I'd like to discuss a variation of perception with you; Interpretation. The way we interpret the world around us dictates how we interact with it, and the experience we will have. But I'm sure you already knew that. What you may not have known however is that individual interpretation applies to everything we personally come in contact with. Lets take for example reading text. The way you interpret what I write in this blog may differ quite dramatically from how I intended it to be interpreted. But to apply a good example we'll use a simple sentence.

Lets take the sentence "The quick brown dog jumped over the log". Every non conjunctive word (ie. "the" in this case) in that sentence is open fully to interpretation. Your idea if constitutes "quick", "jumped" and "over" will most likely differ from mine. As will your interpretation of what sort of dog it would be and the size, type and description of the log. In this way there are an endless number of combinations in which to interpret that sentence. Lets for this example focus on the word jump from that sentence. A jump to one person might mean that the dog only just clears the log, to another person it could mean the dog almost just walks over the log, to another person the dog could comfortably clear the log and yet again to someone else it could mean the dog was quite high in the air indeed. The variations of this one word alone are quick numerous, having not listed them all here; but only a select few.

In this same way we interpret everything we see, hear, feel, smell and taste, entirely in an individual way, with endless combinations on how to interpret the event. Our memories of prior experiences play heavily on our interpretation of things, but are not in any way the only ruling factor. Our personality, current mood, the terms of the social situation we are in at the time, the context of the event, the environment we're in all play heavily amongst other factors on our interpretation. For this reason, not only does our interpretation of an event end up individual to us, but also to the moment in which it is interpreted. For it is likely, with a variation in some of the contributing factors, such as current mood, our interpretation of the same event will change.

Now lets apply this to real life situations where interpretation may have considerable effect. The legal/justice system comes first to mind for me. Take the written laws and the process of enforcing those laws through the judicial system. Each individual judge, being a living being; is subject to this same individual interpretation as everyone else. The way a judge interprets a certain law can not only vary from others in the court room, but indeed from how the law was originally intended to be interpreted. In the same way, the judges interpretation of a law is subjective to the same factors such as mood as everyone else. On top of that, the exact same influences affect what the judge views as a fair punishment. With all that in mind is it any real wonder why we have such huge variation in who is punished for what and in sentencing?

It is because of this individual interpretation that juries we formed. But the jury itself can become subject to influence of interpretation. If a half of the jury members, being vocal agree on an interpretation of an event, their vocal nature of this fact can influence the interpretation of other members of the jury. So if for example you have 3 or 4 members of a jury who feel that the defendant is guilty because of A, B & C and theses jury members are very vocal of their feelings and dominant in the group the rest of the jury members will change their interpretation to fit. Remember humans are herd animals, we instinctively slot into dominant or submissive roles when placed in a group situation. Does any of that sound like justice to you?

Another example is rental housing; through inspections. What the real estate person feels is appropriate will depend on their mood, their personality, how they feel about the tenant, etc. What passes one time, could not pass the next even though the same person from the real estate does the inspection. In fact third party interpretation can positively or negatively influence every aspect of life. Whether or not you get that job, whether or not you keep that job, all comes down to interpretation. Arguments you have with friends, family and spouses come down to interpretation. Even whether you have religious faith is a matter of interpretation.

In this way our reality is as individual as our interpretation of it. For this reason it could be argued there is a distinct absence of absolutes. That while facts exist, such as the sky most commonly looks blue through-out the day; there is a lack of absolute. That is to say the shade of blue for example is a matter of interpretation.

I've been thinking lately about getting some life insurance quotes, see what it would cost me to be insured. I think it will take some looking around though and a lot of reading of "fine print" before I decide on one. I often wonder if it's even really worth it, I mean lets take funeral insurance for example. I know that $5000 worth of cover costs $2.30 a week. If I assume, like the insurance company does that it's most likely I'll live on to at least 86 then I can produce the following equation.

$2.30 per week times 4.3 weeks in a month equals $9.89 paid per month.
$9.89 per month times 12 months in a year equals $118.68 paid per year.
$118.68 per year times the expected 60 years of life left equals $7120.80

That means if I simply put the same insurance fee away in a bank account every week (I could set it up to be automatic for example) for the rest of my life and I did live an extra 60 years then I'd have $2120.80 EXTRA then if I'd gotten funeral cover. I wonder if it's the same sort of savings with life insurance? Never know until I find out I guess. And I suppose there is the fact that I don't know how long I'll live, I could drop dead tomorrow. Hrmmm... lots to think about, best get those quotes.

As a growing number of elderly and obese people purchase mobility scooters one can't help but notice the extreme public nuisance and safety risk they cause. Here we have vehicles which have some pretty powerful electric motors in them these days and are built very sturdy; mix that into a pedestrian situation and you have a recipe for injury.

I've noticed a growing trend of those using mobility scooters to both hog up the entire foot path. In addition the trend includes have no consideration or regard towards the safety of those of us who aren't so lazy as to be using one of these vehicles. There have been many times when I have been walking along the foot path, or even at the store when someone in a mobility scoot will come hooning along full pelt and force me out of the way unless I want to be run over. There has even been an incident when such a person clipped the side of Dee's pram.

These are vehicles plain and simple; anything capable of moving faster than the AVERAGE person can walk shouldn't be allowed in pedestrian situations. Any vehicle capable of moving faster than the average person can walk should be confined to ones personal residential property and the bike lane. Honestly the only thing that has stopped me from punching some of these people square in the face is the fact that the ones I've come across are elderly. I was always brought up to respect elders, so I have no choice but to just

What's even more concerning and somewhat puzzling is the looks people using these things give you. It's like they look down at anyone who walks. It makes you wonder if we're actually developing a society which far from wanting to slim down, actually looks down on people who live active healthy lifestyles.

When it comes to the health of your unborn baby you want to do everything in your power to ensure nothing goes wrong. Unfortunately there is so much confusion out there these days about food, that it's hard for most people to know if they're doing the right thing; nutrient wise for their baby. The good news is that most nutrients the baby needs will go to it, before they go to you. Your baby is also capable of stripping nutrients from you body to ensure it has everything it requires. But there are some nutrients which your body may not contain enough of that the baby will suffer for.

Nutrients like folic acid are important for good brain and nervous system development, including healthy spinal fluid. Iron carries blood around both your and your babies bodies, of which without you're both doomed. Unfortunately most pregnant women are deficient in both of these nutrients. It is for that reason that all pregnant women are recommended to take prenatal vitamins. The old thing is however, even though doctors have been giving out these recommendations for years the rate of uptake aren't anywhere near where they should be.

It's very telling to note that by taking a simple vitamin tablet daily the chances of your baby developing a birth defect such as autism drop to incredibly low levels very close to zero percent. Yet still we have percentages of these birth defects which show people simply aren't taking the medical advice to take a vitamin during pregnancy. It's almost unfathomable to me that anyone could be that careless in today's world.

As the number of obese and morbidly obese persons begin to rise and the United States of America even have to create a new category called SUPER morbidly obese for those people who weigh in the vicinity of a TON (that's as heavy as a small car!) you have to wonder, does the government have a roll to play?

While we all like to think we're in charge of our on destinies, our past influences our decisions far more then we'd like to think. If for example you grew up in a household where it was junk food every night and sports weren't encouraged, then guess what you're likely to be like as an adult? Even more so, guess what you're likely to be like as a parent?

I do agree that the individual needs to make their own decisive changes in their life. Over weight and obese people need to exercise, with an active lifestyle. If you feel self conscious about exercising in public or like Sarah you have in your head that walking places is "scummy" (which of course it isn't, I walk a lot and I'm certainly not scummy) then you could always buy a treadmill or other at home exercise equipment until you feel more self confident. The families of Morbidly and super morbidly obese people; people who can't even get out of bed due to their shear weight; need to stop enabling their food habits. If you can't get out of bed then you'll eat what you're given. People need to get up and move around, they NEED to exercise, daily and develop an active lifestyle so that exercise becomes a part of every day things instead of a chore they have to schedule in separate to everything else.

But I also think government has a role to play. It is clear at this point people are NOT going to change on their own, they need a good hard kick in the right direction which is where government comes in. There are several measures governments in the western world need to take.

(1) P.E. before school for pre-school, primary school and high school students. That used to be a part of schooling in the 70s and it worked well. Governments cut it to free up money, but it was actually a very valuable tool. Not only will it mean every child exercises daily, but it means they will be able to concentrate better in school, be more confident and are far more likely to carry on the approach into adulthood.

(2) The development of more Parks and sporting fields. There are some areas where there is a distinct lack of these sorts of facilities and without them people are unable to include certain activities in their lifestyle which would aide in the weight-loss problem. Sports are a major part of combating obesity, so without a facility to hold sporting events people can't expect to be healthy for very long.

(3) Proper dietary and exercise education. For far to long people have been going on about diet. About cutting foods out and limiting calories. This is a MAJOR factor in why we have the obesity problem the western world is facing today. Our bodies have evolved in a way that requires us to move around and use energy. But our society has evolved in such a way that we don't really move around and use energy anymore. This is the BIGGEST systematic problem of all and the REAL cause for the obesity problem.

You can attempt to blame fast food all you like, but the fact of the matter is the average diet in the 50s contained FAR more calories and FAR more cholesterol then we consume today. Our lack of movement is the huge problem. Food isn't the enemy it has been made out to be, it's simply food. ALL food is perfectly find in MODERATION. Too much of anything even carrots will cause you problems. In this way government should educate at the primary school, high school and adult levels about the importance of MODERATION and ACTIVE LIFESTYLE.

(4) Legislation making it a crime for gyms and weight loss services to give INCORRECT information on weight loss or to misrepresent the facts should be brought forward. It should be a crime for a weight loss service to continue the lie that it's all about diet and you need to cut out foods and calories.

(5) Cooking classes should be reintroduced to schools. One of the biggest reasons fast food has become so popular is people have lost the skill of home cooking. If we teach it to our children in a proper way they are more likely to make good food choices.

(6) Amendments to the child protection laws to include obesity. Children can only become obese through ineffective and neglectful parenting. If you are teaching your child the correct eating and exercise habits then there is no possible way you child can become obese.

(7) Legislating more strongly about the advertising of food. NO FOOD products of ANY kind should be advertised during children's television viewing times for example. Children shouldn't be in the drivers seat, that's the parents job, therefore children shouldn't be advertised to.

(8) Parenting classes, perhaps mandatory, for people with new babies. These classes would address general issues like diet and exercise, conflict negotiation, basic first aide, child development, looking at things through your kids eyes on their level and ideas about games that can be played with your child at different stages of development.

(9) The banning of gastric bypass surgery. It doesn't do anyone any good in the long run and is bound to have some undesirable long term side effects.

As we move closer to March we approach the time when High school and University begin for the year. And whether you're in High school or university you are to be commended for education is of the highest order. Through education we understand our world further and can do great things with our lives. Take for example cures to aliments like cancer, perhaps someone entering university this year or even high school will be the one(s), through building on past knowledge to find it.

Education is after family, one of the most important parts of a persons life. Indeed perhaps education is even more important than family, as it can influence your entire life path, from your career and annual salary, to your our outlook on life and society, the type of house you own, heck it can even influence the type of partner you attract. And it all starts with study, textbooks, a great teacher and an open yet analytical mind.

The Queensland state government has now lifted a ban on Homosexual couples and single people accessing surrogates. Apparently it's the state governments policy that everyone should have a baby, regardless of nature. Perhaps they should just send out roving vans handing out free babies or something? What part about a SINGLE person, that is someone who has no relationship, being able to have a baby does Anna Bligh think is logical? Do we not have enough out of control kids living with single mothers as it is, that Anna Bligh feels she needs to give them access to more, without needing a man or even having to go through pregnancy? That is TOTALLY INSANE!

Contray to what Anna Bligh seems to think it isn't backward to not want to give single people the ability to have babies; that's something called common sense. I know it seems to be something that is very thin on the ground now days and a concept that is certainly new to Anna, but common sense is this magically thing where you actually use your brain to figure out that your actions are going to have negative consequences before you do them, and then decide not to.

How is the state government going to justify the removal of this ban to all the children who result? Children born into a world with only 1 parent, ever! Doesn't matter which gender the parent nor the child is, it's a proven bad idea. If the government actually knew even the slightest about child psychology they'd know just how bad an idea this truly is. They'd know that children model behaviour from both gender parents, as well as learn how to function, interact with the opposite gender and even gather part of their self identity from BOTH parents. That is to say a MOM and a DAD are both EXTREMELY important. You only need to look at the last 30 years worth of psychological data, psychologist reports, medical intervention, suicides, crimes and other statistical data which stem from children of broken homes to see my point made. But perhaps and far more likely, they do know that, but simply don't care.

This is clearly a bid to grab some minority votes by a government which have burnt more bridges than you can poke a stick out. Anna Bligh is undeniably the WORST premier Queensland has EVER had. This is just another in a long line of REALLY bad decisions that the Bligh government have made, crushing our once great state into the ground. And what a waste of time and tax payer dollars the 3 days of debates over this issue where, when the Bligh government always had the majority of the house so it was always going to be passed. What was the point? To make us think like it was debated and this was the best idea that came out of it? Or to give an illusion that Australia still operates democratically? All I can hope is that the Bligh government will be voted out at the next election and the resulting new government will have enough sense to repeal the new law so that no more children will be hurt in this sick political game.

I've embedded using YouTube this week to see how well it's received. I want to see if more people will watch and share the video if I embed with YouTube instead of vimeo. If you like this video, please be sure to rate it 5 stars and pass it on to as many other people as you can. Thanks

I recently seen a guy by the name of Jonathan Safran-Foer (No, not John Safran the mega awesome comedian, another guy), on The Colbert Report and again at 1am on Big Ideas on the ABC. He's written a book, which I must say I have not read, and he has started on a bunch of keynote addresses as part of a book tour. It's from these keynote addresses that I want to talk about today. See Jonathan has decided eating meat is really bad, but instead of taking a confrontational stance like PETA would, he's trying the buddy buddy, logic path to try and turn people vegetarian.

A vegetarian human race would be a terrible thing, and I hope I don't live to see a day when the majority of people are sustained on a vegetarian diet. I've actually downloaded one of his keynote addresses, and I'll prove you with a link to download it yourself and watch it. Does Jonathan seem like a nice guy? Sure, he seems like a great, normal guy. Does he present a halfway logical argument, sure I'll concede that too. But that doesn't mean some of the things he says aren't lies? No, it certainly doesn't. Does that mean that his way of thinking is the only way of thinking, the most logical or the best way of thinking? No. And I also MUST point out that MOST of his arguments are for things happening either solely in the USA or only in small scale in other parts of the world.

So the major thing Jonathan talks about is how bad Factory farming is. How it's bad for your body, bad for the environment, bad for the animals involved. I'm not arguing that point, in fact I agree totally with him, factory farming is bullshit and should be banned. But that doesn't then mean the only option in vegetarianism, nor does it mean that vegetarianism is better or healthier or that the same sorts of problems don't exist in the fruit and vegetable farming world. I don't know how much research Jonathan has put into fruit and veg, but he certainly isn't talking about all the bullshit happening there.

He makes great repetition of the fact that turkeys can't reproduce naturally anymore because their bodies are so distorted; but fails completely to mention that MOST of the fruit or vegetables you buy in the supermarket now days (and this IS a global issue) are genetically altered so they can't reproduce anymore. Their seeds are sterile, due to what is known as a terminator gene which has been introduced to all the grains and most fruit and veg so that farms have to continue to buy seed each year.

He talks about how animals in factory farming require antibiotic shots to survive their conditions, but fails to mention the genetically altered crops which now produce and excrete their own insecticides and herbicides. For a man who claims to want a balanced discussion on the issue, he doesn't seem to be talking much of a balance argument. Indeed there are countless genetic modification to the fruit, veg and grains you eat every day and in much larger quantities than you do meat. It is a LIE to say that fruit, veg and grain is healthy for you when there is evidence starting to come through connecting these wide spread genetic modifications with numerous health issues.

And while there MAY be a couple of factory farms in Australia I know very confidently they are very uncommon. I know extremely confidently that when I go to woolies, coles, IGA or even my local butcher that the meat I buy will come from an animal which has been able to graze, which was fed grain and grass/hay. I've seen the process, I know how it works over here.

Which leads me to my first main point; Just because factory farming is a bad idea, doesn't make eating meat a bad thing. In fact as I've talked about in previous posts meat, particularly red meat is an important part of your diet. Your human body has evolved in an omnivorous way, and without meat in your diet there are loads of things that can go wrong. Your iron levels plummet (unless you eat huge amounts of veg; eg 14.1Kg of broccoli has the same iron content as 500g of steak), you won't have any animal protein in your diet (which actually your body has evolved to use best), amongst a number of other things which I've already talked about in previous posts.

To me a FAR more logical stance to take to factory farming, far from deciding to not eat meat anymore (which lets face it would be nothing more than some sort of deluded protest) is to fight to have those commercialised and industrialised farming practices BANNED. THAT is the logical conclusion, to fight for farming returned to sustainable ways. Jonathan touches on that for only 20 seconds in response to someones question and remains impartial to it.

It is a LIE to state that humanity needs to become vegetarian in order for our continued existence. We don't. What we DO need to do is control our population and our wastage better. Explain to me how ANYONE thinks it's reasonable that 1/3 of the global human population lives in the tiny country of India. Clearly over populated countries like India and China need to look at how to stop their population problems (and no immigrating to other countries is not a solution, we need LESS births). Explain to me also why ANYONE thinks it's reasonable that the USA uses 1/4 of the GLOBAL resources, and WASTES in the quantities it does.

Drop the population to sustainable levels and the amount of wastage to almost zero; if not zero itself; and you immediately need to produce far far less food to feed them. And the thing is that over population of humans plus wastage are major problems not just for food production but in every part of the environment. If we don't fix those 2 fundamental things then the earth will die taking us and every other creature along with it. So it is a MASSIVE lie to say if we all turn vego everything will be ok, because that simply isn't the case.

I also reject entirely the comment made by Jonathan that humanity is the stewards of the earth. That is perhaps the BIGGEST lie propetuated by humanity, particularly animal rights groups. It is a LIE to say that humanity is special, different (in a way that makes us superior) or separate from other animals. And is certainly a lie to say that humans are the only animals capable of choosing what their diet will contain. My best example of why that particular point is a lie is that my dog is currently experiencing a moment in time where he is choosing NOT to eat the dog food I provide him and instead trying to get hold (by whatever means necessary) foods like crisps and pizza.

That is a conscious choice HE has made. In fact I have no doubt that any animal when presented with a seemingly endless choice and variety of food would be capable of making dietary choices on their own accord (and yes sometimes good choices and sometimes bad choices, just like humans). The biggest lie ever invented is that you're somehow special. You're NOT! If for example human only disease wiped humanity off the planet tomorrow, no other creature would blink an eyelid, except perhaps in relief. The fact of the matter is humanity is as far from special as it gets, humanity is also as far from good for the planet as it gets too.

Humans have NO extra rights, no special responsibilities, none of that. It's all LIES! We do not have the right nor responsibility to "cull" (which is a polite way of saying massacre) the populations of other animals; especially when ours is so over populated. If we want to cull animals, lets start with ourselves. If everyone who thinks culling other animals simply picked up a gun, stuck it to their head and pulled the trigger, then we'd at least be on the way to getting our population in check . That isn't to say I think we should cull humanity, but we certainly shouldn't be culling another species. The day that humanity realises just how far from special they are, how intelligent other animals actually are and honestly how stupid and insane humanity actually is will be the day the earth moves forth.

I also reject Jonathans idea that the only reason humans hunt is for thrill. That's absolute bullshit. THAT IS A LIE! What's to say a hunter doesn't grow his own fruit and veg? In fact hunting is natural, it's how humanity was built. It's fairer on other animals, much fairer than penning animals in and then killing them. It also means you can get close to nature, close to your roots. You can most certainly kill to eat. Think of it this way, a vegetarian or vegan makes a conscious decision to only eat plants, even when that means going out of their way, even when there is plenty of other food down at the local supermarket. A hunter can be the same, in that they may sure have a supermarket within shopping distance, but they can make a conscious decision to hunt their meat instead of buying it from the supermarket.

In fact Jonathan Safran-Foer introduces NO new arguments to the table. He is the same old vegetarian coming with his arguments why everyone else should be the same way as he is. He pretends to not try and get other people to be like him, but if this was truly the case there would be no book, there would be no keynote addresses and this post wouldn't exist because I would never have heard of him. Fact of the matter is, yes the people who operate factory farms lie and yes the state of the food system (like basically EVERY OTHER SYSTEM) in the United States of America is broken. But it's also fact that Jonathan Safran-Foer is trying to convert you, it's also fact that he (like all vegoes) tells as many (if not more) lies than the people who run the factory farms.

Links;

Jonathan Safron-foer's keynote @ Sixth & 1

If you haven't already, I suggest you read the original post titled "Can it get anymore ridiculous" in order to understand the content of this post. As I said in that post, I did have a constructive post in mind but Sarah started hassling me about going to the shops so I lost my train of thought. This post attempts to pick up where I lost my train of thought in the original post.

I am all for healthy debate and alternate points of view, but only when the discussion and view is based on rational thought and evidence. When someone starts misleading the facts, and throwing all rational thought &/or ignoring all evidence which contradicts their argument, it ceases to be a healthy debate and turns more into the absurd. Ellery Schempp's article on Gravity is an example of such ludicrous positions of thought. Take one of the leading statements from the article

"First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.”"

It would actually be near impossible to physically measure the gravity of every atom in existence or every star given the shear infinitesimal number of them. It's also important to point out that science takes into account the fact that not all objects have a gravitational field, or at least not one that counts for anything. You can demonstrate this if you for example pick up two pieces of metal, plastic, wood, etc and hold them near each other. Now let one go, notice how it falls to the ground? This is because the level of attraction between to two objects isn't high enough.

This however does not serve as any form of proof that gravity doesn't exist. Gravity is a measurable force of attraction, which can be clearly demonstrated if Ellery would simply jump out of a plane. Now if as Ellery likes to believe, we're all under "gods" control, then Ellery wouldn't plummet to his death. However, has we all know this simply isn't the case, and Ellery would, thankfully die, taking his nutty ideas along with him.

While the existence in some cases is assumed, there is much logic behind this. For example, the gravitational force of many stars has been measured, thus it is a logical assumption that gravity would in all likelihood exist for other stars. If it were proven that gravity didn't exist in some situations then the theory would be adapted to embed the new evidence. This unfortunately isn't something creationists seem capable of doing.

Never the less Ellery gets even more silly when he states

"Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory."

Poor Ellery must have skipped class when his teacher explained the nature of gravity and planetary orbit. The moon of course revolves around the earth because it is closer and thus it's gravitational force is stronger. Think of it like this, if you take 3 magnets of increasing size. If you place the smallest magnet next to the middle sized magnet they'll attract. If you take the largest magnet and place it some distance away you'll have a small attraction between the large and middle sized magnets but the smallest magnet will continue to attract to the middle sized one.

The moon is caught by the earths gravitational field, and while the sun does affect on it (giving it a wobble) the strongest force is the closest one. I should also probably point out that the mass of the moon has an effect on the effects of gravity on it as well. You'd think that would be the end of the nonsense from Ellery and he'd start with some logical arguments, sadly this isn't the case. He now starts trying to use the tides to attempt to disprove gravity.

"The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity."

Oh Ellery, I'm surprised you're able to count to two. I have to wonder if little Ellery ever passed high school, it certainly doesn't seem likely. It's true that most coastal areas experience two daily high and low tides. This is because when the water experiences the sub-lunar point (essentially it's "under" the moon) the gravitational force of the moon takes effect causing the water to rise. The high tide on the other side of the world is explained by a slight flex in the earth. That is to say, the water on the other side of the earth is effected by the moons gravitational attraction the less, while on the other hand, the earth itself is pulled closer to the moon. This gives the effect of the water "rising". Low tide occurs at the points in-between.

What is even more ludicrous though is that Ellery thinks that god explains tides better than gravity. At this point I must state that I actually have several Christian friends whom equally find Ellery's explanations a joke. They instead (and perhaps more logical for their motives) that god created gravity, and gravity influences tides. If there wasn't a mountain of evidence disproving god, that would actually be a believable theory, for from Ellery who makes no effort to explain how he thinks god influences tidal change.

Ellery then goes on to make a bunch more foolish comments which show how little about gravitational theory and the nature of the universe he actually understands, before bringing Thermodynamics into his argument.

"Furthermore, gravity theory suggests that the planets have been moving in orderly orbits for millions and millions of years, which wholly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since everything in the Universe tends to disorder according to the 2nd Law, orderly orbits are impossible."

Now as the name suggests thermodynamics is to do with the movement of heat. That is to say, heat as opposed to gravity. And transversely to what Ellery thinks the Second law states it actually makes no mention of disorder or orbits. Instead the law says that any system (and we're talking about a system involving heat) not in equilibrium will increase over time approaching a maximum value which causes equilibrium. Another way to think of it is when you boil a pot of water, the temperature of the water increases until it reaches 100 degrees celsius then remains constant. Hopefully now you can understand now how VERY little this has to do with gravity.

Instead I think this was more an attempt by Ellery; thinking you wouldn't actually bother to research what the law actually states; to make his argument sound more plausible by bringing it laws and scientific sounding words. Or perhaps poor Ellery was so far off his understanding of science that he actually thought the two things are related. Remember, gravity is a force of attraction, thermodynamics is a set of laws to define the movement of heat.

From there it becomes so laughable as to not even bother reading. But if you insist on doing so I've provided a link below about gravitational theory which should explain the flaws in the rest of his argument. Now as I've already pointed out not all Christians think this way, but the morons who do, prove to be a source of great laughter. But then, all morons are such a source, and I must say I am truly thankful for them (morons) as they brighten every day of my life through their provided laughter. I still however fear for the sakes of these people, it seems unethical to leave them in such stupidity.

Links;

Original Post
Ellery Schempps article
Wikipedia on Tides
Wikipedia on Gravity

I'm coming across an increasing number of Christian websites where by they try and disprove scientific theory without actually understanding the science they're trying to disprove. After the uncontrollable laughter stops however, I am filled with worry and concern; for if there are growing number of people publishing these sorts of mis-truths then one can only worry for the future of humanity. And while this doesn't show that there is a growing number of people thinking this way, it does show those misinformed individuals who do think this way are becoming much more vocal.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of evolutionists who make mistakes about scripture to, but I don't seem to come across these...ever. I also don't go looking for Christian propaganda websites, I simply come across them in my daily activities, be it while researching for other post topics or even just by way of StumbleUpon. I do get that these sites have been added to StumbleUpon for their clear idiocy, but the authors of these papers believe 100% in there content which is the worrying part.

I can't help but wonder how these people becoming more vocal will impact on society, for it is often the most vocal of ideas which gains the most momentum. I also fear that there are a large number of individuals in existence whom don't understand these concepts of science very well, whom may then come across these articles and see some sort of misguided logic in them, thus growing the circle of disinformation. What is clearly ridiculous to me, may seem reasonable to someone with less grasp of the true concepts. This however doesn't imply there is any actual logic or argument to these sites; more over it implies how little faith I have in the brain power of some of those in our global community.

I am curious however what exactly the Christians who right these articles hope to achieve by writing such things. I mean anyone, regardless of their mental power, can open up a science text book and confirm that the preposterous rantings of the Christian fellowship have no merit. So what do they hope to achieve? Less credibility? Or are they perhaps just trying to cheer up our days through laughter?

The latest one I've come across by Ellery Schempp about gravity couldn't be more absurd and certainly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding (and perhaps a failing on the part of the schools to properly cement the fundamentals of these concepts in his brain) of the science he wishes to discuss. Whilst reading it there were times I wondered if it was written by a modern person or someone from the 15th century and just put into digital format. I assure you though, it was written recently.

Ok so that's my rant over, I feel strangely cleansed. I actually had a more constructive post in mind on this topic but Sarah broke my train of thought somewhere around the 2nd paragraph. I do worry for the future of society, and hope these sorts of ideas don't find a stronger root. A position of ignorance and close mindedness is always a dangerous thing, regardless of where it comes from or what it's motives are. So I only ask that you please not let stupid ideas get a foot hold, research their evidence before you make up your mind. It's the only logical, rational thing to do.

Links;

Ellery Schempp's theory of gravity
Proof Christians are stupid (The author was actually serious, make sure you read all the replies too)

I recently stumbled across a website for a Christian organisation calling themselves "The Institute for Creation Research" (ICR) with their main goal apparently being to harmonise Science with the Bible. One would think then any serious attempt at such would be done by a team of fully qualified science majors specialising in a selection of fields such as variants of Biology, Geology and the sciences involved in genetics amongst others.

Logically speaking, one has to be able to understand the science before they attempt to harmonise with it, or indeed as the organisation seem to often do, refute it and so the aforementioned team would be necessary for serious conclusion. However; as is often the case with Christian websites refuting science; no such team exists at the "Institute of Creation Research" with their misunderstanding of DNA sequencing and even the roles of different chromosomes easily demonstrated in their front page article "Are Humans as Close to Chickens as They Are to Chimps" (the miscaps are theirs not mine).

The Article refers to the results of the comparison of Human Y Chromosomes with the Y Chromosomes in Chimps which were published in the biological journal "Nature". The original article in Nature speaks about how little knowledge of the Y Chromosomes evolution across species as full sequencing has only ever, until recently, been performed on Humans. The article then goes on to speak about how divergent the Y Chromosomes in Humans and Chimps are.

Showing their total and complete ignorance to genetics, the "Institute of Creation Research" then picked up the article in Nature and decided to run it's results as proof humans and chimps are unrelated and share no common ancestor. In fact the results actually prove nothing like that. In outright incomprehension they continued on to attempt to use this data to disprove the fact that Humans and Chimps hold 98% of their genome in common.

"Most of their findings do not fit well with the often-repeated erroneous statement that humans and chimps are 98 percent similar, nor with the more general hypothesis that they share a common ancestor. One sequence class within the chimpanzee Y chromosome had less than 10 percent similarity with the same class in the human Y chromosome, and vice versa. Another large class shared only half the similarities of the other species, and vice versa. And one whole class on the human Y chromosome “has no counterpart in the chimpanzee MSY [male-specific Y chromosome].”"

They couldn't have gotten it more wrong. Beyond the use of their continual phrase "vice versa" being redundant (It's like saying X and Y are different and so is Y and X different), they've also demonstrated thorough naivety towards how genetics works, how the 98% genome comparison between humans and chimps was achieved and the role the Y Chromosome plays.

So on the off chance someone from the ICR stumbles across this blog, and to better educate people before they read such crude pseudo-scientific articles I'll explain the situation a little better. The Y chromosome exists ONLY in males, meaning that females exist entirely without it, but funnily enough are still part of the same species. Meaning the Y chromosome is more about gender difference then it is about species difference. While they haven't yet been compared, I'm quite certain you'll see equivalent differences in the Y chromosomes of birds. It doesn't mean they don't hold a common ancestor, nor that they aren't all birds.

Furthermore, if you compare the human Y chromosome with that of another human, you'll find a large amount of differences just as you will with any other part of DNA sequencing. This is because of genetic variation, and so it isn't overly surprising to find differences between humans and chimps. What the scientists involved WHERE surprised at was there were more differences than they predicted. But as previously stated little is known about the evolution of the Y chromosome, it's an area for which this comparison is only the beginning of research.

But simply misjudging the number of differences is no more proof that humans and chimps are unrelated, than the countless misjudgements and mistakes made during the evolution of IVF proves it won't produce babies. Clearly IVF does produce babies, and clearly misjudgements in differences doesn't disprove theories nor do they disprove the FACT that humans and chimps share 98% of their genes in common.

To illustrate how completely out of context the ICR have taken comments made in the original Nature article check out these 2 sequential paragraphs taken from the "Institute of Creation Research" article

"The Nature paper expressed the mismatch between this data and standard evolutionary interpretations in a more muted tone: “Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.”1 Autosomes are the chromosomes other than the X and Y.

So, the human Y chromosome looks just as different from a chimp’s as the other human chromosomes do from a chicken’s. And to explain where all these differences between humans and chimps came from, believers in big-picture evolution are forced to invent stories of rapid wholesale rearrangements, and rapid generation of both new gene-containing and regulatory DNA."

The Nature article quote clearly is referring more towards the timeline difference, rather than actual similarities between humans and chickens. It's a quote that is clearly directed toward the surprise in difference between Y chromosomes and how long those changes were previously thought to have taken. But undoubtedly it's a quote that will go on to haunt science for years to come as creationists misunderstand the quote continually.

Ultimately anyone who can not conclusively see the similarities both in physical looks and behaviour modelling between humans and chimps is delusional. Evolution is a theory backed by insurmountable evidence, and while there may be surprises found during it's continued research, those surprises won't be such as to disprove the theory of evolution, which itself is still evolving as new research is preformed. If anything, all this new data about differences in human and chimp Y chromosomes proves is some timeline theories are off. To conclude anything more than that however is laughable.

Links;

ICR Article
Original Nature Article

It's often said that if aliens ever visited earth that we would be able to communicate with them by way of mathematics. That maths is a universal language. I disagree entirely; here's why.

Mathematics; including the numbers and other symbols used in it's function; are no more than a concept. That is to say, they exist in the same way as time or language do; solely in our minds. Far from being a universal concept, mathematics is nothing more than a means to rationalise, order and attempt to predict an otherwise chaotic universe. The reality of the situation is that 1 + 1 only equals 2 because we say it does. We could have just as easily have designed the system in such a way as to make it equal 5.

The most interesting observation about mathematics is that it is a system which has been designed around the concepts we wish it to express. Or in other words, instead of mathematics being a function that the natural word obeys, it is a concept that has be designed around the natural word. How does that matter you may ask?

For mathematics to be a universal language then it would have to contain universal truths which it sadly, and contrary to some large brain thinkers belief; does not. To contain universal truth it would have to be a function to which nature obeys. Or in other words, mathematics would have to of existed prior to the creation of matter. But far from this being the case, it can be observed that mathematics uses made up concept to explain the functions of nature and the greater universe.

This explains why advanced calculations can be, and are often, off sync with reality. It explains why the unknown universe remains unknown. For instead of having rules which all matter must obey, we come up with rules that we observe matter functioning under. Leaving blank anything we have never observed and thus causing gaps and holes in the mathematical concept. If something is unknown &/or unobserved then we can attempt to apply equations from known &/or observed situations to the function, but this usually ends up rather wrong.

Again, this explains why the universe remains very much a mystery 40 years after man aledgidly landed on the moon. The understanding simply isn't there. Instead humanity functions by first observing and then theorising conceptual equations to explain what they have observed. Or in other words, far from being a marvel of technological genius; all of human technology, experience, achievement and observation is rarely anything more than a colossal fluke. Eureka has less to do with planned thought and more to do with lucky coincidence.

So, for future reference; should you ever encounter an alien being during your travels. Attempting to communicate with it through mathematics, be them simple or advanced in nature, more than likely will NOT work. It remains only a concept fixed solely in our minds.

What is wrong with vegetarians? They're like the bible bashes of the food world. It's like they feel, quite irrationally, they've found the answer to all their problems; and so they in turn feel (I suspect to cater for their own insecurities) that they have to force everyone else they come in contact with to be the same way.

And in much the same way as my soul isn't going to be saved by some moron who took a 2000 year old story book a little to literally, nor will my health be helped by turning into a bipedal cow. Indeed I find the "logic" behind a lot of vegetarians to be just as irrational as our Christian door knockers. Christians believing against all the evidence that Humanity is somehow special and separate from all other animals to me seems linked to the rather illogical belief of vegetarians that we shouldn't eat meat because killing animals is wrong?

Well I'm sorry to burst every bodies bubble but there is nothing special about humanity. Humanity isn't smarter, cooler nor endowed with special bits that other animals aren't. Humans are simply chimps, nothing more, nothing less. The sooner you get that, the better off the whole planet will be.

Now with that in mind, please take this into consideration. EVERY organism on the planet owes it's life to anothers death. Yes, even as a vegetarian you are feeding from death. Not only does the decay of an animal feed the soil and thus help plants to grow, but plants themselves are living, breathing organisms.

Plants breath Carbon Di-Oxide and exhale Oxygen only during the day. Upon night fall the process is reversed with plants breathing oxygen and exhale Carbon Di-Oxide. In addition plants move daily! Sure they can't uproot and go for a walk, but their extremities do ever so slowly move all day, every day. And the big one, plants have a nervous system. Now while there is no centralised brain, this does NOT rule out the chance plants could feel pain. There is certainly some evidence (such as reflex response; where by a plants pores close in what would be thought of as painful situations) that supports the idea plants could feel pain.

Just because you can't hear that carrot screaming as you gnaw on it doesn't mean it feels any less pain than the cow did. Indeed given the plant is often alive when it's eaten means if anything, it would be feeling far more pain. I don't know about you but I sure as heck wouldn't like to be alive when someone ate me. Face it, you aren't special. And face it, extinguishing life in order for you to live is what life is all about. It's just how it's meant to be. Deal with it

Now I'm sure there will be some vegetarians whom will point to health benefits. But fact of the matter is there are actually no proven health benefits to a vegetarian lifestyle. While there are some studies that show a longer life expectancy from vegetarianism; others clearly show a decreased one. Certainly as a vegetarian you are extremely likely to be deficient in many essential vitamins and minerals. If you're thinking multi-vitamin tablets then I should warn you that the good ones are made from killing animals and harvesting the minerals from the waste product. The synthetic made ones, well they usually just give you really expensive pee as your body can do little with them.

And while of course there are vegetable proteins available, your body has to work much harder in order to use them compared to animal proteins. Protein of course is what our body uses to regenerate cells and to create new ones. Proteins make up our RNA and DNA structures, as well as form enzymes for the processing and absorption of food. That is to say, they're incredibly importable to your diet. Not only does your body use animal proteins easier but it simply can't perform some of it's functions at 100% without them. In addition, did you know that there are some medical conditions that ONLY affect vegetarians?

Now none of this would bother me anywhere near as much if vegetarians kept their eating habits to themselves, and more over didn't feel the need to comment on mine nor anyone elses. I mean sure I think you're a bit of a brainless twit for being a vego; but I'm not about to shove my beliefs down your throat. I could, in the same way vegetarian protesters dump blood on people eating meat; dump soil or more over sap on them. But honestly other than a really funny video I wouldn't have much of a lot to show for it. Fact of the matter is what I eat is my business and not the business of anyone else.

Fact of the matter is there is no reason to turn into a vegetarian, be it morale, health related or otherwise. Fact of the matter is that as you can see from the teeth of every human, you're built to eat both plants AND meat. Fact of the matter is that the reason you started to feel better when you went on your health binge has more to do with the daily exercise and active lifestyle you now lead than how you've changed your diet. And the same being greatly responsible for all that weight you lost. Look sure, if you still want to be a vegetarian regardless of the facts that's fine, your choice. But please, give me and everyone else who isn't a vego the same respect we afford to you and spot ramming YOUR CHOICES down OUR THROAT! Make sense?

And in the same spirit, please do us all a favour and stop making stupid TV shows that attempt to make people feel bad and skew the facts in an attempt to push them into a vegetarian lifestyle. Because look, fact of the matter is, being healthy and being vegetarian have very very little to do with each other. Instead how about we make shows which encourage people to use common sense when eating and establish moderation. Because at the end of the day, moderation, linked with an active lifestyle is the true key to a healthy and happy life.

I subscribe to a number of Skeptic publications; and over the last year I've seen quite a number of articles published in those publications. I consider myself to be a skeptic, but I feel that perhaps there are a few people out there whom claim to be skeptic when really they only stand to debunk anything that threatens the status quo.

To me a skeptic is someone who doesn't just take what they're told by someone and accepts it. Instead, a skeptic will investigate, research and come to their own independent conclusion. To enter a situation with an unbiased and open mind, weigh up the facts and come to the simplest, most logical conclusion. But it seems to me there are quite a lot of people whom call themselves skeptics but really should be better known as debunkers. These are the sorts of people who go out of their way to try to prove that certain phenomenon, be it UFOs, ghosts, other paranormal, spiritual or mystical events, or things like swine flu vaccine being unsafe.

They're the sorts of people whom, instead of digging for the truth, will accept official versions of events from government organisations or other persons whom are invested in the cause. Debunkers are the complete opposite of a conspiracy theist, basically doing everything in there power to convince people that the status quo is the only logical answer. It's almost as if these people were employed by some interested party in order to persuaded the general public there is "nothing to see here". Of course I'm not actually suggesting this is the case, merely using the euphemism to highly how these people operate.

Increasingly I'm finding these sorts of people being published in one skeptic publication in particular; that being Skeptic Magazine. You may have heard their ad play on TopHogg FM from time to time. I am also finding these sorts of people representing skeptics everywhere on all manner of documentaries into the paranormal. Frankly, as an intelligent, well educated person, very capable of critequing and making up my own mind about events, I find some of the things these sorts of debunkers say offensive. They give the skeptic community an unwarranted perception of close minded, illogical fools.

Sometimes for whatever plausible reason, (for example the event happening as so often it is, a surprise and thus there being no camera handy) there may be little to no physical evidence. This however doesn't mean that it never happened, it just means further investigation and research may be warranted should the anecdotal evidence suggest so. This brings me to 2 quite major points.

(1) Science is far from having all the answers, regardless of what any scientist might suggest to you there is still a great deal about ourselves, our planet, our co-inhabitants and the universe around us that we simply don't understand, nor have come anywhere close to it. While humanity has spread to much of the earths land mass, we still find somewhere around 1000 new species a DAY! Most of them being insects sure, but there is still the odd larger animal in there. There is much that happens on the planet that humanity still has no answers for.

(2) Debunkers like to ignore anecdotal evidence all together, stating that it is often fraught with unreliability and thus can't be trusted of given any weight to. But I counter that statement with this simple fact. Very often our legal system uses anecdotal evidence as either part of, or even sometimes as their entire case against crime. While I concede that there are cases in nwhich due to this evidence innocent people are convicted of crime, but this is in the grand scheme of things quite rare. So thus I submit this question to you. Courts demand a high amount of reliability from the evidence they receive on a case, there are plenty of new technologies which are inadmissible in court because they aren't proven to hold high levels of accuracy. It, for example, took over a decade for DNA evidence to become something which was looked at in a court with weight. Yet anecdotal evidence has remained weighted and relied upon. If such evidence is anywhere near as unreliable as debunkers suggest, then how is it our legal system still uses it?

The fact of the matter is that there are SOME cases which debunkers dismiss due to anecdotal evidence and the lack of much in the way of the physical which do indeed warrant additional research and investigation. There are (while fewer still) some cases which while having the same amount of evidence as the previously mentioned, in their own right suggest through the anecdotal something extraordinary happening.

I am offended when debunkers try to pass off phenomenon as mass hysteria, collective imagination or some sort of psychological disorder. All too often I hear so called skeptics using such arguments to explain away UFOs for example. Trying to pass them off as a mix of collective imagination and mass hysteria. While I'm not going to say that little green men are flying all over the planet; I do find it insulting to my intelligence to be told these so called UFO phenomena are in the same category as "monsters" and "demons" as popular fiction.

To me communities telling stories about monsters between themselves or to their children, as well as stories about demons to help explain their world and scare people into a moral life; are completely different to someone telling me they seen a UFO. Now there might be a million other explanations for it beyond alien beings, but to rule it out as ever happening simply because it's only anecdotal in nature is very very wrong. A true skeptic would listen, look at how believable the story sounds and then, if believable perhaps investigate further, setting up equipment, tests or whatever is appropriate to document some form of physical evidence. I would suggest to you, never accept someone as a self professed skeptic if their mind is not open to possibilities.

As I'm sure you're aware by now, I'm by no means a Christian nor do I in any way believe in creationism. I did however come up with an argument that creationists could use if they for example didn't want to continue to look like the irrational idiots they currently do. Evolution might be a theory but it is certainly the most likely way of things happening. There is plenty of evidence, and none for creationism (I don't count the bible as evidence of anything).

Without creationism the Christian faith has some pretty gigantic holes in it. I mean if "god" didn't create it all then that undermines everything Christians believe. So my thought was, if creationists wanted to remain relevant have they ever thought of looking at it from another angel. We get the ideas of creationism from the bible, which at best is a pretty contencious reference. Even if you did take the thing as truth, you'd surely have to conceed that there is a lot of it which is metophorical.

So perhaps when the bible states that "god" made the trees and animals and blah blah blah, perhaps it was a metaphor. Perhaps, did you ever think, "god" could have created the single celled organisms which then turned into the trees and animals and what have you. An argument like that would perhaps still be plausible (I'm not sure if it would still be plausible in the writings of the bible), and would allow evolution; a well accepted theory, with plenty of evidence to back it up, run in parallel with creationism. I mean looking at it that way evolution would be evidence in the existence of god.

Not that of course it has me convinced, but I'm sure an argument like that would convince plenty of others. At the very least it would end this argument between creationists and evolutionists.

So, you're a smoker and you've realised it's a bad idea. "Therapeutic" nicotine manufacturers such as nicobate would have you believe their products will help you achieve your goal of quitting. Thing is however, their products will do nothing to aid the quitting process and indeed in most people will actually hinder it.

These are products which claim they can help you "step down" by slowly lowering the dose of nicotine. The problem with this idea is smoking is an addiction, no different to being addicted to alcohol, heroin or any other drug. As a result you need to look at quitting smoking from this realistic point of view. Would you seriously suggest to an alcoholic that they should start the process if giving up by drinking a little less each month? Of course not, nor would you suggest a heroin addict should shoot up a little less each month, or a gamblaholic should enter casinos a little less each month... you get the idea.

In the same way this wouldn't work with those addictions because it continues the addiction and chemical dependency, drastically greatening the chances of "falling off the wagon". But above and beyond the chemical dependency, it continues the mental imagining which is most important to chance in order to shed an addiction. That is to say, while you continue to see yourself as a smoker, then you will continue to have cravings and thus will never be free.

Nicabate have recently brought out a new product called "pre-quit", the therapeutic nicotine to take while you're still smoking. Products like these clearly have an interest in keeping you addicted to smoking. There is of course a finite amount of smokers in the world and with levels of new smokers dropping, if companies like nicobate actually helped you stop smoking then they'd collapse as a company. They'd eventually simply run out of customers and no company, especially publicly floated companies are interested in such things.

Quitting smoking is surely a must, but products like nicobate aren't going to aid you in any way. Instead, the only true way to get over your addiction is to go cold turkey. Yes, it will suck, but no where near as much as if you continue smoking. Cold turkey will work, especially if you do it in such a way as to develop a view of yourself as a non-smoker. That is key! Without changing your view of yourself you'll never be free of the smoking bug and will eventually start again, even if you manage to stop for a period of time.

I found this video on Youtube and thought it was very good at highlighting a few good points in the creationist/evolution debate. Clearly it pushs towards evolution, but you didn't really think it might push toward creationism did you? lol.

I know humanity loves to think of themselves as these higher beings that are so entirely over complicated and all, but seriously that isn't the truth. Sex makes the world go round. Sure great, humans can make art, build rockets and cheat death through medicine. But without sex, it's all really kinda pointless.

You exist because of sex, and in your life, while you probably won't notice it, sex will be your biggest driving force. Think about it, why do men want high paying jobs? Sex. Why do people want to be famous? Sex. What's the most popular use for the internet? Sex; or more over sex related activities. In fact, we spend the bulk of our lives trying to find and then keep a mate. Why? Sex.

So it honestly shocks me to the core that so many people deny their partners sex, put sex off and so forth; then can't understand where things went pear shaped in their relationship. Lets think about this logically here for a moment, how does a "romantic relationship" differ from an ordinary friendship? Sex. So without the presence of sex how does it continue to be a "romantic relationship" ?

Fact of the matter is from sex our brains are flooded with a few different chemicals, which in turn cause us to feel more "in love" with the person, to be more tolerant of their behavior and to be more willing to go out of our way to help that person. Sex relaxs our bodies and decreases the chances of heart attack or stroke. 20 minutes of sex is the same as an hour of high energy exercise in the gym, so it's great for keeping us fit and healthy.

Now, without sex those chemicals don't flood the brain. So over time those annoying little habits your partner has can break the relationship. Couples who have a poor, or no sex life fight in a more hurtful and long lasting way. This is why when you first met your partner and you were having sex like rabbits they seemed great but now you can barely stand to stay in the same room as them.

So what about before you had sex you ask? Anticipation is a beautiful thing. The idea of having sex with someone is a powerful motivator and causes amounts of the same chemicals to be released into the brain. In short, you get almost the same effects of having sex (in brain chemistry) without actually having it yet. But of course this only happens if (1) It's someone you actually want to have sex with and (2) see there being a high chance of that action coming about.

So, with keeping a relationship relatively happy, generally coming down to how much sex you get, and more over the perceived readiness there of, why is it that after a certain period of time most people forget to have it? Suddenly things you were doing while you were having loads of sex in the beginning, become a reason not to have sex anymore. It's the biggest mistake. When you're in a relationship GOOD sex should be up their on your priorities list, along side eating and breathing. That is of course assuming you don't want the relationship to end. But I mean if the case is that you do want it to end, then isn't it far better for you both to just end it, instead of subjecting yourselves to the slow painful death?

Yes, sex makes the world go around. So why do so many people forget it?

The Rudd government is one step closer to realising their dream of having an CPRS in place before going to Copenhagen next year. The government announced changes to their proposed CPRS today after talks with the Coalition. While some Liberal front benchers still don't back the CPRS, the wider Coalition now seems too which means it is likely to be voted through when it is next introduced to parliament.

The government promises the new changes should mean individual Australian's who volunteer to cut their carbon use will "be rewarded". It furthermore goes on to promise Industry will be compensated. Hold on a moment, what? More tax payer money promised to be forward to privately owned companies? I get they're trying to protect jobs here, but seriously you're either going to do something about climate change (which means massive lay offs in certain industries, or you're not going to do anything which is basically what this CPRS does).

The big thing I can't get my head around is what the labor parties rush to have an CPRS through is. What is so important about having one in place before Copenhagen? Seriously, does Kevin Rudd think the rest of the world leaders will see it and go, oh yeah Ruddy you're awesome?

Passing an CPRS through before Copenhagen is an idiotic move. No other developed country is doing this, so why is Australia rushing? Climate change can not be fixed by one (1) nations actions. Australia having even the most stringent of CPRS policies in place won't really have very much of a lot of an effect on climate change, unless all the other nations follow suite. That is the whole point of the Copenhagen conference, to discuss what we as a planet will do to stop climate change. And here Kevin Rudd goes rushing his CPRS through before Copenhagen. This could be very easily seen as arrogance on Australia's behalf viewed from the world stage.

We need to discuss the issues as a planet and come up with a global decision. Anything less than that is simply wasting time and money. I mean lCPRS think about this, we get the CPRS in place, industry start spending money, tax payer money starts following into these privately owned companies. Then Copenhagen comes and goes and we find the rest of the world is doing something else. Oh great one there Kevin Rudd, now industry will have to pay even more money to change over yet again, even MORE tax payer money will pour into these companies and you'll get even more job losses.

Yeah, this sounds like a seriously terrible idea to me

The 48 Hour Rapid Detox by HiLife is promising you can drop weight in just a weekend and be magically fit and healthy.

The diet consists of drinking nothing but their Acai & Goji Juice drink for 48 hours. The drink which comes in concentrate form; and thus removing large amounts of any nutritional value they had to begin with; is claimed to detox your body from "toxins" and make you lose weight.

Their website goes as far as claiming;

"With 48hr RAPID DETOX, time is not an issue any more. In just one weekend, you can flush away all the toxins that build up in our systems. These are toxins that make us lethargic, that take all the life out of our skin and hair, that make us bloated and unhealthy, toxins that make us gain weight."

These claims aren't just false, they're dangerous and here is why. With any detox diet all you do is drink only their "magic" drink for a set time period, but these drinks can cause kidney damage and failure. They can also cause liver damage and failure. As with everything in life too much is definitely a bad thing.

These isn't to say that by doing a detox you're guaranteed to go into liver or kidney failure and die, but the risk is there and it is VERY real. At the very least, whether you notice it or not, you will have caused yourself slight kidney &/or liver damage. This occurs because of large amounts of specific enzymes entering your body which your liver attempts to remove. Your kidneys also become over worked during this process, coupled with the excess fluid.

The "toxins" they claim to "flush" from your system simply don't exist. There is no scientific or medical evidence to suggest that any of these detox diets have any beneficial results on the body in any way. Detox diets are a scam, plain and simple. And they can cause you to DIE! They can also cause you to be on dialysis for the rest of your life.

The 48 Hour Rapid detox diet shares these same high risks as other detox diets. It to is a scam! So what about the weight loss? Is that real? Sure, you will lose some weight by drinking nothing but acai and goji berry juice; but this has nothing to do with any special properties of the berries.

The problem with this diet from a weight loss stand point is clear, you lose weight because your body is starving. The juice being a concentrate has little to no nutritional value, you might as well be just drinking water for 48 hours, it would probably be healthier. You lose weight because your body starts to run on your fat reserves as you aren't eating anything.

This on it's own is quite dangerous as it can cause a number of different life threatening conditions, including a heart attack. Beyond that the most disheartening part of it all, if you are lucky and don't end up with a serious health issue as a result of these diet scams, you will put the weight straight back on, and then some

Why? Well it goes back to the fact that your body went into starvation mode. While your body is starving it does what it can to survive, and makes the assumption that food is no longer plentiful. You lose weight for the period that you starve yourself. Once you commence eating again, you body then tries to store as much energy as fat as it can in order to prepare itself for the next time food isn't plentiful that you just told it would happen. This is why people yoyo with their weight.

It isn't your body doing anything wrong, bad genes or anything of the sort making your weight yoyo. Fad diets like this 48 hour Rapid detox diet are the cause. This is why when you yoyo, you end up fatter than you where before! And the sad thing is, the more times you starve yourself the worse it gets! The feeling of being more alert and energetic is actually a symptom of starvation.

If you have been considering getting this detox diet, of have even purchased it, I urge you to reconsider. The risks are to high for something that will give you know benefits.

Links;

48 Hour Rapid Detox
Acai Berry Scams (Google Search)
Acai Berry information
Evolutionary Minds (The smart way to lose weight)

Consumerism. Marketing teams and companies alike would have us believe it will make us happier; that it will somehow improve and fulfill our lives. But deep down I think we all know that is an outright lie. Yet for some oddity, some of us, nay most of us, get sucked into the game. We consume at ever greater rates, products and services which fill us with empty promises of better, more exciting lives. Of more friends, a better job, more sex appeal, the list goes on..

Why do we do it to ourselves? What tricks are used on us? And is this limited to just adults? How much of a consumer whore have you truly become? These are just some of the questions I hope to explore in this multi-part series on consumerism. Expect the first addition to be released 6pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (GMT+10).

In 1992 the comet Swift-Tuttle crossed earths trajectory in space leaving behind a cloud of debris, and every year since when the earth moves through this debris we are left with a meteor shower. The Meteor shower named The Perseids will be coming to it's peak tonight. This should make for some spectacular astronomy and certainly something to show the kids. I'll be outside with my family checking it out, I'm sure bro will love it.

Links;

NASA
Wikipedia
National Post
EarthSky

There has been much discussion on whether amalgam fillings are safe or not due to their mercury content. The fear is that the fillings which contains about 45 to 54 percent mercury are poisonous, causing all manner of medical problems; and this fear is causing Americans to flood into dentists to have them removed.

Many people, even some dentists themselves question why amalgam fillings are still used, as such a wide variety of other materials to use, but for many people it comes down to price. Amalgam fillings are cheaper and quicker than other composite dental materials. The American Dental Association (ADA) insist that amalgam fillings are safe, and pose no health risk as elemental mercury is used.

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) have also offered a report which references anecdotal evidence (from dentists) to state as a matter of scientific fact that amalgam fillings are not harmful. But the question is, with this claim resting on anecdotal evidence alone, where is the science? When tested dentists who work with amalgam fillings are found to have raised levels of mercury in their blood/body, but this is not thought to be at the levels of toxicity.

There is however a difference between handling the stuff for a few moments and having it installed into ones mouth. Proponents of amalgam fillings site that while the fillings do release a small amount of vapor it is not harmful when swallowed. But those on the other side of the argument site how easily element mercury is able to convert into methylmercury under conditions inside the mouth. Methylmercury is a highly poisonous substance, and while there is much anecdotal evidence from dentists that the fillings are safe, there is also a similar amount of anecdotal evidence from patients who have suffered illness since having amalgam fillings.

It seems we have a situation here where a health organisation is putting their bottom line, before the science and before patient health. Amalgam fillings may, or may not be safe as anywhere in medicine we find anecdotal evidence that tell of illness after treatment. The problem with anecdotal evidence is it is often misguided, and unrelated. People go to the doctor and receive medicine and become ill, failing to take into account something they have done earlier, or later in the day.

Anecdotal evidence in science is not to be relied on and it is amazing to me that organisations as highly respected as the American Dental Association and the Federal Drug Administration would rely entirely there on. The bottom line is, where is the science? Where are the tests, the short and long term studies? There is no scientific research here to definitively say, yes these are or are not safe. Until such a time as actual scientific research has been carried out and we can say conclusively that they are or are not safe, I personally would suggest opting for the more expensive composite fillings if you are able.

We need tests done on mercury levels found in dental patients with amalgam fillings, who have had them fitted over the short, medium and long term. We also need to see tests done which monitor what health affects might occur from exposure to small levels of mercury. A study should also be done on the affects of amalgam fillings in pregnant women, on the development of the fetus. Indeed there are many more things which need to be tested, and we should not constrain the testing solely to physical illness; as mercury is known to affect mental health (thus the expression mad hatter). The health and well being of the community should come far beyond the bottom line, yet sadly in a capitalist society it does not.

You're born, stay a "child" for 18 years then you become an adult? But is this really how things are, or is it just another ego fed delusion of humanity? Lets look at the evidence.

In biology; which is the science to study and explain all known life, once an animal reaches sexual maturity it is said to be an adult. Therefore biologically speaking humans reach adulthood somewhere between 13 and 15 years old. Even this is back tracking somewhat in the modern world as children go through puberty at evermore earlier ages. But even that said, 13 to 15 years is still a very long time to reach adulthood, when you consider that 13 to 15 years is the life span of the average domestic cat or dog.

Another crucial change in humans happens between 15 and 16 years old, but this one happens in the brain. At this age, hormones are released which change the very structure of the brain, and thus the way we think about the world around us. It is at this stage that our brains have matured and we are more likely to think about responsibility, right and wrong and think in an "adult" way. It also allows us to look at problems in a different way, and is usually the point in time when we start to figure out the world doesn't revolve around us. So from a brain structure point of view and a thought processes point of view, 15 to 16 years old is adulthood.

But socially, it's not until 18 in most of the western world, in some countries even 21! But this hasn't always been the case. Up until a couple hundred years ago it was common place to consider an unmarried girl of 14 a spinster. Girls were generally married at 11 or 12, and were considered adults and fully expected to run the households daily tasks. Indeed in some cultures this practice still continues and it does seem to work to a certain extent. I'm of course not advocating you marry off your daughters asap, just that it did seem to work quite well for a very long time, and still does in certain cultures around the world. Moreover, that society used to look at people as adult by 11, being that the age of consent.

Something is certainly a miss somewhere in our system though, for we have teenagers struggling with their biology which cries out for them to reproduce, in a society which has ill equipped them for the task and condemns their thoughts. In a youth focused society, are we attempting to artificially prolong childhood? At 26 people still think I'm very young, and that it's extraordinary to have achieved all I have. But in the natural world at 26 I would be coming close to my death. That's why babies born when the mother is over 35 have high risks of deformity and disease. I do not consider my achievements extraordinary, only that most people are to concerned with "childhood" to bother getting on with life.

I have friends in their 20s who tell me they aren't "ready" for marriage and children, but what they're really saying is they aren't "ready" to let go of their childhood. They aren't ready to be responsible and adult. Their biology is ready for these things, their brain and thought structure are ready, their certainly capable of doing it. So what is it that causes people to hold onto their childhoods for dear life? Is it their morbid fear of old age and thus death? Is it social structure mixed with laziness? or is it something else completely?

A Doomadgee girl has died after allegedly being refused medical attention on 4 separate occasions in the week leading up to her death. Doomadgee Hospital has allegedly been turning away patients and choosing to treat people outside, amidst fears of Swine Flu. The girl was finally admitted to Doomadgee Hospital Wednesday, but died Thursday while awaiting transfer to Mount Isa Base hospital.

The understandably upset grandparents are choosing to play the race card, stating that her treatment, (or lack thereof) was because she was Aboriginal. I on the other hand disagree completely. Far to often issues are turned into a racially orientated thing, when they aren't even close. Instead I put it to you that this incident demonstrates quite clearly the inadequate medical staff and training in Queensland hospitals.

Far from living out in the sticks, I a white man living in South East Queensland, have experienced the constant lack of regard for life Queensland Hospitals have become known for. Even so far as our current experience with Queensland Hospitals as a result of our son being born. The level of incompetence is unequivocally off the scale, to the point up until my intervention today they had no clue how to switch Dee from bottle feeding to breast, because they had failed to offer him a breast feed within the first 12 hours of life.

Far from being a race issue, the true problem here is that Queensland Hospitals simply aren't up to scratch. We have staff who are allegedly turning people away from medical care; disgraceful. But it isn't anything new! Ipswich Hospital's Emergency department adopted a new strategy in dealing with their overload of patients; simply turn some of them away. In fact, if after a 2 minute glance by a nurse if you're deemed "non-urgent" you're told to see your GP instead.

We have an underfunded, overstretched health system in Queensland, staffed by underpaid workers. This is hardly a recipe for attracting the great minds in medicine; yes come work 72 hour shifts with equipment that doesn't work properly and is older than you are, for next to minimum wage. They'll truly have them lining up out the door won't it. Wake up Anna Bligh, it's time to do your job properly and fund out health care system adequately. The blood if this little girl, and all others who have died as a result of the incompentency of staff and inadequate funding from the government is firmly on the hands of the Queensland Government and those whom administer Queensland Public Hospitals.

Internet dating sites are a thriving business, every day 100s of millions of people log on to these sites, sometimes forking out hard earned cash all in the hopes of eventually finding someone special. Today we ask, is it worth the hassle? Can you really find Mr or Mrs Right on the other end of a computer screen?

But before we go much further it seems only fitting we discuss one core component here; love. For most of us it's a core craving, something we search for and hold onto. But what is love? Do you even know? My guess, after doing some research across a bunch of online daters is you probably don't. And if you don't understand what it is you're looking for, then how are you meant to know if you've found it?

Fact of the matter is, for most people when you ask them what love is they describe the feelings you get when you first start a relationship. The butterflies, the walking on air, the heart leaping out your chest at the sight of that person. If this is what you're searching for then I'm afraid you're on the wrong track, because this feeling will vanish as suddenly as it came. No dear reader, while this feeling might be associated with love, it is not in itself love.

With this information at hand, the sheer number of single people left looking for someone to "love" becomes far more understandable, as does I'm afraid, the overwhelmingly high divorce rate. What most people are describing as love, is actually nothing more than a mere chemical reaction which is induced by the stimuli of finding a viable partner to encourage the parties to mate. Indeed the simple act of having sex can lengthen the time for which this chemical reaction lasts.

Sadly though, the reaction can not last forever. It's designed to keep the species going and growing, not to keep partners together for life. It isn't love, not by a long shot. It always fascinated me that back when people lived in small villages of no more than 100 or so people, that for the most part they all managed to find someone to love. They all managed to stay married to the one person their whole life, grow a family and be content with life. Where as now we're connected to some 7 billion people 24/7 finding lasting love seems to be somewhat rare?

You would think that more people means more possibilities of finding someone; But the evidence at face value seems to suggest otherwise. Look below the surface however and you'll see that while technology and population may have changed, so have our views on love, marriage and relationships. From what I have seen and experienced people are focusing to much on the chemical reaction feeling, expecting it to "last forever with the right person". But that simply isn't true, you're just not wired that way.

Indeed I have found the evidence to suggest that most reasonable people of the opposite gender are capable of being a viable mate, given the right circumstances and that they are inside your personal bounds of attraction. Love lasts forever, yes this is true, but not in the way people seem to think it does now days. It takes hard work, every day to love someone. It doesn't even guarantee you'll like that person every day! There will be arguments, because you're two different people, coming from two different places.

I of course won't attempt to explain love entirely today, perhaps in another post later on. But now you have a slightly better understanding of what love is and what love isn't, is it possible to find it online? The short answer of course is definitely, because potentially any reasonable person can be a viable partner. Indeed Sarah and I first met on Facebook of all places. Which was weird because we each got a friend request from the other, yet neither of us actually sent one.

I have known and do know quite a few couples who managed to find love online, so it is definitely possible; but only if you understand 2 simple rules.

(1) Don't do or say anything online that you wouldn't do or say if the person was standing in front of you in real life. The internet is NOT a place for you to play make believe with who or what you are, so keep it real.

(2) Online dating is just 1 tool amongst many. Don't rely solely on online dating to find a partner, in fact don't restrict finding a partner to just places marked down for "dating". Be open minded about where you might find love.

If you can follow those 2 rules you should do fine, so long as you don't go looking for a long lasting chemical reaction. Just one more thing to note as well, the relationships which tend to last, are the ones built not only on trust, communication and understanding but those built on humor and tolerance as well. Naturally there are going to be things about your partner that bug the living heck out of you, but it comes down to a choice whether you're going to make a big deal out of it or simply let it go. Perhaps even turn it into a running joke, even if it is just in your head.

Links;

Match Doctor
Plenty of Fish
Date Hookup
Facebook
Oasis Active

The human psyche never ceases to stun me; more over in this case the psyche of women specifically. How is it that a woman can go her entire life disliking her body, feeling it's unattractive. As a man, sure there are times that I look in the mirror and think perhaps I should lose a kilo or tighten this or that, but it doesn't depress me. With women however, you have perfectly attractive people thinking their disgusting which makes me pose the question; are all women mentally ill?

Every woman on the planet seems to think there is something wrong with there body, something which makes them terribly hideous. Doesn't matter who you are, it seems this is the case, from celebrity to average jane this is the psyche of a woman. Women are constantly comparing themselves to other women, wishing they "had a body like her" even though it's usually the case that the 2nd woman wishes she had a body like the 1st woman as well. Where is the rational and logic here? This does not compute!

What is worse still is that the behavior continues even after finding a mate who loves and cherishes you. Correct me if I'm wrong but I was always of the understanding that the point to being attractive is to find a mate and hold onto them. Thus if your mate finds you attractive, even gorgeous and tells you this often how is it that a woman can still have all these self doubts? It is true that one must love their own body, but if the body you have is what attracted your partner, if the body you have is what keeps your partner sticking around then at what point should you be saying to yourself "I must be attractive, else I wouldn't have a partner"?

That obligatory question "does my bum look big in these" is off the charts insane. If you say yes, you're the worst jerk in the world, if you say no you're a liar. Why is it that a woman can't just accept her bum looks how it looks in those pants? When was the last time you seen a straight man looking at his ass in the mirror wondering how it looks in "those pants". I'm sorry to inform you ladies but changing pants isn't going to change your body, you're stuck with it so it's best to just learn to love it. You are you, there is no other you alive, which means there is a lot to love about you, and someone somewhere agrees.

Attraction is a matter of perspective, what is ugly to one person can me hot as to another. For example, most of the women the media pushes down our throats to me aren't attractive. Indeed I just want to sit those girls down with a nice hot meal and feed them until their body regains a shape. A woman should have curves, it's hard wired into mens brains to find curvy women sexy. And please don't be fooled by celebrity air brushing either, their bodies so don't look like that.

American government science administration NOAA ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ) has released a damning report on climate change. The report finally recongnises that it is undeniable that we are already seeing climate change in action, and that it is down to human actions that these climate events are occurring.

The Obama administration is hoping the report will win over support in congress to pass through a carbon reduction scheme by the end of the year. This comes as other governments around the world, including Australia's continue to bicker over petty targets to be reached by 2020. The leading negative argument is always the economy, and more over the loss of jobs which would result.

But what both sides are failing to realise is that we don't have nearly as much time to deal with these issues as they seem to think. As NOAA has finally acknowledged climate change is already occurring and while it has so far been a gradual trend there is a tipping point where things speed up dramatically. One CSIRO scientist has already said we're past the point of no return, but I don't necessarily agree. We have at most 20 years to have carbon emission levels in the negatives, not 2000 levels, not 2005 levels, negatives.

This means a dramatic change in thinking, doing business and organising society, NOW. It means massive investment into research of technologies which will capture and store carbon, CFC's and other pollutants from the air and atmosphere. Arguing about whether we'll reduce carbon emission levels to 2000 levels by 2020 is not only useless, but counter productive. We do not have an eternity to deal with this problem, and it won't go away on it's own. Humans simply CAN NOT continue to live in the way they currently do, nor continue to rape the planet of it's "resources". You've been warned, don't say you didn't know.

Links;

CSIRO 2007 Climate Change report
CSIRO / Business round table report
NOAA FAQs Page
NOAA early action report
NOAA weather events report

As the World Health Organisation (WHO) decides whether to announce an official swine flu pandemic or not we must take it in perspective. A pandemic only means that a disease or illness is spreading rapidly across the globe. It does NOT mean that the illness or disease is deadly or something to fear. While there have been cases of pandemics which have killed people, such as the Spanish flu, it is not exclusively the case. Indeed any new disease or illness which spreads uncontrollably across the world is named a pandemic.

This is very much the case with swine flu. Here we have a relatively harmless strain of the flu for the majority of the population, which is spreading uncontrollably across the world. This is not a time for panic, it is simply the emergence of a new strain of the flu, which is really no more deadly than any other common strain of the flu. While 141 people world wide have died, this represents less than 1% of all known cases. Every year, between 2% and 3% of all known cases of the flu result in death. That is the ordinary flu strains which we have had for centuries. LESS than 1% is tiny compared to that! As I have said many times since the first case of Swine flu, there is nothing to worry about.

There is a lot of irrational panic going on, certainly here is Australia. The government are over reacting the the illness, as are many people who have only heard bits of information from the first few days of it's emergence in Mexico when they thought it might be a killer. These people seem to have switched off to information there after. A random woman in the Diagnostic Imagining Waiting room at the hospital asked bro if he had swine flu the other day because he coughed. He of course said no, because obviously he doesn't have it, but the woman still picked up all her stuff and moved as far away from him as she could get. As I said panic over nothing.

According to an article published in 2002 by the Psychiatric Times there is considerable evidence that Marijuana is not only as addictive as other drugs, but that it has Withdrawal Symptoms comparable with other drugs as well. This goes further to support my claim that Marijuana in actually the most harmful drug on the planet.

It is the most used drug in Australia, the United States and the UK which has serious social & economic consequences not only on the users but on the societies as a whole.

Links

Psychiatric Times Article

Hard to believe as it is, there actually are some people out there who will not eat meat. Some (known as vegans) won't touch any product at all which comes from another animal. To me this has always been a rather silly idea. Many years ago; when I was in high school; I developed a rather powerful counter argument to the rantings of vegetarians and vegans alike.

The principle reason I have found that most people become vegetarian (based on the numerous persons I have come in contact with who had chosen this lifestyle) is they don't like the idea of something dying for their food consumption. But there is a rather large hole in this idea. Vegetarians seem to forget that plants are living organisms to, and that they too have a nervous system. We know that other animals use their nervous system to receive pain messages because they have instant reactions to it, plus they can usually make a sound. But that should not exclude the idea that a plant; having a nervous system also; is capable of feeling pain. In fact simply because the organism can't scream in pain shouldn't be an indicator on how it is feeling.

The simple fact is no one does know one way or the other on whether plants feel pain, nor are the likely to anytime soon. But they are living creatures, and they can move; even if it is incredibly slowly. So if a vegetarian is to truly prevent another living creature from harm or pain then they would have to stop eating plants as well. In fact an animal is duly capable of running away, where as a plant is not. An animal is capable of fighting back, in general a plant is not. Therefore if you really wanted to cause the least harm you would be a meatetarian not a vegetarian.

Yes it's all very hypocritical that a vegetarian will refuse to eat one creature on certain principles then ignore those same principles so they might eat another creature. What is even more hypocritical is the "vegetarians" who only eat chicken &/or fish. That is just plain idiotic!

The mere fact that your brain is the size it is, and is capable of doing the things it does is down to meat. Meat that your ancestors ate gave you the brain you have today. To stop eating meat in successive generations would only serve to cause their brains to shrink over time. Meat is a requirement in your diet, it is how you are built. Indeed it is healthy to eat meat and incredibly good for you. Especially red meat which is high in essential fats and oils, as well as iron, vitamins and energy. So don't be a nutter, use common sense and eat meat. It's part of a healthy, well balanced diet.

PS. You so better credit me with inventing the word meatetarian if you use it.