sun is a nuclear furnace, and not normal combustion. Oh, and in about 3.5billion years the sun will go Nova and swallow up all the planets upto Mars. Where will god be then?? "The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were. *Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all. Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists." See my point about scientific 'fact'. Creationists argument is that scientists have said Darwin's theory of natural Selection was wrong and that the srgument is leaning in the direction of creationism. Couldn't be further from the case. Darwinian theory has been refined, expanded on, and increased, as is the case for scientific testing by empirical methods. The predictions by Mendel have been borne out. The theory was pre- discovery of DNA, but the theory predicted it's existence. The whole area of genetics really debunks the creationists arguments with a 4letter code that is more eleoquent than any evangelical fervour can come up with. .... "Evolutionists talk fondly of the "one-celled organism" that started it all, but what they don't mention is the fact that it is impossible for such an organism to appear by natural causes. There are complex functions and parts needed to work in harmony with one another in even the simplest of living things. Unless all these parts were arranged and "turned on" at one time, life would never begin. Hence, it is necessary that some "Intelligent Designer" fit those parts together. By way of example, consider the human eye. The eye has thousands of nerve endings, millions of cells, all working in harmony with one another to send information to the brain, which is then interpreted in the mind as images. It would be impossible for an eye to develop piece-by-piece, for each individual element of the eye would be worthless without all the rest already in place. Thus, they eye must have been formed instantaneously by some "organizer", not randomly thrown together by the chance forces of nature. " We're talking about the cumulative effects of 3.5billion+ years here (and including the estimated 2.5 of that where life was impossible). Spread open your arms... from left to your nose., nothing existed. At your wrist the dinosaurs became extinct. The last segment of your index finger, the reign of mammals and human evolution. The tip of your nail... society as we know it. Put's it all into perspective. the creationists arguments really resolve around the limited ability of the human brain to comprehend linear time. getting bored now... Many of the major players in the genetical/darwinian group won't get into these kinds of discussiions, not because they are afraid of losing the argument... as if. But because literally by doing so it appears to give credence the creationists arguments by them being on the same platform.

You could use a program like 'lost and found' or one similar to recover some data, even from a formatted drive. (it's been an object lesson to the pirateers/pornographers, that the delete bin or just formatting a drive doesn't get rid of data, just puts a new partition structure in place) S

They shot the video to 'Fix You'... so did it twice for a few extra shots of the band and crowd

So, am I the first to post about this Gig? Well, I suppose it helps living a mile from the stadium! :) Your 3 site admins got let out for a night of Coldplay. :) My first time seeing them. Their performances on Tv and Radio don't do them justice. I thought they were excellent. And finished with 'Fix You'... twice. But I'll let others explain that. I'm thinking of starting petition to get Coldplay to play 'til Kingdom Come' at Nashville. As someone brought up on Country&Westerm, I think Old JohnnyC would approve. S

just part of the best man speech ;)

so Mrs JJB when do we get to see the pics of you wearing the rugby top? :) S

it was a forced absence unfortunately necessary and without the ability to give any notice. hopefully not to be reocurred.

reset your internet cache tools > Internet options > delete files (including offline) for IE tools > options > privacy > cache(clear) for firefox