random evil guy

ok, this is just wrong: morons! this is supposed to be an epic game; not some dumbed down board game... i guess the mod community will have their hands full once again.

butt ugly controller, but i'll probably get one anyway. playstation all the way for me. i don't really care about the specs and such, but metal gear and pro evolution soccer are my favourite console games, so i guess i have to stick to ps...

the movie sucked, but hot diggety jessica biel is fine! (w00t) :D

second that. i don't get that either. if you don't like it, don't buy it...

Well Abramovic has done some good things for Chelsea... As for Man U..I don't want it to be bought ...the club should belong to the city Oh please..they are by far the most succesful british club...very few teaqms can do what Man U did the past decades <{POST_SNAPBACK}> wrong, liverpool is the most succesful british club of all time...

it is rumoured that glazer now controls 70% of the shares. he is just 5% short of dumping his debt on the club. when(not if) he reaches 75%, man u will have a

it is rumoured that glazer now controls 70% of the shares. he is just 5% short of dumping his debt on the club. when(not if) he reaches 75%, man u will have a

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4540939.stm :D i love it!

now we're moving onto the very problem with democracy. shouldn't the minority in a society be protected from being targeted by the majority...? sometimes one must go against the majority...

Actually, I believe almost all the religions have creation stories that can either be taken as an allegory or generalised enough to make evolution possible. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> this is just one of many things i find a bit strange with christianity. who decides what in the bible can be taken metaphorically and what should be taken literally? i guess every time science disproves something from the bible, it is considered an allegory...? " Well, you raise an excellent point, one that christians should ponder before they bend their beliefs. Me personally, I take it literally, unless the text specifically shows it to be an allegory. Yes, I believe God created the world according to the Genesis account. Flame away. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> heh, i won't. you're entitled to your own opinion. i guess there as many interpretations of the bible as there are christians... i have a few friends that are christian, but they never(and i do mean never) attend church and they believe most of the bible to be an exaggeration at best. they say they care about the message of the bible, not the excact wording... on the other hand you have these crazy tv-preachers that are, imo, just nuts.

This approach starts from the idea that gay couples are in deficit, that their child-rearing skills are to be questionned because they are biologically incapable of giving birth to a child. Of course, this assumes that we're talking about gay men - lesbians can obtain artificial insemination through methods no more anomalous than any heterosexual couple with fertility problems. However, the main point is that the child-rearing has little or nothing to do with the biological ability to produce children. I've never read any studies on what the qualities of a good child-rearer are, but I imagine that love for the child and a stable relationship figure prominently, and the biological ability to produce children does not. This sounds to me like discrimination couched in very reasonable language. The idea is that 'we', the heterosexuals, shall sit in judgement over 'them', the gays, and 'they' shall not adopt children until they have produced evidence with which 'we' are satisfied. Most countries now have equality legislation, and that means the burden of proof lies with the opponents of gay adoptions to find some reason why it's wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> true, it must be switched around. the opponents must show why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children...

Actually, I believe almost all the religions have creation stories that can either be taken as an allegory or generalised enough to make evolution possible. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> this is just one of many things i find a bit strange with christianity. who decides what in the bible can be taken metaphorically and what should be taken literally? i guess every time science disproves something from the bible, it is considered an allegory...? "

if i remember correctly, the pope(previous one) said so. he said evolution didn't contradict the christian beliefs. or something like that...

i think the catholic churc has pretty much accepted evolution. at least they've not ruled it out...

Granted, but should they be allowed to adopt children? Do you disagree with the above? Which is why one persons morality should never be forced on another. I guess its up to you, as the author to say when we've go off-topic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1.i don't see why not. or let me put it this way, i want gay couples to be allowed to adopt kids, so that the kids will get the best parents possible. excactely how one decides which couple is more suited than another, is something i haven't given much thought. i just don't want to see people being discriminated purely on their sexual preferences... 2.i agree, but isn't that what the christians are doing in this matter? they believe homosexuality to be a sin and gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. 3.ok, i guess we'll leave the whole evolution thing aside and focus on this issue for now. :cool:

which is my point. marriage is nothing but a legal contract. i see no real reason, other than moral values, to why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to married. ...and moral values differ from person to person. EDIT: btw, this thread is going in all kinds of direction at the same time now. what are we really discussing here? moral values and gay rights? that the christian church is evil or the evolution theory? if it is evolution, then i'd recommend http://www.talkorigins.org/ i like that site. very informative and pretty objective.

nope, i just realised that we will never agree on homosexuality and adoption rights and stuff like that... i'll comment on the rest of this post later

Rationality is on the theist side. You can debate that atheistic evolution exists or unicorns and its the same debate as I see it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i'm sorry... are you refuting the theory of evolution now? btw, what is atheistic evolution? the theory of evolution, like the big bang theory, doesn't disprove god. it has nothing to do with religion at all...

1.what about heterosexual couples that can't reproduce? 2. bollocks! prove it or shut it!

i agree. tried reading it a few years ago, but it was kind of boring. too much crap. like someone said, numbers is just absolute nonsense...

no, i used wikipedia at first to sort of get the big picture. i used different sources in the actual thesis... most of the articles in wikipedia were actually quite good(they were on algebra), but i ended up citing other, a bit more "serious", sources...

noooooo!?!? it does...? (w00t) (w00t)

even the catholic encyclopedia admits that the passage might be a forgery. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm a very different source: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html the point being, everyone is in agreement that the passage is very questionable. some say it is a flat out lie, while others just find it peculiar. this is the only mentioning of the historical jesus that is of any worth. 1! isn't that suspecious...?

i've only used it for my master thesis(a few historical facts) and at least they all turned out to be true...