# Creation Vs. Evolution



## matthew (Aug 28, 2008)

Where do you stand and why?


----------



## MrFishy (Aug 28, 2008)

Evolution. I don't know anyone who would want to go to heaven if it were filled with holier-than-thou hypocrites. I was an altar boy and played priest as a youngster, until a priest slapped me around for _not saying _that serving a Tuesday Night Novena (Roman Catholic) was the most amazing thing I'd ever done.
_Besides, who'd Cain marry and where'd she come from?_


----------



## South Texas (Aug 28, 2008)

Fuck. Good question. Food for thought. Without the moon, stars & sun, there was no "time" reference as we see it today. Meaning that on the 1ST, 2ND, 3Rd, 4Th 5TH, 6TH or 7TH day, of "Creation", there very well could have been millions of years in between the "On the 1ST day", to the 7TH day. The first day; light, then it went from there. My belief is that evolution began & has not stopped since. 
Plants in veg state grow twice as fast if given 24/7 lighting. Once we had indoor lighting, out average height grew from average 5' 7" to 5' 11".
Each living being has either offense or defense, and all in between, to survive. The frog, for instance,, has no offensive moves, so it evolved into a defensive creature. Webbed feet, camouflaged , etc. The horse, grew longer legs. The Hippo, not too swift, grew the long self-defensive horn. Animals ate certain plants. The plants either grew taller due to the threat, or made a self- defense system, thorns Etc. Giraffes suffered, grew longer necks to survive. Buffalo's could run, so horns was not that big. Spanish Bulls could not run as fast, so grew longer horns- (The Texas Longhorns)
I don't have a clue.


----------



## pamaris (Aug 28, 2008)

Theistic evolution. ie... evolution happened just like science says but God determines it. Don't know whether He just started things off or whether He's involved in every step. Doesn't matter. Best book to read on the subject is 'The Language of God' by Frances O'Connor. Dude mapped the human genome but is actually a believer.

My parents are typical young-earth-creationists. Obviously that's what I grew up believing. It took until I was 28 to find out that evolution is not based on a foundation of Jello.

Basically, the Bible is not a science book. So we shouldn't look for scientific validation in figurative language.

Another thing- when God spoke the world into existence, it prolly caused a big bang.


----------



## MrFishy (Aug 29, 2008)

Just heard a stat the other day that relates . . . if Earth's creation were a 24 hour clock, Man wouldn't have appeared until the last 2 seconds . . . and look at all the damage done by same. AND it can't all be bad stuff, so figure one second of good.


----------



## KAOSOWNER (Aug 29, 2008)

intelligent design, there has to be something higher.


----------



## ElBarto (Aug 29, 2008)

"Creation" is a myth. 

"Evolution" is a scientific theory.

"Creation or evolution?" is like asking chocolate or the Dallas Cowboys?


----------



## Dfunk (Aug 30, 2008)

I say both. Why? duality would be my answer. One can not exist without the other.


----------



## overfiend (Aug 30, 2008)

evolution is obvious if you look around at all the wonderful strains that have "evolved" over the last decade. but its pretty amazing that the earth has always had life and other planets dont at least all the ones we know about. maybe there is something special about us? or to look at it another way we were all "created by our evolving mother earth"


----------



## Dfunk (Aug 30, 2008)

I have a theory on who/what God is. God is simply energy in it's pure form...the LIGHT if you will. Just a theory.


----------



## overfiend (Aug 30, 2008)

Dfunk said:


> I have a theory on who/what God is. God is simply energy in it's pure form...the LIGHT if you will. Just a theory.


i kind of think of it in the same way God is all energy and all life combined


----------



## 330nuggz (Aug 31, 2008)

def creation.... where did the elements for the 'big-bang' come from? you cant have elements floating randomly around the universe unless something (god) created them.


> Besides, who'd Cain marry and where'd she come from?


if god created one chick, why cant he create two?


----------



## vantheman169 (Aug 31, 2008)

Man I was raised catholic and I am 27 Now and i have been a believer all my life, and i watched this movie called Volcanoes of the Deep Sea. I reccommend anybody that is interested in this subject WATCH THIs smoke a phat one and watch it, it will blow your mind!!! I am wondering if we didnt evlove......In fact i saw it on TV and I liked it so much i bought it on ebay, it will have you thinkin for real. Here is a link to what the movie is called. Amazon.com: Volcanoes of the Deep Sea: Ed Harris, Stephen Low: Unbox Video

Watch it or if anybody has seen it, please share what you think! 

Another one in BLU-RAY is Blue Planet. man cool as shit.


----------



## User Name: (Sep 1, 2008)

evolution. Creation and religion are both fucking pointless and stupid


----------



## matthew (Sep 1, 2008)

330nuggz said:


> def creation.... where did the elements for the 'big-bang' come from? you cant have elements floating randomly around the universe unless something (god) created them.
> 
> if god created one chick, why cant he create two?



The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. You are confusing biology with astronomy.


----------



## Florida Girl (Sep 1, 2008)

Evolution..... and not just here on planet earth.... the whole universe and all its life forms are constantly evolving


----------



## vantheman169 (Sep 1, 2008)

Florida Girl said:


> Evolution..... and not just here on planet earth.... the whole universe and all its life forms are constantly evolving


Word Florida Girl! You got some sense! Hey watch Volcanoes of the Deep Sea!! OMG will sombody watch it! Lmao its great!


----------



## kash959 (Sep 2, 2008)

vantheman169 said:


> Man I was raised catholic and I am 27 Now and i have been a believer all my life, and i watched this movie called Volcanoes of the Deep Sea...


Blue planet is amazing... Is the deep sea volcanoes about those hot vents that give out toxic gases but some bacteria can transform that into energy which feeds crabs and stuff?


----------



## kash959 (Sep 2, 2008)

matthew said:


> Where do you stand and why?


I just want to begin by saying that things do evolve. Evolution does happen. However, how does that mean that there is no God. I think it only adds to his creativity. He wants the universe to flow like water and that's what he has done. However, i don't believe that humans evolved because we are different from animals in a sense that we can do shit like communicate with the accuracy that is surpassing every other level. I want you to think of something and then make up a word for it. How the fuck would you convey that to another human and the other human will understand it. The other human will be like "What the fuck is this guy talking about at all?!?". 

What about colours? When you say to someone "Black". He'll be like what the fuck is black? You'll say "Black colour". He'll say "What's colour". Then what will you say to him to explain what colour is?

I have a theory though. In the Quran (the book that i believe in & no i am not Bin Laden's bitch), it says that when man was made, God taught him the names of things. That would explain why people used to be so proud of carrying on their family name and how languages developed.

Lastly, evolution is all about what happened through the centuries. Not how it began and how it sustained. Or how animals figured out that Oxygen can be used to create enery. And even that you can eat your fellow animals to feed yourself. Also, what about the big bang. Think of molecules and the atoms that make them and the quarks that make the atom and whatever makes the quarks which we dont know about yet. Did they also evolve out of nothing?


----------



## ElBarto (Sep 2, 2008)

kash959 said:


> I want you to think of something and then make up a word for it. How the fuck would you convey that to another human and the other human will understand it.



Well, for example, I might pick up a rock, bang you on the forehead with it, and then say "rock".


----------



## vantheman169 (Sep 2, 2008)

kash959 said:


> Blue planet is amazing... Is the deep sea volcanoes about those hot vents that give out toxic gases but some bacteria can transform that into energy which feeds crabs and stuff?


Basically bro! It talks about at the bottom of the ocean like 12,000 feet deep there is life! where it is hot enough to boil a lobster, and these little tiny worms, have the exact same kind of blood that HUMANS do. tell me we did not evolve! Watch it!! Volcanoes of the deep sea its fucking amazing!!


----------



## gangjababy (Sep 2, 2008)

Evolution hands down! I always believed in evolution but after reading Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection, it is painfully obvious that this is how life has evolved. God has nothing to do with it, there is no such thing as "God".


----------



## jackonthebox (Sep 2, 2008)

gangjababy said:


> Evolution hands down! I always believed in evolution but after reading Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection, it is painfully obvious that this is how life has evolved. God has nothing to do with it, there is no such thing as "God".


God is natural selection.


----------



## gangjababy (Sep 2, 2008)

jackonthebox said:


> God is natural selection.


What do you mean?


----------



## jackonthebox (Sep 2, 2008)

gangjababy said:


> What do you mean?


I don't get it myself really. But the thought that "God" is everything kinda helps it. I've been working on the thought for a while and still haven't wrapped my head around it.


----------



## gangjababy (Sep 2, 2008)

Well if you can't even make sense of your own statement... 
Like I've said God has nothing to do with it, there is no God.
Evolution just makes sense, you can see it everyday. The strong survive and the weak die only the strong or those best suited to their environment pass their genes on to the next generation, and overtime species evolve.


----------



## jackonthebox (Sep 2, 2008)

oh I'm not disagreeing with you about evolution, I definitely believe in evolution.


----------



## kash959 (Sep 3, 2008)

gangjababy said:


> Evolution hands down! I always believed in evolution but after reading Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection, it is painfully obvious that this is how life has evolved. God has nothing to do with it, there is no such thing as "God".


Ok, evolution does happen dude but can you please refer to me how love in human beings have evolved and the ability to dream. Also, in evolutionary terms, what are the benefits of these two things?


----------



## TodayIsAGreenday (Sep 3, 2008)

animals dream, its been proven that they have "complex" dreams so its very possible that we dream because of evolution, and that through evolution the dreams have become more complex and hidden with the deep meaning that dreams really are.

if you wanted to get technical you could say that love is your body's chemical reaction to a certain pheromone that only a certain few carry perhaps we are attracted to those pheromones because our breeding would be beneficial to the offspring and help create a longer living more intelligent human race we've already evolved since Egyptian times, those dudes were short as hell


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 3, 2008)

kash959 said:


> Ok, evolution does happen dude but can you please refer to me how love in human beings have evolved and the ability to dream. Also, in evolutionary terms, what are the benefits of these two things?


If you stop and think about the evolutionary benefit of "love" it quickly becomes obvious, especially for the weak naked apes that we are. If you're really curious about finding evolutionary explanations for things that go on in our brains, I suggest finding some Vilayanur Ramachandran (he's on Ted.com). Also, for evolution in general, E.O. Williams, and maybe some Richard Dawkins (although, he's a wee bit acerbic at times).

Now, for all (us) evolutionists, anyone wanna try on punctuated equilibrium on for size?


----------



## kash959 (Sep 3, 2008)

TodayIsAGreenday said:


> animals dream, its been proven that they have "complex" dreams so its very possible that we dream because of evolution, and that through evolution the dreams have become more complex and hidden with the deep meaning that dreams really are.
> 
> if you wanted to get technical you could say that love is your body's chemical reaction to a certain pheromone that only a certain few carry perhaps we are attracted to those pheromones because our breeding would be beneficial to the offspring and help create a longer living more intelligent human race we've already evolved since Egyptian times, those dudes were short as hell


So you are saying that just because animals dream, we do too?!? How do animals dream then and how is that useful in evolutionary terms. Also, this stuff about phermomones is actually not quite right if you think about it because we have developed deodorant which gets rid of body odour. Now, why would we try to get rid of the smell that's suppose to attract us to each other. Seems to be doing the opposite.
Also, phermone has nothing to do with love. You can fall in love with people over the internet. Which phermones are involved there.
I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen at all. Things do change and adapt. But there are things that have not changed for millions of years at all. Evolution on it's own doesn't explain everything. It certainly doesn't explain the physical conditions required for life and how they came to be...
Also, look into people who have come out in the open and admitted that they were forced to admit things about evolution that weren't true and these are scientists and museum people...


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 3, 2008)

kash959 said:


> So you are saying that just because animals dream, we do too?!? How do animals dream then and how is that useful in evolutionary terms. Also, this stuff about phermomones is actually not quite right if you think about it because we have developed deodorant which gets rid of body odour. Now, why would we try to get rid of the smell that's suppose to attract us to each other. Seems to be doing the opposite.
> Also, phermone has nothing to do with love. You can fall in love with people over the internet. Which phermones are involved there.
> I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen at all. Things do change and adapt. But there are things that have not changed for millions of years at all. Evolution on it's own doesn't explain everything. It certainly doesn't explain the physical conditions required for life and how they came to be...
> Also, look into people who have come out in the open and admitted that they were forced to admit things about evolution that weren't true and these are scientists and museum people...


Do some research on pheromones before you go making such an argument. If I listed which pheromones did what, would you even absorb the information, let alone retain it? To start, pheromones do not have an actual "smell" that we can consciously perceive. From an article talking about pheromone sensory organs in the nose:


> According to most biology textbooks, detection of pheromones takes place in a specialized structure, called the vomeronasal organ (VNO). Although the VNO resides in the nasal cavity, the pheromone sensory system is distinct from the sense of smell, as are the chemical receptors involved. In animals possessing a pheromone sensory system -- including mice, dogs, cats, and elephants -- the system governs a range of genetically preprogrammed mating, social ranking, maternal, and territorial defense behaviors.


Please note, pheromones in the animal world are NOT limited to mammals, that makes this article a little misleading. I believe there are plenty of invertebrates that use pheromones.

Evolution, by the way, isn't an explanation for the requirements of life. This demonstrates that you don't quite understand the forces behind evolution, the first of which dictates that the organism, in order to live, must adapt to the environment, not the other way around.

As for dreaming, it seems to be related to play in animals (and, for the record, we're animals, too), in that the higher the level of cognition (also sometimes referred to as intelligence, a deceptive term) the more likely the organism is to play and dream.


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 3, 2008)

Was talking about this with my old man one day. He brought up an interesting point. If you look at possible "evidence" for evolution you find that in almost every case evolution has taken something away never added. Like snakes that still have little nubbies where their legs once were.

In the case of pheromones. It doesn't matter how much deodorant you wear your pheromones are still detectible in the subconscience. I learned in audio ingineering that you can hear a pin drop even in a busy contsruction site, not consciencly but physically your brain still picks it up. There is an isometric chamber 1-2 miles underground where they study sound and other stuff. When inside this chamber all other "noise" is so well quieted that you can hear the blood flow thru your body, every little gurgle etc. They say because of the relative quietness just talking in there can damage your ears.

seamaiden what's this all about? punctuated equilibrium?


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 3, 2008)

Ahhh I see now.
Punctuated equilibrium is a theory of evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing populations experience little change for most of their geological history, and that when phenotypic evolution does occur, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation (called cladogenesis).
Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.
In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this idea. Their paper was built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 3, 2008)

mexiblunt said:


> Was talking about this with my old man one day. He brought up an interesting point. If you look at possible "evidence" for evolution you find that in almost every case evolution has taken something away never added. Like snakes that still have little nubbies where their legs once were.


Give us time and we'll find opposite examples.



mexiblunt said:


> seamaiden what's this all about? punctuated equilibrium?


I see you found it. It's been controversial in some scientific circles, as controversial as plate tectonics were 40+ years ago. However, toss in epigenetics and.....


----------



## ElBarto (Sep 3, 2008)

mexiblunt said:


> Was talking about this with my old man one day. He brought up an interesting point. If you look at possible "evidence" for evolution you find that in almost every case evolution has taken something away never added. Like snakes that still have little nubbies where their legs once were.



That's not true. It's a fairly common anti-evolution argument that has been thoroughly debunked.

If you're seriously interested in evolutionary biology, you should read a few of Richard Dawkins' books. _The Selfish Gene_, _The Blind Watchmaker_, _River Out Of Eden_, _The Ancestor's Tale_ are all very good. The first two are very detailed, the other two are an easier read.

Here's another interesting resource from _The New Scientist _magazine.

Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 3, 2008)

Ooo... Dawkins can be SO rough, though.. How about something people can see on Ted.com? E.O. Wilson (edited! got his name wrong, dammit!) or Ramachandran, mayhaps? Was Dawkins on Ted.com..? Gimme a few...


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 3, 2008)

Right... E.O. Wilson on saving life on Earth | Video on TED.com
Less than 25 minutes, if you're so inclined to listen to some understated brilliance.


----------



## ElBarto (Sep 3, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> Ooo... Dawkins can be SO rough, though.. How about something people can see on Ted.com? E.O. Wilson (edited! got his name wrong, dammit!) or Ramachandran, mayhaps? Was Dawkins on Ted.com..? Gimme a few...


I did say _seriously _interested.

I haven't read E.O. Wilson or Ramachandran. I'll have to check them out when I get an open spot on my reading list.

Thanks for the tip.


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 3, 2008)

I got caught up listening to Wilson and clean forgot about Dawkins!


----------



## mexiblunt (Sep 3, 2008)

ElBarto said:


> That's not true. It's a fairly common anti-evolution argument that has been thoroughly debunked.
> 
> If you're seriously interested in evolutionary biology, you should read a few of Richard Dawkins' books. _The Selfish Gene_, _The Blind Watchmaker_, _River Out Of Eden_, _The Ancestor's Tale_ are all very good. The first two are very detailed, the other two are an easier read.
> 
> ...



Yeah I see I will check into some of the links you guys have posted. I'm not saying that's something I believe it was just something my dad brought up. I can see now where he got some of that info from as well.


----------



## kash959 (Sep 3, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> Evolution, by the way, isn't an explanation for the requirements of life. This demonstrates that you don't quite understand the forces behind evolution, the first of which dictates that the organism, in order to live, must adapt to the environment, not the other way around.
> 
> As for dreaming, it seems to be related to play in animals (and, for the record, we're animals, too), in that the higher the level of cognition (also sometimes referred to as intelligence, a deceptive term) the more likely the organism is to play and dream.


Couple of questions. I do understand the concept of survival of the fittest and to be honest, that's just pointing out the obvious. Of course the animal that survives is the fittest. I just am skeptic of the fact that diversity is created by random mutations.

Also, about the requirements of life. I just want you to logically think about who defines those requirements. I'm a computer programmer and if i want to write in a code that does something useful, i have to define parameters. I believe that God defined the physical laws that govern the universe (something that evolution has nothing to do with and no one has proven came about on it's own). Then he defined the laws of evolution that ensured that life survived. It would be awful if life was static and unable to adapt now wouldn't it?


----------



## Seamaiden (Sep 4, 2008)

Oh, well, if you believe that God's hand is behind all of this, then I don't see much that I can say or show you. You don't understand _how_ mutations occur (which is randomly), and with the rest of the post seem to indicate that you've pretty much made up your mind. So, I will leave it at that, because I disagree with your basic premise...


----------



## kash959 (Sep 4, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> Oh, well, if you believe that God's hand is behind all of this, then I don't see much that I can say or show you. You don't understand _how_ mutations occur (which is randomly), and with the rest of the post seem to indicate that you've pretty much made up your mind. So, I will leave it at that, because I disagree with your basic premise...


That's cool man. We all have out own beliefs. I'm just glad i live in a place where i can atleast express them and listen to other views...


----------



## xXThirdManXx (Sep 6, 2008)

Crevolution.


----------



## anonymoushippy123 (Sep 6, 2008)

well who cares what one is real .. creation make a way cooler story than us all slowly becomeing the same thing over time..i like the thing whre something just kinda said "what the hell i'll show dave i can run a universe" and he just started making the world and stuff and eved up proving dave wrong ... ya know?


----------



## headbandrocker (Sep 6, 2008)

If there is a "god" he is an "alien".
We are hybrids of aliens and monkeys,bred as workers or slaves.
Thats why the grey aliens people see look so much like us!
" earth is like a aquarium full of fish with murderous smiles"
So there you go i just told you the secrete,
wana know more? Go here
annunaki
then go here!
Zeitgeist - The Movie
love is my religion! Hbr


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Nov 26, 2008)

What if God is an extraterrestrial being thats nothing like the aliens as stereotypicaly seen yet older than can be measured, created the universe from the inside of his universe,Its a crazy thought but what if there are other a number of other Universes out there beyond our own.Just for further intrigue in Buddhism they say there are a total of 4 Universes including ours being the physical Realm,thenBuddhas or gods Universe with supreme Understanding and ideas,Another universe said to be like hell or the most horrible place imaginable.Then the 4th universe comprising the spirit realm or where we go to dream supposedly.Crazy enough they were created but we are the only universe with time as a concept that is part of its composition.Evolution as we know it applies mostly to the physical universe because it coincides with time itself.As we discover more of our universe through telescopic technology we can see how evolution and creation are tied together.Think about it evolution is the creation of improved life through necessity and adaptation,while evolution outside of our planet is creation itself, if you look at it this way evolution and creation dosent happen to living creatures only,but it happens to anything that time encompasses.

Its a crazy yet surreal idea that god might be an alien, just food for thought.


----------



## Dfunk (Nov 26, 2008)

I think that's probably the most believable "God" story I ever heard...pretty interesting as well.


----------



## vantheman169 (Nov 27, 2008)

Ok, man i am so with you on this, latley, i have been into the Universe and space and all that cool shit, But i was raised a catholic and i am really questioning my "faith". I still believe in god, just because how everything is too perfect, the way the the our Soloar system works, 1 thing relies on another to work the way they do. I.E. The moon has to do with our ocean currents and gravity and all the shit, if we were any closer to the sun we would roast to death, and any further we would freeze to death. Its F'in Crazy. Just think of all the millions of galaxies out there just like our 1 tiny Milkyway galaxy. It would take 100,000 Years at the Speed of light (bout 6 trillion miles a year) to reach the outside of the milkyway. And the milkyway is full of Billions, if not Trillions of suns Way more massive then our very own Sun that Grows our favorite plant in the world . Just think, how do we know that there is not another Earth somewhere in some other galaxy that there is no possible way to get to, if it takes that long to get the outer edge of our Milkyway we can barley see past it let alone try and live that long or power anything to go that far with our FOSSIL FUEL we just dont, and wont have the technology to find out. But what if we did find out how devastating would it be to all the religions that are out there, we find another Earth doing the same shit we are trying to do, but just dont have the resources to accomplish it. 

Oh man sorry for the nerd lesson this stuff is really interesting if you get into it, just watch a Movie called Volcanoes of the Deep Sea, and there are some badass videos on youtube my personal favorite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ8CUz4MZ1M

Also I am super baked right now on some burmese sativa, lmao gets my brain thinkin all wierd and shit. Haha Gotta love it though, i will STFU now. 

Peace


----------



## headbandrocker (Nov 28, 2008)

Weve been thinkin normal for too long,im gona watch that vid now


----------



## vantheman169 (Nov 28, 2008)

What did you think of that video man, shitz crazy. lol


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 29, 2008)

Thunderf00t is my hero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzdv2dsPPKw

Also worth watching are his "how to debate a creationist" series. It can get quite amusing especially with Vfx's replies (you'll see who I'm talking about if you watch them)


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 29, 2008)

Another great atheist, Christopher Hitchens 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u_pyZ-ybw8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8fjFKAC5k

Here's his take on the subject of marijuana legalization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvIAQ2UIIJQ


----------



## ThatGuyOverThere (Nov 29, 2008)

Florida Girl said:


> Evolution..... and not just here on planet earth.... the whole universe and all its life forms are constantly evolving


Doesnt all life on earth for the most part share the same genes?

I for one have to believe that we evolved, not that we were simply created by another being. For me to think that we were "put" on this planet just because (I'll leave the subject of why alone as it's a topic all on its own) is just very hard to belive.

Honestly, I think all religion is a sham, but hey.. what do I know?


----------



## vantheman169 (Nov 29, 2008)

Watch Volcanoes of the deep sea! I am telling you, you will really beleeve that we did ev0lve, this guy goes like 12,000 Feet Below the sea and in water hot enough to boil a lobster, they find life, and 1 of the species they find down there in total darkness has the same type of blood that we do, its Crazy and really trippy to watch while your BLOWED! LoL


----------



## vantheman169 (Nov 29, 2008)

Oh and watched all these vids, pretty good stuff, this guy is crazy too. LoL


----------



## ThatGuyOverThere (Nov 30, 2008)

yeah ive seen other movies about those worms. I was also watching some vids on youtube.

This one is (although long and can get somewhat nerdish) is pretty good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk&feature=related


----------



## NomadicSky (Nov 30, 2008)

I was raised by a devoutly Mormon family that actually believed that the Earth was 6,000 years old. Noahs ark everything in the bible was true.

Today there's no way. The fossil record screams at you like an effeminate gay man who just found that perfect pair of shoes.


----------



## ThatGuyOverThere (Nov 30, 2008)

NomadicSky said:


> I was raised by a devoutly Mormon family that actually believed that the Earth was 6,000 years old. Noahs ark everything in the bible was true.
> 
> Today there's no way. The fossil record screams at you like an effeminate gay man who just found that perfect pair of shoes.


Good to see open minded people :]


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 30, 2008)

ThatGuyOverThere said:


> yeah ive seen other movies about those worms. I was also watching some vids on youtube.
> 
> This one is (although long and can get somewhat nerdish) is pretty good.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk&feature=related


Interesting video. However, their claim that the speed of light has always been constant is probably true but not necessarily so. One of the ways to get around the Horizon Problem is to show that c was faster in the past during the rapid expansion after the Big Bang. The physicist, João Magueijo doesn't believe in cosmic inflation theory (the most widely accepted theory that gets around the horizon problem), so he offers up an alternate explanation to inflation, which states that light used to travel faster than it does currently. 

Of course none of this still supports the creationist argument even thought they would love to latch on to it, but it is interesting science nonetheless. If you are a science geek like me, it is worth reading one of his books or try to find one of his lectures on YouTube. He makes some quite compelling arguments.


----------



## longbaugh (Nov 30, 2008)

i don't think the speed of light is constant. It's based on the permeability and permitivity of free space. Both of those things would have changed in the past ... assuming an inflationary universe.

I believe that evolution is absolutely valid science. However, I'm worried that too many scientists are getting narrow-minded in their paradigm. Knowledge has to be proven, but a lot of these guys just believe it if it's published in their favorite science periodical. Just as bad as fundamentalist religion, if you ask me.


----------



## Seamaiden (Nov 30, 2008)

I don't think that's true at all. Peer review is a BRUTAL process, and review their own peers they do, ruthlessly. I've known too many published authors who've experienced peer review to think otherwise. They seriously scrutinize each others' work, and when it holds water, _then_ it becomes paradigm, dogmatic.


mindphuk said:


> Interesting video. However, their claim that the speed of light has always been constant is probably true but not necessarily so. One of the ways to get around the Horizon Problem is to show that c was faster in the past during the rapid expansion after the Big Bang. The physicist, João Magueijo doesn't believe in cosmic inflation theory (the most widely accepted theory that gets around the horizon problem), so he offers up an alternate explanation to inflation, which states that light used to travel faster than it does currently.
> 
> Of course none of this still supports the creationist argument even thought they would love to latch on to it, but it is interesting science nonetheless. If you are a science geek like me, it is worth reading one of his books or try to find one of his lectures on YouTube. He makes some quite compelling arguments.


Maueijo is indeed a very controversial fellow. You picked a fine one to throw into all this, didn't you? And then there's Dawkins.


----------



## robert 14617 (Nov 30, 2008)

evolution ,why haven't the coelacanths evolved?


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Nov 30, 2008)

Evolution is about changing to survive, maybe the coelacanths didn't need to change to survive, maybe they had everything they needed. 

I believe we evolved, I believed we evolved as meat eaters, we are a predatory species for sure. We are just the product of the right circumstances.


----------



## flatrider (Nov 30, 2008)

im totally trippin out


----------



## ganjamanuk (Nov 30, 2008)

Evolution.

no proof of god has ever been seen/documented.
I questioned an islamic friend about if they think god created the world, he said yes, i said prove it, he said i cant prove it, and asked if i could prove evolution, i said look at the link between monkeys and humans ect and i then said god doesnt exist, he said prove it, and i was like how can i prove that something isnt there, lol, and then i said well can you prove that there is no such thing as an elephant with green skin and a 20ft trunk that is blue. 
then he shut up.(laughed it off later tho,were good mates)


----------



## Seamaiden (Nov 30, 2008)

robert 14617 said:


> evolution ,why haven't the coelacanths evolved?


For the same reasons crocodilians, sharks, skates, rays, dragonflies, ants, bees, and thousands upon thousands of other creatures have not evolved (past a certain point). No need. No pressure, no need. 


Then we have animals such as fancy goldfish and pugs and miniature horses, and people wonder how evolution can occur when man's hand alone has made such changes. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it!


----------



## ThatGuyOverThere (Dec 1, 2008)

mindphuk said:


> Interesting video. However, their claim that the speed of light has always been constant is probably true but not necessarily so. One of the ways to get around the Horizon Problem is to show that c was faster in the past during the rapid expansion after the Big Bang.


I'm going to look into this a bit more has me somewhat intrested. The 3rd or 4th part of the video talks about c and how it isnt possible (atleast in relation to YECs)


----------



## NomadicSky (Dec 1, 2008)

ThatGuyOverThere said:


> Good to see open minded people :]


Ok I know that wasn't an open minded reply. I just spent my whole life hearing about it. Heavenly father this, Jesus that and then I lived in an evangelical christian area so even though my family believed almost exactly the same thing we were still going to hell for being Mormons. 

Like Joseph Smith finding the golden plates and translating them is any less believable than the rest of the Bible.


----------



## longbaugh (Dec 2, 2008)

NomadicSky said:


> Like Joseph Smith finding the golden plates and translating them is any less believable than the rest of the Bible.


Mormons ... Gold Plates? Can I ask you a question? I've always wondered this. Please don't think I'm being a skeptic. Now, these gold plates are in Salt Lake City, at the big temple, right? So does anybody ever get to see them? Is there any way that someone can radio-carbon date them?


----------



## longbaugh (Dec 2, 2008)

Anybody see that Ben Stein movie, Expelled? I watched some parts of it and while it's obviously in favor of Intelligent Design, it certainly raises some interesting points about how the Intelligent Design community is being snuffed.

I think evolution is how it happened, mostly. You certainly have to admit that there's a few holes. Scientists need to be less defensive. Science is suppose to be attacked. That's the whole point.


----------



## overfiend (Dec 2, 2008)

why is it always creation OR evolution?
i believe we were created somehow. but i also know for a fact that as a planet everything evolves. somethings evolve slowly like global warming and different species. other things evolve fast like technology"cellphones".

i've got another questionwe all know that weed had changed it keeps getting better with selective breeding but is it evolving or are we creating it?


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 2, 2008)

ElBarto said:


> "Creation" is a myth.
> 
> "Evolution" is a scientific theory.
> 
> "Creation or evolution?" is like asking chocolate or the Dallas Cowboys?



As far as CrackerJax (<--- that's me) sees it, El Barto hit the nail on the head in post #7.....


Of course my SIG may give one pause as to my neutrality. 



out.


----------



## NomadicSky (Dec 2, 2008)

longbaugh said:


> Mormons ... Gold Plates? Can I ask you a question? I've always wondered this. Please don't think I'm being a skeptic. Now, these gold plates are in Salt Lake City, at the big temple, right? So does anybody ever get to see them? Is there any way that someone can radio-carbon date them?


If it's all true then no else in he 19th century ever saw them aside from Joseph Smith. He couldn't show them to anyone, and then when he was finished with the translation the angel Moroni came and took them and the artifacts that Smith had used to translate them (seer stone) back to heaven.

I don't believe it, none of it. The Mormon faith is crazy, then again so is the run of the mill Christian faith.

But I don't believe they ever existed.

The book of Mormon teaches that a group of Hebrews escape the Babylonian captivity and cross the Mediteranian and the Atlantic to land somewhere in the Americas and became the Native Americans. 

I try telling my family there's no genetic evidence for this and my mom cried and told me I was wrong that I didn't understand God.

I've learned not to push it with my family. They believe it, it makes them happy. Who am I to challenge that?

Actually that episode of South Park with Joseph Smith actually did show their churches belief system rater well.


----------



## IheartKeif (Dec 3, 2008)

The amazing design of all natural things in the universe. The complexity of the human body. The individuality of the human brain. The personal soul. I would never claim to speak for anyone else but I have a soul. I know from personal spiritual experiences that there is one true God but proving things that are not of this world to people would negate the need for Faith. For the longest time I thought believing in God was theory. When I gave it a chance it truly changed me for the better in more ways than I have time to list. It is not about carbon dating or cosmic radiation its about who you really are aside from what this world has indoctrinated us with. I would never point fingers at anyone and say its my way or the highway. Everyone is on their own journey. Peace and love my grass burnin brothers.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 3, 2008)

Wait, I'm getting my Mormon education here and I'm freaking out. Their religion is based on some guy claiming to have translated gold plates that an angel whisked away to heaven? OMG that's a riot. People buy into this shit? Aren't the mormons the ones that can have more than one wife? 


Organized religion is such a sham, I can't believe people of this day and age still fall for that shit.


----------



## Seamaiden (Dec 3, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> Wait, I'm getting my Mormon education here and I'm freaking out. Their religion is based on some guy claiming to have translated gold plates that an angel whisked away to heaven? OMG that's a riot.


Yes, that's exactly it. Although, you've got to admit, it's no more far fetched than the Ten Commandments or the Burning Bush. 


> People buy into this shit?


Absolutely. I've got an igloo to sell, too. 


> Aren't the mormons the ones that can have more than one wife?


Past tense, were, the church no longer advocates polygamy. However, there was a very real, human incentive for that directive, just as with the Catholics, to reproduce as many of their kind as they could. 

They're also the ones who sponsor Native Americans to help them get a better education. They'll feed you if you're broke, house you if you're poor, and they run Nordstrom. If I could still afford to shop at Nordstrom, and there was one within a decent proximity and I had places to go wearing Nordstrom-type clothes, I would.


> Organized religion is such a sham, I can't believe people of this day and age still fall for that shit.


They need to. Simple as that. 

What about Buddhism? That's an organized religion, and if you go down by my folks' place in SoCal you'll find a very large monastery. It's just chock FULL of Buddhist monks!

What about practitioners of other, not so popular religions that still have their own dogma and rule sets and belief sets? 

I don't think we'll get away from religion, not with our brains wired the way they are (which, naturally, brings me to wonder about the "religious experience" of other organisms we share the earth with), ever. That's alright, because if we did we'd find other reasons to kill each other.


----------



## ElBarto (Dec 3, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> Wait, I'm getting my Mormon education here and I'm freaking out. Their religion is based on some guy claiming to have translated gold plates that an angel whisked away to heaven? OMG that's a riot. People buy into this shit? Aren't the mormons the ones that can have more than one wife?



Heh! Wait 'til you find out about the magic underwear.


----------



## ANC (Dec 5, 2008)

I am an evolutionary creationist... I blieve "god" made the everything and on earth he created life and set everthing in motion in their place in the infinate loop of time.

The bible said god made man, he didn;t say how... why could he not choose evolution. Especialy if you look at all the beauty and progression it brings us.

Bear in mind the bible describes things mostly in a way you would explain something complex like a divorce to a 3 year old... becasue that is all the majority can handle.
Normally the story is way off, but the truth is in there somewhere.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 5, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> Wait, I'm getting my Mormon education here and I'm freaking out. Their religion is based on some guy claiming to have translated gold plates that an angel whisked away to heaven? OMG that's a riot. People buy into this shit? Aren't the mormons the ones that can have more than one wife?
> 
> 
> Organized religion is such a sham, I can't believe people of this day and age still fall for that shit.



Yah, the gold plates are a dead giveaway to a charade. 

Luckily, Christians can go see the ten commandments anytime they want.......


out.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 5, 2008)

The Earth is the mother of all things, the Sun is the father of all things. Without the 2 we would cease to exist. That is what I believe.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 5, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> The Earth is the mother of all things, the Sun is the father of all things. Without the 2 we would cease to exist. That is what I believe.


And the moon is our child. Let me tell you, that was one hell of a delivery .. C SECTION!!! DEMEROL!!! STAT!!! Mom is very pissed.....



out.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 5, 2008)

ANC said:


> I am an evolutionary creationist... I blieve "god" made the everything and on earth he created life and set everthing in motion in their place in the infinate loop of time.
> 
> The bible said god made man, he didn;t say how... why could he not choose evolution. Especialy if you look at all the beauty and progression it brings us.
> 
> ...


What you are describing is virtually the definition of Deism, which, BTW, a large number of people would be considered such, even though they are unaware of such a label. There are many evolutionary deists, even in the science world. There is absolutely no conflict between your belief and any science, unlike what we would call a traditional creationist or biblical creationist.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 5, 2008)

The duality of the mind is an evolutionary design. It is difficult not to get sucked into it. Consider it hard wired and the different manifestations (religion, deism, paganism, astrology) are culturally based. All the same root cause however .. evolution.



out.


----------



## Seamaiden (Dec 5, 2008)

You've been reading Ramachandran about the brain, eh? Epileptic epiphanatic events lead us there.


CrackerJax said:


> Yah, the gold plates are a dead giveaway to a charade.
> 
> Luckily, Christians can go see the ten commandments anytime they want.......
> 
> ...


(snerk!)  They're at the courthouse, right? 

C'mon, guys, faith is a pre-requisite for religion, right?


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 5, 2008)

I wonder who invented the word faith? Which comes first, the faith or the religion?


Buck buck buck....






Hey Sea (waves) 

out.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 5, 2008)

I'd be surprised if anyone said creation on here. What we're doing every day is refining and improving strains of plants through cross pollination and genetic selection. That's the essence of evolution!! The only difference is that humans are deciding what traits should be fostered in the plants, so we can see results faster. Selection in nature occurs over long time scales so that generally we cannot observe it in action.


----------



## NomadicSky (Dec 5, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> Wait, I'm getting my Mormon education here and I'm freaking out. Their religion is based on some guy claiming to have translated gold plates that an angel whisked away to heaven? OMG that's a riot. People buy into this shit? Aren't the mormons the ones that can have more than one wife?


Yeah it's crazy out there.

As for the polygamy officially the LSD church shuns the practice. Some fringe groups still practice it but not the major church.

And there's more to church. Mormons are never supposed to have any stimulants or mind altering substances of any kind. Not even caffeine.


----------



## Gryphonn (Dec 6, 2008)

matthew said:


> Where do you stand and why?


I'm on the evolution side of the fence. The evidence presented by Darwin in the 1800's is corroborated by evidence in our DNA. The evolutionary link between ape and man in the form of two fused strands of DNA has been found. It is still a theory though, the same as most scientific ideas. Scientists still consider the Law of Gravity as a theory. However, until some other evidence surfaces to refute the 'law', it remains the accepted theory.

I don't accept a theory of some omnipotent god creating the universe and Earth in seven days. I consider that a work of fiction written by people trying to gain or maintain power in a suspicious world. I also can't accept the theory of an omnipotent god creating the earth and universe using evolution as the method. That to me sounds like someone saying, "Evolution? Oh, God created that. God created everything."

However, I have a sneaking suspicion... remember that word ...I don't necessarily believe what I am about to write. It is a theory... that sometime in our not too distant past we may well have become part of an experiment by another intelligence somewhere else in the universe. I have trouble understanding how we could change in intelligence on a global scale almost overnight in relation to our time on the planet. 
We went from hunter gatherers with basic needs and and simple agriculture, to a fossil fuel reliant plague in no time compared to how long it took us to stop clubbing animals and eating their raw flesh.

I mean, we have been on this planet as a homonids for 700 000 years. We evolved and diverged from from neanderthals about 400 thousand years ago. Then, for some strange reason about 28 000 years ago. We started becoming more 'intelligent' in terms of creating and discovering. This rise in 'awareness' for want of a better word, has accellerated exponentially since then. Why did we plod along as we were for 300 plus thousand years, then suddenly change? After all, evolution would suggest that our development would advance in reaction to environmental needs, not in spite of them.

Neanderthals died out around 30 000 years ago. Why did they perish when we thrived as a separate species?

Anyways, I've exposed myself as another freak with weird spaceman ideas, so I'll stop now .


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 6, 2008)

Neanderthals kept evolving and their heads grew too large. The women couldn't birth kids with such giant heads and that slowly killed them off. 

We had a jump in evolution caused by eating meat. The meat proteins caused our brains to have a big jump in growth. That's why I laugh at vegetarians, without meat proteins, we'd all still be a bunch of crap flingers.

I have also wondered if we were some other planets "ant farm" , Like maybe an intelligent life form dropped off some of our ancestors here and there around the world to see what we'd do. I bet they're shocked at what assholes we all are !!! 

When they come back to check up on us and find out the fat old white men have tried to stamp out the sacred plant (marijuana) they will be pissed and start shooting. Mary Jane help us all when that happens........


----------



## Seamaiden (Dec 6, 2008)

Are you sure about that, Hester? About Neandertal and their demise? You know that, evolutionarily speaking, they were static for tens of thousands of years, yes (at least 100,000yrs)? I've not read of any differences in cranium-to-pelvis proportions in any Neandertal populations. 

What I have read of is at least one instance of hypothesized hybridization between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis (or, if you're of the school that believes they were a sub-species of H. sapiens, then there ya go) possibly shown by the Portugese skeletal remains of a 4yo boy. 

Their demise has been much more closely tied to the "re-peopling" of Europe by H. sapiens when another push was made out of Africa. The last Neandertals lived about 25,000-30,000 years ago, which is within just a few thousand years of the presence of H. sapiens. This Wiki's pretty decent I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

This vid's about a year old, and the conclusions being spoken of are not agreed upon by all in the field, and there has been subsequent research on Neandertal DNA (from Croatia) since this was published.
[youtube]rfBmFx-g13Q[/youtube]


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 6, 2008)

*Neanderthals Didn't Mate With Modern Humans, Study Says*


Ker Than
for National Geographic News
August 12, 2008
Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans likely did not interbreed, according to a new DNA study. 
The research further suggests that small population numbers helped do in our closest relatives. 
   



_The Genographic Project:_ Study of the Human Journey
Neandertals' Last Stand Was in Gibraltar, Study Suggests (September 13, 2006)
Neandertals Had Big Mouths, Gaped Widely (May 2, 200
 
Researchers sequenced the complete mitochondrial genomegenetic information passed down from mothersof a 38,000-year-old Neanderthal thighbone found in a cave in Croatia. (Get the basics on genetics.) 
The new sequence contains 16,565 DNA bases, or "letters," representing 13 genes, making it the longest stretch of Neanderthal DNA ever examined. 
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is easier to isolate from ancient bones than conventional or "nuclear" DNAwhich is contained in cell nucleibecause there are many mitochondria per cell. 
"Also, the mtDNA genome is much smaller than the nuclear genome," said study author Richard Green of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Germany. 
"That's what let us finish this genome well before we finish the nuclear genome," he said. 
The new findings are detailed in the August 8 issue of the journal _Cell_. 
*A Small Population* 
The new analysis suggests the last common ancestor of modern humans _(Homo sapiens)_ and Neanderthals lived between 800,000 and 520,000 years ago. This is consistent with previous work on shorter stretches of Neanderthal DNA. 
Contrasted with modern humans, Neanderthals exhibited a greater number of letter substitutions due to mutations in their mitochondrial DNA, although they seem to have undergone fewer evolutionary changes overall. 
The fact that so many mutationssome of which may have been harmfulpersisted in the Neanderthal genome could indicate the species suffered from a limited gene pool. This might be because the Neanderthal population was smaller than that of _Homo sapiens_ living in Europe at the time. 



A small population size can "diminish the power of natural selection to remove slightly deleterious evolutionary changes," Green said. 
The researchers estimate the Neanderthal population living in Europe 38,000 years ago never reached more than 10,000 at any one time. 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/95961871.html

This could have been a factor in their demise, Green said. 
_Homo neanderthalis_ first appeared in Europe about 300,000 years ago but mysteriously vanished about 35,000 years ago, shortly after the arrival of modern humans_Homo sapiens_in Europe. 
"If there were only a few, small bands of Neanderthals, barely hanging on, then any change to their way of life could have been enough to drive them to extinction," Green said. 
"One obvious change would have been the introduction of another large hominidmodern humans." 
*Stepping Forward* 
Stephen Schuster, a molecular biologist at Pennsylvania State University, said the new study should silence a lot of theories about interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans. 
The study shows that "at least for the maternal lineage, there are no traceable genetic markers that suggest admixture of Neanderthals and modern humans," he said. 
Schuster added that the researchers were exceptionally careful to isolate the Neanderthal DNA. 
"Many more precautions were taken to ensure that no contamination with human DNA has flawed the analysis," he said, noting that researchers sequenced each letter about 35 times to be sure of their work. 
"This was the weak point of previous reports," said Schuster, who was not involved with the study. 
Thomas Gilbert, an ancient DNA expert at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark who also was not involved in the study, called the research a "step forward" and a taste of what might come when the Neanderthal nuclear DNA is finished. 
The team's argument that the Neanderthal population was small 38,000 years ago is speculative, Green said, but "it's better than what we could have said before."


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 6, 2008)

I can't remember where I read that, but I did read that a theory was that their heads got too large. They had those elongated skulls with the occipital bun on the back.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Dec 6, 2008)

Clan of the Cave Bear! That was a really good book.


misshestermoffitt said:


> I can't remember where I read that, but I did read that a theory was that their heads got too large. They had those elongated skulls with the occipital bun on the back.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 6, 2008)

Did you read the rest of the series? If book 6 doesn't come out soon I'm going to freak out !!!


----------



## Stoney McFried (Dec 6, 2008)

I think I've read 3 or four of them.None were as good as the first one, IMo.


misshestermoffitt said:


> Did you read the rest of the series? If book 6 doesn't come out soon I'm going to freak out !!!


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Dec 6, 2008)

Well let's see....

Verifiable science versus ancient tribal myths passed down by generations of goat herders.

What is *evolution*?


misshestermoffitt said:


> We had a jump in evolution caused by eating meat. The meat proteins caused our brains to have a big jump in growth. That's why I laugh at vegetarians, without meat proteins, we'd all still be a bunch of crap flingers.


And some are still flinging the crap regardless of their taste for the flesh of dead animals. Apparently evolution came to a grinding halt with meat eaters. 

Your big brain theory is fascinating. At one time the slavery was a key component to world economy. Based on your logic the slavery in existence today is justified because past empires developed and thrived thanks to slave labor. Cultures *evolved* and found viable ways to provide economic growth without exploiting slave labor. What does your big brain say in answer to that?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0131_030203_jubilee2_2.html

I suppose it never occurred to you that humans have been steadily evolving away from the meat based diet of our pre-homo-sapien forbears. Fortunately and in keeping with that, agricultural technology has progressed so that (like slave labor as an economic engine) meat is no longer a nutritional requirement for humans.

http://veg.ca/content/view/285/113/

I laugh at supermarket hunter/gatherers.


----------



## longbaugh (Dec 6, 2008)

I believe the Universe, the Earth, and all its life forms was created by the Omnipotent One (OO) eight and a half SECONDS ago. 

"But", you say, "there is all this conversation that has taken weeks ... there are fossil records!" 

"Aha, OO created all this to test the faithful! The rock-like bones in the earth WITH the appropriate amount of semi-decayed Carbon 14 ... OO put photons in space on a trajectory to APPEAR as though everything is really old...we were even created (by OO) with memories in our head to account for our present psychological state!!!


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 6, 2008)

The availability of meat and its consumption have never been higher than today......





out.


----------



## ElBarto (Dec 6, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> Did you read the rest of the series? If book 6 doesn't come out soon I'm going to freak out !!!





Stoney McFried said:


> I think I've read 3 or four of them.None were as good as the first one, IMo.


----------



## Seamaiden (Dec 6, 2008)

I absolutely love that series, too!

Um.. now I forgot who posted about the Croatian Neandertal--I'll guarantee you that there are some who've already managed to refute that (plus, knowing how some guys are.. hell, even my ex-boyfriend, he'd hit that shit as long as there's a hole!). There's not a whole lot of viable Neandertal DNA, not even bitsy snippets, one of the things that made this find so unique. That and the evidence of cannibalism.


----------



## NomadicSky (Dec 7, 2008)

I don't care what modern science has to say currently they don't know.

I believe modern Europeans and their descendants are the result of Humans migrating from Africa and interbreeding with the Neanderthals.

It would explain the level of physical diversity within European populations hair and eye colors that are unique to Europeans came from the Neanderthals. Look at the brow ridges of some people. 

And the vast amount of body and thick facial hair that we have compared to other human populations.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Dec 7, 2008)

I remember that one too.Lotta sex.


ElBarto said:


>


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

longbaugh said:


> Anybody see that Ben Stein movie, Expelled? I watched some parts of it and while it's obviously in favor of Intelligent Design, it certainly raises some interesting points about how the Intelligent Design community is being snuffed.
> 
> I think evolution is how it happened, mostly. You certainly have to admit that there's a few holes. Scientists need to be less defensive. Science is suppose to be attacked. That's the whole point.


Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihYq2dGa29M

An interesting critique of that doco called Expelled


----------



## ANC (Dec 7, 2008)

mindphuk said:


> What you are describing is virtually the definition of Deism, which, BTW, a large number of people would be considered such, even though they are unaware of such a label. There are many evolutionary deists, even in the science world. There is absolutely no conflict between your belief and any science, unlike what we would call a traditional creationist or biblical creationist.


 
THanks, very enlightening....

I can only think of the things I can think about
-RANDY-


----------



## ANC (Dec 7, 2008)

Hand Banana said:


> I'd be surprised if anyone said creation on here. What we're doing every day is refining and improving strains of plants through cross pollination and genetic selection. That's the essence of evolution!! The only difference is that humans are deciding what traits should be fostered in the plants, so we can see results faster. Selection in nature occurs over long time scales so that generally we cannot observe it in action.


 
Don't lie, god comes and swaps the plants for better ones while you sleep... just to fuck with you...


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 7, 2008)

Jonus said:


> Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg
> Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678
> Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihYq2dGa29M
> 
> An interesting critique of that doco called Expelled


Sorry, Expelled is barely a critique. It is a propaganda film that would make Micheal Moore proud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

OH Johnny, still fighting against what we are. Have you ever taken the time to notice the set of eyes that the animals on this planet have? Eyes set in front = predator, eyes in front make for better vision to see prey with. Prey animals = eyes set on side of head (cows, horses, deer, etc.), eyes on the side make it easier to see if you are being stalked while grazing. 

If humans were meant to be grazers, our eyes would be closer to where our ears are. 

We are meat eaters, you can tell by our eyes, our teeth, our thirst for blood.


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Dec 7, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> OH Johnny, still fighting against what we are. Have you ever taken the time to notice the set of eyes that the animals on this planet have? Eyes set in front = predator, eyes in front make for better vision to see prey with. Prey animals = eyes set on side of head (cows, horses, deer, etc.), eyes on the side make it easier to see if you are being stalked while grazing.
> 
> If humans were meant to be grazers, our eyes would be closer to where our ears are.
> 
> We are meat eaters, you can tell by our eyes, our teeth, our thirst for blood.


I know that I do not feel a need to justify my own cruelty with lame rationalizations about evolutionary after-effects like incisors, which were fangs a long time ago. We don't need our pinky toes either, but we all have them.

I do know that in the twelve years I have been a vegetarian (thirteen in February), I have not seen one scientific study saying humans should eat more meat. I have seen plenty stressing the importance of eating more vegetables.

I know that my choice of diet does not harm the environment anywhere close to the extent of a meat based diet.

I know that killing is wrong and that the eating of meat is taking part in a violent act.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

McDonalds and eating meat is not the same thing. McDonalds serves fries, aren't they a vegetable? Oh yeah, I thought they were. 

I have anemia, I was always told that I needed to eat more read meat for the anemia. Yes a doctor told me to do that. 

My hubby is on a medication where he needs to limit his vitamin K intake, which comes from , not meat, vegies. 

Meat is good, I'm not fat, I'll eat it and I'll like it, have fun with your leafy greens.


How exactly does a meat based diet harm the environment? I would think petrochemicals have the monopoly on that.


----------



## natrone23 (Dec 7, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27efBVPHmt0&feature=related This has been happening for hundreds of millions of years on earth, animals eating other animals for food. Were not special nor different and humans are also on the menu for many animals.


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Dec 7, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> McDonalds and eating meat is not the same thing. McDonalds serves fries, aren't they a vegetable? Oh yeah, I thought they were.


Fries are made from vegetables, but they are not the only vegetable. Anyway, I would not eat McDonald's fries because their fries are not vegetarian. They add a beef extract for flavor.



misshestermoffitt said:


> I have anemia, I was always told that I needed to eat more read meat for the anemia. Yes a doctor told me to do that.
> 
> My hubby is on a medication where he needs to limit his vitamin K intake, which comes from , not meat, vegies.


I referenced scientific studies. You answer with anecdotal evidence. Individual cases aside, I have not seen any *study* in 12 years advising consumers to eat more meat.



misshestermoffitt said:


> Meat is good, I'm not fat, I'll eat it and I'll like it, have fun with your leafy greens.


Meat is not good. Meat is cruel and inhumane, but I am the last person to tell you to stop poisoning your body and soul with it. You want to take the blue pill and keep believing no harm comes from your choice. That's fine by me.



misshestermoffitt said:


> How exactly does a meat based diet harm the environment? I would think petrochemicals have the monopoly on that.


Sigh. Grow the corn to feed the pig. Slaughter the pig. Meat is inefficient. "It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh."

http://www.goveg.com/worldhunger.asp


> 75% of our food-growing topsoil in the United States has eroded, almost all of it off farmland and grazing land used for animal agriculture. One acre of land growing broccoli will supply ten times as much protein as an acre of land producing beef. If acreage now being used for grazing cattle and raising feed grains were growing trees or fiber plants to burn for energy, we would have no need to import foreign oil. More than half of the water used for all purposes in the United States is used for livestock production. Water pollution from feedlots and feed grain field runoff (manure, topsoil, pesticides, fertilizer, etc.) contaminates more streams and rivers than do all the wastes from all U.S. cities and industries combined.


http://www.vsh.org/


----------



## natrone23 (Dec 7, 2008)

Johnnyorganic said:


>


lol kinda Ironic you put up a fat kid demanding more veggies


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

So then we should just kill all those animals off ? Send them straight into extinction? I mean there's no reason for them to exist, if we can't eat them. Back before humans overpopulated the planet nobody had to grow anything to feed any animals. They foraged and lived well. Now they have to be fed because humans have taken over the world. Maybe if humans didn't need to take up all the space to grow food (how many pounds of vegetarian produce does it take per year to keep you alive? ) the animals could survive just fine. 

1 acre of hemp is equal to 4 acres of trees where paper production is concerned. Maybe if the human race would stop destroying everything in the name of MONEY things might not be like they are. 

Johnny, do you wear leather shoes, belts, coats? Do you use glue? Do you have a dog or a cat, do you feed it? Have you ever eaten jello? These are all animals byproducts.


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Dec 7, 2008)

natrone23 said:


> lol kinda Ironic you put up a fat kid demanding more veggies


Ironic that those veggies are flavored with beef extract and cooked in the same grease that the McNuggets are cooked in.

Why on god's green earth would french fries need to be beef flavored? LOL!


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

For the same reason that people put butter on their baked potatoes and cheese on their broccoli............


----------



## natrone23 (Dec 7, 2008)

Johnny so should we feed these guys catfood so the killing will stop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLKo_FpHU10&feature=related


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

I've never seen any vegetarian catfood before....... 




natrone23 said:


> Johnny so should we feed these guys catfood so the killing will stop
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLKo_FpHU10&feature=related


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 7, 2008)

Meat eaters are the truly humane people. I eat cows to protect them. 




out.


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

mindphuk said:


> Sorry, Expelled is barely a critique. It is a propaganda film that would make Micheal Moore proud.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg


And if you stop for a sec and look at the links I posted, you will notice you posted the same one.


----------



## Seamaiden (Dec 7, 2008)

CrackerJax said:


> Meat eaters are the truly humane people. I eat cows to protect them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 And this, my friends, is a true demonstration of altruism.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 7, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> And this, my friends, is a true demonstration of altruism.




Besides, they get to trip all summer long on shrooms.... kewl. 

===========================================

Obesity has nothing to do with meat consumption. 

It's the vegetarian animals which are heavy and docile. Most meat predators are lean and mean. Man is a predator, of this I have no doubt. No, I'll stick with meat tyvm...



out.


----------



## ANC (Dec 7, 2008)

The San bushmen, whom many believe to be some of the first/oldest peoples in africa, hunt with bows and arrows useing a poison that makes the prey fall asleep after a short stalking. Before killing the animal, they applogise to it, explaining that they have a hungry family, and thank it for the food.

Personaly I have only started eating a few veggies now in midlife... could not force them down me under threat of death before.
I'm trying realy hard to expand the list of veggies that I eat, but I find most just totaly inedible. I wold eat any of your brains before I eat cauliflower for instance... just an example...
I DO love fruit though, and eat almost all fruits. Otherwise RED MEAT is my thing... I feel very bad for the little sheepies and cows, but its me or the worms...


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

CrackerJax said:


> Besides, they get to trip all summer long on shrooms.... kewl.
> 
> ===========================================
> 
> ...


Humans have become meat eaters. The type of teeth we have and the layout of our digestive system suggests we spent the first 99% of our existance evolving as herbivores/omnivores.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

and then we started eating meat and our brains grew. Feel free to scream about meat being murder while wearing leather shoes and eating jello......


----------



## ANC (Dec 7, 2008)

Never forget there are plenty of things out there that will gladly eat you for lunch... we are also meatgroup, at least 3 people are eaten by hippo's every year


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

Don't forget about sharks, I think we're a delicacy to them.


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> and then we started eating meat and our brains grew. Feel free to scream about meat being murder while wearing leather shoes and eating jello......


In doing so we fucked up our ability to harbor micro-organisms in the large intestine which could extract vitamin B12 from breaking down plants. Now we have to either have it fortified in our foods or eat meat which has B12 in it because the animal were eating still has the ability to harbor those micro-organisms.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

I'm sure the first human who evolved enough to eat some meat wasn't really worried about micro-organisms in his intestines. Maybe it was winter and there weren't any plants to eat, 4-6 months is a long time to hang around hungry waiting for something to grow.........


----------



## Seamaiden (Dec 7, 2008)

Oh for Christ's sakes, we evolved as OMNIVORES. We have dentition suitable for handling a wide variety of foodstuffs, but cannot adequately handle tough grasses or hard grains or nuts without processing at this stage in our evolution. Our gut handles meat just _fine_, we are able to amend our diets as needed and as long as_ H. sapiens_ has access to a varied diet it's able to satisfy most all nutritional requirements via diet. The problem comes with excess, in which nothing is good for you. Jesus Horatio Christ!


----------



## ElBarto (Dec 7, 2008)

Chimpanzees also eat meat, so I don't think that can have been the only reason for the explosive growth of humans' ancestors' brains.


----------



## Seamaiden (Dec 7, 2008)

I'm fairly certain all primates take in proteinaceous foods. Many herbivores do, too. Example given; green iguana (_Iguana iguana_); as juveniles, require an overall protein intake of approximately 15% of their diet, yet this is considered an almost strict herbivore.


----------



## ElBarto (Dec 7, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> i have also wondered if we were some other planets "ant farm" , like maybe an intelligent life form dropped off some of our ancestors here and there around the world to see what we'd do. I bet they're shocked at what assholes we all are !!!


You've heard of von Däniken's _Chariots of the Gods_, right?

The movie is available of google videos.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-373807185570806915


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

Humans are omnivores in the truest sense of the word, and have been so since the development of what we call human today. But the balance between herbivore, canivore and frugivore diets is what has changed. Over the period of our existance and micro evolutionary changes and adaptions, we have mostly ever ate veges and fruit and nuts and some meat. 

Winters didnt bring a scarcity of plants, fruit and nuts to eat, but a scarcity of meat which is why fruit, nuts and veges were the winter diets as there was never a shortage of those and fruit could be dried and nuts just needed to be stored.

The big change came with technology, hunting tools, meat preservation techniques, animal herding.

Of course, the biggest swing toward meat eating didnt happen in some cave somewhere in southern France, but happened with the invention of the refrigerator, revolutionizing the meat industry.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

People ate plenty of meat before the fridge was invented. People just raised, butchered and smoked their own meats. 

If you don't want to eat meat, then don't, but you have no right to say others shouldn't eat meat because you don't like it. 

Still no one makes any admission on _wearing_ meat.............


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

See for me I dont shape my views of history based on whether or not I eat meat. I eat meat. But what usually happens is people shape their view of human meat eating development based on what agrees with their eating beliefs. So Im not saying people should or shouldnt.



> People ate plenty of meat before the fridge was invented. People just raised, butchered and smoked their own meats.


Of course, that was not my point. With the major technology shifts came increased consumption of meat. From hunting tools came the ability to kill bigger animals, thats why you don't see historical evidence of chimpanzees hunting large animals (although they do hunt animals). Technologies for catching fish etc.

Then came preservation techniques, then as you mentioned, animal herding. But the world wasnt full of animal herders was it. So the balance remained at the higher percentage of food being consumed was higher in non-meat.

Then came agriculture which further boosted consumption of vegetables, fruit and nuts.

But the one singular technology that blew all those incrimental increases in meat consumption out the window, that stands as a monolith to the meat industry is refrigeration. Refrigeration revolutionised the globalisation of animal products where vege based foods had dominated since the invention of shipping.


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> Our gut handles meat just _fine_


Except for cholesterol and saturated fat...which kills us.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

You could say that about fruits and vegetables too. Before mass shipping you just didn't have oranges in the mid-west, or bananas, but you had meat and potoatoes.

Vegetarians can have high cholestoral numbers too. There are fats and oils in nuts too, and if you eat rye infected with ergot, you trip, yippee........


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

> Vegetarians can have high cholestoral numbers too.


That may be true but the cholesterol didn't come from plants. Unless you are talking about phytosterol which is a form of cholesterol found in flax seed oil. However phytosterol helps reduce cholesterol levels not increase it. If vegetarians have high cholesterol it is because additives to their diet contain it.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

Then I guess you can't blame high cholesterol only on meat. There are other factors involved. _OH SNAP................_


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

How do you figure that misshestermoffitt. Cholesterol comes from animal fat....period. Do you know of another source?


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

If vegetarians have high cholesterol then it can't just be blamed on eating meat. My own doctor told me he has vegetarians that have high numbers. If cholesterol only comes from meat, yet people who eat no meat have issues with their cholesterol being high, then it's got to be coming from somewhere. 

Cholesterol is also a genetic thing, it's not only from animal fat.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

awwww Me thinks Johnny is offended and since he doesn't eat meat his brain can't come up with a sharp reply.........

"Who's screaming? Although you are getting quire shrill in your faux indignation. BTW, I'd be a pretty sorry vegetarian if I did not know what gelatin is made from. LOL! JohnnyO" 

So how about that glue or those leather shoes Johnny, what does your dog eat?


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Dec 7, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> awwww Me thinks Johnny is offended and since he doesn't eat meat his brain can't come up with a sharp reply.........
> 
> "Who's screaming? Although you are getting quire shrill in your faux indignation. BTW, I'd be a pretty sorry vegetarian if I did not know what gelatin is made from. LOL! JohnnyO"
> 
> So how about that glue or those leather shoes Johnny, what does your dog eat?


Your recriminations betray a guilty conscience. 

My dog and cat eat food designed for them. They have no choice with their pointed snouts and sharp teeth. They are predators. It is not for me to violate their evolutionary paths. In my dog's case, he could survive, but might be unfulfilled if I did not procure the odd bone for him once in awhile. And my cat would die without taurine.

And for your information, I don't eat leather or glue either. Sadly, we live in a culture permeated with death. Every time I turn around I am confronted with a product which is derived from a dead animal. Even when I seal an envelope (by moistening with a wet sponge thingy) I know the glue is probably from a dead horse. But I don't worry about things which are out of my control. I do worry about the things I do control, and my diet is one of them. The fact that *my* diet makes *your* pussy hurt is hilarious.

Now let's get to leather. Whenever possible, I avoid buying products made from cured animal hides. I cannot control purchases I made before before I decided to eschew meat. As such I still have my baseball equipment and other items made from leather. When it comes to leather I know one thing: The sacrifice the animal made was made for whatever item I own. That sacrifice is acknowledged by me, but what is also acknowledged by me is the fact that said sacrifice was made *once* rather than *every time* I wear a pair of old combat boots from my Army days. 

Such ideological purity is a practical impossibility in our culture. To meet the rigid expectations many meat eaters have for vegetarians in this regard would necessitate our staying home all day, every day. This is why I prefer the term *strict vegetarian* to vegan.

I don't recall anyone telling anyone to stop eating meat. You want to eat meat, have at it. I'll never try to stop you, ever. I also know that my diet does not require any justification whatsoever. It is *my diet*, after all. But the days of the timid vegetarian are gone. That's *change* I can believe in. You might as well get used to it.

If your goal is to offend me, you need to do much better than your usual strategy of catty remarks, tangential arguments, and sophistry. You'll forgive me if I do not respond to every one of your posts on cue, or on a regular schedule for that matter. I do not expect someone with 5,300+ posts racked up since June to comprehend. Such prodigious word vomit indicates a propensity to do significantly more posting than reading.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 7, 2008)

Jonus said:


> Humans have become meat eaters. The type of teeth we have and the layout of our digestive system suggests we spent the first 99% of our existance evolving as herbivores.



I concur, but it was meat which gave us the burst of warp speed brain power. Second star to the left plz.



out.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 7, 2008)

Jonus said:


> And if you stop for a sec and look at the links I posted, you will notice you posted the same one.



I was trying to respond to *longbaugh and somehow responded to your post without realizing what you linked to. I guess I shouldn't * *before posting 

Good job on those links. That Stein fakumentory also had a nice scathing review in The New Scientist and Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie
*


----------



## Seamaiden (Dec 7, 2008)

High cholesterol levels have been tied much more closely to a diet high in refined carbohydrates (and often subsequently low in greens and other vegetables) than simply animal fats. Along with general genetic tendencies, specific genetic tendencies, etcetera, it's not _just_ tied to the types of fats one consumes, or the amounts of those fats.


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

We need to reword this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol

Because according to all the scientific contributors in that wiki article, and a few pair review papers on the subject, they claim, it is solely derrived from animal fats. At least we should add in a, "Critiques of pair reviewed scientific findings" section that states that because _misshestermoffitt's_ doctor says that vegetarians (who are not vegans therefore not strictly non-animal product eaters) can have high cholesterol, and people genetically predisposed to high cholesterol get their cholesterol from the void, then its not exclusively from animal fats.


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> High cholesterol levels have been tied much more closely to a diet high in refined carbohydrates (and often subsequently low in greens and other vegetables) than simply animal fats. Along with general genetic tendencies, specific genetic tendencies, etcetera, it's not _just_ tied to the types of fats one consumes, or the amounts of those fats.


They are tied together in studies not because refined carbs contain cholesterol though seamaiden, as much as drinking and drink driving related deaths are also associated with cars, does not mean that alcohol comes from cars.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

What an adult comment, I'm just amazed at your adult ability to debate without acting like a child. Your parents must be so proud of you !!!  

So wearing animals is fine, as long as you don't eat the meat. I think in order to stand behind your convictions you should bury all of your baseball equipment in the cemetary and buy a headstone for it. Then you can get all new equipment made from plant fibers. 

You better do it, or I'll send the Hypocritical Vegan police to get you........  




Johnnyorganic said:


> The fact that *my* diet makes *your* pussy hurt is hilarious.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

So should I call my doctor tomorrow and tell him he's wrong based on the fact that since you've never heard that before it can't be true? When did you obtain your medical license exactly and what school did you attend? 





Jonus said:


> We need to reword this
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol
> 
> Because according to all the scientific contributors in that wiki article, and a few pair review papers on the subject, they claim, it is solely derrived from animal fats. At least we should add in a, "Critiques of pair reviewed scientific findings" section that states that because _misshestermoffitt's_ doctor says that vegetarians (who are not vegans therefore not strictly non-animal product eaters) can have high cholesterol, and people genetically predisposed to high cholesterol get their cholesterol from the void, then its not exclusively from animal fats.


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

Firstly you shouldn't mistake me for being either a vegan or a vegetarian. I eat meat, I luv the shit, already said that in an earlier post.

But that doesn't change the facts. You wanted to know how a vegetarian could have high cholesterol and I gave you an answer. A lot of vegetarians will not eat meat, but will eat cheese and eggs which are high in cholesterol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism

And I stand by the findings of scientists and nutritional specialists that cholesterol is animal originated, and so I ask you again, 'Do you know of another source of cholesterol?'


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> So should I call my doctor tomorrow and tell him he's wrong based on the fact that since you've never heard that before it can't be true? When did you obtain your medical license exactly and what school did you attend?


Nope, but you can call your doctor and fill him in on vegetarianism and just how easy it is for vegetarians to have high cholesterol without eating meat.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

So what should I say, some stoner on the pot growing site wants to know what your definition of a vegitarian is? I live in the midwest where we eat cows for breakfast, anyone who doesn't eat meat is a vegitarian to us, there aren't different levels of it here, you either are or you aren't.


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

Sure I can understand that, it wasnt until I had a sit down meal with the first vegetarian I ever met that I learnt that they are not strick non-animal people like my assumption of them was, and like vegans are. The fact of the matter is, the non-meat eating vegetarians can often scoff down more eggs and cheese to compensate for their meatless diets, making things worse for them than if they just went ahead and ate meat.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 7, 2008)

I can't see how they can call themselves vegetarians if they eat chicken abortions (that's what eggs are). Fish should be off limits too, it has a face you know. Now other dairy products where the animal isn't killed like milk products I can almost see, but they aren't actually vegetables, so if they really want to say their vegetarian they should only eat food made of plants only.


----------



## Eharmony420 (Dec 7, 2008)

whats responsibility? Why do we have it? What's it for? 

Then a work with what you have philoshy should be used to deal with xreationism evolution and vegetarianism.

Utilitarianism hehe.


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> I can't see how they can call themselves vegetarians if they eat chicken abortions (that's what eggs are). Fish should be off limits too, it has a face you know. Now other dairy products where the animal isn't killed like milk products I can almost see, but they aren't actually vegetables, so if they really want to say their vegetarian they should only eat food made of plants only.


Sure, but I think their reasoning for not eating meat differs from the more politically motivated vegans who tend to oppose any animal products, some even oppose fake animal products...go figure, some vegetarians tend to just not eat meat because they don't like meat.

Most vegetarians I know wont eat fish or meat. But some will eat seafood. Its not cut and dried, and thats why its easy to make the assumption when it comes to cholesterol and saturated fats I guess.

The other point I wanted to make is that the body needs cholesterol and saturated fats, but there is a limit on daily intake because unlike most other minerals etc, these are not absorbed into the blood like iron and magnesium etc, so too much intake causes a build up. According to Wikipedia its 200 milligrams per day that the human body needs and can safetly use up.


----------



## Seamaiden (Dec 7, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> High cholesterol levels have been tied much more closely to a diet high in refined carbohydrates (and often subsequently low in greens and other vegetables) than simply animal fats. Along with general genetic tendencies, specific genetic tendencies, etcetera, it's not _just_ tied to the types of fats one consumes, or the amounts of those fats.





Jonus said:


> They are tied together in studies not because refined carbs contain cholesterol though seamaiden, as much as drinking and drink driving related deaths are also associated with cars, does not mean that alcohol comes from cars.


Re-read my statement. Nowhere do I say that cholesterol is derived from anything _other_ than animal sources. I am speaking specifically to "high cholesterol levels", which assumes we're talking about human blood work. I don't quite see where the rest is extrapolated from.


----------



## Perfextionist420 (Dec 7, 2008)

personally i dont think it matters how we got here and that the only thing that matters is what we do while were here and how we live and how much happiness we can have before we move on


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 7, 2008)

Perfextionist420 said:


> personally i dont think it matters how we got here and that the only thing that matters is what we do while were here and how we live and how much happiness we can have before we move on


So if I magically placed you in the middle of a lake without knowledge of from what shoreline the boat launched, you would know what direction to go. 

It matters how we got here. 




out. ;blsmoke;


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> Re-read my statement. Nowhere do I say that cholesterol is derived from anything _other_ than animal sources. I am speaking specifically to "high cholesterol levels", which assumes we're talking about human blood work. I don't quite see where the rest is extrapolated from.


Well that was the subject being debated though Seamaiden, so you can imagine how easy it would be to think that you were adding something to that particular line of questioning about the origins of cholesterol. Thanks for pointing that out, I see now where we went wrong.


----------



## Gryphonn (Dec 7, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> So then we should just kill all those animals off ? Send them straight into extinction? I mean there's no reason for them to exist, if we can't eat them. Back before humans overpopulated the planet nobody had to grow anything to feed any animals. They foraged and lived well. Now they have to be fed because humans have taken over the world. Maybe if humans didn't need to take up all the space to grow food (how many pounds of vegetarian produce does it take per year to keep you alive? ) the animals could survive just fine.
> 
> 1 acre of hemp is equal to 4 acres of trees where paper production is concerned. Maybe if the human race would stop destroying everything in the name of MONEY things might not be like they are.
> 
> Johnny, do you wear leather shoes, belts, coats? Do you use glue? Do you have a dog or a cat, do you feed it? Have you ever eaten jello? These are all animals byproducts.


Icecream. The 'soft serve' icecream from a machine is 90% of the time made from beef tallow rather than milk fats.


----------



## Jonus (Dec 7, 2008)

CrackerJax said:


> I eat cows to protect them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That exact same logic sits way in the background behind the efforts of the Coalition of the Righteous in the middle east.
"We come as peacekeepers now lets shoot and bomb every bastard here that looks at us funny".


----------



## Jonus (Dec 8, 2008)

Home Floresiensis

Theres one for the meat eaters. H.Floresiensis evolved after homo sapiens sapiens, the ancestors of modern humans. H.Floresiensis gets its name from the fact that it was considered vegetarian, mostly eating flowers. They were said to be pigmies with an adult height of 3.3 feet, but apparently although they outlived the h.neandathals, they didn't outlive the h.sapians sapians and thus are no more.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 8, 2008)

Jonus said:


> That exact same logic sits way in the background behind the efforts of the Coalition of the Righteous in the middle east.
> "We come as peacekeepers now lets shoot and bomb every bastard here that looks at us funny".


Wow, the exact same logic? I had no idea.....




out.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 8, 2008)

When a species evolves until they evolve no more, they are considered a "specialist" which is what leads to their demise. If they had continued to evolve as Homo Sapiens did they may not of dissappeared. 

So what a great point, the species that did NOT eat meat did NOT survive.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 8, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> When a species evolves until they evolve no more, they are considered a "specialist" which is what leads to their demise. If they had continued to evolve as Homo Sapiens did they may not of dissappeared.
> 
> So what a great point, the species that did NOT eat meat did NOT survive.



Not to quibble (quibble quibble), but there are species which achieve total balance and do not evolve much further and yet do not go extinct. Think alligator, shark, turtle .. nature fine tuned them to their environment pretty quickly, and said Viola! That porridge is just right....


Man however, jeesh..... 



out.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 8, 2008)

No ever said the alligator can not evolve, it just has no reason to. Species evolve when needed, however some species specialize and it leads to extinction, take the wooly mammoth for instance, it specialized to survive the extremely cold climate, when the climate warmed to fast, the wooly mammoth became extinct. It's the same thing, with certain species of human. When they specialize they become extinct.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 8, 2008)

I think man has something to do with woolies going bye bye, don't you?


I was just saying it is possible to achieve evolutionary harmony. The path to harmony in reptiles was pretty short. The right choices and adaptations occurred early on. 

To reiterate, I merely meant as a response to you that it is possible to stop evolving and not go extinct. Just look at Rosie O'Donnell......



out.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 8, 2008)

I don't know, Rosie isn't a good example, her new show went extinct after only 1 episode. 

Stopping evolving because you don't need to evolve is not the same as stopping evolving because you've evolved too far in one direction and can't go back is another.


The climate change is what killed the mammoth, there would not have been nearly enough humans on the planet in those days to kill them all off. Not to mention the mammoth lived on more than one continent, yet they all died off, due to specialization.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 8, 2008)

Okay Professor..... Can you hook me up with that Ginger chick who you keep ignoring!!!




out.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 8, 2008)

UM I'm a girl and Ginger is a slut, try Mary Ann, she cooks and I'm sure she's disease free.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 8, 2008)

That's true, I was always thinking Mary Ann was the real hottie. I met her in real life 20 years ago. She lived down the beach from me and I helped fill sandbags with her. She was very nice..... down homey.



out.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 8, 2008)

I always thought Mary Ann was cute and Ginger was trampy. If I was on that island I would have drowned Ginger in the lagoon, she's high maintence and she's not that helpful. Just another mouth to feed, best to off her.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 8, 2008)

One was corn fed. One was not 


Off Ginger? that's a bit harsh..... cat fight!! 




out.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 8, 2008)

Ginger was dead weight. OK instead of offing her, I would have sold her to the Copa-ki's for the price of a really good boat and some food. Is that more to your liking?


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 8, 2008)

And some weed seed, don't forget some weed seed. You mean to tell me Gilligan wasn't growing some ganja? he was smokin somethin!!!


Hey I want to apologize for Misshestermoffitt ahead of time for hijacking this thread. .


Blues for Allah 




out.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 8, 2008)

OH yeah, blame me, you're the one that turned it to Gilligans island. Like any thread here has ever stayed on topic, this is a stoners site you know...........


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 8, 2008)

We'll just stop with your first 4 words. 
Hah!!

You admit it freely!!

Are you following me? I'm starting to freak a bit.... 



out.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 8, 2008)

as a matter of fact I am following you, there's some toilet paper stuck to your shoe dragging behind you, I was trying to step on it so it'll come off..............


----------



## Jonus (Dec 8, 2008)

CrackerJax said:


> Wow, the exact same logic? I had no idea.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yizzle ma jizzle e x to the a c and tizzle


----------



## Seamaiden (Dec 8, 2008)

This may irk some folks, possibly even piss 'em off, but there is a HELL of a lot of wrongness going around in this thread with specific regard to the science. Let's get going.


Jonus said:


> Home Floresiensis
> 
> Theres one for the meat eaters. H.Floresiensis evolved after homo sapiens sapiens, the ancestors of modern humans. H.Floresiensis gets its name from the fact that it was considered vegetarian, mostly eating flowers. They were said to be pigmies with an adult height of 3.3 feet, but apparently although they outlived the h.neandathals, they didn't outlive the h.sapians sapians and thus are no more.


 Jonus.. I have yet to see _anyone_ in the field make those assertions! 

The reason _Homo floresiensis_ was named that is because it was found on the island of Flores in Indonesia (I know this without looking at the Wiki, but I bet ya it says the same thing). Your tip off is the "ensis" portion of the specie taxonomy. No one can say that it evolved after _H. sapiens_, in fact, it's thought by many to be a relative of _H. erectus_, at the very least. It closely resembles earlier Australophithecines.

How on earth did you get the rest? The flower eating being its primary diet and the basis of the nomenclature, that _H. sapiens sapiens_ (maybe you're thinking of _H. heidelbergensis_, or Archaic _H. sapiens_) is an early modern human, etcetera? For instance, your statement that _H. floresiensis_ evolved as a pre-modern human during the very time of the advent of modern humans.. where did you get that? There's nothing in the extremely limited fossil record that says anything other than we're (somewhat) certain that by about 12,000 years ago the species had died out, again, only according to the fossil record. Considering that there is still debate as to its origins, it seems that there is still a good possibility that this little hominid may reach back to _H. erectus_ times (about 1,000,000 years ago), and possibly even earlier.

I've found some shots of the good skull, and I have yet to see anything of the dentition that would bring one to believe that _H. floresiensis_ was limited to flower-eating. I have also yet to read anything from those in the field that this anyone believes this to be the case. How did you reach this conclusion, when we have the (now extinct, contemporary pygmy elephant) _Stegodon_ bones with cut marks on them excavated in situ in the same cave in the SAME STRATA as _H. florensiensis_? Who did that? The elephants? I think that it may be a safe guess that _H. floresiensis_ did that. To what end? To get at the flowers in the elephants' stomachs? Something tells me no (that would be my stomach). Something tells me it is more likely than not that, just as hominids and most all other primates do and have done, this little guy was omnivorous. A quote from an article I'm linking at bottom:


> The archaeological evidence strongly suggests that _H. floresiensis_ made sophisticated stone tools, including choppers, cutting blades, scrapers, and even spear points


 Wouldn't you think that if they made spear points they're using them to stick something, something alive and animal? It's highly unlikely that they're using them to stick potatoes.

This is a FANTASTIC magazine, the only subscription I've kept up despite my tightening economic belt (the list of those eliminated includes SciAm and Discover):
http://archaeology.org/ <--- I get the hardcopy, but they have lots of stuffs on the site, too.  And, for everyone's reading enjoyment, the mag's article on _H. florensiensis_.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/flores/

I've got to say, if you're going to make statements as though they are fact, could you please make the effort to check your own sources first?


misshestermoffitt said:


> When a species evolves until they evolve no more, they are considered a "specialist" which is what leads to their demise. If they had continued to evolve as Homo Sapiens did they may not of dissappeared.
> 
> So what a great point, the species that did NOT eat meat did NOT survive.


You know I love you, but that's incorrect. All species have evolved to fit particular ecological niches, thusly, are specialized. Some are more specialized than others, but this does not mean they can not or will not evolve any further. 


misshestermoffitt said:


> No ever said the alligator can not evolve, it just has no reason to. Species evolve when needed, however some species specialize and it leads to extinction, take the wooly mammoth for instance, it specialized to survive the extremely cold climate, when the climate warmed to fast, the wooly mammoth became extinct. It's the same thing, with certain species of human. When they specialize they become extinct.


 That's not quite how evolution works. Evolution occurs with the random mutations of genes. Some of these mutations work great for the current organism's circumstances. Other genes spell the demise of some. Those that survive, obviously, pass on those successful mutations. However, there is nothing reasoned or purposeful about evolution (or punctuated equilibrium). In other words, it is ENTIRELY accidental and does not come about because it's "needed". 


CrackerJax said:


> I think man has something to do with woolies going bye bye, don't you?
> 
> out.


My own jury is still out on that. So, I may disagree. I think it's just as likely that it was disease. Why didn't the buffalo die out at the same time as other North American mega-fauna? Cougar? Modern wolves? How come mammoths in Siberia, which had been populated before N.A., also died out around the same time? There was a lot of upheaval on earth at that time, not to mention that not all diseases leave their traces behind.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 8, 2008)

Big rep seamaiden! The definitive post on evolution!


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 8, 2008)

This what I mean by specialization ----> 

Species go extinct primarily because they are unable to adapt to a changing environment. Animals with specialized food or habitat requirements, such as the giant panda (which feeds almost exclusively on bamboo), are particularly susceptible to environmental changes. Generalist species that feed on many types of food and live in a variety of settings are much more able to survive in a changing environment. For example, raccoons are common city dwellers, where they forage from trash cans instead of from streams. In addition, species with long generation times that produce few offspring are often vulnerable to extinction. If a population of animals is very small, it is subject to extinction from a variety of factors, such as disturbances and diseases. 


Sometimes climate change comes too rapidly for animals and plants to have time to adapt and evolve. Not all evolution is accidental, sometimes it comes from a need for change. -----> 

A second major extinction event occurred during the Eocene-Oligocene period, 30 to 35 million years ago. This extinction was the result of global cooling due to changes in ocean current patterns. Prior to this period modern families of mammals comprised only about 15 percent of the mammalian fauna; after cooling modern mammals made up more than 50 percent of the fauna at the family level. 


http://www.biologyreference.com/Ep-Fl/Extinction.html


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 8, 2008)

Well, I still think man has "something" to do with the woolies extinction. I will not attest to the primary cause, since I am not qualified to do so (but this is virtual, go ahead). 

Each species would have to be studied on its own as to the MANY and VARIED winnowing out processes at play in extinction. Certainly man's ability to winnow in not in question is it? 

Man is the fire keeper and has hence given us weed. Man is good.




out.


----------



## Jonus (Dec 8, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> This may irk some folks, possibly even piss 'em off, but there is a HELL of a lot of wrongness going around in this thread with specific regard to the science. Let's get going.
> 
> Jonus.. I have yet to see _anyone_ in the field make those assertions!
> 
> The reason _Homo floresiensis_ was named that is because it was found on the island of Flores in Indonesia (I know this without looking at the Wiki, but I bet ya it says the same thing).


It came from an article in the vegetarian journal, by Stanley Garn, Professor of Nutrition and Anthropology, and William Leonard, Assistant Professor of Human Biology:

"_These people of Upper Pleistocene, and later those of the mesolithic, were our immediate ancestors, no longer hunters exclusively and with whole-grain products and a variable amount of roots, fruits, leafy vegetables and nuts in their diet. We must grant them a mixed diet, with animal fat providing a smaller proportion of their food energy than was probably true for the Neanderthals._"

Also Flores is famous for two things, gigantism and dwarfism. On Flores you had the giant rat, the giant lizard, the dwarf elephant and the afore mentioned dwarf homo Floresiensis. 

The suggestion is that the combination of the lack of available protein coupled with the heavy wear and tare on the molars of the specimens found, is consistent with the small development in stature or several species on the Island, and along with the fact that the Floresiensis had fire to cook with, discards the premise tha the wear and tare came from eating raw foods and poorly prepared foods, but rather points to an eventual diet of roots and fauna.

This is consistant with the gradual change in molar wear and tare on humans who were introduced into new isolated by the sea, environments such as the Maori from New Zealand who also cooked with fire on hearths and in ground ovens, who also went through a period of hunting easy accessible meat, instead of the Stegodon, theirs was the Moa or Dinomis robustus and ground dwelling birds. After a recession in the availability of those sources of protein due to extinction of those species, you see the same wear on the molars from a change in diet to eating roots and other harsh foods.



Seamaiden said:


> For instance, your statement that _H. floresiensis_ evolved as a pre-modern human during the very time of the advent of modern humans.. where did you get that?


In my post I said that, 'H.Floresiensis evolved after homo sapiens sapiens', which they did. Homo Sapien Sapiens lived from about 250,000 years ago till today, the Homo Floresiensis live from about 100,000 years ago till 12,000 years ago.


----------



## longbaugh (Dec 8, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> This may irk some folks, possibly even piss 'em off, but there is a HELL of a lot of wrongness going around in this thread with specific regard to the science. Let's get going.


<SNIFF> I love you guys... <Wipes tear>


----------



## Johnnyorganic (Dec 8, 2008)

misshestermoffitt said:


> What an adult comment, I'm just amazed at your adult ability to debate without acting like a child. Your parents must be so proud of you !!!
> 
> So wearing animals is fine, as long as you don't eat the meat. I think in order to stand behind your convictions you should bury all of your baseball equipment in the cemetary and buy a headstone for it. Then you can get all new equipment made from plant fibers.
> 
> You better do it, or I'll send the Hypocritical Vegan police to get you........


Your critical thinking skills are as anemic as your blood.

Hypocrite. LOL! Obviously, you don't know the definition of the word. If I were a hypocrite, I would condemn people for eating meat while eating meat myself. Or more to the point, I would grouse about leather, pet food, and glue when I use them myself. 

Next you'll be saying my tofu dogs make me a hypocrite because they resemble your processed *penis, brain, lip, and asshole* dogs.

The context of this discussion is evolution and diet. Leather, pet food, and glue are irrelevant to my diet.

And childish? I received a rep from you that was the *War and Peace* of childish rants. Hester funny! And, my folks are very proud of me. As I am sure Otis the town drunk is proud of you. 

You uber-defensive meaties read like pop-up books. My diet is not an indictment of your diet. The truth is I could care less what you eat. How many times should I repeat that before it penetrates your precious big brain? It's called free will. Conversely, I will not be shouted down by a nattering fishwife, who is somehow threatened by my diet, either.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 8, 2008)

It was not the war and peace of anything, nor was it a rant, it just stated that I'm surprised that _my _diet makes_ your _penis shrivel up. 

Stop acting like I said stuff I didn't, As if I wrote a book, liar !!!

Your the one bitching about meat eating. I was just pointing out that animal use extends far beyond what we eat. "Oh, don't eat meat it's mean, but it's ok to have a closet full of LEATHER baseball gloves". 

It sounds to me like your POV is that it's ok to kill animals for anything else, as long as we throw the meat away, talk about a waste.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 8, 2008)

So the next logical question is why is it any better to kill plants than animals?

There is no higher ground.....


out.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Dec 8, 2008)

Because flora is delicious with fauna.


CrackerJax said:


> So the next logical question is why is it any better to kill plants than animals?
> 
> There is no higher ground.....
> 
> ...


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 8, 2008)

At least cows can run away 

Can you imagine if the farmer fires up his thresher and the wheat field skidaddles!!




out.


----------



## Stoney McFried (Dec 8, 2008)

I would ask that that farmer share some of his LSD with me.


CrackerJax said:


> At least cows can run away
> 
> Can you imagine if the farmer fires up his thresher and the wheat field skidaddles!!
> 
> ...


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 8, 2008)

WANTED:

Wheat field of approximately 50 acres in size heading due west from farmer Smith's field in Muckawhacka, Kansas.

DO NOT TRY AND APPREHEND!

The wheat is chaffed and dangerous. The sight of milk or lunchmeats will drive the crop into a frenzy so use caution!




out.


----------



## longbaugh (Dec 8, 2008)

wow...those are really big letters. It kinda made me a little startled when I scrolled down. LOL.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 8, 2008)

Whew, it's heading west, I'm east of Kansas, I can sleep good tonight !!!


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 9, 2008)

longbaugh said:


> wow...those are really big letters. It kinda made me a little startled when I scrolled down. LOL.



This just in........ (beep beep ticka ticka ticka)

Update....


BIG LETTTERS STARTLE STONER!!







out.


----------



## longbaugh (Dec 9, 2008)

SFIPMP...(So Funny I Peed My Pants)... LOL!!!


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 9, 2008)

Whoop whoop whoop!!! 







out.


----------



## Seamaiden (Dec 9, 2008)

Jonus said:


> It came from an article in the vegetarian journal, by Stanley Garn, Professor of Nutrition and Anthropology, and William Leonard, Assistant Professor of Human Biology:
> 
> "_These people of Upper Pleistocene, and later those of the mesolithic, were our immediate ancestors, no longer hunters exclusively and with whole-grain products and a variable amount of roots, fruits, leafy vegetables and nuts in their diet. We must grant them a mixed diet, with animal fat providing a smaller proportion of their food energy than was probably true for the Neanderthals._"
> 
> ...


Ok, great, but that _hardly_ makes them flower eaters, nor does it support your previous assertion that this hominid was named _H. florensiensis_ (the specie designation is not capitalized, btw) _because_ its primary diet was flowers. And we cannot discount the presence of butchered bones, which completely belies that assertion even more. You haven't explained where you got that from. Flowers are soft, grains and grasses are hard. They're two different things. You do realize, don't you, that Garn and Leonard just reaffirmed my own assertion that we evolved as omnivores, yes?



> In my post I said that, 'H.Floresiensis evolved after homo sapiens sapiens', which they did. Homo Sapien Sapiens lived from about 250,000 years ago till today, the Homo Floresiensis live from about 100,000 years ago till 12,000 years ago.


 You can't say that with any certainty. We don't have the fossil evidence and we don't have the DNA showing this. Also, if such is the case, how and why would their fossils be showing aspects that are quite Australopithecine? That's pre-_H. sapiens_, not post. I'm not sure why you're using the designation _H. sapiens sapiens_, this is what is used by some for Archaie _H. sapiens_, argued by some to be a sub-species, _H. heidelbergensis_. Again, I ask, did you read your own sources?


----------



## Mr. Maryjane (Dec 9, 2008)

I think god made us perfect for wherever we started out, but then as humans traveled they had to adapt to the changes in enviroment. I figure evolution is just long-term adaptation. but on a side note, you know how humans normally only use 10% of their brain capacity. what if god is just some dude from a LONG-ass time ago that, for whatever reason, could use his entire brain. think about that after a couple bong hits and tell me it ain't trippy.


----------



## Seamaiden (Dec 9, 2008)

I don't know how humans use only 10% of their brain capacity. Evolutionarily-speaking, that is an incredible waste of calories and effort and makes no sense. I'm pretty sure we use most of it, just not all of us.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 9, 2008)

Mr. Maryjane said:


> I think god made us perfect for wherever we started out, but then as humans traveled they had to adapt to the changes in enviroment. I figure evolution is just long-term adaptation. but on a side note, you know how humans normally only use 10% of their brain capacity. what if god is just some dude from a LONG-ass time ago that, for whatever reason, could use his entire brain. think about that after a couple bong hits and tell me it ain't trippy.



So we started out perfect and it's been down hill ever since?! 

One would only need to teleport (bwing - they make that sound) back a hundred years or so (that's all) to see we are moving UP, UP, UP.

Blimey, just go to any old graveyard and look around, something besides a ghost will jump out at you, if you truly are paying attention.



Hi Sea - baby, I'm trying to use as much as I can of my grey matter, but I'm running out of gerbils. 

out.


----------



## Armadillo Slim (Dec 9, 2008)

pamaris said:


> Theistic evolution. ie... evolution happened just like science says but God determines it. Don't know whether He just started things off or whether He's involved in every step. Doesn't matter. Best book to read on the subject is 'The Language of God' by Frances O'Connor. Dude mapped the human genome but is actually a believer.
> 
> My parents are typical young-earth-creationists. Obviously that's what I grew up believing. It took until I was 28 to find out that evolution is not based on a foundation of Jello.
> 
> ...


 Have you ever noticed how people always seem to have parents that have slightly stronger religious beleifs then themselves, you hardly ever see a religious person with non religious parents. You just get slightly religious people with religious parents or very religious people with very religious parents or atheists with religious parents. That's because how religious you are depends on how indoctrinated with it you have been and not on any evidence.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 9, 2008)

Armadillo Slim said:


> Have you ever noticed how people always seem to have parents that have slightly stronger religious beleifs then themselves, you hardly ever see a religious person with non religious parents. You just get slightly religious people with religious parents or very religious people with very religious parents or atheists with religious parents. That's because how religious you are depends on how indoctrinated with it you have been and not on any evidence.


The church spends a great deal of time convincing parents to get the children involved (most cults do)... 


If you raised your kids on good moral stories (brothers grimm, dr. suess, classic literature) and then at the age of consent introduced them to the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc., they would look at it just like they do harry potter, and no more.......



out.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 9, 2008)

Mr. Maryjane said:


> you know how humans normally only use 10% of their brain capacity.


 Where do people come up with shit like that? 10%, 15%, whatever? These are just made up numbers typically reported by the quackery folks when trying to explain away psychic phenomena or some other shit like that. Although there is a lot we still don't know about our brain and it's function, we can safely say, via lot's a real science evidence, that normal functioning people utilize most all parts/areas of their brains. Certainly not all at once (that would be akin to seizure activity), but there is no magic, secret areas of our brains that we haven't or can't access or whatever.


----------



## ANC (Dec 10, 2008)

Have you ever had a decent dose of LSD? And I mean there is much better... but a few hours on a trip will quickly convince you, we use our brains in idle mode normally.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 10, 2008)

ANC said:


> Have you ever had a decent dose of LSD? And I mean there is much better... but a few hours on a trip will quickly convince you, we use our brains in idle mode normally.


LSD is to brain synapses as overclocking is to CPU's .. 

I can smell colors....




out.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 10, 2008)

Mr. Maryjane said:


> I think god made us perfect for wherever we started out, but then as humans traveled they had to adapt to the changes in enviroment. I figure evolution is just long-term adaptation. but on a side note, you know how humans normally only use 10% of their brain capacity. what if god is just some dude from a LONG-ass time ago that, for whatever reason, could use his entire brain. think about that after a couple bong hits and tell me it ain't trippy.


You think that's trippy? What if god was one of us? Just a slob like one of us, or a stranger on the bus, just trying to make his way home?


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 10, 2008)

Hand Banana said:


> You think that's trippy? What if god was one of us? Just a slob like one of us, or a stranger on the bus, just trying to make his way home?


What if G*D was a bus and not like one of us, but he still gave us a ride home. 



out.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 10, 2008)

CrackerJax said:


> LSD is to brain synapses as overclocking is to CPU's ..
> 
> I can smell colors....
> 
> ...


Have you ever seen an fMRI on LSD? http://www.lsdbritain.com/page36.htm
Some interesting shit

 The study - at a secret institution in the US - is investigating the effects of LSD on the brain chemistry underpinning consciousness and how it might modulate the creative process. "The study of consciousness is so central to our happiness, survival and creativity, it's a mistake not to explore scientifically the potential benefits this compound might yield," says Feilding. Another Beckley-funded study to monitor blood flow in the brain using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in people under the influence of LSD is also poised to begin in Europe. Micro-doses of LSD might increase blood flow in some parts of the brain, as has been noted in its chemical cousin psilocybin (the active ingredient in magic mushrooms). 
Tracking the changes as participants undergo cognitive tests could reveal how the brain completes complex tasks, hopefully providing insights into how we can boost brain power. ​


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 10, 2008)

I'm all for it  where do i sign up? 



out.


----------



## Mr. Maryjane (Dec 11, 2008)

mindphuk said:


> Where do people come up with shit like that? 10%, 15%, whatever? These are just made up numbers typically reported by the quackery folks when trying to explain away psychic phenomena or some other shit like that. Although there is a lot we still don't know about our brain and it's function, we can safely say, via lot's a real science evidence, that normal functioning people utilize most all parts/areas of their brains. Certainly not all at once (that would be akin to seizure activity), but there is no magic, secret areas of our brains that we haven't or can't access or whatever.


http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/how.html
read it and weep, motherfucker

brain capacity doesn't refer to what areas of the brain we use.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 11, 2008)

Mr. Maryjane said:


> http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/how.html
> read it and weep, motherfucker
> 
> brain capacity doesn't refer to what areas of the brain we use.


That whole article is basically arguing semantics. First off, I never said we use 100% of our brain capacity, and I acknowledged, just like your reference, that we are never using large amounts of our capacity at one time. There is something called reserve capacity. 

I love how this guy critiques a leading neuroscientist but lacks any objective data in the whole article, which is just a bunch of conjecture and assumptions.

What I was rallying against are these arbitrary numbers thrown out there without anything to back it up. Dale Carnegie started a lot of this and then you have the ESP proponents trying to get us to believe we have locked up potential and that is where our psi ability comes from. More bunk.

We now know that destruction of even small areas of the human brain_* can *_ have devastating effects on behavior. That is one reason why neurosurgeons must carefully map the brain before removing brain tissue during operations for epilepsy or brain tumors: they want to make sure that essential areas of the brain are not damaged. So now we have very detailed maps of the brain and what parts are used for what types of things. We also have surgeries where large amounts of brain are removed and new neuronal connections are made to make up for the loss, at least partially. Does that prove we don't use close to all of our brain capacity? No, it just means it has a remarkable ability to adapt, just like if I lose a large chunk of my liver, the rest of it works to overcome the loss of hepatic cells. Just because someone can apparently function well after losing a large amount of brain tissue doesn't mean there isn't significant decreased capacity, it's just not necessarily had been measured precisely both before and after. 

If the brain evolved in response to need, why would it then turn off and idle? Surely the world of today is _more_ demanding of the brain than past eras, so if anything all parts of the brain should be engaged, and they are. 

Using advanced imaging like fMRI, we can see at any given time, sometimes as much as 60% of our brain is active and functioning. That alone debunks any of this 10% stuff. 

If we only use 10% then we should be able to safely remove or disable 90% without any effect. What about strokes? Damage to a relatively small area of the brain, such as that caused by a CVA, may cause devastating disabilities. Certain neurological disorders, such as Parkinson's Disease, also affect only specific areas of the brain. The damage caused by these conditions is far less than damage to 90% of the brain.

Your link proved nothing. Show me some science behind the statement or STFU.


----------



## Mr. Maryjane (Dec 11, 2008)

okay, so say 60% of my brain is active, that doesn't mean it's working as hard as it could. that's what I'm saying dude. just cause physically 60% of my brain is active doesn't mean I'm useing 60%of my brain capacity. that also explains why people long ago used more of their brain capacity, their brains had to work harder


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 11, 2008)

MindPhuk, you wasted at least ten minutes on that last post. Could have had some waffles instead .. 




out.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 12, 2008)

I think I'm un-evolving. I hurt my back and can not walk erect.........


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 12, 2008)

Are you noticing a difference in your brain capacity? 

Sorry to hear that really, back aches are horrible.  




out.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 12, 2008)

I noticed that when my back hurts, if I eat meat, I can think better, if I eat veggies, I get this strange urge to fling crap at people.......


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 12, 2008)

So your saying Medicine man is a vegetarian...... 




out.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 12, 2008)

OH, Damn, you about made me piss my pants laughing ! Don't say funny stuff like that when I'm broken, it takes a bit too long to get up.  





CrackerJax said:


> So your saying Medicine man is a vegetarian......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 12, 2008)

OOPS!!!! I dropped my pencil...... can you help me out miss?  ow!



out.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 12, 2008)

Wait, maybe I can get my dog to come pick it up for you, maybe not, she's napping......


----------



## Seamaiden (Dec 12, 2008)

Ahem, you two..? That's what our nimble TOES are for. We don't want to lose that pinky toe, either, so USE IT OR LOSE IT! 


CrackerJax said:


> MindPhuk, you wasted at least ten minutes on that last post. Could have had some waffles instead ..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 That wasn't a waste, I greatly enjoyed it. Maybe because I agree. Ok, that helped a lot.  I don't care for waffles, though, how about some beignets?


misshestermoffitt said:


> I think I'm un-evolving. I hurt my back and can not walk erect.........


Oh FUCK! What happened?


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 12, 2008)

Seamaiden said:


> Ahem, you two..? That's what our nimble TOES are for. We don't want to lose that pinky toe, either, so USE IT OR LOSE IT!
> 
> That wasn't a waste, I greatly enjoyed it. Maybe because I agree. Ok, that helped a lot.  I don't care for waffles, though, how about some beignets?
> 
> Oh FUCK! What happened?



Oh crap, MOM is here!! Everybody settle down!!

Hey Sea-made-in .... Yah I forget that posts are read so many more times than replied to.  I just meant he was wasting his time on someone entrenched in the myth. It's so very hard to bring them out of it.


I'll go with the beignets but skip the powdered sugar and go straight for the maple syrup 

Man that makes me think about my grandma's deep fried corn fritters.....a wondrous palette experience. I miss her...

Misshester has gone Neandrethal on us I'm afraid. Her back problems have put her into a "stoop and poop" posture..... 



out.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 13, 2008)

It's an old injury, got rear ended in my car about 8 years ago. Threw it out the other day and once it got to feeling better I actually threw it out again yesterday while coughing. I'll be OK, it'll just take a few days. Hey I can stand up straight today, woo hoo. 





Seamaiden said:


> Oh FUCK! What happened?


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 13, 2008)

That's great to hear  !!! 

Last time I threw my back out I merely turned my head to speak to someone and "snap". I knew the injury/strain was from two days prior .. I just tend to hair trigger later on.

So I'm guessin you aggravated it earlier and the cough was the last straw.....


Glad to know you are better.....


ut.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 13, 2008)

yes feeling much better thanks and not a moment too soon. Plants need care, house needed cleaning, laundry is the gift that keeps on giving.......blah, blah, BLAH


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 13, 2008)

Laundry .. it's like the mail "freebies" .. just can't get rid of it.

I think back FONDLY now to throwing my clothes down the chute to the basement and they came back the next day squeaky clean and folded ala Mom. 
"Hey Mom, I'm missing a sock and did you use enough softener?"

Blissfully unaware that it in all probability, although she wouldn't admit it, she was close to causing me harm....... I get it now Mom, I get it ..... apologies.




ut.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 13, 2008)

yeah., laundry bites, even if you think you're done you really aren't because you are wearing clothes.


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 13, 2008)

Lol... that's so true. 

Nudists have it made!! 



ut.


----------



## misshestermoffitt (Dec 13, 2008)

but don't they have a rule about sitting on a towel? I'd hate to be that laundry lady,


----------



## CrackerJax (Dec 13, 2008)

FUNNY STUFF!!!!

Extra starch!!! I think I would have a set of tongs for that load. (dripping with innuendo ), ( oops, that too)

I've never been into ORGANIZED nudity. The word COLONY seems to stir some inner sense of NO THANK YOU in me. Something creepy about it. Sort of like CARNIVAL CLOWNS!! creepy......



ut.


----------

