huntjd

hey all, has been a while since i posted on here (read like 2 years!), anyway, here's a picture or two of me, so those of you who care know what i look like!

i pity your ignorance saffire. now if i'm correct what you positing is a single dilemma. yes, because that will disprove watson and crick, darwin, dawkins et al. right. but then again, you do live in a country where church and state are so closely intertwined it breaches the constitution (don't believe me? read letters to a christian nation, or your own consititutuion when it talks about the 'pursuit of happiness') you've obviously been brought up fairly religiously as was I. I don't preach to convert you to atheism, just for you to see the truth.

care to present some evidence to support this? do you catalogue every report on evolution vs intelligent design? so how would you know that? if intelligent design is the scientifically proven theory then you have to prove the existence of the designer which is impossible for science to do. but we can prove that darwinian evolution is the means by which organisms evolve, and genes are the method by which this occurs. have you read anything about darwinian evolution from a side that supports it? i highly doubt it nick.

well see heres the thing that is what we can prove happen. in einstein's theory of the big bang (which was formulated through research, not some crazy person from 2000 years ago hearing the voice of 'god') posit that the universe came into existence because at some chance occurence there was a substantial increase in matter compared to anti-matter (before the universe, matter and anti-matter were in proportion) and thus the big bang occurred because of this and 13 billion years later here we are.

does it prove he DOES exist? no. there is more evidence to the contrary. read about the teacup analogy that is a common atheist's analogy for the existence of god and the interplay with science. suppose a teacup was orbiting mars, currently the telescopes we have couldn't see it, but we will eventually have the ability to see it, once we progress enough. that is, if the teacup exists. logic would imply there is no teacup orbiting mars as it has no logial place, but just because we cannot see it it does not exist. thus, by common logic god is yet to be disproved, but also proved, and common logic and scientific fact would suggest that there is no supernatural.

god doesn't exist. man makes the mistake of thinking everything has to have an answer, and thinks he has found it through a religion. to whoever started the thread: open your eyes! jesus christ, allah, yaweh, the teachings of buddha or any deity will give you a pleasant afterlife of 72 virgins or save you from pits of fire. the fact is humans and our souls are a group of chemical reactions. when those reactions stop, life stops and what is known as our soul, ceases to exist. when you realise that fact, there is no need for religion. read a book or two about scientific fact. i have, and i will recommend, should you see fit.

i'm bubbling with excitement. love the song. definite icelandic influence, sounds quite mum-ish, but with more depth. and seeing them in august, just thought i'd rub that in... :P

ergh shit band. music is too electro-poppy. its nothing ground-breakingly new and it is being treated like the 3rd testament which i really don't get...

In February I bought the entire Explosions In The Sky discorgraphy on vinyl. It will never be played, but I own it. GO VINYL!!

For me so far (new sigur ros excites me, as does new mew) this year has been relatively flat, but so far i've liked: This Town Needs Guns - Self Titled Death Cab For Cutie - Narrow Stairs (BIG change musically for them, not lyrically though) City & Colour - Bring Me Your Love

so its been a while since i posted a photo on here, so here is me as of one week ago:

oh lord. i just bought the game and i'm not going to go on about how good it is. it defines next gen gaming. i don't have time to waste. gotta go back and play!

Good for you being a law student. That means from now on your argument must be intelligent and be based upon credible, unbiased and untampered evidence. deal? Thus, if you say every country should deal with it's own domestic affairs separately, you shouldn't be concerned about what is happening in Israel, because by international law there is only one country there, Israel. Palestine isn't a country legally, rather classified as a nation, like kurdistan etc. So then Israel should be left to deal with it's internal problems alone, according to that line of argument. I agree with you, the US has a poor system of international "diplomacy". And as a law student you are arguing like apolitician, avoiding the major argument i posed, which was about the lack of responsibility by the vatican to their ability to curb the aids epidemic, not civil wars You will find if you do some research that african diamonds do not always fund civil wars. african conflict diamonds do however, and it is illegal to buy such diamonds with full awareness of its origin (watch the movie blood diamond)

firstly, if you are going to resort to flip the fact that i'm proposing a logical argument as me insulting your incontrovertible lack of knowledge, global responsibility. and don't tell me to learn to debate/argue/talk with other people politely and properly. i'm a law student... i can hold my own in an argument politely thank you very much. in regards to china, you are again fabricating facts like you have previously done on here. instead of presenting evidence to support an argument, you place your own heavily biased argument on the table as if it is gospel with no eidence to proove it. example: china does not "get the needs" of its people by peace. Its rich live a prosperous life due to the hypocrisy of their communist system that separates socio-economic classes while the poor struggle to live above the poverty line. in tibet, to quell the protests against chinese occupation, the chinese army was "peacefully deployed" according to government press releases, but leaked photos taken by journalists and travelers over there show tanks and armoured vehicles loaded with soldiers carrying assault rifles and shotguns. yes. peaceful. china's history is littered with violence, be it tibet or taiwan or even in beijing, with the tianamen square uprising in 1989. search that on wikipedia or google. in china if you were to search you would find a large disparity in the similarity of the results... how is israel to blame for the aids epidemic? i mean honestly, as far as i know there isn't a zionist country in the entirety of africa. all the african countries are either christian or muslim. so of course, the israelis, who have never stepped foot into africa politically or physically (bar entebbe) are to blame for aids. i'd find it amusing for you believe that such is the case... and that zionism is responsible for the majority of evil in the world...

i'm not siding on israel lana, my post was saying how in the scheme of things it really is nothing when far more pressing issues are at hand in the world. israel HAD something to do with the war in iraq with the supposed WMD's, but now they have no hand in it. and as far as Iran goes, well if the president of a country blatantly declares he wishes to see the downfall of a country, then yes israel would have something to do with it. i think he was talking about the fact that after israel gained independence in 1948, palestinians have been killed in syria nd in jordan (black spetember in the 70s)