Tyrion

>We know that species evolve. We have seen new species evolve within our lifetimes. Any biologist who does not believe evolution works in a very real way cannot be competent at his job; he would be at a massive disadvantage. He'd be about as hireable as an airline pilot who believed the earth was flat. ("I can't fly to Beijing! I'll fall off the edge!") Creationists have no problem with microevolution, it's macroevolution that the problem lies with. Macroevolution had not been observed, cannot be measured, and is largely speculative. This is why I disagree to it being taught as fact. Microevolution is common sense, and can be observed and measured. >Intelligent design is indeed a theory, but it is a religious, not a scientific, one. If God did it, it gets taught in a religion class. If nature did it, it gets taught in a science class. If man did it, it gets taught in a history class. That's pretty simple. It would surely make no sense to teach the glory and the passion of a nuclear reactor in a religion class. You divorce science from religion like the two are not related somehow. I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. You're saying God can't exist within the realms of science, which is rediculous if there is a God. It's like it just gets chucked in the relgious nut bin if the word God is even mentioned. >Science does indeed disprove parts of the bible (i.e. the Genesis literal interpretation Depends on your presuppositions. >the Noah story Depends on your presuppositions. There's more credence for a world-wide flood than you probably realize or have researched. Presuppositions are everything. >the idea that you can see the entire earth from a tall mountain Not sure where that one comes from, mind showing me from the bible? (www.biblegateway.com) >but it cannot disprove faith, since faith is something you believe without proof. What proof is needed? Something phsyical.... tangible... observed or measured.... like macroevolution? Belief that macroevolution is fact is faith, because it cannot be reproduced, measured, observed... its just a theory. >But science doesn't work that way. What is taught in science is what can be proved, and what theories can be shown to best fit the facts. It is not influenced by what you want to believe without proof. That's bulldust. Macroevolution (and you may notice i'm drawing the distinction now between the two types, because they are both different) cannot be proved as you just said "What is taught in science is what can be proved", it is merely as you said "what theories can be shown to best fit the facts". Take God out of the equation, and macroevolution fits SOME facts. (This next sentence is not a personal attack!) By the way those two statements of yours contradicted... which is it? Science is something that can be proved? Or, science is a theory which fits some of the facts? Because one does not equal the other. >Uh, no. There are a very small group of scientists behind the latest creationism effort (i.e. ID.) Their claims have all been debunked. There more scientists than you think, and all their claims have certainly not been debunked. Take a poke around this site http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and read some of the material. They have a really good magazine with interesting reading, that is, if you have an open mind and willingness to consider a differing point of view... many can't handle it because it flies in the face of what they've been taught all these years, that macroevolution is fact, etc. >Science knows quite a bit, and is learning more all the time. The idea that "well, nothing really works like science says it does, so the world could have been a ball chewed by a puppy as much as it could have condensed from a protosolar disk" is invalid. I know science knows quite a bit, but teaching things as fact when they are theory is the bit that bugs me. >Of course. But "holds water", "seems right to me", "supports my belief system," "reinforces my faith," "proves we're not godless," "glorifies God" or whatever rationale you want to use is simply not the same as "scientifically valid." And what we should teach in science classes should be scientifically valid. "holds water" is what I meant by "scientifically valid", please don't try to stereotype me as some religious nutter. Neither has more validity than the other. If you had extensively studied both sides, you might see this. What you and most everyone else has seen is only what they are fed in schools and universities though. Edit: For typos.

I do wish they would teach evolution as theory though and not fact. It's far from proven. Intelligent design IS another very valid theory, with much scientific backup, but people never hear or read about that side of things, they merely dismiss it as religious babble. The way i see it, there's 2 options. Either there is a God and he created the universe, or there is no God and the universe created itself (evolution). If science had disproved God then the first option would have been done away with a long time ago, but it hasn't and can't, so why teach evolution as fact? It has so many holes in it's theory, even all the top scientists will say so. The philosophy behind science should also be taught in schools, but unfortunately it isn't so many people just take whatever "science" says as fact, but the real fact is that "science" chagnes it's standpoint and opinion on stuff all the time, and really doesn't know much for sure at all. I have looked into both theories myself, and both theories hold alot of water depending on the pre-suppositions you come at them with. (and there's always pre-suppositions assumed whether we like it or not.... the biggest of those being, "Is there a God").

Make something like this: http://www.blincmagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23747 Cheers!

Three weeks here, can't wait

I went to the movies to see it with my mates. I got the jokes and all the political stuff, and there were definitely SOME funny moments... but i ended up being so bored i fell asleep for about half an hour of it. It was just the same crap over and over. Ugggh i hated it.

Hiya Thijs, I'm in nearly exactly the same position as you. I've been lurking around for a while just absorbing information, reading/watching everything I can get my hands on, and saving the cash for my AFF, rigs, etc. I'm starting skydiving for the purposes of to getting into BASE, but understand that I need to do it slowly and carefully. BASE will always be around, so there's no hurry, and no need to share your desires with those who may not be interested in helping you achieve your goals! I'm from Sydney, not sure where abouts you're from, but i'm sure we'll meet some time soon in the Aussie Skydiving/BASE scene!

I wonder if Japanese people got english words tattooed on them....

134m, 440ft near Queenstown, New Zealand. Now THAT was fun

Take a look around here: http://www.gtagarage.com/

Or perhaps 71 jumbos one after the other, not simultaneously

Jason, Would it be worth writing in from Australia in support? Or would they not really even consider it because i'm not local? Anything to further the cause of legal BASE in any country...

Or you can get the FREE divX codec: http://www.free-codecs.com/download/DivX_Free.htm _ Even better.... Get all every available video codec all in one easy-to-install-package here: http://www.codecguide.com/ It also includes a Quicktime and RealPlayer replacement, so you can avoid all the crap that those guys bundle with their players.

Truth said in a joking manner perhaps.... Cuz i was thinking the exact same thing he posted! Ah well, who cares really

Aplogise for what? lol You're the one who blew it out of proportion. And no, chill is just like, hey mellow out a bit man, it was a joke.

Dude.... You perfectly summed up my opinion, couldn't have said it better.

http://miller28.server101.com/discus/articles/differences.html

Transcript here: http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2005_05_22/story_1389.asp Wasn't as bad as I was expecting from the ads at least. Jas, was the footage of Rob going off on the bike originally from stoopid base? Cuz nearly the same footage was on the ABA 2004 DVD too.

I'll set my recorder. Thanks for the heads up.

Here's a repost from the ABA site where I asked where I could get the ABA 2004 DVD: Original found here http://www.basejump.org/discus/messages/2/959.html?1111392248#POST389 Cheers, Jase

Seen the ABA 2004 DVD? It's got that stuff on there, as well as a heap of other great footage.

A quick getaway might prove difficult :)

No time in my schedule for it at the moment, but definitely will when things ease up a bit. :)

There's hope for me yet! 6'3 dammit. Flexability something i gotta work on!

Graphic Designer/Web Developer.

When I first told my parents I was interested in doing BASE, I'm sure they thought it was just a phase I was going through and it would fade. Though over the months they've seen me get more and more excited about it, seen me saving up money for the courses and gear and everything I need to get on my way, go to BASE meets and incessantly watching videos and consuming anything to do with BASE i can get my hands on, they understand it's a little more serious! My dad was a hang-glider for many years before he met my mother, then he settled into family life and sold it. When I get him to sit with me now and watch BASE DVD's and videos he mainly says, "I wish I could do that" but after injuries, and family and all that he wouldn't. They both ask me to be careful and make sure I do everything I possibly can to make it as safe as possible. In short, they're not entirely pleased, but they love me in whatever I do, and they're always on the look-out for news about BASE (fatalities/accidents especially lol, trying to talk me out of it!) or anything that could make me safer!