Sirias discussions: Currently (???)

[Attila_]

just on the topic of evolution... i dont think many will debate that it doesnt exist at all, but to say that humans evolved from bacteria through however many stages is a little shaky imo. if i have nothing in a box that i lock away for a few million years, can i expect to find a fetus when i open it? dodgy example, but i think you get what im saying. its hard to say that nothing can produce anything but nothing.

and i remember reading a study a while ago, that found that something in the human body (i cant remember, some kind of cell or something) was made of separate parts which function like a motor, ie that individual parts do nothing unless you have them all. in this sense, such a cell (or whatever it was) cant be created by evolution, as the steps taken to evolve must each provide a unique purpose, and can't build on things that havent been integrated into a system yet... pity i've forgotten what it was exactly... maybe unreon or someone diligent enough to search will know...

 

[Sieg]

If I remember correctly, everything about us is made up from bacteria except for the water we carry in our bodies. Basically, we're walking bacteria.

 

[Aussierob123]

The point of evolution is not to suggest that things just spontaneously turned into another thing. The point of evolution is like, a natural selection process.

Look at it like this, it is known that african ethnic groups have a higher prevalence of sickle cell anemia. However, black americans have a fairly normal rate of sickle cell anemia. This is because in places like africa, Malaria is a thriving disease whereas it's not a threat in countries like america. People with a single allele sickle cell anemia are more likely to survive malaria because of the sickling of their red blood cells, halting the life-cycle of malaria.

My point by this example is that nature has a way of selectively targeting strengths and weaknesses, and only people fit to survive the condition will survive. This is the theory behind evolution (Coupled with genetic mutation etc, other theories which are hard to explain but are definately prevalent as shown by things like bacteria developing antimicrobial immunity).

Giraffes didn't decide to grow long necks. There would have been giraffes with long and short necks, but for whatever reason, giraffes with long necks thrived (probably because they can eat from trees or something stupid). This is a dumb example and probably totally untrue, but its an example to illustrate the process of evolution.

People have a common misconception that evolution means that a monkey turned into a human. That's not it at all.

/rant.

Edit: Seig, not entirely true, most of our cells are completely different to bacteria, however some cells share traits with bacteria, and most cells have bacteria-like components (example: Mitochondria).

 

[unreon]

To answer Scoot's question:

I initially thought that such a discussion would be chock-full of education and is a very strong eye-opener to those unaware of the strong Creationism/Intelligent Design movement in USA. So I essentially wondered 'wtf, there's so little room for flaming because it's so one-sided'. And then Vyse goes 'naw, it's so one-sided so there's so much flaming'. So I had it backwards and I posted that. Apologies if I kept you hanging lol

Also to answer Scoot - my official stance on the whole concept is that I am an Agnostic Atheist. My political stance is that I'm anti-theistic, meaning I really don't like the concept of organised ideology (religious, political, nationalistic, ethnic, economical, or otherwise). I see any sort of adherence to such ideology ******* progression, tolerance of others, and critical thinking. On a societal/global level I wish it would go. But on a personal level I don't treat anybody differently because of it. I've dated a fundie for a year and my best friend is quite liberal like Arrow so it's not like I see me on one side and them on the other. We're all people in end <3

If there's enough room for a debate to be going on about whether or not its real, its clearly not 100% proven yet.

There is no real scientific debate. There is only an organised movement misrepresenting the overwhelming evidence and has a sway politically. It is akin to the Anti-Vaccination movement (I bet Chris and/or Rob can talk at lengths about this too).

Attila, what you're remembering are some main points that are proposed by Intelligent Design/Creationism advocates.

It's kind of disappointing that Smashboards isn't allowing where this thread is going, because it's such an opportunity to enlighten and clear up some misconceptions. I hope Vyse gives the okay.

I'll just leave this here though, because it isn't inflammatory I hope:
excellent video on evolution by Qualiasoup

 

[Pete278]

There is no real scientific debate. There is only an organised movement misrepresenting the overwhelming evidence and has a sway politically. It is akin to the Anti-Vaccination movement (I bet Chris and/or Rob can talk at lengths about this too).

That's because, as far as the scientific communities are concerned, there's no other alternative. If there was an alternative that had been raised and also had scientific backing, there would be a scientific debate. But there isn't, and so we settle.

 

[unreon]

That's because, as far as the scientific communities are concerned, there's no other alternative. If there was an alternative that had been raised and also had scientific backing, there would be a scientific debate. But there isn't, and so we settle.

That's because there is an overwhelming evidence that evolution is airtight. There ARE ways in which there could be alternatives. The amount of evidence that we have for evolution is mind-bogglingly stupid. We aren't settling for anything :/ It's as absurd as saying that we settled for chemistry, and we should deny chemistry and invest resources into the alternative of alchemy.

If we found a modern human fossil in the layers of rock that signify the time of the dinosaurs, evolution is kaput. Something would take over.

 

[undead_moose]

Scoot, whilst that may be correct, no disrespect bro, but your wording is already extremely subjective. Unreon, if you want to reply, please do so, but then nobody is to respond after that.

somebody couldn't resist the urge

 

[Pete278]

If we found a modern human fossil in the layers of rock that signify the time of the dinosaurs, evolution is kaput. Something would take over.

That's what I've been trying to say, and everyone's been misinterpreting me. I'm not against evolution, I'm just saying its not absolutely thoroughly 100% proven yet. Neither is gravity, for that matter.

 

[Muzga]

Heres a good one,
Where does personality become disorder?

 

[Surgi]

LMAOOOOOOOO
omg kas you just won the game

The topic completely changed to evolution as soon as kas said next topic. No one even realised. XD

But I agree, existentialism is a neat topic to talk about and its so debatable in every possible way.

Other possible topics are: (some are taken from arrow and given a word to describe them)
Monogamy or Polygamy - 1 Partner or many?
Time travel - Is it possible?
One world order - Should 1 government rule the world?
Artificial Intelligence - Will it Make or Break the human race?
R rating on games in Aus - Will allowing more violent games (but having a higher age cap) have + or - effect
I can keep going with these ideas.

As previously stated Evolution vs. Creation is a dumb debate where no one will ever win so we should drop it or get locked as Vyse has warned

 

[Dekar289]

if you are against r18 rating for video games

you are ********

 

[Muzga]

I think for a change it might be a good idea to have a discussion which doesnt have its roots in religion.

 

[Alzi]

SHould Alzi die?

 

[Attila_]

told you unny would know what i was talking about

<3

 

[Vyse]

To answer Scoot's question:

I initially thought that such a discussion would be chock-full of education and is a very strong eye-opener to those unaware of the strong Creationism/Intelligent Design movement in USA. So I essentially wondered 'wtf, there's so little room for flaming because it's so one-sided'. And then Vyse goes 'naw, it's so one-sided so there's so much flaming'. So I had it backwards and I posted that. Apologies if I kept you hanging lol

Not quite what I thought you meant, but that doesn't matter anymore.

Religion is something that people will devote their whole lives to, something people will fiercely enforce and stand up for, and so talking about religion in a context that effectively discredits the teachings of creationism with fact we have grounded in science isn't appropriate.

Please understand.

somebody couldn't resist the urge

Oh dear lord.

But seriously, the term 'subjectivity' can destroy any argument immediately. I learned this much from Extension English.

For example, take the term 'beauty'. Beauty is subjective to the beholder in that two different people can look at something and perceive different levels of beauty. Unlike for example. 5 apples sitting on a table. If one were to question how many apples were sitting on the table, there's little getting around the fact there are 5.

Scoot's response that I was responding to had subjective wording, in that different people might find it offensive, even though they shouldn't.

EDIT: "even though they shouldn't" is itself a subjective statement.

----

I vote we talk about Global Warming, is it real? or are we all being Greenwashed?

 

[swordsaint]

I think the non subjective way of saying "even though they shouldn't" is "even though it wasn't intended that way".

 

[Surgi]

sigh i was writing that response and about 30 people got in before me coz of my capped slow *** net. Let's not have a discussion on subjectivity plz -_-

 

[Vyse]

I think the non subjective way of saying "even though they shouldn't" is "even though it wasn't intended that way".

Correct

Now, global warming anyone?

 

[Vermy]

PIRATES VS NINJAS.

kgo.

 

[C~Dog]

One world order - Should 1 government rule the world?

In my opinion, the best way to run a society would be under the command of a single person. However, this only works under the premise that this individual can objectively weigh the combined needs of society and judge what is best for the collective, and has the neccessary determination and strength to make that happen, but also the morals to not put his own desires first. So basically, its works in theory, but you will be hard pressed to find a person capable of running it by himself.

 

[Sieg]

In my opinion, the best way to run a society would be under the command of a single person. However, this only works under the premise that this individual can objectively weigh the combined needs of society and judge what is best for the collective, and has the neccessary determination and strength to make that happen, but also the morals to not put his own desires first. So basically, its works in theory, but you will be hard pressed to find a person capable of running it by himself.

Now what does this remind me of.

I just can't put my finger on what this concept reminds me of. :D

 

[Surgi]

Yes Con, that was the theory of Monarchy and Dictatorship but neither of those work. If we are talking theories then the best world order would be under communism but that doesn't work either because humans as individuals want to grab as much power as they can, where humans as a whole can't work collectively to better the lives of their comrades because they are too selfish and try to better their own lives. Why do you think someone who works seflessly like Mary Mackillop (i think thats the right spelling) was considered a 'saint' even though she really didn't do anything miraculous. It is because she was compared to the rest of humanity which, on a whole, is selfish to the extreme. In this way Communism is perfect in theory but terrible in effect.

Edit: lol @ seig well I could give you a few reminders. Julias Ceasar, Alexander the great, William the Conqueror, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pott etc.

Edit: I am also assuming the general community knows how Communism works coz i cbf explaining it. If you don't know, the wikipedia page on it is pretty accurate.

 

[unreon]

sounds like the complete opposite of 1984.

Shame Vyse, since I consider the Internet one of the rare few places where open discussion (and disciplined criticism) is most protected. But rules are rules, so let's move on.

But if anyone has further discussions of the other topic, e.g. Atilla about evolution, Sieg about whatever, feel free to PM or MSN me lol I'm a cuddly one <3

 

[Attila_]

i think the world is far too varied to ever exist under one leader. it would be impossible to equalize and understand all groups, and keep it all in order.

 

[Pete278]

Helios in Deus Ex is a good example of that type of government working, actually. Though it requires a superintelligent AI.

 

[Sirias]

Pirates vs. Ninjas in... every aspect?
Can't say, so many factors. c:

You know, almost every argument has a billion 'factors' you 'can' take into account.
Which makes ARGUMENTS/DEBATES pointless.

Although fun, it honestly gets you nowhere.
It's better to just 'not' talk about it, because no one ever changes their opinion.
Has anyone, ever, without a MASSIVE amount of discussion, changed their opinion on something like this?
Or rather, anything worth arguing over?

...
However, for a topic, I'll go for Global Warming.
Despite people saying it's been basically proven that it's like, bullcrud (just as people have 'basically' proven evolution), I say it's still real.
That, or the Earth/God just wants to kill lots of us to preserve itself.

"So I'm indestructible?"
"No no, in fact even a slight breeze wou-"
"Iiindestructible..."

 

[swordsaint]

Kas, why do you always continue to point out how utterly futile the discussions are?
1. We aren't hurting anyone
2. We know they're pointless
3. Despite that, who's to tell us they aren't good time wasters (after all that's all anything is?)
4. We don't have the luxury of meeting up everyday and talking about serious things (like you've mentioned before) seeing as we all live in different parts of Australia
5. Avoiding discussion just because you THINK someone never changes their opinion is....your own opinion...lol. I have to say personally, I've read some interesting things here, learnt some new things and got some new perspectives on important issues.

No harm intended. still <3 you kas, but lighten up about people talking about this stuff. ^_^

 

[unreon]

I agree with Scoot.

6. Nobody changes their opinion on topics in one day. It's a gradual learning experience where these discussions may be an interesting 15minute read a day, a window into something more, an opportunity to defend your opinion and see if it holds up to clarification and scrutiny, or to pick up on something you never thought you would research and go into it more.
7. As long as it's kept civil and YO MAMA insults are kept at bay, it's fine.
8. It's better than talking about games all the time sheeesh
9. Not everyone is 100% either way; discussion promotes swaying and gets people off the fence. It's always good to know your position on certain topics.

Negative:
1. I've wasted too much time here and should be studying oh nooeeees D:

 

[Vyse]

@Kas: The thing with Global warming that's most interesting to me is finding the balance between saving the earth and sustaining the economy of whatever country we're looking at.

Funnily this ties in with different leadership styles since if the world was under one rule, it wouldn't matter, but in a capitalist world countries need to strike a balance between their economy and the environment.

I remember a long time ago learning about the Kyoto Protocol. I think my teacher said that it would only reduce pollution by a small percentage each year, but in reality this is a huge thing -> It's reducing, not growing. I think that's an important step for countries to make. I don't think we can ignore things like damage to the ozone layer and the melting ice down south.

Also big thing in the IT industry right now is 'Green IT', and they say that a big part of company image is their Green IT policies. Many companies now have a page on their websites stating their goals in this area, and is indeed a standard to rate companies by.

I don't follow global warming as a subject much though.

@Unny: I'm in the same boat.

 

[Aussierob123]

I only just finished my presentation. **** you guys!!!

 

[xXArrowXx]

yeah i am learning abit. at the very least accepting and understanding other peoples stances.

so serious pirate vs ninja debate?
historically.. i think pirate would win... ninja focus on assasinations but pirates are very anarcy.. plus pirates have guns..
if it was like modern day ninjas tho... ninjas would win.

global warming could doooo

i like the topic of. what do you find honorable and/or chivalrous?

 

[Sirias]

Scoot - I'm not going to argue that no harm HAS happened, that I know of, 'cause I barely read half the posts (lol).
And they are pointless and time-wasting, but also have 'some' good insight.
I know you all live in different parts of Aus so you can't 'meet up', I knew someone would bring that up, that's what MSN/YIM/AIM/IRC is for, use your fkin head. <3
And yes, wow, what I said is my own opinion, that's clever of you. I know that, but what you just said doesn't say you changed your mind, just that you now have a different perspective on that debate, but that doesn't MEAN anything, because don't you still agree that your way is the most logical/right argument/side?
And of course no harm was intended, it's just some of these debates are so ridiculously controversial that nothing really happens, just a whole lot of talking about your 'own opinions'.

Unry - Yes, yes I KNOW that you don't change your mind INSTANTLY, my GOD how dumb do you think I am, you guys, jesus god christ of... *ahem*. I'm just saying that since discussions are only open for so long, no one accepts someone else's view. And if it stayed open any longer, it would turn into a stupid raging argument over who knows better.
... ... ... I agree that it's much better than talking about games, yeah. c:
And so far, most people I know are 100% on certain things. And when you get like that, it's not a debate, discussion, argument or anything as such, it's just a verbal fight. I just don't want THAT to happen because it could so easily be avoided.
Get back to studying!

And like I've said, most controversial discussions just contain lots of 'ifs'.
Man... I used the bunny ears a lot, haha.

Antho - Didn't they reject the Kyoto Protocol? And I think that Global Warming 'CAN BECOME' true if things continue the way they are. It is a big Greenpeace-y thing, but I don't see it as a BAD thing to consider it a reality. People just dismiss it and continue ****** the world, yeah, because that's 'smart', apparently, I have no idea. But the world's resources are declining, right? Or is that just bs, too.
The most ridiculous thing about it all is that people make fun of it and just say it's been basically proven it's fake, but how? I still don't believe that scientists and such can date things back 6 million/billion years ago, but saying that they can see into the future, to me (omg opinion, omg, in a debate, wow), is even more far fetched.
I don't see any problem with believing it's real anyway...
I suppose it's easier to turn a blind eye until it's finally punching you in the face, by which time it's too late.
Ahh, how I hate that line.
It's too late (to change anything).

What about the oil running out of the world, is that still an issue or was that resolved/not an issue anymore.

Honorable one... Meh, it doesn't really interest me. MY OPINION, sigh.

I dunno... Ninjas might be able to dodge bullets. C:
Also, if ninjas focus on assassinating, and pirates get drunk 24/7, I'd say Ninjas would win.
But that's only talking about BATTLE wise.
As for other categories...
... Ninjas probably still win.
But I still like Pirates, too. <3

 

[isthattim?]

i think the next discussion should be about Iso's dreamy eyes
sigh

 

[xXArrowXx]

butt pirates.
pirates have supreme numbers and would just bum rush the ninjas. in a open fight.
...they cant dodge bullets kaaaas.

 

[C~Dog]

 

[Zero]

Ninjas don't have wenches, they have lovely, petite Japanese wifes to return to after a day of stealthing and slaying.

 

[Dekar289]

i've never seen pirates win the debate
ninja's are better /the end

new topic: when will lufia ds come out in english... or who will translate it
srs stuff

 

[Zero]

You will

10ch

 

[Vermy]

When did you last see ninjas, period?
Check and mate.

 

[Zero]

Modern pirates have but the tiniest fraction of the historical pirate's reputation and awe-inspiring power.

Modern pirates don't deserve to be in this debate.