The Loch Ness monster hasn't been seen for a while.

Bullshit! Robbing the victims of colonisation is what financed it.

Arguably? You've carried out your own exploration and you disagree about its extent?

I guess you haven't heard of earplugs then?

Yeah, for a few years back there, i was constantly amazed at what was on the web. That would have been a bit over 10 years ago and there was hardly anything compared to what's there today. I've been using the web for 20 years now and i can barely imagine (let alone remember) what life was like before everything was online.

Yeah, but you'd have to live in that dismal town to take advantage of that.

They got the police to pull their heads in a bit. Queensland was a bit less safer if you were Aboriginal or a feral for a few years there.

Under Joh Queensland got: It's last significant new water dams, the Gateway Motorway, new International Airports, James Cook University, Queensland Cultural Centre, Griffith University, the South East Freeway, Captain Cook and Merivale bridges, World Expo 88, 1982 Brisbane Commonwealth Games, etc, etc.

Almost complete destruction of anything remotely historic or attractive in the CBD, the ugliest river bank fuckup in the known world (the riverside expressway). Oh, and a police state. Also, the Great Barrier Reef narrowly escaped turning into a collection of oil rigs.

And the cultural centre is one of the ugliest collections of buildings in Australia. More blind than visionary.

Further to what ShanghaiBill wrote.....

There is a common misconception that nitrogen fixing crops / organisms add nitrogen to the soil. They don't - the nitrogen goes directly from the rhizobia (nitrogen fixing bacteria) to the plant. If you then plough that crop back into the soil (i.e., green manure), after it is broken down by soil organisms plant available nitrogen will be released into the soil. However, most crops aren't returned to the soil - they're removed and sold. Most of the nitrogen fixed by rhizobia in association with peanut crops will end up in the nuts themselves (nitrogen is a key component of proteins) - which will be removed.

Nowhere. Chemical fertilisers add nitrogen (in the form of nitrates or ammonia) to the soil. Those nitrogen compounds are made in a factory and cost a lot of money. Nitrogen fixing organisms get nitrogen from the air - for free.

Yeah. Anyone who thinks SA is backward should go and live in Queensland for a couple of years - then they'll know what "backward" means. You know what they say: when you cross the border from New South Wales into Queensland, you have to put your clock back an hour and thirty years.

It's the most imprtant part for Microsoft, too - it's their marketing strategy. That other 10% keeps the suckers coming back for more - always hoping for the missing 10% and never getting it.

Yes, you do. The point you're trying to make is not clear. You seem to be offering this as evidence that "atheists flock to science" - but it's not evidence of that at all. It says nothing about atheists. However, it may say something about scientists. It may be evidence that scientists "flock" to atheism - but that's a totally different thing altogether, and has nothing to do with atheists flocking to science.

Was that your attempt to illustrate what a straw man is?

I've never noticed atheists having any more interest in science than christians. Atheists, however, tend to question things - and that's what science is all about, therefore some atheists may tend to have an affinity with science for that reason.

Because it will be interesting to understand the genetics of the plant.

Obviously an addict whose last beans had been eaten by the civet - much like the way a junkie might retrieve an accidentally dropped hit from a toilet bowl.