Search Results

- My third best prank would be being this close *holds two fingers on very short distance from eachother* to selling some dude's car.
- My second best prank was in elementary school, where my friend faked her first period by staining the inside of her pants (borrowed from me since it was my idea) with copious amount of fake blood and storming out of the restroom crying. I had a role as well.
- My best prank was when we sold frozen horse shit on a stick and said it was ice cream.

All of which succeeded by the way.

So that's been done already. Oh fuckberries!

Strangely I, who is not a weaboo, never had that problem.
Neku did get annoying after a while though.

That's because we're sophisticated, I'm sure.

Guess I'll be sleeping in the wine cellar like always. You won't hear any complaints from me.

I matured out of the Spam Zone. That's why.

One argument against so-called Intelligent Design is the sheer amount of intermediates in metabolic pathways imo.

One example out of thousands:
The release of alpha-amylase in the endosperm of a plant embryo is induced by gibberellin. While hormone signals to activate enzymes are nothing special, I've always stopped to wonder why tey have to pass through so many intermediate signals. For the example of gibberellin:
1) Gibberellin (GA) binds on a receptor in the cell membrane.
2) It interacts with a G-protein complex. This initiates two transduction pathways: Ca-ion dependent and a Ca-ion independent one. The latter will be important now, the former later on (I won't go as far with my explanation).
3) An activated GA-molecule acts as a signaling intermediate (!) and binds on a transcription-blocking DELLA repressor.
4) The repressor degenerates, an MYB gene is expressed (among others).
5) But this is not yet the gene for amylase! Nooooooo! First an MYB protein is synthesized for reasons that escape me.
6) This MYB protein finally finds it in its heart to bind on a promotor that actually does initiate genes that initiate amylase-processing.

Why is there a step nr. 5 between 4 and 6? What could be the use of an MYB protein if an intelligent designer could just as well draw the line from 4 to 6 straight out without any twists and turns or stops along the way?

If this doesn't sound inefficient or unintelligent to you, then I don't know what does. For those of you who would like to have it spelled out, here's why:
Reason #1: Speed. A more direct synthesis of amylase would speed things up a little, there's no arguing about that. However I will admit that this is a rather futile argument since the current lack of speed doesn't seem to hinder the organism.
Reason #2: Error hazard. And this is significantly more important than reason #1. During every step of the amylase synthesizing protocol, something can go wrong. Fewer steps would mean fewer chances that the entire operation derails.

As you well know this case doesn't stand on itself. Rather, many life forms have an overload of intermediates in their metabolism and thus lack maximum biological efficiency.

I don't buy the "they're just not strong enough" bullshit.
You said yourself that you're stronger than you used to be. You're living proof of what you're trying to disprove. The same goes for me and childofturin. Everyone can grow a spine when they try hard enough. I never said it was easy.

Styx and stones will break your bones but words will only hurt those who would rather drown in self-pity than actually change something about themselves.

What I'm trying to say is that those people have no right to be more sensitive. Because every ****-for-brains can think and realise what childofturin and I have realised long ago. :)

Thanks a lot! :)

Blue Oyster Cult --- The Marshall Plan

Pulling the God card as usual.
Anyway, I stick to my point that words shouldn't hurt or offend in almost all cases.

Example 1:
I laugh in the faces of paedophilia, poverty, the Holocaust, racism, teenage subcultures, ignorance, incest, 9/11, death, school shootings, AIDS patients and everything between. I'm sure I crack up one hell of a lot more than some sour bag of serious who gets offended by 2/3 of what he sees on the news. :D

Example 2:
I've never taken trash talk about my appearance or taste in music or whatever seriously. I take criticism to heart and know how to sieve useful critique away from mere bashing

Example 3:
Brutal honesty and sarcasm. Supposed to hurt their recipients from time to time.
Personally I don't give a rat's ass. It's called brutal honesty for a reason. If you can prove them wrong, then go ahead. If you cannot, then your only option is to suck it up. You have by no means the right to be hurt as long as your conversation partner's sharp tongue is speaking the truth.

Exception:
Gossip. People telling lies behind your back up to the point that people will begin treating you differently because of it. In this case, words can hinder you. Still, people ******ed enough to believe everything they hear aren't a big loss anyway.

Oh I'm sorry, I was too busy playing this:

Emperor Hirohito?

I'd have made an anonymous call to the police. I don't know about the cops there but in my country they are obliged by law to take every tip seriously. Explicitly demand discretion and send them over to where these boys were headed to.

The way I see it, being careful is one thing and turning a blind eye for the sake of convenience is another. I know you wouldn't do the latter though.

Maybe whatever they felt was inner strength and they'd rather point the finger at God than to believe that they had it in themselves.
Or maybe they weren't so convinced of atheism after all (which is the explanation I lean towards).
It's a feeling like any other. Ask 100 people who have felt it what it was. Can you really say that even half of them will think it's God?

This of course raises the matter of how and why some people feel his presence while others don't.

Actually, according to your own post, you can't say that for sure. ;)

ZOMG REVERSAL TIME!!!! DING DING DING!!!
I know Christians who became atheists because they didn't.

We don't need even that. Arguments that make actual sense will do.

Proof = evidence =/= arguments
Debating sharply is all nice and good but you don't have to bite HadesDragon's head off just because he wants to teach you something that might prevent you from making you sound like a novice. Especially considering that there are debators out there who like to rub it in much more than he does (e.g. me).

There is one more thing I would like to point out. This is directed at all Christians that believe in evolution.
The Bible tells us that God created the world in seven days, with all creatures in their original form. You do not believe this. I'm pretty sure that you can name other stories in the Bible that you don't take literally as well.
My question is only fair: if you admit that science has disproven or at least minimized a lot of biblical stories, then why would you still believe any of them at all, including God's very existence? Why do you still cling to the Bible even though it has lost so much of its reliability? Oh, and I would like an answer without the "feeling his presence" non-argument.
The power of your answer will decide on how much I support the "LOL dumb Christians they believe in something they can't even feel" statement.

Jaga Jazzist --- Low Battery

You must lurk in the Fun And Games section forevermore is you're planning to keep that.