This should be stickied and where people can say and comment about the duel(s) in the forum.

Perhaps you should have one for each of the active duels so that comments don't get confused with where they are being directed.

Just use this format:

Title of Duel
Whose side you are on

Opinion/Comment






------
Sig

This post has been edited by Demosthenes: Nov 3 2003, 07:15 AM

Homosexuality

MWO: And then of course there are the Amazones.

Actually, I think the Amazons are pretty much agreed as a mythic group.

zaragosa, actually. Those Freudian slips are annoying, aren't they?

Homosexuality.

I believe Edward may be trying to argue faith against facts. He is obviously not as well versed in other cultures as one would need to be to claim homosexuality "unnatural"

Small joke.

Yeah, there's no debate if all of Edward's points are going to end up traced back to "Godidit."

Faith included in his case: Intelligent design, prime mover, etc. Doesn't he know he then has to prove all that? His case gets farther and farther away from its intended purpose by the post.

This post has been edited by purvisxiii: Nov 4 2003, 01:16 PM

Sticky!

Zaragosa is really letting Edward off easy, he could easily be ripping apart his reasoning on Creator intent and ties to biology.

Yeah, just read through the thread.

Zara's being a true gentleman by not asking Ed to prove his faith based arguments.

Ed on the other hand is coming through as a true and true Edit .

This post has been edited by Dragonspirit: Nov 7 2003, 02:58 AM

This was from Ed.

Don't lots of guys have anal sex with women?

And I don't think this rant is a really appropriate response to a statement about research.

Man, I have to restrain myself from jumping in everytime Eddy posts, he has so many problems with his arguement that it is just so hard to resist.

Amateur!

"It's wrong because God said so, according to me. Meanwhile, I have a 'theory...'"

I propose a rules change for this thread- the debaters can't post in it.

If they want to let them.

The homosexuality debate is getting boring. It rests solely (as I feared) on the assumption of creation.

Damn Sir Buckethead, I was going to move your post to this thread!

Could we put this part of the discussion over here?

This post has been edited by OCAB: Nov 10 2003, 12:44 AM

I think zara may have just check mated Eddy.

THAT's what I'm talking about.

I'm finally starting to like the Duel board.

What are you talking about, did you just see Zaras latest post? This is blockbuster stuff!

:P

Reminds me of the Monty Python Flying Circus episode where Ken Clean-Air-System (Cleese) boxes with a small school girl (Connie Booth). Fun on TV, tragic in reality.

So...any homosexual interaction that doesn't culminate in ejaculation is natural, normal and not deviant! But, unfortunately, masturbation is deviant, unnatural and abnormal, since the precious seed isn't being put to its purpose as designed by Invisible Sky Man. We should start having funerals for nocturnal emissions, I say! A tragedy!

We're finally getting somewhere!

Why does Eddy even bother anymore, there are so many problems with his arguement it's scary. At least we know his faith is strong, but that doesn't count for much.

:rolleyes:


So those agreeing with Eddie are medieval compared to those not?

GOOD point, dude!

Perhaps this should be moved to the Homosexuality thread in the Science forum.

Noah's Ark:

But not temperatures.

As a general remark, you probably want 'kind' to be some sort of cladistic group. For instance, dinosauria is any decendent of the most recent common ancestor of Iguanodon and Megalosaurus. But your problem would be determing preciesly where that line is. To continue using dinosaur examples (since that's the group I know most about the taxonomy of).

Two Broadest groups: Saurichia and Ornithicia.

Saurichia groups: Therapoda, Sauropoda
Ornithicthicia groups: Thyreophora, Marginocephalia, Ornithopoda.

General overview of groups:

Sauropoda - long necks, big bodies. The Brachiosaurs are in here.
Therapoda - the carnivores and some omnivors, including modern birds.
Thyreophora - both Stegosaurs and Ankylorsaurs.
Marginocephalia - Pacycelphalosaurs ("butt heads") and Ceratopsians.
Ornithipoda - The 'ostritch' dinosaurs if I remeber correctly.

If kind is the smallest unit needed to get the diversity of dinosauria, you might need only three specimins. You might not - a basal Ornithician and a basal Saurischian could do it. Of course, so could a basal Dinosaur.

To use kind in this way, you'll need to figure out things such as how rapidily species diversify and how much time they have to diversify. Using dinosauria as a hypothetical, you could need one pair, two pairs, or even five pairs (one for each major grouping).

That's how 'kind' can be usefull to your case. But in order to use it, you will need to make a case for the right 'level' of species diversity.

What about the insects?

And where DID all the water go? 5 miles' worth of it, no less!