There is no link between the two at all as they are both entirely different processes!

i really really hate matt & kim though haha & i’m not too fond of mumford & sons, twin shadow, the decemberists, or death cab for cutie, just by the way.
thanksssss

Girls
The Cribs
Beirut
Work Drugs
The xx
Teen Daze
Cajun Dance Party
The Kooks
We Are Scientists
Neutral Milk Hotel
Belle and Sebastian
Sunset Rubdown
Oh No Oh My
Broken Social Scene
Devendra Banhart
The Dodos
Elliott Smith
Department of Eagles
Built to Spill
Voxtrot
Wilco
Ugly Casanova
Menomena
Fruit Bats
The Tallest Man on Earth
Blind Pilot
Angus & Julia Stone
Blitzen Trapper
Deer Tick
Avi Buffalo
Benjamin Francis Leftwich
Seabear
The Raconteurs
Pinback
The Brian Jonestown Massacre
José González
Ray LaMontagne

Sorry if you have one of those bands.

animal collective, arcade fire, architecture in helsinki, arctic monkeys, astronautalis, band of horses, band of skulls, beach fossils, beach house, beirut, best coast, black kids, blackbird blackbird, bombay bicycle club, bon iver, born ruffians, bright eyes, broken bells, built to spill, cajun dance party, cansei de ser sexy, caribou, cat’s eyes, chromeo, city & color, clams casino, cloud nothings, coconut records, com truise, craft spells, crystal castles, cults, cut copy, dale earnhardt jr jr, darwin deez, death from above 1979, deerhunter, delphic, discovery, dr. dog, the drums, ducktails, dum dum girls, edward sharpe & the magnetic zeros, egyptian hip hop, eisley, empire of the sun, fang island, fleet foxes, foals, foster the people, friendly fires, gardens & villa, girls, gold panda, grizzly bear, grouplove, hockey, honey claws, houses, iglu & hartly, iron & wine, islands, kisses, klaxons, la sera, late of the pier, little comets, little dragon, local natives, lykke li, math & physics club, memory tapes, memoryhouse, metric, mgmt, miike snow, millionyoung, miniature tigers, minus the bear, modest mouse, mystery jets, m83, naked & famous, neon indian, neutral milk hotel, no age, noah & the whale, panda bear, passion pit, pepper rabbit, peter bjorn & john, phantogram, phoenix, pinback, portugal. the man, ra ra riot, ratatat, real estate, sea wolf, seapony, sleigh bells, small black, smith westerns, someone still loves you boris yetslin, starfucker, sufjan stevens, sunset rubdown, surfer blood, tame impala, telekenisis, tennis, the antlers, the babies, the fratellis, the head & the heart, the horrors, the kills, the kooks, the libertines, the maccabees, the mountain goats, the national, pains of being pure at heart, postal service, the rapture, the shins, the strokes, the submarines, the teenagers, temper trap, the unicorns, the vaccines, the virgins, the war on drugs, the white stripes, the wombats, the young friends, tokyo police club, toro y moi, two door cinema club, unknown mortal orchestra, vampire weekend, vivian girls, voxtrot, warpaint, washed out, wavves, we are trees, we were promised jetpacks, wild beasts, wild nothing, wolf parade, wu lyf, yacht, young the giant, youth lagoon, & yuck

i don’t really like matt & kim, the xx, kasabian, or keane.

anything you have to offer would be dandy haha thanks.

Dinosaur Jr
Pixies
Sebadoh
Pavement

i.e. REAL indie

The drive from Palmerston into Darwin 1st thing in the morning is a bit nightmarish, bumper to bumper traffic. Some of my colleagues said it can take them a hour to get into Casuarina (which is near Moil/Leanyer), but the highway has been upgraded, so it shouldn’t be as bad now.

On the way back from work to see his loving family, John Richards has his life taken away from him. John has never been a drinker and has a clean criminal record. If John did not finish early that day, if John hadn’t caught that green light, perhaps he would be alive. Or if the other driver had not been drinking John would be alive. The thing about drink driving is your not endangering just your life, your endangering the lives of everyone around you. Some people say ‘an eye for an eye’ but Peter Davis walked away from a sentence because he was only 16. Now Peter cannot go for his license for 2 more years. But Mrs. Richards will never see her husband again.
It seems we overlook the danger underage drinking until it is too late. 3000 people die a year from harmful drinking in Australia alone. And it causes nearly 4% of deaths worldwide according to WHO (World Health Organisation), more than AIDS, tuberculosis or violence.
Alcohol can be harmful, even fatal when misused. Alcohol has physical, emotional and mental effects on adolescents. When alcohol is consumed on a weekly basis, it can affect our judgment and ability to make good decisions. It is no wonder why youths who consume alcohol on a daily or weekly basis show signs of physical and physiological stress. This stress affects their schooling. When students get bad grades as a result of alcohol misuse, they tend to lose thrive for academic excellence.
Ari Novick Ph.D/therapist. Says he has seen many teen clients, who explain how being under the influence of alcohol has affected their judgement and hence they made bad decisions, such as falling pregnant. According to The Australian Bureau of Statistics, 25% of youths aged 14-19 consume alcohol on a daily or weekly basis.
Studies have shown the negative effects on the brain caused by alcohol. Memory loss, short attention span, lowered concentration etc. It is this effect of alcohol which results in poor academics.
In which direction do you think our nation is heading if one quarter of our school students resort to binge drinking?
The main reason for underage drinking is exposure to alcohol. It is this exposure to alcohol which negatively influences the use of alcohol. Alcohol is advertised nearly everywhere today, television, newspapers, catalogues, movies and more. It is this exposure to alcohol which influences the use of alcohol.
We as a society need to look into the reasons why adolescents resort to binge drinking.
On December 21st 2008, Darwin police gave out 51 DUIs. It seems adults are still not getting the message and we still feel we have the right to reprimand youths for underage drinking? It is evident that this publicity of alcohol is only encouraging the misuse of alcohol. To stand against this rising rate of alcohol abuse, we need to discourage alcohol fuelled violence in our homes and in the streets.
People will argue that raising tax on RTD alcohol does not work, and that teenagers will just turn to mixing their own drinks. This may be true, according to Bridie Smith that reports data released by the Liquor Merchants Association of Australia that shows between April and June 2008, there was a 30% fall in the sale of RTD drinks, on the other hand there was a 46% rise in the sale of full strength body spirits sold in the same period.
This does not mean we should give up. If we stop trying and leave the choices up to the teenagers, we are putting their future, and the future of our nation in peril.
In contrast to what I have said, there is no real cure for underage drinking. It spreads extremely fast and is influenced towards every genre of adolescents. Peer pressure may just be the biggest influence on the increasing rate of underage drinking. There is nothing we can do to stop this without greater law enforcement. Parents need to take responsibility for alcohol consumption at home, to become aware of the influence they have on their children. It is the responsibility of alcohol retailers, it is the responsibility of the government, and it is the responsibility of parents, to discourage teenage alcohol use. You cannot leave a gun in the hands of a child and walk away; there will nearly always be a negative outcome.

You keep on using "your" when you really should be using "you’re".

I think you need to read your essay again. You’re missing some words (e.g. It seems we overlook the "of" danger underage drinking until it is too late.).

I don’t think you should be using "etc" in a formal essay. You could say, "to name a few" or something like that.

I feel like you have something going on here but you definitely need to proofread it. Sometimes, I don’t even get what you’re trying to say. What I mentioned above only has something to do with grammar (I’m sure those aren’t everything). Just wait for other people to comment on everything else. I have homework to do…lol…

ID Number—Name

103—Darwin

104—Kratz

201—Shulstad

319—Fortune

367—Wickert

388—Miller

435—Vick

When a salesperson makes a sale, a record is created including the date, time, and dollar amount of the sale. The time is expressed in hours and minutes, based on a 24-hour clock. The sale amount is expressed in whole dollars. Design a Sale class that contains a sale’s data.
3 years ago Report Abuse
Additional Details
Salespeople earn a commission that differs for each sale, based on the following rate schedule:
Commission Rates

Sale Amount— Rate

$0 – 50,000—.04

$51,000 – 125,000—.04

$126,000 – 200,000—.04

$201,000 and up— .04

Design an application that produces each of the following reports:

A report listing each salesperson number, name, total sales, and total commissions
A report listing each month of the year as both a number and a word (for example, "01 January") and the total sales for the month for all salespeople
A report listing total sales as well as total commissions earned by all salespeople for each of the following time frames, based on hour of the day: 00-05, 06-12, 13-18, and 19-23.

You should do your own homework instead of asking the internet to do it for you…

Those malignings are false because Darwin was actually more enlightened about race than most others were at that time. Furthermore, he did not consider Blacks to be subhuman and he abhorred the enslavement of Blacks in contrast to many Christians of the time.

Three questions that I asked concerning those false malignings were deleted, apparently by a creationist who was tracking me. This creationist apparently did not like it that I exposed those false malignings for what they were.

So, again, do creationists think it is okay to falsely malign Darwin in their attempts to refute evolution?

For those who would like to know, the following is the information I provided to show that Darwin was not a racist and that he did not consider Blacks to be subhuman (and I’m sorry this is so long):

Here is what Darwin said about the races in his Descent of Man:

"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, … yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are … unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. …I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."

Does that sound like someone who believed that blacks are subhuman?

Ignoring the above quote, creationists often refer to the following, which actually follows that quote:

"…At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the n e g r o or Australian and the gorilla."

The creationists frequently say that Darwin was advocating the extermination of blacks, but, in fact, he was just making an observation of what happens when the so-called "civilized" peoples meet up with the less civilized. And, considering that Darwin had said the differences in intellect between whites and other races were insignificant, his remark about the separation between the N e g r o or Australian and the gorilla was certainly referring to the primitive way they were living in the wild in contrast to that of those who lived in a "civilized state," rather than to any perceived physical or mental similarity to apes.

The fact is that many Christians at that time believed blacks to be subhuman or intellectually deficient, and they used that belief, along with the Bible, to justify their enslavement.

The following shows Darwin’s attitude towards the enslavement of blacks in contrast with the Christian norm of the time.

"While strolling about the town Darwin was disgusted at the sight of black slaves, and upon returning to the Beagle he got into a big quarrel with Capt. FitzRoy about the ethics of treating humans as property. FitzRoy [who was a devout Christian] flew into a temper and forbid Darwin to share his dinner table with him ever again. After a short cooling off period Capt. FitzRoy apologized to Darwin and his privilege to dine with him was restored."

The following is Darwin’s account of the incident.

" ‘We had several quarrels; for when out of temper he [FitzRoy] was utterly unreasonable. For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered ‘No.’ I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. This made him excessively angry …’"
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/voyage/voyage04.html
@In the beginning God created evolution.: "I, for one, give Darwin full credit for his observation. I just don’t completely buy it. Too many holes to call it a scientific fact. It’s a theory, an observation, not a proven fact."

Unfortunately, you use the same false argument about the word theory that creationists use. See my answer here.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101013170944AAT3Ann&r=w#B5BNXHbANVD4FuV46MSV

There is a massive amount of evidence for evolution. Please do some more research on the matter before repeating what you said.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101122101832AA6QTQm

@geessewereabove, you are repeating typical creationist falsehoods about scientific theories. Please see my added comment above.

Furthermore you made this statement: "When I was in school we were taught that ALL came to be in Six billion years, now they are falsely teaching that All is trillions of years old,"

That trillions of years old claim is nothing but utter nonsense. The evidence is that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Your other statements are taken directly from some lying creationist web site.
And the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
Also, you did not answer my question. Since you are the only creationist so far who answered, do you think that it is okay for creationists to falsely malign Darwin by saying he was a racist and that he considered Blacks to be subhuman?

Certain people seem to think that lying for jesus is ok.

In fact, Darwin was more enlightened about race than many Christians of his time were.

Here is what Darwin said about the races in his Descent of Man (and I’m sorry this is so long, but the following information is necessary for an understanding of the question):

"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, … yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are … unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. …I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."

Does that sound like someone who believed that blacks are subhuman?

Ignoring the above quote, creationists often refer to the following, which actually follows that quote:

"…At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the n e g r o or Australian and the gorilla."

The creationists frequently say that Darwin was advocating the extermination of blacks, but, in fact, he was just making an observation of what happens when the so-called "civilized" peoples meet up with the less civilized. And, considering that Darwin had said the differences in intellect between whites and other races were insignificant, his remark about the separation between the N e g r o or Australian and the gorilla was certainly referring to the primitive way they were living in the wild in contrast to that of those who lived in a "civilized state," rather than to any perceived physical or mental similarity to apes.

The fact is that many Christians at that time believed blacks to be subhuman or intellectually deficient, and they used that belief, along with the Bible, to justify their enslavement.

The following shows Darwin’s attitude towards the enslavement of blacks in contrast with the Christian norm of the time.

"While strolling about the town Darwin was disgusted at the sight of black slaves, and upon returning to the Beagle he got into a big quarrel with Capt. FitzRoy about the ethics of treating humans as property. FitzRoy [who was a devout Christian] flew into a temper and forbid Darwin to share his dinner table with him ever again. After a short cooling off period Capt. FitzRoy apologized to Darwin and his privilege to dine with him was restored."

The following is Darwin’s account of the incident.

" ‘We had several quarrels; for when out of temper he [FitzRoy] was utterly unreasonable. For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered ‘No.’ I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. This made him excessively angry …’"
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/voyage/voyage04.html

So, why are creationists so despicable in their attempts to refute evolution by maligning Darwin?
@motivational_raven, I see that argument quite frequently here on Y!A.
@No Chance Without Jesus, you have been visiting too many lying creationist web sites. There is a massive amount of evidence for evolution and none that prohibits it.

If you doubt me on that, perhaps you should take a look at what CREATIONIST Todd C. Wood, a Research/Associate Professor of Science at the Christian-based Bryon College, says about evolution.

See my answer here.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110115082445AAkVXcl&cp=2
And @No Chance, I am glad you admit that you are despicable.

And you creationists have not refuted evolution. Bald-faced lies don’t count.

It’s because of their fundamentally different approach to knowledge. Creationists tend to place more weight on authority (hence believing the biblical account over the available evidence and even insisting upon using the biblical account to filter what available evidence science should accept or reject or using it to dictate how ambiguous evidence should be interpreted). Science, on the other hand, places emphasis on the facts and consistency, thus evidence is collected and facts are accumulated and models (or theories) are constructed which fit all of the assembled facts together most consistently.

This emphasis on authority is why creationists tend to malign Darwin in an attempt to discredit evolution. After all if anyone could absolutely disprove god they would absolutely disprove creationism, by this reasoning shouldn’t a creationist be able to disprove evolution by discrediting Darwin? Of course it’s specifically because of the fundamentally different approaches to knowledge that this situation is not reciprocal, but creationists, for the most part, appear to be unaware of this fact.

In fact, Darwin was more enlightened about race than many Christians of his time were.

Here is what Darwin said about the races in his Descent of Man:

"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, … yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are … unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. …I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."

Does that sound like someone who believed that blacks are subhuman?

Ignoring the above quote, creationists often refer to the following, which actually follows that quote:

"…At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the n e g r o or Australian and the gorilla."

The creationists frequently say that Darwin was advocating the extermination of blacks, but, in fact, he was just making an observation of what happens when the so-called "civilized" peoples meet up with the less civilized. And, considering that Darwin had said the similarities in intellect between whites and other races were insignificant, his remark about the separation between the N e g r o or Australian and the gorilla was certainly referring to the primitive way they were living in the wild in contrast to that of those who lived in a "civilized state," rather than to any perceived physical similarity to apes.

The fact is that at that time many Christians at that time believed blacks to be subhuman or intellectually deficient, and they used that belief, along with the Bible, to justify their enslavement.

The following shows Darwin’s attitude towards the enslavement of blacks in contrast with the Christian norm of the time.

"While strolling about the town Darwin was disgusted at the sight of black slaves, and upon returning to the Beagle he got into a big quarrel with Capt. FitzRoy about the ethics of treating humans as property. FitzRoy [who was a devout Christian] flew into a temper and forbid Darwin to share his dinner table with him ever again. After a short cooling off period Capt. FitzRoy apologized to Darwin and his privilege to dine with him was restored.

The following is Darwin’s account of the incident.

" ‘We had several quarrels; for when out of temper he [FitzRoy] was utterly unreasonable. For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered ‘No.’ I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. This made him excessively angry …’"
— Charles Darwin [11]
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/voyage/voyage04.html

So, why are creationists so despicable in their attempts to refute evolution by maligning Darwin?

Sorry this is so long, but the above information is necessary for an understanding of the question.
@Arc: "I wonder why – if Darwin really believed all this – he repented at the end of his life and became a Christian?"

That is just another creationist fabrication! You need to stop believing what you read in lying creationist web sites and books.
@Eric Hayes, so the despicable maligning of Darwin should just be ignored so that more gullible people will be taken in by it and keep repeating it here on Y!A.

And I note that you did not condemn that tactic. Says a lot about you!

Demonizing Darwin is just the tip of the iceberg regarding their misinformation and misunderstandings of anything to do with evolution. I have yet to have a discussion with any creationist that had any knowledge about even simple biology.

As a Christian, I find their views to be more destructive than anything any atheist could possibly come up with. They make us all look hopelessly ignorant, even though evolution is taught, as science, in all Catholic and other mainstream Christian private schools. Evolution IS "the divine design". Why do they think they can convince atheists that there is a God, when they DENY the very evidence of our "Designer" (aka evolution). It’s absurd.

Case in point: "ARC" — Darwin never "recanted". This was a lie propagated by a person who claimed to be a friend and was never in fact anywhere near him. His family refuted this outright lie, but it persists b/c creationists have very little else to go on besides lies.