91 replies to this topic

[Melchoire]

There is no proof that evolution is actually real. We have no documented proof of an animal evolving to another species. We have proof of evolution within the same species (Better hoofs. Tails. Bigger Bumbs, Color change. etc). But we dont even have a partial change in a species to prove that evolution is real. All we have is perfectly functioning animals.

Evolution takes millions of years, Lamarkan evolution dates back about 300 years.

[Mr. Hobo]

Considering the US was the first to have free religion/speech/and press...I would think that would be important in any country

That doesn't sound right...

[Waser Lave]

That pretty sad. Where you never taught world history? Considering the US was the first to have free religion/speech/and press...I would think that would be important in any country

Actually it seems like it's you who wasn't taught world history. Firstly freedom of religion and freedom of speech have their origins over 2000 years ago, freedom of speech in ancient Greece and I can't remember exactly where freedom of religion originated but it was definitely BC. Freedom of the press was quite a bit later but certainly long before the US was even founded. Considering that the US constitution was based on English and French laws then it seems safe to assume that these freedoms were embedded in those laws prior to the US constitution too.

Edit: Freedom of the press was apparently founded in Poland in 1532, and freedom of religion in ancient India around the 3rd century BC.

[Sweeney]

This thread is a lol.

[artificial]

Furthure more, the way that we re-produce makes evolution seem even more impossible. During meiosis our cells repeatedly re-arrange the dna structure (so we can mutate easier I guess). But given the amount of time that it happens, the chances of two mutants in the same generation would seem impossible, and give that, how would the mutation continue on?

Is evolution not just defined as the change in a population over time?

Evolution by natural selection: with in any species there are variations, some of which hold an adaptive advantage. When there are selective pressures (environmental, competition for resources), individuals within the population who hold that adaptive advantage are more likely to reach adulthood, reproduce and pass on this trait to future generations. It is in this sense that populations change over time.

Mutation is just one source of variation. From what I have read, there are four:

• Mutation during DNA replication.
• Crossing over during meiosis, resulting in new allele combinations.
• Independent assortment of alleles during meiosis.
• Sexual reproduction - random male gamete fertilizes egg.

We see mutation around us all the time. Red hair, blue eyes, attached earlobes, cancer, baldness, skin color, color blindness and who knows, maybe even a gay gene. Is it so hard to understand that when selective pressures change the population does so as well, else they may become extinct. It's simple logic.

[kbbbb]

Wow...Thats retarded...Evolution is the cause of Global Warming? I knew it! Every time a species evolves it raises the temperature of earth by 10 degress! Solution? Extermination of all speciies! *Cocks Shotgun*

Ahh...no. Why are some species dying out for example what's happening to the coral in the Great Barrier Reef? Maybe the Coral isn't evolved enough to stand the warmer sea temperatures. It isn't because God has pointed his finger at the Coral and gone "coral, be dead".
Some species love the warmth. I think I heard something about having a jellyfish problem in Japan due to the warming of the sea and excessive polution. The life the Japanese want to eat- fish- are dying from being starved of breathable substance because of this. So the Japanese would be quite interested. Also algie is permeating the top of some oceans, creating "dead zones". Algie lives off the excessive carbon dioxide being fed into the eco system. Should the fish adapt and evolve, no probs. But at the moment, the Japanese are looking at a sea diet far more reliant on jellyfish, unless they can find a way to kill them off.

That pretty sad. Where you never taught world history? Considering the US was the first to have free religion/speech/and press...I would think that would be important in any country

According to Wikipedia, sourced from a Journal at Cambridge University, "Two of the most cherished values of the Roman Republic were freedom of religion and freedom of speech". Perhaps you are right about the US being the first nation of the modern era being the first to have a right written into its constitution allowing such freedoms, however France was very closely behind.

I totally disagree on press and speech. Should a black have spoken out, the would have been told to get back in their hole. And women only got franchise in 1920. The Isle of Man's women could vote in 1881, while the Kiwi and Cook Islander women were voting in 1893, Aussies in 1902, Finnish 1906, Norwegen 1913, Danish and icelandic 1915, Canadians 1917, British, German, Hungarian, and Irish 1918, Dutch, Sweedish, Belgians and Soviet 1919. No representive democracy can rightfully say it defends freedom of speech without universal suffriage. And although blacks were legally allowed to vote in 1870, there was only proper protections for them to do so until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'm not holding up Australia as perfect and won't- the Aboriginal people were banned from voting until 1967. But I certainally don't see the US as the bastion of free speech you're holding it out to be, and definately with its court system that doesn't serve costs against parties. If courts served legal costs, it would discourage vexatious litigation, ie the campaigns the Scientologists go on. There is a lot of self-censorship in the US for the fear of litigation.

So your telling me that we should force people to teach their kids what they dont want them to learn? The United States is not about FORCING people do what other people want (Through. Everyone tries ). Its not easy balancing both freedom of religion when everyone hates each other, but the government used to do a good job (Until the FUCKING FAITH CABINET was formed. Now the government is supporting religion. Shame on bush, and shame on obama for extending it)

That's as silly as saying manditory voting in Australia forces people to vote. I can go in, get myself marked off, and walk out. A kid can go to school, sit at a desk, shut up, and day dream. Nobody forces them to listen. But you can't tell me that teaching children nothing about how man came to be on the earth is the right way to educate. Sure, I was educated that there were nine planets around the earth. The catergorisation of them as such was too was a "theory"- they knew of other masses orbiting the sun but hadn't catergorised them. Just because this has now been revised/discredited, does that make that science a waste of time too? A scientific theorey as such evolution is a a good thing to teach, not just because there's some scientific basis to it- that's what Charles Darwin and Co spent their whole lives doing- but because it is a theorey, and should be taught as a theorey, not as a fact. I learnt about it when I was 16, and at that age scientists believe the human brain can understand complex problems. I'm not proposing it to be taught any younger.

The US is going through a faith revival, post Regan, then again post 9-11. Unfortunately (and this is another flaw in US Democracy) special interest groups and their lobbyists have too much power. Obama, at the present time and with their present strength, cannot silence them- to do that would be to lose the vote of many of the Republicans elected by this minority. He can, however, ignore them and set up committees to allow them to give "input" or whatever.

[iargue]

Actually it seems like it's you who wasn't taught world history. Firstly freedom of religion and freedom of speech have their origins over 2000 years ago, freedom of speech in ancient Greece and I can't remember exactly where freedom of religion originated but it was definitely BC. Freedom of the press was quite a bit later but certainly long before the US was even founded. Considering that the US constitution was based on English and French laws then it seems safe to assume that these freedoms were embedded in those laws prior to the US constitution too.

Edit: Freedom of the press was apparently founded in Poland in 1532, and freedom of religion in ancient India around the 3rd century BC.

Sorry, the / meant that we had all of them together at the same time. Some countries might have had 1, but they never had all three, and never had it actually implemented.

Is evolution not just defined as the change in a population over time?

Evolution by natural selection: with in any species there are variations, some of which hold an adaptive advantage. When there are selective pressures (environmental, competition for resources), individuals within the population who hold that adaptive advantage are more likely to reach adulthood, reproduce and pass on this trait to future generations. It is in this sense that populations change over time.

Mutation is just one source of variation. From what I have read, there are four:

• Mutation during DNA replication.
• Crossing over during meiosis, resulting in new allele combinations.
• Independent assortment of alleles during meiosis.
• Sexual reproduction - random male gamete fertilizes egg.

We see mutation around us all the time. Red hair, blue eyes, attached earlobes, cancer, baldness, skin color, color blindness and who knows, maybe even a gay gene. Is it so hard to understand that when selective pressures change the population does so as well, else they may become extinct. It's simple logic.

The human body is no where near as simple as that for it to just "happen". Our body is in perfect balance, and capable of protecting itself perfectly, we have thousands of extremely complex operations performed in our body, most of them we dont even understand.

"Is it so hard to understand that when selective pressures change the population does so as well, else they may become extinct."

Well...If we ever saw a specifies change... sure. but in they thousands of years of recorded history, we have yet to record an evolutionary change. Everything has been running just the same as it was before.

Also. Red hair, blue eyes, attached earlobs, and baldness, skin color, and color blindness are not mutations. They are determined by your DNA when your created....

[Waser Lave]

Also. Red hair, blue eyes, attached earlobs, and baldness, skin color, and color blindness are not mutations. They are determined by your DNA when your created....

Erm, they are most definitely mutations, at least in the cases of red hair and blue eyes... Just because they're now hereditary doesn't mean that they weren't originally mutations.

[iargue]

Ahh...no. Why are some species dying out for example what's happening to the coral in the Great Barrier Reef? Maybe the Coral isn't evolved enough to stand the warmer sea temperatures. It isn't because God has pointed his finger at the Coral and gone "coral, be dead".
Some species love the warmth. I think I heard something about having a jellyfish problem in Japan due to the warming of the sea and excessive polution. The life the Japanese want to eat- fish- are dying from being starved of breathable substance because of this. So the Japanese would be quite interested. Also algie is permeating the top of some oceans, creating "dead zones". Algie lives off the excessive carbon dioxide being fed into the eco system. Should the fish adapt and evolve, no probs. But at the moment, the Japanese are looking at a sea diet far more reliant on jellyfish, unless they can find a way to kill them off.

"The coral isnt evolved enough to stand the warmer sea temperatures". Hilarious. You just told me that evolution exists. Global Warming is a normal process of nature, and if evolution did exist, the coral would have evolved, or even began evolving by now, but they are just dieing off. Also, your ignoring thousands of other key factors. Australia still dumps waste into the water, humans swim in the water, people scuba dive there all the time (Scareing the poor things ). boats travel near there every day.

I suggest taking a look at global warming, and marine science. The oceans work so much differently then you currently believe that they do.

According to Wikipedia, sourced from a Journal at Cambridge University, "Two of the most cherished values of the Roman Republic were freedom of religion and freedom of speech". Perhaps you are right about the US being the first nation of the modern era being the first to have a right written into its constitution allowing such freedoms, however France was very closely behind.

I totally disagree on press and speech. Should a black have spoken out, the would have been told to get back in their hole. And women only got franchise in 1920. The Isle of Man's women could vote in 1881, while the Kiwi and Cook Islander women were voting in 1893, Aussies in 1902, Finnish 1906, Norwegen 1913, Danish and icelandic 1915, Canadians 1917, British, German, Hungarian, and Irish 1918, Dutch, Sweedish, Belgians and Soviet 1919. No representive democracy can rightfully say it defends freedom of speech without universal suffriage. And although blacks were legally allowed to vote in 1870, there was only proper protections for them to do so until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'm not holding up Australia as perfect and won't- the Aboriginal people were banned from voting until 1967. But I certainally don't see the US as the bastion of free speech you're holding it out to be, and definately with its court system that doesn't serve costs against parties. If courts served legal costs, it would discourage vexatious litigation, ie the campaigns the Scientologists go on. There is a lot of self-censorship in the US for the fear of litigation.

The government do not ever rule on anti-religion/anti-speed/anti-press ligations. There are no laws in the united stats that tell you that you cannot be part of a religion, there are no laws that prevent you from speaking your opinion. If you have any of those freedoms taken away, you will have your case heard, and you will have the right to have the supreme court rule on it. Yes, you do have to worry about extemist from both sides trying to dictate how you live your life, but nothing ever comes from it. I'm not sure where you get your information, but the united states isnt about people always fighting and being oppressed by religion. 90% of americans just live their life, not worrying about a thing. Millions of americans a day go to church, millions go to temple, millions pray to alah. They get to do whatever they please, and no one will tell them that they cant. No employer can tell them that they didnt get the job because of their religion. Please do not act like you know about my country while you live in australia...Thats just insulting

That's as silly as saying manditory voting in Australia forces people to vote. I can go in, get myself marked off, and walk out. A kid can go to school, sit at a desk, shut up, and day dream. Nobody forces them to listen. But you can't tell me that teaching children nothing about how man came to be on the earth is the right way to educate. Sure, I was educated that there were nine planets around the earth. The catergorisation of them as such was too was a "theory"- they knew of other masses orbiting the sun but hadn't catergorised them. Just because this has now been revised/discredited, does that make that science a waste of time too? A scientific theorey as such evolution is a a good thing to teach, not just because there's some scientific basis to it- that's what Charles Darwin and Co spent their whole lives doing- but because it is a theorey, and should be taught as a theorey, not as a fact. I learnt about it when I was 16, and at that age scientists believe the human brain can understand complex problems. I'm not proposing it to be taught any younger.

Forcing people to do something, regardless if they dont really have to do it, is against the laws of the United States. We will never force people to learn if they dont want to learn, we will not force them to vote if they dont want to vote. We dont force people to do things they do not wish to do. You still fail to understand that. We do not control our citizens.

The US is going through a faith revival, post Regan, then again post 9-11. Unfortunately (and this is another flaw in US Democracy) special interest groups and their lobbyists have too much power. Obama, at the present time and with their present strength, cannot silence them- to do that would be to lose the vote of many of the Republicans elected by this minority. He can, however, ignore them and set up committees to allow them to give "input" or whatever.

WE DO NOT SILENCE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES. If a special interest group wants to be heard, then they shall be heard. They can propose their ideals if they wish, but if it goes against our constitution it does not mean anything. UNDERSTAND THIS.

[Frank274]

This thread is a lol.

If people would read Darwin's book, maybe they'd understand. These arguments are just based on what seems like THEIR knowledge, not the true facts.

Please, people, for the sake of sanity, either go read Darwin's book or shut the fuck up. This is ridiculous.

[iargue]

Erm, they are most definitely mutations, at least in the cases of red hair and blue eyes... Just because they're now hereditary doesn't mean that they weren't originally mutations.

Blue eyes have been around since recorded history.... There is no proof it was a mutation....

If people would read Darwin's book, maybe they'd understand. These arguments are just based on what seems like THEIR knowledge, not the true facts.

Please, people, for the sake of sanity, either go read Darwin's book or shut the fuck up. This is ridiculous.

Some people dont believe Darwin. And darwins book only proposed a theory, which still has not been proven.

[Waser Lave]

Blue eyes have been around since recorded history.... There is no proof it was a mutation....

Recorded history is a very short period of time compared with how long humans have actually been around. You should definitely tell the scientists who found that mutation how wrong they are, I'm sure they'll appreciate you correcting them.

[Sweeney]

Just to clarify, iargue, do you seriously deny evolution and common descent, or are you just being a tool?

[Frank274]

Blue eyes have been around since recorded history.... There is no proof it was a mutation....




Some people dont believe Darwin. And darwins book only proposed a theory, which still has not been proven.

Mutations can be proven. Recessive and Dominate alleles provide proof of mutations. Maybe you think "mutation" means something like cancer? I'll have you know that a mutation is just a change in your DNA base. YOU yourself have about 120 different mutations that your parents don't have - your kids with have about 120 more that you don't have.

Mutations occur randomly. RANDOMLY. This is how evolution is possible. Survival of the fittest. If a mutation gives a bird say, a better way to sing a song, and it enables him to reproduce more offspring than a "normal" bird, that mutation is then spread out. Then his offspring will in theory be able to mate more because they have the "better genes."


Regardless if you believe in Darwin or not, just pick up a fucking biology book past the high school levels, and you will see. If evolution is not possible, why do whales have a pelvic bone behind their flipper? How is it possible that a human forearm has the exact same muscles (and almost the same layout) as a lion? How is it possible that a human embryo looks almost exactly the same as a monkey, whale, and bird embryo? Chance? I highly doubt that. "We did not come from monkeys." Explain to me why our embryos have tails.


If you haven't read Darwin's book, taken a class about evolution PAST the high school level, or you aren't a doctor in evolution, shut the hell up. I have not read Darwin's book, I'll admit, but I have taken a class over it. I have read my biology book. I have spent 4 weeks learning how Kingdom Animalia and all the Phylums are related, based on scientific evidence. Read a damn book for once.

[Mr. Hobo]

WE DO NOT SILENCE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES

...

[Morrigan]

WE DO NOT SILENCE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.

I think the people arrested during the Bush Administration for daring to protest felt they were silenced.

[Mr. Hobo]

I think the people arrested during the Bush Administration for daring to protest felt they were silenced.

Morrigan disapproves -5

[artificial]

The human body is no where near as simple as that for it to just "happen". Our body is in perfect balance, and capable of protecting itself perfectly, we have thousands of extremely complex operations performed in our body, most of them we dont even understand.

Nowhere near as simple for it to just happen? The thing about life is it isn't perfect, and ironically that is what makes it perfect. I put forward four arguments, all of which have been observed countless times scientifically. The only two that you probably don't understand/believe aren't so simple is mutation and crossing over during meiosis.

The latter has been observed scientifically. If you dispute that, do some research and don't just disregard it so easily without proof as you did above. And mutation? Need you seriously even think about it? I'll speed the process up for you, with the aid of mutagens:

Vietnam war, Americans sprayed a chemical known as agent orange. Offspring of those exposed to the chemical are in many cases highly deformed, often resulting in death. Hiroshima, nuclear bomb goes off. Same effects.

Approximately 60-70% of all mutations are damaging to normal body functioning, while that other 30-40% either neutral or slightly beneficial. Beneficial mutations do occur. Red hair being an example. Imagine we weren't the dominant life form on earth. For the sake of argument and fantasy, let's just consider Dragons as the most deadly predator in the world. Humans who lived in an arid environment, for instance a desert with red soil, would have a higher chance of survival as, from an aerial view a dragon would have a harder time spotting red-headed humans on the red soil as opposed to blonde/black headed humans. Over time, the population of humans in that desert would change to become red-headed.

"Is it so hard to understand that when selective pressures change the population does so as well, else they may become extinct."

Well...If we ever saw a specifies change... sure. but in they thousands of years of recorded history, we have yet to record an evolutionary change. Everything has been running just the same as it was before.

The entire point of evolution by natural selection is that in order to witness actual observable results, it needs to occur over evolutionary time (or a very long time period). How far back does human history go, 3,000 years? With life on earth approximately 2-3bn years old (forget exact number), 3,000 odd years is insignificant in terms of evolution, and thus the argument "why haven't we observed it?" is ridiculous.

Also. Red hair, blue eyes, attached earlobs, and baldness, skin color, and color blindness are not mutations. They are determined by your DNA when your created....

They most definitely are mutations. Like Laser said, just because they are now hereditary does not mean they always existed.

Since we can't actually observe evolution first hand, we have to look at other forms of evidence:

• Comparative embryology - i.e. early state vertebrate embryos are similar in that they have gill slits.
• Comparative anatomy - i.e. homologous/anatomical structures. Pentadactyl limb found in amphibians, reptiles and birds.
• Biochemistry - DNA-DNA hybridization. Analysis of amino acid sequences.
• Biogeography - study of distribution of species (divergent/convergent evolution) - Darwin's Galapagos finches.
• Paleontology (&transitional forms): able to find evolutionary pattern of some organisms (i.e. horse), plus transitional fossils (shows characteristics of 2 different groups, i.e. archeopteryx).

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but all lend support for evolution.

[crimsonsmile]

If you're interested in the debate on evolution (lulz, why is there a debate? sigh) you should look up AronRa on YouTube. He's a man that's studying paleontology and is very well educated. He can most certainly say everything in this thread far more succinctly and probably from an extremely better educated perspective than the average person. He also directly answers creationists in many videos. Evolution is taught very poorly by teachers that don't even understand the subject matter. If you don't believe teachers are terrible in the U.S. compare test scores on a global level (I'm referring to elementary and secondary schools when I say this, not higher education).

On a side note - the Catholic Church believes in evolution. Whether it is globally taught that way is another question. For those of you that are not Catholic, never have been and have never been exposed to it beyond conspiracy theory movies I'll explain the hierarchy a little bit. A good Catholic should believe whatever the Vatican/Pope says to be true. As they study various topics, and in light of new information (like science can provide), they often change how Catholics worldwide should look at things. They have various "learned" people studying biblical passages, science and a million other topics all the time. The official stance of the Catholic Church is that if science can prove something to be true, then it must be true, and that God made it that way. This is NOT how Catholics are taught worldwide. All it takes is a conservative (or liberal I suppose, but for this example it would be conservative peoples that still believe in ID) congregation or priest and things can be skewed wildly. Like any massive organization there are discrepancies because humans are fallible. Therefore, while the official line of the church may be one thing, the people you meet on a daily basis may firmly believe in something else that they've been taught by official representatives of that church. =/ Fun stuff, right?

[kbbbb]

"The coral isnt evolved enough to stand the warmer sea temperatures". Hilarious. You just told me that evolution exists. Global Warming is a normal process of nature, and if evolution did exist, the coral would have evolved, or even began evolving by now, but they are just dieing off. Also, your ignoring thousands of other key factors. Australia still dumps waste into the water, humans swim in the water, people scuba dive there all the time (Scareing the poor things ). boats travel near there every day.

I suggest taking a look at global warming, and marine science. The oceans work so much differently then you currently believe that they do.

I suggest YOU do. All the evidence I have seen from scientific channels provides strong evidence it is the warming of the sea that is damaging coral, not what you are suggesting.

http://www.gbrmpa.go...coral_bleaching

What causes coral bleaching?
The primary cause of coral bleaching is high water temperature. Temperature increases of only 1.5–2°C lasting for six to eight weeks are enough to trigger bleaching. When high temperatures persist for more than eight weeks, corals begin to die. Many other stressors can also cause bleaching including disease, sedimentation, pollutants and changes in salinity. These stressors usually operate at local scales. Elevated water temperature is of greater concern as it can affect reefs at regional to global scales. When bleaching occurs at these large spatial scales, it is a mass bleaching event.


Where has coral bleaching occurred?


Bleached staghorn coral Mass bleaching has now affected every reef region in the world. The spatial extent and severity of impacts of coral bleaching have been increasing throughout the world over the last few decades. A particularly severe, worldwide bleaching event occurred in 1998, effectively destroying 16 per cent of the world’s reefs. The Great Barrier Reef was affected by this global bleaching event and by another event in 2002. More localised bleaching occurred in the southern Great Barrier Reef in 2006.

Projected increases in global temperatures suggest this trend will continue over coming decades, placing greater stress on reefs. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has developed a Coral Bleaching Response Plan to provide a comprehensive strategy for detecting and responding to widespread coral bleaching during summer.

The government do not ever rule on anti-religion/anti-speed/anti-press ligations. There are no laws in the united stats that tell you that you cannot be part of a religion, there are no laws that prevent you from speaking your opinion. If you have any of those freedoms taken away, you will have your case heard, and you will have the right to have the supreme court rule on it. Yes, you do have to worry about extemist from both sides trying to dictate how you live your life, but nothing ever comes from it. I'm not sure where you get your information, but the united states isnt about people always fighting and being oppressed by religion. 90% of americans just live their life, not worrying about a thing. Millions of americans a day go to church, millions go to temple, millions pray to alah. They get to do whatever they please, and no one will tell them that they cant. No employer can tell them that they didnt get the job because of their religion. Please do not act like you know about my country while you live in australia...Thats just insulting

And then there was the Patriot Act allowing police excessive powers to detain and question individuals. It, by its nature, allowed abuses in police power and targetting of minority groups- ie, Muslims. And it did prevent freedom of expression. Did it acheve much? I'm not so aware of the terror plots foiled on the US mainland, but I am aware the US still hasn't caught Osama. And as I said, people are prevented from speaking out against large, well funded groups because of the way the US court systems work, regardless of what's written in the constitution. Just ask Rick Ross and the CANN. Groups can abuse the freedoms provided then sue, withhold and destroy evidence, then use libel provisions in civil law to destroy those who question them, with little fear of losing money (ie not awarding costs against losing parties). That is NOT freedom.

Act? I've been interested in US politics for ten years. If they didn't bar foreigners from joining the Dems I'd be there. I would have flown in and campaigned for Hillary. No, what's sad is there are Americans who know less about their country than a foreigner. Australia has a vested interest in the US, being one of our strongest allies. From the comment on coral, it sounds like far more the opposite.

And employers who see a person in a headscarf or turban may not say they've overlooked such and such because of religion, but it doesn't make it so. Proving such things are near impossible unless the employer was dumb enough to imply such things.

Forcing people to do something, regardless if they dont really have to do it, is against the laws of the United States. We will never force people to learn if they dont want to learn, we will not force them to vote if they dont want to vote. We dont force people to do things they do not wish to do. You still fail to understand that. We do not control our citizens.

In terms of forcing see above: Patriot Act.

There are many thing against US law, that the US signed treaty's agreeing to do. However, in terms of forcing people to do things, Bush knew that when he set up Guantanamo and held an Australian citizen there for YEARS without charge, abusing him both sexually and mentally. And the US forces also knew that when they tortured Hicks in Afghani territory, because they knew they couldn't lawfully do it on their own territory. Torture of other Guantanamo detainees was carried out in Egyptian soil without the intervention of US forces. For years, Bush refused to hold civilian trials for detainees at Guantanamo bay, preferring the secretive and unaccountable Military trial option. For those who are a prisoner of the US, this is evidence that international law need not apply and that the US government does NOT respect the Geneva convention. So what hope does that give to US citizens?

Australia does not force people to vote. Australia forces to get their names crossed off. And for GOOD reason. We can't have the same level of corruption that is present in US ballots because everyone MUST vote, and the special interest groups and republicans cannot turn people away the same way they do in the US. Why did Kerry lose? Because of dirty dog tactics in Ohio. Widespread turning away of black and hispanic voters, who would have pushed him over the line. We have state and federal electoral bodies running elections the same way, so there's no chance of confusion or obstufucation (ie voting Buchanan in floroda). If we had electronic ballots that were malfunctioning, more people would know, and they would bleet incessantly, and then the government would HAVE to do something. The elections, being run publicly, would not accept outsourcing building ballot machines and having them malfunction in the favour of one candidate over another.

WE DO NOT SILENCE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES. If a special interest group wants to be heard, then they shall be heard. They can propose their ideals if they wish, but if it goes against our constitution it does not mean anything. UNDERSTAND THIS.

You're still missing the point. One can write a constitution, and can put anything in there. The Soviet one was friggin awesome and promised just so much. It doesn't mean that the rights written in there can be upheld properly given the legislation that underlies it, and anyway- the legislature can pass anything they want, within reason, and then it will take a well funded court case to get the legislation overturned. The problem is, as I went through before, Congress is under the thumb of far too many special interests, pushing a lot of legislation that helps their cause. These well funded groups use and abuse the fact that the US court system does not award costs against losing parties.

And the fact that many appointments to the Supreme Court are political. Of the 9 justices that heard the 2000 US election case, 5 of them were either friends will or had received benefits from the Republican camp while they were sitting on the bench. Why is there such politicisation over Bush's appointments? Because women everywhere fear Roe v Wade is going to be dragged back up and overturned by a Republican appointed judiciary.
The Supreme Court appointments system in the US needs serious overhaul, including bans on appointing those who have ever been a member of political organisations, to retain it's credibility.

Another issue is that in the early part of the Iraq war, studies have shown that the US media were largely pliable and published positive stories about the war, ignoring the negative information trickling out. A free democracy can't function without a fully free press. And a fully free press has many different outlets in it- another issue with the US Media. Sure, bloggers can say what they want, but does anyone really take them seriously? Usually, no.
And what about the 2000 election, when Geb Bush told Fox News to run the story that his bro had won the election, and the other outlets followed? They seemed far more interested in making money (ie eyeballs on their network and not elsewhere) and not in fact. That garbage being run distorted possibly irreparably Gore's chances of winning, despite actually winning.

If the US is so free, then why is it that an AUSTRALIAN parliamentarian has spoken out against Scientology in Australian parliament? The true carnage of scientology lies in its homeland- the US- and Australian stories are just a drop in a large pond. Xenaphon's speech was about the repressions of legal and human rights caused by Scientology. So why hasn't a Congressman stood up and spoken out already, if the US is so big on freedom of rights?

http://www.rickross....ustralia16.html

Senator Xenophon told Parliament the Church of Scientology is a criminal organisation that hides behind its "so-called religious beliefs".

"The letters received by me which were written by former followers in Australia contain extensive allegations of crimes and abuses that are truly shocking," he said.

"Crimes against them and crimes they say they were coerced into committing.

"There are allegations of false imprisonment, coerced abortions and embezzlement of church funds, of physical violence and intimidation, blackmail and the widespread and deliberate abuse of information."

Senator Xenophon says the allegations are shocking.

"It is alleged that information about suspicious deaths and child abuse has been destroyed and one follower has admitted that he was coerced by the organisation into purgering himself into deaths of his two daughters," he said.

"These victims of Scientology claim it is an abusive manipulative and violent organisation."

[PeonYourLawn]

Yeah, I don't know what we're going to evolve into, but we're definitely after we can use more of our brain. I mean c'mon what do we use, 1/10th of our brain?

[outsidedream86]

And darwins book only proposed a theory, which still has not been proven

I really wish that argument wouldn't come up anymore. Herein lies the problem between the average person's definition of a theory and a scientific theory. In science a theory is a well-substantiated, evidence-based explanation for our observations on a given phenomenon. It takes into account what we know about the issue, and can be used to make predictions about it. Science cannot PROVE anything. A theory is literally the closest thing to proof that science has. Unless you have magic powers and can observe every single instance of the phenomenon in the past, present, and future at every single point in the universe, nothing can be proven in science.

So, you might ask, why doesn't it become the law of evolution? Well, laws can only describe observations. Theories try to explain why these observations occur and make predictions on future observations. A theory can never become a law because they are two different things. For example, there is a law of gravity (calculating its effects), and there is also a theory of gravity (what causes things to be attracted to each other?)

[luvsmyncis]

Yeah, I don't know what we're going to evolve into, but we're definitely after we can use more of our brain. I mean c'mon what do we use, 1/10th of our brain?

And some people use even less! God bless humanity.

[kittycat]

The flu virus evolves each year

[Eliam]

They are stupid. Simple.