SlapShot's Waterfall
http://www.alternet.org/belief/
.......................................
I think you meant to ask us if God is a megalomaniac.
What is a melanomaniac? Somebody who is obsessed with tanning? LOL.
The God of the old testament certainly was a megalomaniac. Worse, even.
He was a petty, cruel, murderous, jealous, baby killing, loathsome, capricious, jealous douche nozzle.
On a good day.
LOL
SS
Those stages don't follow mine at all, Betty.
I was pissed from the gitgo when Trump was elected. And then depressed, and then simply pissed and resigned to the fact that this country got what it deserved. And thus it will suffer the consequences and hopefully learn a lesson.
But I will never accept Trump SS my President. Call that denial if you wish. He can suck my big fat cock. I have dual citizenship so for the next four years I am a Canadian!
SS
Since you cannot spell the word I cannot help but doubt you really know the meaning.
Was JFK emasculated?
Was Gahndi?
Was FDR?
Was Jefferson?
Funny you, a guy who has a female avatar, using the word. If you are a dude, that is. I often wonder. I think you might be lady minkfart's lesbo lover.
I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause - but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it's a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they're preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can't be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism."
--Walter Cronkite
If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
― John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage
If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
― John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage
Here's something every Trumpian or Conservative should keep in mind........
"Just cuz you only care about the wealthy and don't care if your new POTUS is a sexual predator and will probably get in into a foreign war as well as a Civil War does not mean there are not other, more intelligent and thoughtful and caring people who loathe Trump, and think that the old saying, 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a Scoundrel' very true."
--SlapShot
Ya don't even need a smiley here. The control and moderation of this site is so absent that anybody can say anything. No matter how outlandish or wrong or groundless or outrageous or vulgar. This site is bereft of even a modicum of enforcement of civil and courteous debate protocol.
Every day here I see a post that would get its author banned or at least temporarily suspended on the debate site I used to moderate the science section for. I won't mention its name, since I think I have in the past.
The most frustrating practice here--the one I would like to see punished--is for hijacking a thread. The numbskull religious wackos do it all the time. We can present good hard facts and science and they can insert a laughably inane bible tract in the thread. This practice is verboten in any moderated debate site.
The first part of your header quote is from Ghostbusters. It was what that black dude said to the Mayor.
As far as us heading to a change of biblical proportions, I don't see how this is possible. Since the bible is all fables and bullshit. So I guess if you are asking is Trump getting elected is bullshit, then I agree. And he will cause the country to experience some sort of cataclysmic event. Be it a Civil War or a war against another country, when his temper gets young men killed. Sort of like Bush did just because he wanted to get the dude who once put a hit out on his Daddy.
But I cannot allow the word "biblical" into my opinion of what might happen under Trumpy. I refuse to ever use the word "biblical" since it is like using the word "Dr. Zuessian" or "Greek Mythological" proportions. (the bible is simply Hebrew Mythos.)
Once exception to this rule: I could say, "That is so absurd and fantastical and groundless that it smacks of biblical nonsense."
Thanks!
SS
Hillary lost because she ran a very poor campaign. She didn't go after Trump nearly hard enough of viciously enough. She was so aloof and non-aggressive in her campaigning and debates that it made me wonder if she really even wanted the job after all. She did not go after the Hispanic vote like she should have. She took it for granted they would vote for her. But the polls show that Hispanics went for Trumpy far more than the so-called experts thought they would. This demographic is what made the difference. Had she garnered only 5% more of the Hispanic vote she would have won.
She DID win the popular vote, however.
Still...I don't think she wanted it bad enough. The email shit made her realize that the POTUS job and its attendant headaches and witch hunts are just not worth it. Hell, her and Willie are already millionaires. She has already spent 8 years in the White House. Has been a Senator and a Secretary of State. She can now write books and lecture and take another government job if she wants, but without the headaches. And she can sit back and smile and watch Trump fuck-up big time.
And then go for it again in four years if she wants. And if this country is still around. Which is by no means a certainty with Trumpy on Pennsylvania Avenue.
SS
It would take a helluva lot more than a couple glasses of vino for me to forget that the most unqualified man in history will be our next president. And that in all likelihood he will do grievous and perhaps even irreparable harm to this great nation of ours.
Besides, I'm a bourbon drinker. I drank almost a pint of Maker's Mark on election night, and that didn't even do the job. I just woke-up with a hangover AND an overwhelming sense of dread the next morning. I think Trumpy is gonna be bad for my drinking habits, which up to now have been moderate.
SS
Wrong, Betty.
The American people fired Obama. Rather, the Constitution did, since it limits any POTUS to only two terms.
As far as Trump winning the election (geez, I still cannot believe it!) we can blame the antiquated and useless Electoral College. Since Hillary won the popular vote.
It's 2000 all over, when Gore won the vote but the Supreme Court and Bush's brother Jeb--Governor of the State where the clusterfuck occurred (gee, what a coincidence!)--robbed him of the presidency.
And just like then,this latest fiasco that put an unqualified ego maniac and sexual predator in office, young Americans will die from a needless war that Trump is sure to get us into.
SS
Hey...no problema, mate. I happen to do know a little about the LGS. My brother had it a few years ago. He thought it was IBS aty first but went to a Doc and got told it was a Leaky Gut, which sort of cracked me up when he told me. LOL
But the name is sort of a catch-all slang. "Leaky Gut Syndrome" is the condition that the docs call “Hyperpermeable Intestines"----- a fancy medical term that means the intestinal lining has became more porous, with more holes developing that are larger in size and the "screening out" or filtering process is no longer working properly. So what happens is, just like if you have a hole or tear in any sort of filter or a fishing net...ya get larger, undigested food molecules and other “bad stuff” like toxins, and waste, that your body normally doesn’t allow, to flow freely (unfiltered) into your bloodstream.
Your intestinal lining is technically a part of your immune system. And The outer layers of intestine are called epithelia, and are connected by these "seams" that they call "junctions."
So.... During your normal digestion those junctions stay closed, which forces all molecules to be screened before they get in your circulation system.
But in Leaky Gut these tight junctions can become “open” or "leaky" ...and that is why the un-filtered molecules get to pass into the bloodstream.
If I recall, I think (don't hold me to this) that the usual causes are a shitty diet, or too much stress, which makes a hormone called cortisol get released in your body. I think that somebody that is constantly exposed to toxins, like if they work in a factory or manufacturing type of a setting can also get the leaky gut syndrome. Because, remember: it IS an auto-immune problem at its core.
I think diet and some supplements can usually cure it, as well as (duh!) getting away from the toxin exposure, it thats the original problem.
SS
Nice try.
But yeah, bacteria has been given an unduly harsh rap by lay persons. We ourselves are chock-full of those little buggers, and in fact, all the bacteria on Earth weighs more than any other living species of either fauna or flora. By a lot!
How much bacteria is on your body right now, you ask? Including the majority of it, which is in your gut?
Enough to fill a big soup can. That's three to five pounds of bacteria!
The bacteria cells in our body outnumber human cells 10 to 1---but because they are much smaller than human cells, they account for only about 1 to 2 percent of our body mass—though they do make up about half of our body's waste.
And don't worry, over 99% of all that bacteria in us and ON us is GOOD! As is over 90% of all of it the world. It is only odd bug that can do us harm. It's Viruses that we really need to worry about. Those guys are almost always nasty. they even have their own DNA, which of course Bacteria does not posses. Viruses are so good at infiltrating us and spreading, that is, hijacking our body's cells, that they almost seem to be intelligent! They are truly amazing at how effective they do their jobs.
I don't know if this explanation is indeed irrefutable enough so as to warrant placing a verbal or written "period" at the end of it. But I DO personally agree with it, and have for several years now, ever since I began my college studies into Evolutionary Biology.
It is also probably the most-favored scenario by current Evolutionists, chemists, and Biologists. We have long felt that those deep sea thermal vents on the ocean floor made for excellent fermenting and breeding environments for the initial formation of our microbial ancestors.
Ahh....The Primordial Ooze.
Darwin's Cozy, Warm Little Pond!
Home!
Thanks for sharing the link; I enjoyed it and agree with it. We have come close to replicating it in lab experiments, as we have created amino acids and proteins from inorganic matter. We will soon be able to replicate rNA formation. I am guessing within a decade. Easy.
Another favored hypothesis is that, due to the primal Earth's atmospheric conditions and weather, there was a lot of thunderstorms going on. And what, pray tell...do we often see with these storms?
Yeah, baby! Lightening!
We think that some electrical disharges into the Primordial Ooze could have acted as catalysts, of sorts, and thus been a contributing factor to the formation of those original organic microbes.
After this beginning stage, that is, from our amoeba stages onwards, we have documented the Evolutionary process step by step. With damn near irrefutable records. Including fossils; radiometric dating, and DNA evidence. We have built and built upon Darwin's original Theory, to the point to where no credible professional Biologist or academician doubts evolution.
SS
What would I ask?
Hmm....first of all, I would bitch slap him (or her) and ask....
"Where the fuck you been, you pansy ass coward? You have continually let millions of your so-called "children" suffer and die. Especially the ones who were stupid enough to worship you and pray top you. Satan has jobbed you on a daily basis. You suck. Nothing more than an absentee landlord.
Now go ahead and send me to hell, or strike me down with brimstone or whatever. That is, if you have the sack!
What do ya think? Too much?
LOL
SS
Sure....
here's one. Let me know if you need more!
Religious delusions
How common are religious delusions found among persons with psychotic disorders? Prevalence rates depend on the particular psychotic disorder and the location in the world where the person lives. In less religious areas of the world, for example, one study showed that only 7% of 324 Japanese inpatients had delusions of persecution and religious guilt (Tateyama et al., 1998). This rate is similar to those from a nation-wide study of hospitalized patients with schizophrenia in Japan involving 429 patients, where the prevalence of religious delusions was 11% (Kitamur et al., 1998).
In the United States, a number of studies have examined religious delusions in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. The first of these reported results of a small study of 41 psychotic patients in New York City, finding that 39% of those with schizophrenia and 22% of those with mania had religious delusions (Cothran & Harvey, 1986). In a much larger study of 1,136 psychiatric inpatients in the mid-western and eastern United States, 25% of patients with schizophrenia and 15% of those with bipolar disorder had religious delusions (Appelbaum et al., 1999). Compared to other delusions, religious delusions appeared to be held with greater conviction than other delusions. Finally, Getz and colleagues (2001) compared the frequency of religious delusions across religious denomination in 133 inpatients (74% schizophrenia) at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. Religious delusions were documented in 24% of 33 non-religious patients, 43% of 71 Protestant patients, and 21% of 29 Catholic patients.
In Europe and Great Britain, one study of 251 inpatients with schizophrenia in Austria and Germany reported a prevalence rate of 21% for religious delusions (Tateyama et al., 1998). One of the most detailed studies to date from Great Britain found that 24% of 193 patients with schizophrenia had religious delusions (Siddle et al., 2002a). Patients with religious delusions had more severe hallucinations and bizarre delusions, had poorer functioning, a longer duration of illness, and were taking more anti-psychotic medication than other patients. Thus, in studies of patients with schizophrenia, religious delusions are present in 7-11% of Japanese patients, 21-24% of Western European patients, and 21-43% of patients in the United States.
A few studies have also examined religious delusions among psychiatric patients in Brazil. Nucci and Dalgalarrondo report a series of eye enucleation in six cases of psychiatric patients, five unilateral and one bilateral enucleation (Mucci & Dalgalarrondo, 2000). Religious delusions were a significant factor in many of these cases, with patients following Matthew 5:29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." These patients often had an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia, and the self-inflicted enucleation occurred many years after the beginning of illness. Six cases were seen within a 10-year period at a Brazilian university hospital.
In the only systematic study of psychiatric patients conducted thus far in Brazil, researchers examined 200 consecutive admissions to a general psychiatric hospital (Dantas et al., 1999). To identify religious content, an item was added to the BPRS-extended form. Patients with all psychiatric diagnoses were included, not just those with psychotic disorders. Investigators report that 15.7% of all patients had moderate to intense symptoms of religious content. A strong correlation was found between manic symptoms and religious experiences.
What is the origin of religious delusions? Religious delusions exist on a continuum between the normal beliefs of healthy individuals and the fantastic beliefs of the psychotic patients. In psychotic patients, religious delusions are usually accompanied by other symptoms and/or behaviors of mental illness, and do not appear to serve any positive function (Siddle et al., 2002a). Persons with psychotic symptoms are known to have increased activation of the right brain hemisphere, which is also found in healthy persons having mystical experiences or paranormal beliefs (Lohr & Caligiuri, 1997; Pizzagalli et al., 2000; Makarec & Persinger, 1985). However, attempts to locate the origin of religious delusions in the brain have not revealed findings that are consistent with neuroimaging research described above. The only study to date, to my knowledge, suggested that religious delusions result from a combination of over-activity of the left temporal lobe and under-activity of the left occipital lobe (Puri et al., 2001). Thus, until more research is done, the neuroanatomical origin of religious delusions remains uncertain.
(re-printed from an article on religious delusions from the American Journal of Psychiatry)......
Oooh...you brought up old Sarah Silverman.
She reminds me a lot of my wife, who is also a Jewish American Princess. LOL
I soooo want to bang Sarah right in her skinny little tight ass.
I bet she's a screamer. Big time.
I hear she also digs ffm threesomes.
Schwiing!
SS
eah....it's beginning to look as if Trump will probably have to withdraw as the GOP candidate. He is self-destructing worse and worse every day. Last night's debate proved there is no way in Hell this idiot can ever by President.
Mark my words...he will go down in history as a joke. They'll probably even invent a term after him, like "Trumpian" for when some future candidate says something totally outlandish that proves him to be unworthy of office.
This is how insanely bad Trumpy is. Among his gaffs Sunday night....
suggesting that as president he would jail his opponent; defend Vladimir Putin and Russia over the hacking of the U.S. election;
praise brutal Syrian tyrant Bashar Assad;
admit to not paying federal income tax; and rebuke his own running mate for daring to criticize Russia over the indiscriminate bombing of Syrian civilians.
That's a very partial list.
Trump also lied with enthusiastic regularity, again saying he opposed the second Iraq war before it started (he didn't), claimed his opponent would jack up the tax rate on the middle class (she says she won't) and protested that he did not Tweet at 3 a.m. that people should check out a sex tape featuring a former Miss Universe (he did).
And never mind that Trump spent the first portion of the debate apologizing for a video leaked over the weekend in which he grotesquely bragged about his ability to commit sexual assault because he's a "star." Diving deeply into the gutter, Trump tried to turn the video into a bizarre bank shot attack on Clinton by bringing to the debate women who claim former President Bill Clinton sexually abused them.
Wow...what a douche bag. I will be happy when he resigns soon. I am guessing in about two weeks or so.
Remember where you heard it.
eah....it's beginning to look as if Trump will probably have to withdraw as the GOP candidate. He is self-destructing worse and worse every day. Last night's debate proved there is no way in Hell this idiot can ever by President.
Mark my words...he will go down in history as a joke. They'll probably even invent a term after him, like "Trumpian" for when some future candidate says something totally outlandish that proves him to be unworthy of office.
This is how insanely bad Trumpy is. Among his gaffs Sunday night....
suggesting that as president he would jail his opponent; defend Vladimir Putin and Russia over the hacking of the U.S. election;
praise brutal Syrian tyrant Bashar Assad;
admit to not paying federal income tax; and rebuke his own running mate for daring to criticize Russia over the indiscriminate bombing of Syrian civilians.
That's a very partial list.
Trump also lied with enthusiastic regularity, again saying he opposed the second Iraq war before it started (he didn't), claimed his opponent would jack up the tax rate on the middle class (she says she won't) and protested that he did not Tweet at 3 a.m. that people should check out a sex tape featuring a former Miss Universe (he did).
And never mind that Trump spent the first portion of the debate apologizing for a video leaked over the weekend in which he grotesquely bragged about his ability to commit sexual assault because he's a "star." Diving deeply into the gutter, Trump tried to turn the video into a bizarre bank shot attack on Clinton by bringing to the debate women who claim former President Bill Clinton sexually abused them.
Wow...what a douche bag. I will be happy when he resigns soon. I am guessing in about two weeks or so.
Remember where you heard it.
Thanks.
This video only confirms what I have suspected for a long time now.
That the majority of religious zealots are in fact, suffering from borderline--if not full-on--psychotic delusions.
They need medication.
NOT more wallowing in superstitious delusion.
May they some day get the help they need.
I bet if you looked at their past childhood histories, you would find that the majority of them have suffered from some sort of psychological and/or emotional trauma. Like abusive parents; daddies who paid them those late-night bedroom visits...whatever.
So sad.
SS
Well, that video is obviously doctored so I don't know what the fuck that shadow thing was, or was supposed to be. And of course it offers to me not a whit of evidence about an afterlife. (of which there is none, btw).
But, as a motorcycle rider what I find interesting is the actions of the rider in the video. Seems like he had plenty of time to swerve to his right, thus going behind the truck that turned left in front of him. I think he fucked up. Probably going too fast. An unsafe rider.
FWIW....almost half of all motorcycle accidents are caused by that same scenario, that is, a vehicle turning left in front of the bike, so the bike t-bones the vehicle and the rider either flies over it or smashed into the side.
This is why when I am approaching an intersection with vehicles waiting to turn left in front of me, I do not take it for granted they will wait for me, or that they even see me. Rather, I have my right hand on the front brakes (which provide about 70% of a bike's stopping power) and I am ready to stop if need be. And I check my rearview to see if I have a clear evasion lane to either side, if need be.
This is called being an expert rider.
SS
Your DNA contains a record of your ancestors, but you aren’t a carbon copy of any one of them. The particular mix of DNA you inherit is unique to you. You receive 50% of your DNA from each of your parents, who received 50% of theirs from each of their parents, and so on.
If you go back far enough, there is a chance that you inherited no DNA from a particular ancestor.
Acquired genetic mutations do NOT contravene the fact we inherit exact DNA from our parents.
SS
Man's scientific truths are always incorrect (not God's).
Really?
OK...here is one scientific proof for you to disprove:
There is a force that is exerted by all objects which posses mass. This force is called gravity.
The Earth posseses gravity. Therefore, if you jump off of a 40-story building, this force will kill you.
Prove it wrong.
Until such time as you do that, and while you're at it, also prove that the Earth does not orbit the Sun every 365 days (yet another scientific proof)...we will all assume you really have no fucking clue as to what you are talking about.
I'll be waiting for your dis-proof of both of those truths. I also can furnish you with hundreds of others if you wish.
SS
Indeed, Mr. Trag. The primary and most infuriating problem in dealing with the zealots is that the vast majority of them do not adequately comprehend the workings of the very scientific theories they so smugly refute.
Hell, we have folks here on CD who boisterously decry Evolution, and tell me that we are NOT descended from monkeys! LOL. I cannot count the times I have corrected them on that misconception, but apparently my patient teachings are falling on deaf ears. (Or, more accuratly, falling on hopelessly deluded minds).
So, taking into account all of this, can you really expect any of them to understand the nuances of DNA? Or know that, as you correctly claimed, Evolution is NOT based on an organism "tweaking" its DNA in order to better thrive in its given environment?
SS
Exactly! The fact that there are dozens of religions and thousands of invented gods out there, and that the advocates of all those religions and gods ALL feel theirs is the only true way, is just ONE of the problems with organized religion.
The fact that many of these believers are willing to--and indeed HAVE--murdered and shed blood in the name of their invented gods (imaginary friends) is ANOTHER problem with religion.
The fact that religion often stunts progress and growth and education and knowledge is yet ANOTHER problem.
The fact that religion teaches people that it's OK not to fully understand how science and nature and the real world works is ANOTHER problem.
The fact that the symptoms of alleged religious experiences among its members, like speaking in tongues r having god talk to them is almost the same as clinical psychosis is yet ANOTHER problem. Indeed, religious fervor is the most common symptom of many of the so-called "dis-associative orders" in psychology. Schizophrenia being one of them.
The fact that religious folks smugly reject science proofs offered to them that show the absurdity of some of the claims of their holy books is yet ANOTHER problem.
I could go on, of course. As the problems of religion in this world are manifold. I could make a list five times this long and supply proofs and links to support every claim. But I don't have the time nor the patience any more. Most of the zealots here have proven themselves to be too far gone to take any heed.
But still....as always, I. Hope. This. Helps.
SS
OK Betty, so you're probably gonna get pissed at me for busting-up your debate claim here, as I have done in the past a few times. But as the resident science geek, I am compelled to point-out a couple major errors in your header, after reading your link.
First, off, here is an exerpt from the link............
In 2005, John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, published a paper, “Why most published research findings are false,” mathematically showing that a huge number of published papers must be incorrect. He also looked at a number of well-regarded medical research findings, and found that, of 34 that had been retested, 41% had been contradicted or found to be significantly exaggerated.
Since then, researchers in several scientific areas have consistently struggled to reproduce major results of prominent studies. By some estimates, at least 51%—and as much as 89%—of published papers are based on studies and experiments showing results that cannot be reproduced.
OK....the bolding is mine, so as to better illustrate the points I will now make.
1--In your header you said many "scientific truths" are false. This is NOT what the article claimed. It said, rather, "research findings." There IS a difference! A scientific FACT is just that: a fact. Ergo a fact cannot be false.
2--The subject of the flawed (not necessarily proven-to-be-false) findings were of the medical field. NOT ALL OF SCIENCE. Medical is simply one of dozens of fields or sub-categories of the umbrella of science.
3--The article also just claimed that a good portion of those findings "could not be reproduced." This, again, does not necessarily deem those finding to be false. It simply means they were not replicated and thus confirmed as being true.
In closing, I am going to have to relegate your debate header here to the category of "very misleading and inaccurate." Sorry, but that's how we roll in science when we examine data and evidence (as provided in your link) and then weigh those against a specific claim.
SS
I know how you feel. My wife's family also has a beloved Mexican gardener/groundskeeper named Jesus. (pronounced "hay-ZEUS"). He grows the best damned tomatoes I ever tasted. Jalapenos and Habaneros too!
He has done far more for me, and I respect him way more and believe in him much more than I ever did that other Jesus from 1st Century Palestine. He has figured in my life about as much as Big Bird or the Keebler elves.
LOL
SS
For the umpteenth time: we are not descended from the apes! How many times have I told you this?
Rather, we homo sapiens only share a common and distant ancestor with the apes of today. We "broke off" from that lineage a few million years ago.
SS
http://www.livescience.com/
We modern homo sapiens are indeed living proof of Evolution. Especially since we have all those transitional fossils and radiometric dating methods that prove beyond a doubt the age of the planet and the long step-by-step process of Evolution.
All men of science believe this. All rational and sane people. Only the religiously deluded or the mentally imbalanced deny Evolution or a billions-years-old Earth.
So yes...you are quite correct in stating that, when you look in the mirror you are looking at the current product of a Six Million Year Process of the Evolution of the primate hominid we like to call "Man."
Congrats!! You have reached the Pinnacle of the Food Chain!
SS
Now then...for the deluded Creationists (or simply the interested folks!) here is a list of the very mountainous and comprehensive collection of transitional fossils we now have. The real question seems to be, "How did we ever find so many?" instead of "where are they?" like the deluded believe.
and so will you...die physically and every other way, spiritually as well. Probably in about 30 years.
Thus...all of your time..the countless hours you have spent thinking of your sky god; worshiping him; preaching about him and that Jew carpenter dude--who btw never met you or even knew of your existence--has been squandered.
you believers---i.e., the deluded--have gained nothing from your religion. except maybe some emotional comfort in the way of a placebo. like a kid does with his imaginary friend.
while I spent my life living it to the fullest and mired in the wonder of nature and the beauty of the sciences. and knowledge--which is power. I guarantee you nobody on is deathbed ever said "I shoulda spent more time in church." LOL Nope..quite the opposite.
Look...when a Ted Bundy dies, or a Richard Ramirez or a Hitler..they have the same afterlife to look forward to as does a John the Baptist or a Mother Theresa. And that is: none at all. They all experience the same level of eternal nothingness.
and that my indoctrinated friend is the thought--as you know deep down it is true--that keeps your kind up at nights, and forces them to invent false gods.
Prove me wrong on any of this. You cannot.
SS
I love Harambe. And he did us all a favor by snuffing that kid, who probably would have just grown up to be a career criminal, and thus a burden and a threat to society.
And another interesting thing on this topic: I heard on the local FM Classic Rock station this morning on my way to work: the NFL has now made it illegal for all of it's licensed and registered jersey sellers to sell any NFL team jerseys with the name Harambe on the back!
Yeah...seems like that was getting to be a popular practice: getting a jersey of your favorite team and having Harambe on the back. I think that is cool, myself, and am sorry I didn't think of it earlier. I woulda got me a Detroit Lions jersey with Harambe on the back.
SS
I wholly and totally and absolutely reject Jesus as being anything more than a long-dead, Bronze Age Hebrew political insurrectionist/philosopher. (And not even that original of a philosopher, either. He really brought nothing new to the table. Other sages who preceded him said his message before. And some of them, like Siddartha Guatama, did so in a far more compelling fashion.
And yet...I just had my annual physical, and my Doc said I am in perfect health. Thus, far from dying. And I am infected with nothing except a keen intellect, loads of charm, and ravishing good looks.
LOL
SS
OUTLAW: You're retarded and the main reason you don't like the NFL is probably because you never had the sack to play football. Or any other type of contact sport.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Oh....many many NFL players give money to charities and also work and form programs to help inner city kids. It's a very common thing, and if you don't know this than you are ignorant of it, and thus should not be spouting off on things you now little about.
Ahh..but if you followed that dictum, then you would never be able to post much at all, would ya?
LOL
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/
I mean, I too can come up with some crazy ass shit theory ;)
Of course you can, amigo. But I feel you would be better off forgetting all that and instead just simply studying a bit more on the Theory of Evolution. As it is painfully obvious from your posts here that you are very confused about even its basic, primary tenets. Your "super computer in the sand" metaphor proved that.
Or maybe just a plain ol' Biology 101 class?
Hope this helps. And let me know if I can answer any questions for you.
SS
We are expected to believe that a super computer evolved, with Linux installed and a number of aps? That's Quite a lot to happen all by itself.
No, the Theory of Evolution asks us to believe no such thing. In fact, it requests we believe in nothing remotely close to that absurd analogy.
Your metaphor is as silly as that old one the Creationists used to prattle on about that said Evolution was as likely as a tornado in a junkyard swirling up a bunch of discarded items and then setting down a completely, perfectly-fabricated 747 jumbo jet.
Evolution works nothing like those two scenarios. It does not ask that we believe we, or the Earth began with anything that was already perfected and formed. Rather, Evolution postulates a very long, mostly gradual process of trial and error. Of the painstakingly slow, but also highly efficient process of Selective Inheritance.
That is, of species utilizing desirable or favorable genetic mutations to enable them to thrive and adapt successfully in their given environments. And then to pass these physical advantageous traits onto their offspring. Over and over until an ascension is developed and what was once a desirable aberration finally becomes the new standard.
It's a far different mechanization, or process than what you and your supercomputer in the sand poses. As that is nothing but an unexplained and sudden action. One with no explained previous process of enabling it to attain fruition.
So once again, we here see a detractor of Evolution simply showing is that they do not understand the theory they are wrongfully attempting to denigrate. This gets very tiresome, I must confess. And it is the standard, rather than the rare, for people who disbelieve Evolution.
That is, not to put too fine a point on it: they just don't know what they are talking about.
SS
Bacteria and viruses evolve all the time, Saint. You know this.
Ask your doctor. Or look it up. Why do you think we have these so-called Super Bugs? They evolve and mutate so as to become resistant to anti-biotics, which have been recklessly over-prescribed by the medical community for decades.
Viruses do the same thing.
Given enough time...long after you and I are gone, they could indeed--and will probably---evolve into a higher life form. Just like we did.
We have documented proof of the evolution of every single life form. As I said in my OP. Just because some of you fail to acknowledge that in no way dismisses the fact. Turning a blind eye does not refute. Or even discredit.
Rather, it discredits the credibility of the person who denies proven scientific theories and observations.
In the Intel circles this would be called "mission blow-back" to your people. That is: unintended and undesirable consequences.
Ooops!
LOL
SS
Indeed!
And besides: which god are you referring to?
There are thousands that have been invented by man over the eons. All inventions of the superstitious and scared evolved homo sapien mind. Serving as emotional placebos.
Just take a few minutes to peruse this list. Good God! (see what I did there?) LOL. There must be thousands of them!
And to me...none are any lesser insofar as credibility is concerned than is Yahweh. The Bronze Age Hebrew Sky God. He is just one of thousands.
Nothing more.
Nothing More.
Maybe even, a bit less than some.
And certainly Yahweh is more loathsome and unlikeable than many.
To me he has always come across as a petulant, bullying, capricious, jealous, petty, douche bag.
SS
Aliens by far make more sense than any sort of gods do.
I am amusing you speak of Extraterrestrial Aliens? As in ET Intelligence? If so, I have always been a firm believer that we are not alone in the Universe. That we are just one of millions of Intelligent Civilizations that populate the universe. Even the Galaxy. And there are hundreds of Billions of Galaxies.
And it is very arguable that we have evidence here on Earth of Aliens visiting in the past. Roswell; all those UFO sightings; Cave drawings and paintings; abduction stories; UFO sightings, etc.
But for gods? LOL. Nothing at all on a secular level. Gods are only to be found in the fables of various holy books. And works of mythology and literature.
For example, take away the Bible, or the Torah (please!) and you have zilch as far as proof or even evidence for a god.
Nope...sorry: Aliens win this debate. Hands down!
SS
Indeed. The ongoing and very visible and tangible evolution of life forms like bacteria and viruses are simply two examples of how all living things evolve. Including us. Including all other species of animals. Including flora.
It's pure unadulterated observable science. Period. There IS no alternative theories or even hypotheses in science today.
The only other explanation on how life came to be on this planet comes from the Creationists. In other words, from those who have been indoctrinated and in fact deceived by mythology and superstition. They live in a perpetual and all-encompassing world of denial and fantasy. They have invented gods who actually care about them and help them and offer them a magical afterlife. This is simply the evolved minds's defense mechanism for dealing with the fate of death that awaits us all.
Some people cannot handle that fact. So they invent adult versions of those invisible childhood friends which most of us outgrew.
And to this I say, "fine." So be it.Whatever gets you through the night. It is only when they try to use their superstitions and mythos and disinformation as a replacement for reason and logic and proven science that I take umbrage. And I am not alone. There is a reason that schools do not allow Creationist nonsense in their Biology classes any longer
SS
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/
I'm still waiting for your responses. You haven't given one argument at all undoing the Prophetic and Historical credibilty of "Bronze Age God"
Really? Are you still on that old bit? I dismissed it days ago and truthfully, forgot all about it.
The reason is because there is NO instance of one of your bible prophecies coming true in the real world. Not with any degree of certitude or credibility. All of those so-called prophecies are so vague and nebulous that they could have referred to anything. It's like the old Nostradamus crap about an evil man--or the anti-Christ, I forget--"rising from the East."
And then people try to say he was referring to Stalin. Or Bin Laden. After all, what the hell does "east" mean, anyway. It's all context. Same deal with your Torah fables.
If there is a prophecy in the Torah or your OT that is as specific and provenly accurate as say, "A man named Obama will be the first Nubian American Leader" than I wou;d give it some credence.
But unless I missed something. none of the bible's tripe comes remotely close to being verifiably accurate. Instead, all of your alleged prophecies are open to many many interpretations and definitions.
And anyway, what about all those that did NOT come true. Like the ones JC made? All of his broken promises. Lies. Like how I can move a mountain by praying for it. LOL. See...you are once again engaging in Cherry Picking.
And as far as claiming a 3000 year-old fuzzy and vague prophecy actually came true? That is what we call "Confirmation Bias." You find a small possible even that just MAYBE fits the bill of the old prophecy and say "Aha! that's it. God made it happen!"
I also notice you can't provide any proof of a biblical prophecy coming true from a secular source. So once again, you engage in circular logic. "It's true cuz my bible says so!"
Gee....good job, genius. You managed to break THREE rules of accepted debate and rhetoric rules here: Cherry Picking....Confirmation Bias...and Circular Reasoning. WTG!
Please.....I don't wish to wast any more time on this nonsense. It's crunch time for my Thesis and I don't have the time or patience for your silliness. It's like asking me to disprove the Unicorns that are also in your bible. Or those giants.
I feel my IQ dropping every time I read your stuff. So if you want to take my withdrawal from any further discourse on this topic as a victory, then go ahead. Lord knows you guys need one once in awhile, so badly and thoroughly has science and reason dismantled most of your claims over the past decades.
SS
Exactly right! Peppered moths are an excellent example of how we can sometimes still see Evolution is progress, or the results of a recent evolutionary process.
The so-called "super bugs" are another example. Since the over-prescribing of antibiotics by physicians over the past five decades or so, many bacterium have evolved so as to be immune to traditional antibiotics. MRSA is an example of this.
Same deal with viruses. They have evolved and mutated as well, making them ever more difficult to eradicate.
We can see vestiges of our very own (homo sapiens) Evolution by looking at some present physiological aspects of our own bodies. Like your Coccyx..which is the remnants of your tail. Body hair. Fight or Flight response too! Why do you get goose bumps when you are scared? Because when we had fur it was a tactic to make the fur stand up straighter, thus making us appear larger and more fearsome to our potential enemies.
Here are some other ways we can see Evolution in progress...
Nahh...I agree with Jolie on this one.
Evolution will one day graduate from being a Theory into being a Law. It simply has too much evidence, and there is not even an alternative theory among us Biologists and Anthropologists that comes in at a distant second.
Evo has passed every single test and question ever thrown at it. And with flying colors. The evidence grows every single year. We don't even discuss the possibility of it being wrong, her at the Universities and other Institutions of Higher Learning. No more than we wonder if the Earth is really a spheroid and not flat. Or if it is medically and physically impossible for an ancient mortal carpenter cum philosopher to rise from the dead after three days dead in some shit-hole Middle Eastern cave. LOL
SS
Bronze Age Hebrew Fables and Superstition have no place whatsoever on a debate about the science of Evolution. Or on a debate regarding any sort of science or realism.
On any other debate site I have ever participated in or moderated, you would be banned from this debate and probably even suspended from the site for a few days at least for hijacking it with such nonsensical and laughable tripe.
Your post here is no more than trolling. While I usually admire Andy's hands-off approach and his insistence on hardly ever banning trolls here, sometimes--like now--I DO wish he would at least make some efforts to stop people from hijacking debates with pure unadulterated bullshit like your bible fables.
Oh well......every site has its downside and I guess that here on CD it is this sort of crap. I would love for you to try this shit over at a more structured site like Debate.Org, however. You wouldn't last two days.
SS
Chimps never turned into humans.
Nor did apes.
And we are NOT descended from them.
Rather...we homo sapiens only share a distant common ancestor. Period.
Please, please take three minutes to read this link. It is high time you Creationists at least have some remote idea of the Theory that you seem so fond of mercilessly and cluelessly bashing every fucking day.
SS
http://www.livescience.com/
The problem with your hypothetical question on a "first member of a species" is that, well, technically, or should I say, Biologically, there is no such thing as a "first member."
Doesn't work that way. There was no, for example, first human. Or even, first homo sapien, or first homo habilis, or first homo erectus.
Rather, these sub-species "transitioned" into one another, in a mode of evolutional and biolgogical ascension. It was was a gradual transition. Powered by subtle genetic changes that were inherited by the species. And then passed on little by little to their offspring. Providing, of course, that said genetic mutations, or changes, proved to be advantageous to that species for living and thriving in its specific environment.
This is why we have all those so-called "transitional fossils." And no..there is no missing link. It is a subtle, gradual, very lengthy, transitory biological process.
An example I sometimes like to use for laymen to help illustrate the idea of there being no distinct, concrete, indisputable "first" or "original" of a species (or a sub-species) is my salt water metaphor.
Say you have a big-ass 200-gallon container of fresh water. That container is an original species and its DNA genome.
Now....take a single teaspoon of salt. Dump it into the container.
This step represents the first in a process of inherited genetic mutations that are "selected IN" as we say. Rather than "selected out" in the case of non-desirable mutations.
So...you dump in a single teaspoon of salt into a 200-gallon container of fresh water.
Is it Saltwater now? I mean, REAL, indisputable, legitimate, "salt water?" No....not compared to what will in time become real, full-fledged "species" if salt water.
So you after a few hundred or thousand years, dump in ANOTHER teaspoon of salt water. And three hundred years later, another teaspoon.
When is it "The First Species of Salt Water?"
See? It never really is. It is always evolving into a "higher form" or more concentrated form of salt water. You are slowly transitioning that fresh water into salt water. Step by step. Without a pre-determined definition or parameter of what exactly constitutes Salt Water--say, what percentage of salt need be present in the water--you can never really term it to be "The Very First Moment of Salt Water Species."
This of course is a drastically over-simplified metaphor for the process of genetic evolution, but I hope it at least illustrates my point that there is no "First" of an evolving species.
Thanks.
SS
"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace... You...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one"
Now.....let us just Imagine that global politics are more nuanced than a three-minute pop song written by a stoned degenerate.
LOL
SS
This is a very old and very popular "thought exercise" called "the trolley man's dilemna." Every undergrad Philosophy 101 student had it in their first semester. As did I.
The logical answer is of course to allow the least amount of people to be killed. Therefore you let the train kill the one guy. But the exercise illustrates how most people find it difficult to be responsible for a murder. Even if it means saving lives. It is an old "gut emotions vs. sheer logic" problem.
But it's good to see you taking an interest in intriguing philosophical conundrums. Beats the shit out of most of the silly stuff you post. But I DO appreciate the fact that you seem to have fun here, Betty. I'd rather read your stuff than those boring religious rants and tract pastes by the resident zealots. Keep it up!
SS
Are you serious? You really want to dispute me on Evolution?
Wow.
Listen up and learn....
When I say "humans" I am using the layman's term for what we call homo sapiens. And those neanderthals you mentioned were of our same species. That is, they too shared the same exact common ancestors we did before breaking off from that lineage about 6 MYA.
Neanderthals ARE (well, were) homo sapiens. Their name ius simply a connotation of their region of origin, and where we first met-up with them: The Neander River Valley Region in Western Europe.
We ran into them there about 50,000 years ago after we both exited Eastern-Central Africa. They got out a bit earlier than did we.
As far as still evolving. We are! Evolution is a primary mechanation of ALL things living. Plants too. You just don't see the process because it moves a glacial speed. For example, you gotta back about 50,000 years before you could find a homo sapien--which we evolved into directly from homo habilis--that was noticeably physiologically different than you.
That's right....the changes between now and then are mostly cosmetic. We are a bit taller; have less body hair; less of a pronounced sub-orbital ridge, and less muscular. But, say, a surgeon operating on a 50,000 y.o. homo sapien and you would find no discernible difference among your organs.
So yeah....and if you go back, say, 10,000 years? Well, the evolution is very slight. But there are some things you can notice. Most are cosmetic . And This is 10,000 years before Jesus! That's 200 generations or more! And not a speck of difference. Hardly.
And you think you're gonna see a change during your short-ass life? LOL. Nope...doesn't work that way.
But we do continue to evolve on a cellular level. And when that first new significant and useful genetic mutation comes along that proves useful to us...say a more padded ass for all the sitting most people do...or more flexible thumbs for their endless texting..then you can bet that through the course of selective inheritance that trait will in time become not only noticed, but the new "norm."
But that will take at least a few dozen generations. You'll be long gone, amigo.
Oh...and your mixed-race couples thins was also inaccurate. Anthropologists and Biologists know that the entire concept of race is a myth. Useful only for labeling and sociological purposes. There is no verifiable science behind it. We are all of the same species. And thus, a man of, say, Scandinavian descent breeding with a woman of African ancestry will effect the process of homo sapien physiological evolution not a whit.
Here is a link to explain to you how we ARE still evolving.....
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/
And here is some stuff to educate you on how race is a myth....
Hope this helps.
SS
I got a question for ya.........
About the logo....is that a native American in the front? And he' is between eagle wings? Could you explain the log to me and the significance or meaning of it?
Thanks.
Oh...also...unless I am just missing it: did you actually NOT pt the site's URL addy on the shirt? Ooops. LOL
SS
What if Thor and Odin are two different people?
Or Dracular and Nosferatu?
Or Mohammed and Allah?
Or Joe Smith and that angel Macoroni?
See where I be goin' with this?
All me questions are as equally as valid and substantive as yours.
LOL
Which is to say....Not very. As they ALL dwell in the realm of mythos and fiction.
Hope this helps.
SS
Once again your headline is contradictory to the true gist of the article you refer to.
Nowhere in the article does it claim--and indeed, nowhere in ANY study of Evolution of Humans has it been found--that we homo sapiens have evolved "not to exercise."
Rather, the main thrust of the article is that back in our hunter-gatherer days, we did not exercise for fun and recreation as we do now. Nor did we do it to stay fit. The reason for this is very simple of course. Our diets back then were so mucgh healthier and we already brined so many calories just surviving that recreational exercise was totally unneeded.
An exerpt from the article............
..."human evolution has been a story of adaptations that enhance running ability: shorter toes and heel bones, and the ability to cool off through sweating, for example. He’s drawn attention to human prowess in persistence hunting, rarely practiced today, in which small bands of hunters chase animals until they collapse of heat exhaustion."
See what I said? We ARE running and athletic animals by nature. We have lost this trait--or at least most of us have--over the past decades due to laziness, modern technology, and a shitty diet filled with HFCS and simple carbohydrates.
Now then....this is where in the article the author explains about how back then when we hunted we did not need recreational exercise. This is NOT the same as saying we evolved not to exercise, as you tried to say in your header.....
"But Lieberman, Lerner professor of biological sciences, says that humans have also been selected to exercise only as much as they must to survive. The ancestors of modern humans lived as hunter-gatherers. In this subsistence lifestyle, food was often scarce, so resting was key to conserving energy for survival and reproduction.
“No hunter-gatherer goes out for a jog, just for the sake of it.....They go out to forage, they go out to work, but anything else would be unwise, not to mention maladaptive” in calorie-restricted environments."
See? All this article claims is that back when we were far more active and ate better we were also healthier and fitter. So no recreational exercise was needed. Today is of course a drastically different scenario, amigo.
Look.....A full forty percent of women in America are OBESE!! And one-third of men are. And...this is the real ass-kicker: Almost one out of FIVE kids is obese. Not just overweight, mind you, but OBESE... Which means they are more than 20 lbs overweight.
Sorry to bust you up like this and you probably think I am a nit-picker, but as a Biologist AND a lifelong athlete, you are treading smack dab in the middle of my fields of passion.
SS
Hmm...only partially correct.
The phenotype really has "no say" (to use a figure of speech) in whether or not the [physiological trait caused by the genetic mutation turns out to be adapted by its host organism. As I explained in my OP above, THAT occurrence, if and when it ever happens, depends on whether said trait is advantageous for the host given its current environment
Also you misused the word dominance. When used in biology it is almost always referring to recessive and/or dominant genes. And what determines THAT is whether or not the are coded on or off. DNA DOES have a binary-type "switching" component to it. Although that is a slight over-generalization.
SS
There is no such thing as "strong" or "weak" mutations.
Nor are the dominant ones or weak ones. All mutations are originally equal at their primal genetic level. That is, they are all simply consist of a strand of DNA code that has an abberation from the norm inside of it. Say....a TA.GCTATATAGC strand becomes a TAGCTATGCTAGC.
See? No strong or weak. Just a minor "flaw" in the order of the nucleotides.
The way selective inheritance works is, that only those genetic mutations which provide their hosts with a physiological trait that proves advantageous end-up being passed on to progeny. And then after many generations, what was once an aberration, or a mutations, becomes the norm. As it is the fortunate species members that originally had the desirable mutations who end-up dominating and thriving in such a manner as to vanquish (or surpass) their less-fortunate counterparts.
Like the giraffes. they are actually of the equine family. Horses! the ones that originally had the genetic mutation that "coded" for longer necks were able to reach more food on higher tree branches. So in time they thrived over their shorter-necked brethren.
Hope this helps.
SS
Oh....here ya go....from an online article on PBS about Evolution FAQ's for the lay-person..........
Are evolution and "survival of the fittest" the same thing?
Evolution and "survival of the fittest" are not the same thing. Evolution refers to the cumulative changes in a population or species through time. "Survival of the fittest" is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection, a mechanism that drives evolutionary change. Natural selection works by giving individuals who are better adapted to a given set of environmental conditions an advantage over those that are not as well adapted. Survival of the fittest usually makes one think of the biggest, strongest, or smartest individuals being the winners, but in a biological sense, evolutionary fitness refers to the ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. Popular interpretations of "survival of the fittest" typically ignore the importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on one's genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them.
Actually there are Four political parties.
Dems....GOP....Libertarian...and the Green.
I am voting for the Libertarian guy, Gary Johnson.
As far as soft drinks...I tried that new Pepsi 1899 today! Awesome stuff. I am gonna try it tomorrow night with a shot of Maker's Mark in it.
SS
First off, once again, the Adam and Eve story is not to be taken literally. If you do, it sounds like a silly disney movie while being high on LSD.
Sure does!
There are many many stories in the Bible-especially in the Torah, that I believe would require most sane and rational people to be highly doped up on hallucinogens in order to take seriously.
Shit....Unicorns...talking serpents...sky gods killing children by the millions.....idiots giving up their virgin daughter to gang rape to prevent an angry mob from sodomizing angels....whew! I get acid flashbacks just thinking of that stupid shit.
LOL
SS
You do realize that incest can result in genetic mutations and a whole variety of birth defects...
Yeah yeah, we all know that. But what if you use birth control? As anybody except a retard would if he was doing his hot 19 year-old sister? Then I submit to you there are NO deleterious consequences of incest.
So you say it is a taboo? Where? Maybe here, maybe in most developed countries. But incest is a common and accepted part of life still, among several tribal peoples on the planet.
So it's not even a universal taboo! And since we here on Earth are only ONE out of likely millions of other Intelligent civilizations in the Universe, that makes those countries here that don't dig incest an even smaller percentage.
Bottom Line: Incest--practiced responsibly? Who cares? I want the Government and the Nanny State and the Religious zealots to stay the fuck out of my bedroom.
SS
Well I don't understand your math at all--it didn't make any sense, read it again--but I agree that there is a 3rd Party Candidate out there who is much better than either Hillary or Trumpy.
And he is the guy I plan to vote for: Gary Johnson. Libertarian Party Candidate. You should check him out and where he stands on the major issues. I find him vastly more agreeable that Trump---who is at the end of the day little more than a clown--or Hillary, who is perhaps the biggest vote whore ever to run for POTUS. In that she will do or say absolutely, no-holds-barred ANYthing to get elected. Integrity be damned.
SS
not attributing sources is called plagiarism.
Hinting that you're married when you're not is dishonesty.
http://blog.auntyacid.com/
Oh come on.....you're not married, bro. You're way too immature.
Besides, you lifted all your posts from here, or other places like it..........
I have a 18 year old niece who just got a volleyball scholarship to UC Santa Barbara. Tall and blonde and tan and flat-bellied with an ass you could bounce a quarter off of.
I think about incest every time I see her, which, thankfully is only once in awhile! LOL. And I ask myself what the harm would be if, say, at a family reunion sometime, we snuck off in a spare bedroom for a quickie? (that is, if I wasn't engaged, which I am....so this idea will always remain a fantasy.)
If it is consensual and we of course use BC, where the fuck is the harm? I can't see it. But maybe thats because ol' One Eye can't see too good! LOL
SS
Yeah, the whole "Where did Cain's wife come from?" is just one of the many many problems with the Creationist account from the fable of Genesis. Which should never be used for ANY sort of real science.
The bible does not do very well with morals either, it appears. Shit, not only does its science blow, so does its moral teachings! So what is it good for? LOL
Here are some lovely little tales of how the Bible CONDONES INCEST...
http://listverse.com/2008/05/26/
Who says those are pictures of actual ET's coming down from space?
Rather, they could very well be different types of sky gods. After all, what HAS been proven is that ALL cultures have invented their own gods. And conversely, there has never been one shred of proof of visitation by extra-terrestrials.
You are making a grave mistake by interpreting ancient cave art as proof of anything, since said art is highly abstract and thus subject to many interpretations. And when said interpretation is done by somebody who lives in a totally different time and world and knows nothing about those peoples' culture or ideas on gods or supernatural entities, then many problems arise.
The whole Ancient Astronaut fable is pure psuedo-science. Some of its most infamous past proponents like Erich Von Danikken have been roundly debubnked.
Here is some more debunking from REAL anthropologists and historians.................
Alan F. Alford, author of Gods of the New Millennium (1996), was an adherent of the ancient astronaut hypothesis. Much of his work draws on Sitchin's hypotheses. However, he now finds fault with Sitchin's hypothesis after deeper analysis, stating that: "I am now firmly of the opinion that these gods personified the falling sky; in other words, the descent of the gods was a poetic rendition of the cataclysm myth which stood at the heart of ancient Near Eastern religions."[69]
The Christian creationist community is highly critical of many of the ancient astronaut ideas. Young Earth creationist author Clifford A. Wilson published Crash Go the Chariots in 1972 in which he attempted to discredit all claims made in von Däniken's book Chariots of the Gods.[70]
Robert Todd Carroll in the The Skeptic's Dictionary (2003) has written that ancient astronaut ideas are not based on scientific investigation but pseudoscientific speculation. He concluded that the "ancient astronaut hypothesis is unnecessary. Occam's razor should be applied and the hypothesis is rejected."[71]
Terence Hines author of Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (2003) has described the ancient astronaut hypothesis as a pseudoscience and has said that its proponents look for mysteries where none exist. According to Hines ancient astronaut proponents such as Von Däniken have fabricated evidence and distorted the facts of archeological research.[72]
In a 2004 article in Skeptic magazine, Jason Colavito claims that von Däniken plagiarized many of the book's concepts from Le Matin des Magiciens (Morning of the Magicians), that this book in turn was heavily influenced by the Cthulhu Mythos, and that the core of the ancient astronaut hypothesis originates in H. P. Lovecraft's works "The Call of Cthulhu" and At the Mountains of Madness.
Jason Colavito later expanded on this claim in his book The Cult of Alien Gods: H. P. Lovecraft and Extraterrestrial Pop Culture.[73]
I wouldn't be that surprised either--to find out we had been visited before. But I really doubt it.
All that Ancient Alien stuff is bullshit. Like how the Egyptians or whomever needed ET help to build the pyramids and other structures. We have been able to explain exactly how all that stuff was built, with the manpower and the tools at hand at that time.
See? there has NEVER been anything discovered in all those ancient ruins that we cannot explain. It;s a lot like god--simply zero proof. Not a shred. And all it would take would be for us to find, like in one of the catacombs beneath one of those pyramids, a highly technical tool or even a piece of material that had not existed back then. Like, say, a titanium-encased portable laser the size of a power drill that was used for cutting rocks. Something the aliens might have had.
But alas, nothing. There is a reason for this.
The folks who think the ancients needed ET's are selling the ancients short and not giving them their due credit. The same folks who probably think we never landed on the moon, cuz we did not have the smarts or the technology back then. These people piss me off and are basically misanthropes. Like a lot of fundamentalist Christians are.
SS
Homo sapiens almost certainly are not the oldest civilization in the Universe.
Just doing the math insofar as the respective ages of the Earth, and then the Universe itself, will support this point.
To wit: the Earth is a mere 4.57 Billion years old, give or take several million years.
The Universe itself is approximately 13.7 Billion years old. So..that's about three times the age of our planet.
And life did not begin on our planet for a good One Billion years. And even that was in simple single-celled microbial form. It would then take almost ANOTHER three billion years for those microbes to evolve.
First, into multi-celled prokaryotes. Then, tiny sea creatures. Then, fish, amphibians; reptiles; rodent-type animals; chimpanzee-type mammals; and finally apes. The Genus "homo"--a bipedal hominid, would then split-off from their common ancestors.
(BTW...a quick side note: we were at that "rodent-type" stage when that big ass asteroid crashed down on the southern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula about 65 MYA. As far as modern day animals to compare to what we looked like then, look at a tree-dwelling vole! that was us. )
The earliest hominid that even could loosely be termed human-like would be a. afarensis, this was only a few million years ago.
Homo habilis (handy man, since he used crude tools) comes on the scene a few hundred thousand years ago. Homo sapien then exits Africa for Northern and Western Europe, where we meet-up with Neanderthal Man. We co-exist with him for many thousands of years, maybe even interbred, before vanquishing him (we are still not totally sure how) about 50,000 years ago.
So...OK, to make a long story not quite so long, let's us humans with a reasonable semblance of our current intellect, have been around for 50,000 years.
This is nothing. A drop in the bucket in Cosmological or even geological time. If the age of the Earth is a 24 hour day, beginning last night at midnight, we don't arrive on the scene till about 20 seconds to midnight tonight!
So....we are in all likelihood one of the younger Intelligent Civilizations in the Universe. Doubtless millions of others have come and gone by now. I am of the opinion the Universe is teeming with Intelligent life. If only one out of a hundred billion stars in the Universe had a planet with life on it orbiting it, and only one out a billion of THOSE were still around, that STILL leaves tens of millions of Intelligent Civilizations out there.
We are probably among the dumber and less advanced. This is what Stephen Hawking has always thought, BTW. And is the reason he has always been against us searching for ET life. That is, our SETI programs. He looks at how history shows what happens when a more advanced peoples come a-callin' on a lesser peoples: Usually, NOT good for the lesser guys. That would be us!
So why no contace with them yet? (All those bogus abduction stories and Ancient Alien stories aside?)
The answer is a simple one and can be summed up nicely in two three words...................."The distances, man!"
Over four light years to the nearest star system, Alpha Centauri/Proxima.
With out current bestest space travel propulsion technology, we could not reach that system in 10,000 years!
So they are out there, all right, but they are very very far away. (We already know full well that there are NO planets in out own solar system that are capable of harboring intelligent life.)
Look at us and the "why no ETs?" dilemma like this.............
Say we are some sand fleas living on a piece of driftwood in the Pacific Ocean. We feel like they do....hey! this place is perfect. It has everything we want! We must be special! God made this place just for us! Since we cannot contact any other fleas!
Unbeknownst to those fleas on that piece of driftwood, in that vast Ocean, there are millions of other pieces of wood and kelp floating aorund with fleas and other types of bugs and whatnot on them. Say the closest one is a few miles away from the sand flea civilization we are speaking of. The one that represents us?
They would never know about the others. The distances are too great for them to travel. Yet, in the grand scheme of the Ocean, they are abundant and pretty close.
Hope this helps!
SS
There was nothing in that link's observations on the differences between the Liberal and the Conservative brain to suggest that the former is a mental disorder.
IN fact, all of the alleged aberrations in the brain's normal architecture and chemical processes were attributed to the Conservative Mind, such as the enlarged amygdala.
So this begs the question: did you even read the link you provided?
And...for the record, I personally find the observations in that article highly spurious. It is certain that there are many many exceptions to their claims, such as Liberals with enhanced amygdalas. And I am doubting that the amygdala can even change size due to one's political ethos, anyway.
The article's authors seemed to make a common mistake, and that is, confusing "causal" factors for "corollary" ones. That is to say, just because somebody of a certain mental type indeed possesses a specific physical or psychological attribute, this does not mean that said mental type is CAUSED by that physical attribute. Rather, the two just may happen to coincide in some people.
SS
So...they wanted me to sign-up for the New York Times on the first link, so I did not read it.
And when I began reading the 2nd link you provided, I soon came across this little nugget...............
""The conservative brain, on the other hand, has greater volume in a region called the amygdala, an almond-shaped structure implicated in emotional and fear-based learning.""
Wow. Really? I have read a lot of bad science and bullshit before but this has to rank up there with the worst. It's pure psuedo-science.
Why?
Easy. According to that crapola, if a person were to change his political affiliations from Republican to Democrat, or, as so many people do, begin life as a liberal and Progressive and then become more conservative as they get older and gain some real world experience, then guess what?
The size of their Amygdala would change!
LOL
Their very political ethos--which is nothing but opinion, at the end of the day--would somehow magically physically distort and change the volume of that region of the brain!
Uh....needless to say, I quit reading any more of your links after that.
Again: something as trivial as one's opinions of politics has no physical basis. This includes the structure of the CNS and the brain. It's like saying that people who prefer Seinfeld over Southpark have bigger pre-frontal cortexes.
Now then...there IS such a thing as what we call "neuro-plasticity" whereby you can sometimes, through a LOT of practice and hard mental work, change your thought patterns and even improve cognitive functions.
But this is NOT what was referenced in your link I read and has nothing to do with woo about Dems and Repubs having differing brain architectures.
SS
It is a proven myth that a human's mouth has more germs in it that your dog's does. That is total nonsense.
Dogs are filthy animals. Fer chrissakes people, they lick their own asses as well as other dogs' asses and they even eat shit. They will eat a three-day old piece of raw meat laying in your backyard in the dirt that has opossum hairs on it. If you were to eat what your dog does for a week or subject your mouth to what it does you would most likely DIE from an infectious disease, or from total dehydration and nutrient loss due to unstoppable acute and chronic diarrhea.
Grosses my out when somebody lets their dogs lick their own lips or they look like they're basically making out with their pets. Or they let their dog take a big gross sloppy slobbery slurp off of their longneck beer bottle.
They think it's cool, I guess.
Guess what?
It's not. It's disgusting and will probably one day get you sick.
As sick as a dog.
LOL
There is a growing school of thought in neurology and psychology that conservatives are holdovers from before we had permanent settlements.
Is that so? Why have I--an Evolutionary Psych major--never heard of this hypothesis? At least not in the way in which you frame this claim. What do you mean by "permanent settlements?" We homo sapiens were hunter gatherers going back to our first hominid inceptions at around 3 MYA with a. afarensis.
We never really settled down to agrarian cultures and farming until about 10,000 years ago. So for a good 90% of our evolution we have been hunter gatherers. Ergo, your claim is very nebulous and wields a very wide and unspecific time window.
And you need to elaborate on what you mean by Conservatives. You cannot possibly be referring to the political ideology, since that shit did not exist until only a couple hundred years ago. And if you mean conservative to mean one who simply is imbued with family values and is cautious as to embracing progress, well, that is such a nebulous and non-provable trait that it is meaningless.
Got any links?
Many of their traits; high fear response, strong in group loyalty/out group enmity, over simplified problem solving techniques, high religiosity; are more useful in a scary world where every day is a potential battle for your life.
Who says Conservative have a high fear response? Again, give us some links or sources. This sounds as if it is simply your opinion. A conservative would tell you just the opposite, that its the liberals who have an inordinate fear response.
Again, this is scientific nonsense. By fear response if you mean the physiological "fight or flight" mode that we ALL enter when threatened or provoked, then you are again totally wrong. One's political ideology has nothing to do with this hardwired and evolved genetic pre-disposition.
How can a problem-solving technique be "over-simplified?" If it works and is effective, then the simpler the better. And again, this is all your opinion. A conservative would respond to saying that Progressives are elitest and condescending and try to make issues seem to complex so their constituents thinks they need the government to figure it out and take care of them.
But again, all of what you say does not fly biologically or is NOT a documented evolutionary trait. And Again---politics and ethics do NOT effect physical inherited traits.
As far as "high religiosity." There is not proof at all that ancient man was religious. It is likely he believed in supernatural gods, but these were far different than the Judeo-Christian gods. Instead, they were nature-based gods, representing the vital forces of weather and crops and agriculture. Their gods were much closer to, say, what they Native Americans or the Pagans or Wiccans believe nowadays than today's Christian movement.
So if you are trying to say that the Religious Right has an evolved and documented past stemming from selective inheritance through biological Evolution, then again yo are just plain wrong and are obviously fishing to make your biased anti-conservative rant sound as if it has some real science behind it.
But alas, it does not.
Conservatives are the human equivalent of dinosaurs who happened to survive the meteor by clinging to the backs of liberals.
No they are not. There is not human equivalent to dinosaurs, you are speaking of totally different species. And the rest of your sentence here does not even make any sense. Since there were no liberals around 65 MYA when the asteroid (not a meteor, btw) annihilated the dinos, how could anybody back then have clung to their backs? And how would that have helped survive a total blacking-out of the sunlight anyway?
Most of your post is one giant steaming messy WTF?
LOL
SS
Your argument is flawed from its very inception.
Why?
Because in the vast majority of cases it is those very Liberals and Progressives who are most in favor of funding and research and implementation of Genetic Engineering-type projects.
And, conversely, most often it is the Conservatives, especially the Christian Right, who are AGAINST genetic engineering. These wack jobs usually claim that anybody doing that stuff sort of science is trying to platy god.
To which I say: How can you "play" a non-existent deity? Is that like playing Odin? Or playing Zeus? Like in a school play or something?
LOL
SS
https://www.quora.com/
Hmm... I used to think so, but now I have changed my mind.
All we need to know about that planet we can discover by use of robotics. As we have been doing. After all, the only real thing we want to know about it that we don't already know is if there is life. (of course it would be in the microbial form.) And we can do this--some say we already have--by drilling core samples into deep ice strata where there was perhaps once water.
Having said that, I think that Yes, we WILL someday send a manned mission to Mars. More as a PR stunt and funding justifier for NASA than anything else.
The hard fact is that after we reached the moon in 1969 and fulfilled JFK's promise to do just that, that he made about eight years before, most Americans lost interest in the Space Program. This is evidenced by the fact that very very few Americans can tell you who went to the Moon, and how many astronauts did, after that famous Apollo 11 trip with Neil Armostrong and his "small step for man" quote.
It's hella expensive to go to Mars! A 6-month trip instead of the four days to the Moon. It has been calculated that the expense of the Moon landing was equivalent to if all the astronauts had been made of solid gold. Along with the craft itself.
For Mars?
Solid platinum. Enough money to send out a couple dozen robotic missions, which would arguable reap more useful data.
By far, the best bang-for-the-buck space endeavor we EVER did was the Hubble Telescope. All those wonderful pictures! They enlightened more people about the Cosmos and taught us more than any other manned mission, and by several orders of magnitude.
And don't get me started on the Space Shuttle Program. Insofar is gleaned information is concerned, it was a total failure. And an expensive one. A PURE funding ruse and PR program from NASA. Hardly anybody outside of those former employees of that program will even attempt to argue this point.
SS
Thanks.
And thanks for keeping my male ego alive and well, and not causing me to think I really have been ignorant on a crucial aspect of women's sexuality! LOL
SS
p.s. I ran this term of Jilling Off by my fiance. She also said it was new, and seems to be most popular among the lesbo crowd.
Yeah, right.
But I have a question for you. Some of us guys here were joking around about masturbating. And of course we all know that the most common slang for that particular endeavor is "jacking off."
Just the other day I heard--well, actually read--an article from a college girl and she was speaking on females masturbating. She referred to it as "Jilling off."
Wow.
Listen....I'm almost 35 years old and used to be quite the womanizer and party animal and liked to think I know more about women than the average bear. And I am now engaged and will be married next Spring. But in all my days I have never heard that term, Jilling off.
So is it possible women have been saying this forever? How did I miss it?
BTW: it's stupid sounding to me. Obviously a rip-off an our term. Sounds like a term that perhaps sprang from the 70s feminazi movement.
So, care to enlighten us?
Of course, we never needed to drop an atomic bomb on Japan to end the war. Much less two bombs.
Japan was already on its knees. They were close to surrendering. It was only a matter of time. All they really wanted was to be allowed to leave their Emperor in place.
We have already been fire bombing Tokyo and other Japanese cities for months. We had already killed more innocent civilians with this incendiary bombing that we did with Fat Man.
So...you obviously drank the Kool Aid on the whole thing about, "ohh. we had to nuke the Japs to prevent losing a hundred thousand men in a land invasion."
Bullshit.
Like I said, we had already island-hopped into the door step of their mainland, after Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Japan's surrender was on the way. Probably only days away.
So why did we nuke them?
Two main reasons...................
We had already spent so much time and money on the Manhattan Project, we HAD to see if the bombs worked.
And also..........Having just sacked Berlin and beaten the Nazis, Russia was on the way over to "help out" with Japan. But see, Truman's advisers had told him that the Cold War was on the way! That if Russia cam over to Japan and beat them, they would try and probably succeed in claiming Japan for their Sphere of Influence. Japan could very well become part of the USSR.
So..obviously we could not abide this. So as a sort of "hands off!" message to the Russkies we dropped a couple nukes on Japan needlessly and killed a couple hundred thousand innocent civilians, including women and children.
See...Fat Man and Little Boy were basically the first two shots fired in the Cold War.
Glad I could educate you on this.
We remain the only nation to ever drop an atomic bomb on another.
Never forget that.
And put down that glass of Uncle Sam flavored Kool-Aid!
LOL
SS
