That wasn't meant to be a comprehensive explanation of everything wrong with the ending, just one part. (MASSIVE spoilers to follow)

Also, when you say "Reapers prune only the few most advanced species in order to save less advanced organic life", save them from what, exactly? Synthetics? And Reapers are what, exactly? Synthetics?

Aside from the circular reasoning, it's also based on a premise that is at the very least debatable: the created will always rebel against their creators. I got to that conversation having brokered peace between the Geth and the Quarrians. Why wasn't it even an option for Shepard to question whether this was some iron law of the universe? Why is the Catalyst assuming peace between organics and synthetics is impossible? Why was it impossible for any ending to leave the Geth and Quarians both physically the same, and independent? Why wasn't it possible for Shepard to be annoyed about this?

Moreover, why kill organics to prevent robot uprisings? Why not have reapers wipe out synthetic races if/when they start to rebel, rather than wiping out organics before they can build synthetics?

If the Reapers are really saviors of the galaxy, why do they shoot first and ask questions never? If being converted into a husk is really a form of ascension, why not try to convince races to volunteer? Why not stick around for thousands of years to persuade us, if necessary? For that matter, why make this be some sort of every 50K year thing? Why not just make ascension into Reaper form a part of galactic culture, a reward given to races who've advanced far enough to warrant it?

But my biggest problem is that we don't really get to see any kind of real consequence of that final choice. All three endings are virtually indistinguishable, and there's nothing about the ending that reflects the choices you've made along the way, not even the ones from ME3. There's no real resolution for any of your crewmates either. I'd like to know what happens to Garrus, Liara, Tali, etc. after it's all over. "Stranded on a strange jungle planet" wasn't what I was looking for, either.

>> ^mentality:

>> ^NetRunner:
http://markel.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/f3p6x.jpg

That's stupid. Reapers prune only the few most advanced species in order to save less advanced organic life throughout the galaxy. Sounds like whoever made that was dozing off during the conversations with the catalyst.

*Robot Voice* "You know what is funny? When my wife lubricated my joints with Non-Synthetic Oil and I could not Move Ha Ha Ha *sparks and smoke* Ha Ha Ha. Women am I right?"

That's a cool law. Laws are fun. Lets all make laws!!

By Executive Order in New Jersey:

The Order, announced today bans ten entire classes of synthetic compounds that imitate the effects of marijuana, and all known or unknown variants of the drug that would fall within each class. The Order also expressly includes “any other synthetic chemical compound that is a cannabinoid receptor agonist and mimics the pharmacological effect of naturally occurring cannabinoids” – in other words, any synthetic chemical that mimics the effects on the brain of marijuana’s active ingredient

—–

Citizens SHALL NOT stimulate their Cannibinoid Receptors with ANY SUBSTANCE
They SHALL NOT protest this either.

I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.

You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.

A mind created and designed it, therefore a mind is involved, therefore it is an invalid example..

Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.

Abiogenesis is unproven because there is no evidence, it is just metaphysics. It's your faith that it is true. It is not the only coherent explanation, it is just the explanation that you have to believe because you have ruled out an intelligent designer apriori.

There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.

Here is the hypothesis

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

Here is a story about ID being published in a biology journal making predictions for cancer research

http://www.discovery.org/a/2627

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.

There is obviously a concrete difference since life doesn't come from non-life, and has never once been observed doing so. You have everything in the world to prove here. Everything in the Universe is made up of atoms, does that mean there is no difference between you and me? Is there no difference between a duck and a neutron star? You can't just say that because there are trivial similarities that they are the same thing.

And if you think like that, and you just believe we are all chemicals in motion, then you can't trust your own mind because if our mental processes are just chemical reactions, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. If our mental states have their origin in non-rational causes, rationality can't be trusted. You can't know if the rationality we have from evolutionary processes is discerning the truth of the world or not. Even Darwin realized this:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.

Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex
?
Well this is plainly false. RNA to DNA is far more probable than ROCKS to RNA. The reason it is labeled magic is because there is no proof. It doesn't mean that they are both equally likely. It is less likely by large orders of magnitude.

The magic is RNA self-replication:

http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RNA-self-replication-3.php

And if you had bothered to do any real research, you would see that the leap from soup to these complex molecules is anything but trivial..here is a list of just of basic issues...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Some quotes for you:

Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive....

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.

In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing."

Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
An evolutionist currently doing biological research in Sydney, Australia

Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine in itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (it's complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of a 1,000 links could exist in 41000 different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 = 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives us the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

Frank Salisbury,
Evolutionary biologist

Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.

If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

I did, see above. Here is a bunch more: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640


>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What I insist is that you substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do.
I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.
You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Abiogenesis is purely metaphysics and unproven.
Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.
There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.
Given two possibilities, one being unlikely, and the other being false, I'll go with unlikely.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by
non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a
retraction?
No, see above.

You said, and I quote: "if you already have DNA, you can certainly expect a cell to form."
Do you mean that DNA must already have the information required to do so? because lots of DNA does not, otherwise are you asserting that DNA is somehow "mind", which you claim would be required for that information to come into being?
>> ^shinyblurry:
The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.
So there is no difference between you and a rock? I can admit I see similarities, heart wise..:)
Let's see some evidence for your claim that there is no difference between life and non-life.

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.
You can't disprove unicorns, I can't disprove the life boundary, and we have no reason to believe either exists.
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not false. This is your pathway to DNA: RNA - (MAGIC) - DNA This is your pathway to RNA: ROCKS - (MAGIC) - RNA Just because you can get RNA to self-replicate doesn't automatically mean it is either likely or plausible this could happen.
Please consider this image: http://en.citizendium.org/images/thumb/f/f6/RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg/350px-RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg
The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.
Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent" design in nature, which biologists acknowledge, is actual design. It is only useless to you because you have ruled out design apriori, which is just simply ignorant.
Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.
If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

We just finished this same pant-pissing hysteria in my country, before the politicians saved us all by 'banning' synthetic cannabanoids via laws requiring them to be proved safe before going on sale.

I'm sure that's going to work out well.

Here's the scoop:

JWH-018 makes you feel more stoned than the first time you got stoned. If you don't know what that means, well... no wonder people were freaking out.

JWH-122 which i use now daily, is a LOT more mellow. I can smoke it once and be stoned all day but relaxed, more CBD like. 75$ for 5 grams that lasts months. I'm talking pure powder that i mix into my own smokable. I don't smoke blends of rose hips and bay bean sprayed with acetone dissolved JWH, like vendors sell.

These are synthetic cannabinoids, they are full agonists and bind very tightly to the CB receptors. THC and CBD are partial agonists and mitigate each others effects. These chemicals are no joke and have been available for a long time, proving that if cannabis was legal that NOTHING bad would happen. These drugs are far more potent and the world has had access to them for years by mail-order, and the results are in.

You WILL freak out if you are not a cannabis user or someone with experience smoking. I've smoked for over a decade before trying these compounds and it was like i was 16 all over again. The strange thing is the intense effects last only up to an hour, then you're ok again. The effects seem additive, whereas you can smoke cannabis non-stop, you actually reach a point of intoxication that can be nauseating (happened two times on JWH-018, I was sweating, throwing up, couldn't come down... but then I did... and it happened from using too much 018 too quick).

Also, my anxiety and depression seemed very well managed on a combination of JWH-122 and Sertraline HCl (gen Zoloft). I no longer get angry and sad, and want to just throw it all away because the world is big and scary.


Cannabis prohibition is very strange. I like being told as an American that i can't be tortured, held without cause, executed in street... but the can'ts should all be bad things. I can't smoke cannabis BECAUSE I'm American. Even the Israeli govt is legalizing medical marijuana for its citizens, yet my country who gives them money to exist, says I cannot. I can't because I'm American. Wierd. So I'll pay less to get more stoned.

I was born in the 80's with that summertime love
Then changed the whole game like whatever I'd done
Out the gutter I come to touch the bright sun
And from the highest heights motherf@#cker I jumped

Free in the sky of belief I can fly,
Ain't no tellin what they're sellin man
They're sheep in disguise
Keep this in mind, I keep on my grind
I can do it any way I wanna do it and
B!tch I'll sleep when I die

Explosive, ferocious, get up get down that's showbiz
Power to the people that have freedom in their focus
I hope this helps you when your under the thumb
When you feel like nothing can save you
When you feel like jumpin the gun

Stop relax and remember even in the worst weather
You'll find a way across it
There'll be brighter days honest
So get up, get out and get somethin that's on the real
Forget what you were taught
And show these people how you feel like

Chorus
Who are you to tell me how to live my life (my life)
Cause I won't give this up,
These are my shoes, my view, my cue
To say I do give a f@#ck
And pretty soon Imma bloomin it'll be alright
Everyday's another chance to ignite
Cause I'm addicted (o-Oh)
I'm addicted (o-Oh)
I'm addicted to this universal feelin called life

.......

Yeah since a foetus, explored life's subtle secrets
From my fingertips to my unique double helix
I can see history, I can see the past lessons
It's your right never be afraid to ask questions

How can every religion, claim to be the only one
How can they preach love
Yet fight each other holding guns
I think the golden sun may be able to shed some light
I'd rather push peace and knowledge to defend our right

These leaders in suits tell us to fight for one side
You think they got their sons and daughters on the frontline?
Not down for war but down to get an education
we're all evil yet they push synthetic separation
But in this matrix I won't be failin to make it
This is my cosmos baby space sailin with Satan
I heard it's not where your from
It's where your carvin' your view
I heard you don't have to wear a suit
To argue the truth and so

Chorus
Who are you to tell me how to live my life (my life)
Cause I won't give this up
These are my shoes, my view, my cue
To say I do give a f@#ck
And pretty soon I'ma bloomin it'll be alright
Everyday's another chance to ignite
Cause I'm addicted (oh-Oh)
I'm addicted (oh-Oh)
I'm addicted to this universal feelin called life

Chorus
Who are you to tell me how to live my life (my life)
Cause I won't give this up
These are my shoes, my view, my cue
To say I do give a f@#ck
And pretty soon I'ma bloomin it'll be alright
Everyday's another chance to ignite
Cause I'm addicted (oh-Oh)
I'm addicted (oh-Oh)
I'm addicted to this universal feelin called life

Thanks Uses. And another sad part? The friend of yours probably could breastfeed but was told she couldn't (My wife was told that shit and she breastfeed fine with three babies.) Now, it could be your friend truly couldn't feed, but that's not the most likely--the human body is meant to work, not be broke.


>> ^UsesProzac:
Lawdeedaw, I too experienced discrimination in the hospital for breastfeeding. The nurses would take my son when I fell asleep and feed him formula. Because of that he never latched and I dried up after three months. I explicitly told EVERYONE I was breastfeeding exclusively, but they still went behind my back and fed him formula. I had breast milk that I had painfully pumped in the mini fridge provided and someone THREW IT AWAY when I was sleeping. Why are NURSES and DOCTORS, of all the fucking people who should know better, doing this shit? The Enfamil schwag they pushed on me when I left was staggering. I had a diaper bag full of formula, coupons, you name it. I gave it to a friend who couldn't breast feed. I don't mind others feeding their children formula. It's all up to them, but when it comes to me and my child, fuck off, especially when I'm right.. Breast milk is infinitely better for your child. How could anyone even argue that processed, synthetic shit is better? It doesn't have any of the antigens or immune system boosting awesomness that breast milk does.
So I completely understand, agree with and support your ire and you are not over-reacting in the least. When companies can decided what dictates health and how to go by it, purely to line their pockets and post huge profits, you have to be informed and protect yourself.

Lawdeedaw, I too experienced discrimination in the hospital for breastfeeding. The nurses would take my son when I fell asleep and feed him formula. Because of that he never latched and I dried up after three months. I explicitly told EVERYONE I was breastfeeding exclusively, but they still went behind my back and fed him formula. I had breast milk that I had painfully pumped in the mini fridge provided and someone THREW IT AWAY when I was sleeping. Why are NURSES and DOCTORS, of all the fucking people who should know better, doing this shit? The Enfamil schwag they pushed on me when I left was staggering. I had a diaper bag full of formula, coupons, you name it. I gave it to a friend who couldn't breast feed. I don't mind others feeding their children formula. It's all up to them, but when it comes to me and my child, fuck off, especially when I'm right.. Breast milk is infinitely better for your child. How could anyone even argue that processed, synthetic shit is better? It doesn't have any of the antigens or immune system boosting awesomness that breast milk does.

So I completely understand, agree with and support your ire and you are not over-reacting in the least. When companies can decided what dictates health and how to go by it, purely to line their pockets and post huge profits, you have to be informed and protect yourself.

Something to keep in mind when reading about coffee research is to check and see whether or not the "coffee" they refer to is a caffeine supplement or if it truly is coffee. It is found that coffee and synthetic caffeine supplements are very different with regards to how the body processes them and their effects. Pharmacists will tell you focusing on one chemical compound without researching how the other compounds and how they interact with each other is bad science. Which is way "coffee research" should focus on the over all product and not just one chemical compound.

Everything we put in our body has negative and positive consequences what we have to figure out when using an item for its benefit is whether or not the negatives are of bigger consequence then the positives.

i.e. which is worse, high blood pressure or not getting a boner? Thanks to Viagra old men everywhere now get to reconcile this decision regularly.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^rottenseed:
So she gets high twice, has 1 good trip and 1 bad trip, and now they're reached an ultimate conclusion. Wow...science sure is easy.

Well i don't understand exactly what's going on with the separate experiments. I assume the cannabinoid is what you typically get from weed, and the pure THC is the extracted drug from the weed without anything else.
.


Maybe you are confused because they tried to dumb down the terminology. They are testing the interaction between two cannabinoids found in Cannabis, THC and cannabidiol. The idea is that new varieties of Cannabis have been selected from higher THC content, and that this throws off the ratio between THC and other canabinoids in the plant. The question is, "does the ratio of THC to other cannabinoids affect the frequency of psychosis in Cannabis users?" They are testing this by giving people either synthetic THC alone, or synthetic THC in conjunction with synthetic cannabidiol.

Their sample size is small, but the results appear to support the prediction that the effects of THC are altered by the presence of an additional cannabinoid that naturally co-occurs in Cannabis.

This appears to be the research they are reporting on:
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v35/n3/full/npp2009184a.html

I don't see why the marijuana users have their hackles up about this. Wouldn't it make sense to push the breeding community to develop strains with smoother, or a wider variety, of highs, rather than constantly pushing for greater potency? Maybe they are already doing this?

Your refutations were (in order)

"This guy believes in evolution"

"We can never prove anything about the fossil record"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is crazy"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is a probable creationist"

Yeah, amazing refutations..which you got from a website, while calling me out on doing the same thing. Evolutionists, biologists, palentologists etc DO dispute the theory of evolution..you were right though..the ones I provided were kind of weak. You'll have an infinitely harder time refuting these:

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate.

After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

Loren C. Eiseley,
Ph.D. Anthropology. "The Immense Journey". Random House, NY, p. 199

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain:

I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other.

Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Professor Jerome Lejeune,
Internationally recognised geneticist at a lecture given in Paris

"Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth."

Michael Denton,
Molecular Biologist. "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Adler and Adler, p. 358

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

L.Harrison Matthews,
British biologist

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."


L. Harrison Matthews,
Introduction to 'Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', p. xxii (1977 edition).


"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete, because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."

Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."


William B. Provine,
Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, 'Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life', Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.


"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers ? [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."


Hubert Yockey,
"Information Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257


"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others."


Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, p195)


"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message : Evolution versus Message Theory


"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."


Wolfgang Smith,
Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2


"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.
How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon.......In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."


Sir Fred Hoyle,
British physicist and astronomer, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, pp. 20-21, 23.


"...(I)t should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills. If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself."


Mills, Lancaster, Bradley,
'Origin of Life Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique', The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55, No. 2, February, 1993, p. 83


"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."


Wolfgang Smith,
Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.


"... as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention, explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of the omnipotent Creator."


Mae-Wan Ho & Peter T. Saunders,
Biologist at The Open University, UK and Mathematician at University of London respectively


"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong'. A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"


Tom S. Kemp,
'A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67


"We have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."


Niles Eldredge,
Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p144)


... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."


David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


"Thus all Darwin's premises are defective: there is no unlimited population growth in natural populations, no competition between individuals, and no new species producible by selecting for varietal differences. And if Darwin's premises are faulty, then his conclusion does not follow. This, of itself, does not mean that natural selection is false. It simply means that we cannot use Darwin's argument brilliant though it was, to establish natural selection as a means of explaining the origin of species."


Robert Augros & George Stanciu,
"The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.160).







>> ^MaxWilder:
What the hell are you talking about? I refuted every one of your quotes point by point! I provided links to further information. The whole point was that your "evidence" of paleontologists speaking out against evolution was utter bullshit!
The only one where I discredited the source was from some no-name Swedish biologist that nobody takes seriously. Every other source was either out of context (meaning you are not understanding the words properly), or out of date (meaning that science has progressed a little since the '70s).
You have got your head so far up your ass that you are not even coherent now.
But you know what might change my mind? If you cut&paste some more out of context, out of date quotes. You got hendreds of 'em! </sarcasm>
>> ^shinyblurry:
So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^kceaton1:
>> ^ghark:
man that description is a bunch of nonsense, they are still the same band they just softened up their music and used heaps of slo-mo in the video.

Haters got to hate.
This is also the most mellow song on the album. I can agree with a lot of what you said. In fact I initially a few songs of LPs when they came out. Then I hated them by their second album and I still can only listen to remixes of a few songs; the rest feel like I'm getting an ear infection drilled into place. The albums to me are far "pop" aimed and were a complete teenage angst phase type music, in my music listening experience (it also explains their initial fan base. But, they're getting older and their tastes as well as their music will change). They were very young when they started. I know that from when I was twenty to know that my music (hell, everything) dramatically shifted.
I used to be an old school rap enthusiast and now I'm more of a Tool--metal/rock/progressive rock fan (like The Mars Volta, Lacuna Coil, Boston, The Beatles, Dream Theater, Soilwork, and Opeth--and on occasion I listen to Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog, The College Boyz, Cypress Hill, Icecube, and Eminem--who happens to be the only current rapper I musically like, Kanye West is O.K., but his personality tries my ability to like those songs, harshly.
Look at the video below that comes up at the bottom of this video(Linkin Park: Waiting For The End). See if that has any different value to you. Hopefully, it's listed below or you'll have to find it (I doubt you will look for it though, as it sounds like you hated them the day they came out and never gave them a second chance, especially since you took time out of your day to post your hate; I rarely do the same either, as bands do accrue a "reputation", like Nickelback--who I hate fiercely). It has much more impressive visuals than this slow-motion video, but shows "a bit" of their differences on the album. That's as far as I go in defending their NEW album; but you're free to go ahead and hate.
I doubt you've heard the album at all (the full thing not just the radio elements). As I'd guess you'd have slightly more meat to your hate, or a full opinion. In other words, you hate them for a lot of the reasons I hated them; also due to the fact that it was popular to do so.
This album is episodic; each part starting from the last, which just from that perspective, is a more traditional album and not like LP in the past. That is their main evolution. I should have been more specific that they seem to be -slowly- taking a more rock'n'roll/progressive approach to newer stuff. That's the biggest change. There sound has matured slightly. Mostly the hip-hop/rap styles/styling and the biggest change is in their synthetic/midi board use. Anyway, don't think I'm giving them the easy way out and complete, unflinching support, that has yet to be earned. Maybe in two more albums--if they continue in the same direction...
small edit- I hope I don't sound to harsh talking about you opinion, as I only wanted to make my viewpoint clear. I also changed various areas in my description that I think created your hate to "overflow". I meant evolution in only the most modest of terms, they are still very much a band that needs to change. But, they are taking some of those steps and I commend them for it. Most bands stagnate and rely only on what they know. Again, if you don't think they've evolved their sound I don't think you've given them a fair chance (not that you have to; just don't post your opinion and expect it to be left alone).

I'm not hating on the music, I really like Linkin Park, I'm just stating that I think your description of the music is taking things too far, adding lots of slow motion shots and screaming less is not growing up. Their new music is a bit knee jerk imo, they copped a lot of criticism and they are trying to overcompensate to please people, instead they should follow their own path, and personally I do not believe that they are doing this. So I guess that is where our opinions differ.


Alright, I see where you're coming from. We can agree to disagree; I think your point is very valid, as their music could have gone in a thousand different directions. I happen to like this direction and you don't; I can deal with that. It was more the attack on the description that irked me. But, I don't blame you as after re-reading it, it comes off as a "you-should-have-this-point-of-view". I appreciate your feedback. I hope you do as well. I like what they've become (I haven't paid much attention to them in the past to be honest, so if their hand "musically" was a forced issue--I'd be on your side most likely).

I'm an artist, drawing wise, and if someone was hating on my artistry I wouldn't change it for them no matter what. As I do it for myself and to express myself how I want. If you sell that out, I'd have to say that you've lost any credibility you had (and if LP did that; it makes me think less of them now). But, more importantly you lose your "heart", which you need badly in any art. You lose that aspect and you'll grow to hate yourself (the downward spiral so to speak).

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^ghark:
man that description is a bunch of nonsense, they are still the same band they just softened up their music and used heaps of slo-mo in the video.

Haters got to hate.
This is also the most mellow song on the album. I can agree with a lot of what you said. In fact I initially a few songs of LPs when they came out. Then I hated them by their second album and I still can only listen to remixes of a few songs; the rest feel like I'm getting an ear infection drilled into place. The albums to me are far "pop" aimed and were a complete teenage angst phase type music, in my music listening experience (it also explains their initial fan base. But, they're getting older and their tastes as well as their music will change). They were very young when they started. I know that from when I was twenty to know that my music (hell, everything) dramatically shifted.
I used to be an old school rap enthusiast and now I'm more of a Tool--metal/rock/progressive rock fan (like The Mars Volta, Lacuna Coil, Boston, The Beatles, Dream Theater, Soilwork, and Opeth--and on occasion I listen to Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog, The College Boyz, Cypress Hill, Icecube, and Eminem--who happens to be the only current rapper I musically like, Kanye West is O.K., but his personality tries my ability to like those songs, harshly.
Look at the video below that comes up at the bottom of this video(Linkin Park: Waiting For The End). See if that has any different value to you. Hopefully, it's listed below or you'll have to find it (I doubt you will look for it though, as it sounds like you hated them the day they came out and never gave them a second chance, especially since you took time out of your day to post your hate; I rarely do the same either, as bands do accrue a "reputation", like Nickelback--who I hate fiercely). It has much more impressive visuals than this slow-motion video, but shows "a bit" of their differences on the album. That's as far as I go in defending their NEW album; but you're free to go ahead and hate.
I doubt you've heard the album at all (the full thing not just the radio elements). As I'd guess you'd have slightly more meat to your hate, or a full opinion. In other words, you hate them for a lot of the reasons I hated them; also due to the fact that it was popular to do so.
This album is episodic; each part starting from the last, which just from that perspective, is a more traditional album and not like LP in the past. That is their main evolution. I should have been more specific that they seem to be -slowly- taking a more rock'n'roll/progressive approach to newer stuff. That's the biggest change. There sound has matured slightly. Mostly the hip-hop/rap styles/styling and the biggest change is in their synthetic/midi board use. Anyway, don't think I'm giving them the easy way out and complete, unflinching support, that has yet to be earned. Maybe in two more albums--if they continue in the same direction...
small edit- I hope I don't sound to harsh talking about you opinion, as I only wanted to make my viewpoint clear. I also changed various areas in my description that I think created your hate to "overflow". I meant evolution in only the most modest of terms, they are still very much a band that needs to change. But, they are taking some of those steps and I commend them for it. Most bands stagnate and rely only on what they know. Again, if you don't think they've evolved their sound I don't think you've given them a fair chance (not that you have to; just don't post your opinion and expect it to be left alone).


I'm not hating on the music, I really like Linkin Park, I'm just stating that I think your description of the music is taking things too far, adding lots of slow motion shots and screaming less is not growing up. Their new music is a bit knee jerk imo, they copped a lot of criticism and they are trying to overcompensate to please people, instead they should follow their own path, and personally I do not believe that they are doing this. So I guess that is where our opinions differ.