thanks Eman, I was ready to post the "myth" that Avatars can't fall in love
not having "attachments" in your mind while becoming avatar, doesn't mean "not loving someone" in your normal life
Nickelodeon (ended 2008)
| WiseLad wrote: |
| also lot of people think that the storyline of Zuko, Aang and the Gaang will continue in book 4, in various interviews the creators of Avatar have stated that book 4 would be without zuko and Aang being part of the storyline, and have implied that it will be with new characters. |
Avatar: the Last airbender.
The legend continues; without Avatar: the last airbender, but georgie, a male character who got kicked out of Yu Gi Oh the spin off after the pilot episodewhere he made a joke about throwing a carddeck in the fire.....
I'm sorry, this is off topic isn't it.....well, I agree this is definately a myth lol.
| tomtitan wrote: | ||||||||||||||
|
And I thik you're right. Just because scientsts say i's impossible, doesn;'t mean it isn't. That;'s two things evbolution teaches us: optimism and non-perfectionism. Want a cookie?
| KrayZ_Katz wrote: | ||||||||||||||||
And I thik you're right. Just because scientsts say i's impossible, doesn;'t mean it isn't. That;'s two things evbolution teaches us: optimism and non-perfectionism. Want a cookie? |
About Darwin: first of all it's the biggest misunderstanding; Darwins interpretations was 'survival of the fittest' a selection pattern which makes certain species survive earlier then others; this selection pattern according to darwin doesn't have to fit extremely to the idea of evolution.
Things might change, but it's not saying they get better, Darwin isn't specific in this part, he's not perfectionistic when it's evolving 'progress' as for example early vitalists; evolution as the slow progress towards perfection.Darwin's actual theory wasn't the extreme evolution theory as most of the people understand it.
Second of all; there are a lot of fossiles found of predesseccors of humankind, according to different scientific tests on the bones they can track down how old the skeletons are. What is to be found of all the material found is diversing skeletons; from the earlier eras having more features of the ape (don't ask me what type) skeleton, slowly during time skeletons that have more resemblances of nowadays human. This is how the theory mankind evolved from the ape came up, and this is pretty much the closest toproof, people.
I don't like the way people see humans evolving from apes seeing as a bad thing. I don't see the ape as a weaker creature, it just has different features. Why shouldn't we be glad evolving from the apes? According to Planet of the Apes we should even be happier; it's even an honour lol.
Last thing;Mankind evolving from apesDOES have scientific proof (exactly these finds of human bones of predecessors), at least the part ofEuropean continent knows about that that knows how not to let science be interfeared with religion. ok, this is off topic, I know. So let me get back on topic for the next one.
Killing your children really is legal.
Just like breaking a chair I made amirite?
p.s: Realized a religious debate was going to pick up so here goes.
1.) We were never created, we've always existed.
2.) We don't die we simply disappear.
3.) Time happens in a looooooooop.
4.) Vision quests are fun.
5.) Cheesecake owns pie and other cakes, equally.
6.) My spirit will go onnnn for all of eternity.
7. Nothing is real, we're all just sitting in a blank room with images and sounds flashing in our minds.
| tomtitan wrote: |
| giants are actually anti-gods in norse mythology that are destined to kill the gods in the end of the world (ragnarok), there are fire giants from the fiery realm of muspell lead by surt and frost giants from jotunheim, there are also regular giants. giants are wise and powerful beasts and they are the arch-enemies of the gods, they aren't a large race of savages that live in the mountains as some sources suggest. most gods had one parent who was a giant/ess, loki had 2 giants for parents, but was still considered an Aesir. |
| Sektos wrote: |
| Thank you Psyche987. The fact is there's an abundance of proof on evolution; fossils (we have NUMEROUS FOUND links, though creationist still say they're missing), comparing DNA showing how geneticly similar species our to one another, and how some our more closely related (chimps and Humans have less than 3% difference in DNA), comparative anatomy eg pentactyl limbs of animals in all animals (fins and bird wings are fused, but the bones are still recognisable), comparative embryology- shows how embryos of animals begin the same and split of in different stages of developement (ep our embryo's have gills that turn into ears) biogeography with animals being found in specific environments. H*ll, its shown in the domestication of animals like cats and dogs, and even moths in london changed during its industialisation to blend in with the now blackened tree bark and buildings. Global warming- The fact that green house gases are dozen times higher than ever before, the rapidly melting ice caps, the server droughts here in Australia has caused hundreds of farmers to sell up, and we have a serious water shortage, storms have been getting worse and worse (take Katrina for example). Its incredible clear, with the vaaaast majority of scientist saying that it is real. H*ll, John Howard, our cr*ppy conservatice b*stard PM has had to come out and agree its real. |
Ooh....there's just a new release of some guy named Bjorn Lomborg; the dude denies Global Warming....I don't know what to think about that, but I'm dying to read his new book, just to see what's playing in this man's mind and if he hasactual proof againstit...I bet he doesn't.
Though I do think global warming is not mainly caused by humans, we play a humongous part in causing it....I'm not so keen in science myself, but I've heard rumours of a new ice age after the global warming.....
Back on topic: Now rumours are Kuzon might be Zuko's grandfather from Ursas side...but we still have to see lol.
| Psyche987 wrote: | ||||||||||||||||||
About Darwin: first of all it's the biggest misunderstanding; Darwins interpretations was 'survival of the fittest' a selection pattern which makes certain species survive earlier then others; this selection pattern according to darwin doesn't have to fit extremely to the idea of evolution. Things might change, but it's not saying they get better, Darwin isn't specific in this part, he's not perfectionistic when it's evolving 'progress' as for example early vitalists; evolution as the slow progress towards perfection.Darwin's actual theory wasn't the extreme evolution theory as most of the people understand it. Second of all; there are a lot of fossiles found of predesseccors of humankind, according to different scientific tests on the bones they can track down how old the skeletons are. What is to be found of all the material found is diversing skeletons; from the earlier eras having more features of the ape (don't ask me what type) skeleton, slowly during time skeletons that have more resemblances of nowadays human. This is how the theory mankind evolved from the ape came up, and this is pretty much the closest toproof, people. I don't like the way people see humans evolving from apes seeing as a bad thing. I don't see the ape as a weaker creature, it just has different features. Why shouldn't we be glad evolving from the apes? According to Planet of the Apes we should even be happier; it's even an honour lol. Last thing;Mankind evolving from apesDOES have scientific proof (exactly these finds of human bones of predecessors), at least the part ofEuropean continent knows about that that knows how not to let science be interfeared with religion. ok, this is off topic, I know. So let me get back on topic for the next one. |
My point is, why does it HAVE to be evolution, a theory that hangs so clearly on faith that it's almost the equivalant of creationism. You know, the Bible's REALLY historically accurate, and scientist have been trying to disprove it for years to no avail. The world of the supernatural can not be exploreed by science. That's where a lot of scientists make their mistakes.
Theories can not be disproved, only proved. Neo-darwinism has NOT been proved at all. Hence why it's still just a theory that is doubted by many renownd scientists...
-withdraws to corner- I feel like I'm being scolded which is why I hate these things...
| Sektos wrote: |
| Thank you Psyche987. The fact is there's an abundance of proof on evolution; fossils (we have NUMEROUS FOUND links, though creationist still say they're missing), comparing DNA showing how geneticly similar species our to one another, and how some our more closely related (chimps and Humans have less than 3% difference in DNA), comparative anatomy eg pentactyl limbs of animals in all animals (fins and bird wings are fused, but the bones are still recognisable), comparative embryology- shows how embryos of animals begin the same and split of in different stages of developement (ep our embryo's have gills that turn into ears) biogeography with animals being found in specific environments. H*ll, its shown in the domestication of animals like cats and dogs, and even moths in london changed during its industialisation to blend in with the now blackened tree bark and buildings. Global warming- The fact that green house gases are dozen times higher than ever before, the rapidly melting ice caps, the server droughts here in Australia has caused hundreds of farmers to sell up, and we have a serious water shortage, storms have been getting worse and worse (take Katrina for example). Its incredible clear, with the vaaaast majority of scientist saying that it is real. H*ll, John Howard, our cr*ppy conservatice b*stard PM has had to come out and agree its real. |
