1

Physiology & Medicine / WHY DO PEOPLE CRY WHEN THEY ARE SAD, VERSA'S WHEN THEY ARE HAPPY ALSO?

« on: 16/01/2007 00:28:54 »

i just cry if i feel any very extreme emotion. 9/10 times its because im really angry. which is embarrasing if youre yelling at somebody and totally serious.

2

That CAN'T be true! / God

« on: 15/01/2007 01:56:01 »

peoples attachment to the idea of original sin is because most people feel guilty about their very comfortable, pleasurable lives. they feel like the have to "earn" it, or suffer for it, even though they dont. its also a way to cope with unjust truths, like your example of physically and mentally handicapped people who are completely innocent. they like to say "it must be for a greater good, god knows what hes doing" etc. but really its just unfortunate and unjust. because there is no justice. its sad but with help these people can lead decent lives.

3

General Science / Re: Are microwave ovens safe, or bad for our health?

« on: 01/01/2007 22:59:02 »

this article was full of leaps in logic that i just couldnt make.

one of the main things is they made no mention of results of comparing particual foods cooked in a regular oven vs. a microwave. they would compare being cooked in a microwave to "not being cooked in a microwave". of course heating and cooking all foods breaks down some of the nutritive content. but if what your cooking can give you salmonela, triganosis(no idea how to spell) or other bacteria infections, youre still way better off using the microwave which is very thurough.

unless you take it all the way and espouse eating only raw foods, singling out microwaves as the source of all digestive health problems is nonsense

4

General Science / Re: Is evidence against evolution all nonsense?

« on: 25/12/2006 00:56:15 »

i never understood that either, that somehow a book from thousands of years ago is "more credible" than a book today. its a logical fallacy, that someone old must be correct and something new incorrect.

case in point- the scientology garbage. its written by a "prophet" from our time with a bunch of illogical, nonsense beliefs, and most people can see right through it as having no truth or substance. why then, are older holy books revered? they have the same "proof" to back them up. just because it happened long ago, and through force and political control it has been forced onto people to where they are born into it, its accepted.

5

That CAN'T be true! / Re: eleven

« on: 13/12/2006 17:18:04 »

no, its not eerie. someone found out what 2 towers and plane would look like in wingdings font and then found out what it was in times new roman, then found something about sep. 11th that was that text. essentially working backwards.

6

That CAN'T be true! / Re: eleven

« on: 13/12/2006 02:04:59 »

this is so stupid.

7

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Additives and what you eat

« on: 10/12/2006 04:16:51 »

i didnt mean to say that your post about additives had a negative connotation- rather i was making a social observation. weve all seen the juice ads; "who wants all those ADDITIVES and PRESERVATIVES in their juice?"

8

General Science / Re: Will toast always land butter side down?!

« on: 07/12/2006 04:48:30 »

i have tested this, believe it or not. the toast was ruined as food so i played with it. when you directly "drop" it, like without any tossing action, or a table or any other force, it almost always lands butter side UP. this happens because when you butter toast, the knife leaves it concave. so, just like a leaf falling off a tree, it wouldnt fall liek this: /-\ because of air resistance. instead it stays like this \-/. unless you butter it in a more fancy knife free way.

HOWEVER. usually you dont drop it directly down. like the table diagram here, sometimes it has rotation and then might be likely to land the other way. but theres so many ways you could drop your toast. if you toss is like a frisbee it will land butter side up, i promise.

9

New Theories / Re: Obesity and precision work

« on: 03/12/2006 06:05:16 »

something i just thought of- youd have to take a sample of non medicated asthmatics or ones that arent on steroids at least. because they can cause weight gain sometimes that would screw with the results.

10

New Theories / Re: Obesity and precision work

« on: 03/12/2006 06:03:47 »

some ashtmatics dont have attacks exactly. attacks being a temporary reduction(or complete halt) in oxygen flow and panic attack... sometimes it is a constant, non life-threatening reduction in lung compacity that fluctuates due to whatever the trigger is. i have this kind of "slow asthma" if you will and take a 12 hour steroid inhaler, rather than the normal quick action one for attacks. so if i wasnt medicated, i would have a pretty constant(it was hell) reduction in oxygen flow.

however, if there is a positive correlation between ashtma and obesity(not in my particular case) then yes, it would lend creedence to this idea.

11

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Faking it

« on: 03/12/2006 05:51:26 »

is jsut like to take this oppurtunity to talk about my pigmentation. i am lima bean green all over except my privates which are slightly darker and spotted with white. my hair is white at the tips but becomes more the-entire-spectrum-of-visual-color at the roots. i have tried all of the sunless tan lotions on the market because my species lives on chemical waste.

12

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Additives and what you eat

« on: 03/12/2006 05:46:12 »

i think the more important question is why does 'additive' have a negative connotation?

13

Physiology & Medicine / How does evolution make humans?

« on: 25/11/2006 22:29:31 »

?'s about evolution always come up on this board, and alot of the time the question only exists because of the following superstitions. if anyone know better than i do, please correct me. really.

Superstition one: man is the apex of evolution
.                                 .and is the winner of a natural competition.

Man is an animal. Disbelief or avoidance of this notion has existed since recorded history. Many respectable scientists and spiritualists alike point to mans many supposed “advancements” over other animals. They may include but are not limited to: the use of tools to create and hunt, the making and wearing of clothing, the creation of jewelry, the building of shelters and advancements in technology and sanitation, walking upright, complex communication, and empathy for people and other living things.

Obviously, man does have many unique properties as a species, but they need not be “advancements” any more spectacular than any other animals. Is a spider, who weaves a web to catch its pray more advanced than a man who expends energy chasing it? Is a chameleon, whose pigments blend with its surroundings any more advanced than a man of only one color? The answer is yes, and no. Every animal is specialized to its environment, which is different in any case. Believing any animal is more “advanced” is dependant on the criteria used.

A crocodile is advanced because it has not needed to adapt much or at all in some millions of years, along with most insects. A man is advanced because it has quickly developed complex means of communication within his species. A cobra is advanced because it has developed venom capable of not only defending itself but disabling pray. A whale is advanced because it is large. A flea is advanced because it is small. All of these things are advancements for the species itself, given what environment it lives in and the prey and predators that surround it. Animals should not be judged alongside one another, as a rhinos giant horn would not be advancement for a sheep and a sheep’s woolen fur would not be advancement for a rhino.

The most common argument posed is than mans adaptations are so unique that they are advancements beyond  any another animals. The most common and ironic one believed is mans self-conciousness. Because a man is aware of itself, it supposedly poses some advantage in survival. While self-conciousness may be considered a blessing now, it may or may not be in millions of years. It is just as likely to be a curse to mankind as any other of its strange adaptations. Just because it is unique does not mean it is an advantage.

Superstition two: ape to man

A common misconception, originally arising from early interpretations of Darwinism and evolution, is that man evolved from apes. This was published and argued many times, and according to modern science and further study of fossils, is probably not true. In a textbook I own from the late 1960s, a diagram is drawn of “the modern theory of the decent of man”. It is numbered by animal, going from amoebas and protoplasm, to various fish, aquatic lizards, land reptiles, mammals, higher primates and then to man. Although this is not an attempt to include every animal and explain everything, it still shows the existance of 2 basic myths- the aforementioned idea that man is more advanced than other animals, and more importantly that evolution moves in a straight line.

To think evolution moves in a straight line, is to believe that one animal directly becomes another animal, and that that recently evolved animal becomes another. This is in conflict with observed natural selection. A species changes from a mutated gene. If this mutation is advantageous, it will prosper and the gene will be carried on, and none of the species will soon exist without the gene. So then, if an ape becomes a man, why do both still exist? The ape would have been rendered inferior to man. Evolution does not move in a straight line. It branches off; a huge family tree. Modern apes are our cousins, not our fathers. What man and modern apes share is most likely a mammalian prototype that lived billions of years ago. Because of changing climates or other factors, it became one or more other species, which in turn continued to develop into man and ape over millions of years.

It is however, unquestionable, that man has developed from one or several primates. These are however different than modern primates, as they lived among completely different species under different conditions than primates today.

Superstition three- the missing link

The widely sensationalized “missing link”, meaning an animal evolutionarily between modern man and modern ape, is an empty phrase. It is a fabrication arising from the misconception of what evolution is. Modern humans evolved from a prehistoric primate or possibly several of them. We would not have evolved if said primates were suitable for living anymore, as they would have no need to adapt.

Any animals found in recent history that are a species seemingly “in-between” modern apes and man evolved separately, and obviously, had to develop similar characteristics to be living in the same times both other animals are.

Superstition four- aesthetics

It is said that man is the only animal that has an eye for beauty and chooses its partners, surroundings, clothing and jewelry accordingly, regardless of the benefit or detriment to its own survival.  This is partially true. Man is not the only animal that notices aesthetics. A famous incredible animal, the Irish elk, at the time of its sudden extinction, wore antlers 15 feet across, as observed from fossils. It was originally brought up as  proof of creationism, as these massive antlers of the males could not possibly benefit its survival and are too strange to have evolved. After many studies attempting to suggest the antlers helped in fighting, which they may or may not have, it is most possible that it is simply what the females were attracted to.

The misunderstood and misinterpreted Darwin himself claimed that sexual selection was probably more a factor than survival selection in the current state of some animals. Sexual selection happens faster, as a gene can be bred out of bred into dominance just by selective breeding, while “survival of the fittest” is fierce competition over possibly a very long time. Sexual selection is unquestionable in humans. In only the last few centuries, though partially because of nutrition differences, humans are becoming taller and developing less body hair. Both common ideals of beauty, that seem to be against survival in some climates. Birds that develop plumage, fiddler crabs that develop an unusable claw, are both examples of similar situations.

Although humans are the only animal that makes jewelry and worries about if they are attractive, this is only a combination of other traits. If a man uses its hands to make its tools and home, and has an eye for aesthetics and what is attractive to it, jewelry naturally follows.


this isnt a near complete list of what i think are misconceptions about evolution but its a start.

14

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Nature or Nurture?

« on: 25/11/2006 02:50:52 »

id say 80% nurture and 20% nature. most people think theres more nature involved than i do though.

15

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Evolution's Sex Drive and Population Decline.

« on: 25/11/2006 02:49:19 »

you kind of answered your own question. youre correct, if the drive is for pleasure and gratification and not neccesarily reproduction, and we have reliable birth control, the population can easily go down in many places despite just as much drive.

16

General Science / Re: Is evidence against evolution all nonsense?

« on: 25/11/2006 02:44:42 »

ok.

17

General Science / Re: Kennedy and Lincoln Coincidences

« on: 25/11/2006 02:40:11 »

yeah i was born in maryland. thanks for a good argument though. i know i came off a bit brash but i get very mad about fantastical ideas.

18

New Theories / Re: Obesity and precision work

« on: 18/11/2006 03:20:08 »

...then ashtmatics would be fat.

realy though, doesnt increased brain activity increase glucose consumption similar to physical work? i know not as much; but it probably closes this percieved huge gap in metabolic rate.

19

General Science / Re: Is evidence against evolution all nonsense?

« on: 18/11/2006 03:16:44 »

and besides, his credibiliy is tarnished in the first place. we all know about the polish mathematician.

20

General Science / Re: Is evidence against evolution all nonsense?

« on: 18/11/2006 03:14:56 »

ok, im all for ripping "intelligent design" a new one, but in all fairness, this scientist didnt mention intelligent design being the logical alternative, just that he questions evolution.

we, by assuming he is an ID proponent, are making the same logical fallacy they are, that there are only 2 possible ways life could happen, and therefore "if we proove one wrong, the other is true!".

that said, i dont think the facts he presents, even if theyre true, amount to disprooving evolution. all they do is question certain mechanisms of it.