OK then. - A home-made jetpack - Some fuel - A satellite navigation system

It's not really an issue of 'fun' - there's already a topic created specifically for this. That topic was created for a purpose, you know :P

Well, it's easy to apologise, but harder to truly mean it (as MisterGeneral pointed out) ^_^ And yes; I don't think that there's anything embarassing about openly acknowledging that I'm in the wrong when I am - I find it very difficult to give false apologies (i.e. just saying sorry for someone else's benefit) though.

I can come :) However, there is a topic for arranging this sort of thing already: Ranking Up Parties!.

Congratulations :lol:

- A jetpack - Some fuel - A satellite navigation system

Thanks! If heaven does exist, giving God a good reference of me would be much appreciated. Oh, how generous of you :P

Yeah, pretty much - well phrased! ^_^

And the cry goes out... happy birthday, Sel ^_^

Well, detentions aren't so bad really :lol: That is a matter of opinion, my dear friend, which is irrelevant to this particular subject matter.

If that means heaven/hell, I don't believe in either. I personally think that one should celebrate life itself by living it to the full, rather than living in fear of, or living for, what lies on the other side. (EDIT) I'd also like to commend EVISITORS for his constructive moderation in this thread (of course, I will not discuss these particular actions, but good job) ^_^

Are all your dream that philosophical? :lol: In any case, I just wanted to mention that I think your writing style is very impressive...

I do ^_^

Interesting video. However, I think the interviewer is missing some key understanding about science in general - for example, we can observe fossils as scientific evidence, so I don't know why he's discounting them as 'non-observable'... Please, explain to me how fossils are not observable, if they are physical and tangible pieces of evidence. Basically, they got an interviewer who's decent at persuasive speech (but still rather misguided), and interviewed intellectuals who might not be so good at spontaneous responses. Even then, they have obviously cut out bits, and chosen to include the answers which were weaker on purpose. For those reasons, I do not think that this video is a fair way to represent macroevolution - there is obvious bias, the obvious selection of poor answers, and the wrong people have been interviewed. Why not interview the 'experts' themselves? I would love to see that guy questioning Richard Dawkins, for example; I am sure the interviewer would be corrected on more than one occasion :lol:

Railgun and Isida ^_^

:lol:

I remember... It was pretty fun, actually ^_^

IMO: Rebound.

Hmm... I think that as the least corrupt party on there, AAP has my support. Congress and BJP are as bad as each other. Though this'll probably be closed soon, as political discussions are censored here on the forum.

I'm still waiting for a response to the points I raised :P I can offer more evidence, but I am under the impression that it would unfortunately fall on deaf ears, so to speak.

Well, yes. Albeit in a non-liquid state.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, actually. I'm not quite sure what's so confusing about the idea, especially since you understood it so well. Rather than dismissing it as absurd, it could be seen as a mathematically correct explanation. If the universe is infinite, then there is bound to be a planet with the correct conditions for life. As Achilles said, life often adapts to its surroundings, too, and not the other way round. The first bit was about evolution, which does not occur by chance. We then diverted onto creation, for which chance plays a major role.

Interesting... Does that mean you'd pronounce it as "chom-bee", "chom-be" or "chome-b"?

Think about it this way. The universe is infinitely large. Therefore, if there is a chance of the right conditions occurring in order for life to form on a planet, however small, it is bound to happen somewhere in the universe. In this way, it is actually practically certain that at least one planet in the universe would have the right conditions for life. For example: let's say the chance of having the conditions we have is 0.00000000001. And as far as we know, there is literally an infinite amount of planets in our universe. What is 0.00000000001 (the probability) multiplied by infinity (the sample size)? The answer is infinity, and so the overall probability of such conditions occurring is practically certain - it's not just luck after all that us guys rely on ^_^

ATHENA, feel free to use whichever spelling of metre/meter you wish to - both are correct English spellings of the word. Now let's get over the variations between American and British English, and keep on-topic! I actually have no idea, and am interested to see if someone more knowledgable (map makers?) will be able to give some answers here.