Prove there's a god.
Scrooge

Phoenix, AZ

#689113 Jan 25, 2014
irecknso wrote:
You explained it the way you wanted it to be
Wrong! I educated you to scientific methodology which you're too retarded to comprehend. Evolution is proven scientific fact. The evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable. It's also common sense to all sane people which is another reason you fail to grasp it.
You may have heard a scientist speak about the mechanisms of evolution and took his quote of out context to support your own inane personal delusions. The scientist may have misspoken or you're simply making up shit because you're a f*cking moron and sociopathic punk.
Scrooge

Phoenix, AZ

#689114 Jan 25, 2014
henry wrote:
Never was any god !
You just gotta love the cowardly Christian cultists who accept evolution then state their imaginary friend designed it that way. However, the juvenile creationist myth in genesis is totally inconsistent with evolution. Oops!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#689118 Jan 25, 2014
irecknso wrote:
<quoted text> Dude what part of what i said don't you understand? No, i did not take it outta context.. HE, the scientist, sat there and said that they just don't know how or why life began.. they have theories, which he said was wrong, for whatever reason, CLOWN!! you're the 1 taking $#1t outta context to suit your life style in that institution your in and you have no hope.. HOPE is 1 thing you better hold on to, it's all we got!!
Evolution is not about how life began....its about what happens after life is already started.

We don't yet know how life began, but its being worked on.

One thing we're really clear on though is that life DID NOT begin 6,000+- years ago. We can trace pre-humans back a million years or more, and modern humans back to 200,000+- years ago

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#689119 Jan 25, 2014
henry wrote:
<quoted text>There was not any god at all!
Correct.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#689122 Jan 25, 2014
irecknso wrote:
<quoted text> I thought modern homo-sapiens was only 50, 60 thousand years old? i agree we adapted to our surroundings for survival, but not evolved..
Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago, that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus. The date of the earliest successful "out of Africa" migration (earliest migrants with living descendants) has generally been placed at 60,000 years ago as suggested by genetics, although migration out of the continent may have taken place as early as 125,000 years ago according to Arabian archaeology finds of tools in the region. A 2013 paper reported that a previously unknown lineage had been found, which pushed the estimated date for the most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA) back to 338,000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_o...

We all have roots extending back 200,000 years to the emergence of the first modern humans in Africa, and back more than 6 million years to the of the earliest human species in Africa. This amazing story of and survival is written in the language of our genes, in every cell of our bodies—as well as in the fossil and behavioral evidence.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/...

You write:
" i agree we adapted to our surroundings for survival, but not evolved."

How else would you explain Homo-erectus, Homo-habilis, Homo-neanderthalensis, etc., etc., going back well over a million years?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#689123 Jan 25, 2014
“It is notable that we now have evidence for interbreeding among every kind of hominin we have DNA from, and some we don’t.

Neandertals and humans. Denisovans and humans. Neandertals and Denisovans. Some living sub-Saharan Africans and one or more unknown ancient populations. Denisovans and one or more unknown, even more ancient populations. They were all mixing.”
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neanderta...

The actual real world evidence for early humanity is Soooooo different then what the Bible tries to pass off as 'truth.'
Scrooge

Phoenix, AZ

#689125 Jan 25, 2014
irecknso wrote:
HE, the scientist, sat there and said that they just don't know how or why life began.
How many times do you need to be told you're a f*cking moron before it penetrates your completely brainwashed mind? Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life. Science understands how life began and has had some success in duplicating the process. Nevertheless, abiogenesis is still considered a scientific hypothesis not a scientific theory.

There's no disputing that modern organisms have evolved from ancestral organisms and continue to evolve. Evolution is a proven scientific theory. You're too f*cking retarded to understand that abiogenesis isn't evolution even though I've provided you with two excellent documentaries on the subjects.

F*ck off, azzhole!
Scrooge

Phoenix, AZ

#689126 Jan 25, 2014
irecknso wrote:
i agree we adapted to our surroundings for survival, but not evolved..
Once again, you're a f*cking moron!

Since: Jan 13

I ain't Misbehavin'

#689128 Jan 25, 2014
And I quote...

"I just wish this social institution [religion] wasn't based on what appears to me to be a monumental hoax built on an accumulation of customs and myths directed toward proving something that isn't true...."

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#689134 Jan 25, 2014
irecknso wrote:
<quoted text> Isn't there like only 5 to 10% of DNA known, and the rest considered garbage, for whatever reason?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/science/far...
Greens - Tuf

Kurnell, Australia

#689138 Jan 25, 2014
Happy Australia Day.:)

Time for a beer , I just love the addictive qualities of beer.
Hmmmm.......... beer, yum, yum .
Greens - Tuf

Kurnell, Australia

#689139 Jan 25, 2014
_CRIMINAL_ wrote:
Don't mind ya playing demon
as long as it's with me
if this is he11 ain't
no use in staying
it's heavenly
HE11 AIN'T A BAD PLACE
TO BE!!
Name change for "ireckonso" ??

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#689142 Jan 25, 2014
irecknso wrote:
<quoted text>I think even darwin doubted himself...
I think any intelligent person questions themselves.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#689143 Jan 25, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
I think any intelligent person questions themselves.
Correct.

“You Can't Throw MeTo TheWolves”

Since: May 10

THEY COME WHEN I CALL

#689149 Jan 25, 2014
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
That that's what it is, on the subject of weed, I'm not so sure.
If talking about his god and religion, then I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that he is indeed afflicted with genuine confirmation bias and can't help it.
In this case, he's just being a d!ck.
RR knows what the deal is. He's jus lookin' fer sumpthun, anything, so he won't have nothin'...
...so he can preserve his dicknity.
Wait...
That IS confirmation bias.
You're right.
Another thing that these Topix xtians (not Christians, but specifically xtians) suffer from is selective perception. If they see something they don't like, or something that makes them think or even a question that they don't want to answer, they'll tell themselves it just isn't there, that it does not exist, and then they will continue on accordingly. Other times they'll read a post, and they'll declare to themselves, "That isn't what the person *really* meant,*I'll* decide what they meant,'cause I know better and I'll address *that* instead." Shorty Assup excells at that.

“You Can't Throw MeTo TheWolves”

Since: May 10

THEY COME WHEN I CALL

#689150 Jan 25, 2014
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no substances in cannabis that have physically addictive properties.
If you disagree, then "list" them.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>The distinction between "physically" and "mentally" addictive is meaningless, which is what I've been trying to explain.
Addiction is completely a mental phenomenon. The physical withdrawal symptoms seen with harder drugs are because of brain chemistry, just as the minor withdrawal symptoms seen with weed are a mental phenomenon.
You are full of sh*t.

Addiction is physical; it is a physical dependence upon a particular drug, where the person can no longer function normally without it, and the withdrawl symptoms are physical---delirium tremens for the hard-core alcoholic, for example (I have seen this with my own two eyes, I have studied the subject for years, so you don't get to tell me differently). And have you ever seen someone going through heroin withdrawl? Are you *really* trying to tell us that the spasming, the muscle cramps, the vomiting, profuse sweating, the diarrhea are all "psychololgical?"

“You Can't Throw MeTo TheWolves”

Since: May 10

THEY COME WHEN I CALL

#689151 Jan 25, 2014
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I am quite informed on the subject.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>If that was so, you wouldn't be asking for simple answers for how addiction works, and you wouldn't be asking for a certain "physically addictive" chemical, as if something is only addictive if the withdrawal symptoms are "physical."
I'll take BT's word on the subject over yours any day.

Who the f*ck do you think you are to spout this bullshit? Are you a liberal version of a self-declared expert, like the xtians here are self-declared experts on "god?"

Grow up, kid.

“You Can't Throw MeTo TheWolves”

Since: May 10

THEY COME WHEN I CALL

#689152 Jan 25, 2014
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yep.
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
You really don't understand what "addictive properties" means?
No, he doesn't.

“You Can't Throw MeTo TheWolves”

Since: May 10

THEY COME WHEN I CALL

#689154 Jan 25, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
You really don't understand what "addictive properties" means?
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text> I still don't think you quite know what you're asking me,
Of course she does; your inability to understand is not her fault.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>because I've answered your question in more ways than one, and you continue to repeat yourself.
Probably because you're not really answering her, the way you wouldn't answer me. You try to reword a question to your own liking and then try to answer *that* one, the same way the fundie xtians do here.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you think that something can only have "addictive properties" if it has a chemical that causes physical withdrawal symptoms?
YES.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Did you catch the post where I explained why the distinction between physical and mental addiction is meaningless?
I saw it, and it was fulla shit.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you understand that nothing is addictive in and of itself?
Tell it to the alcoholic and the junkie, and the coke addict and the meth-head.

“You Can't Throw MeTo TheWolves”

Since: May 10

THEY COME WHEN I CALL

#689156 Jan 25, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
<quoted text>
You typed a lot of words but you still have not told us what the addictive properties in Cannabis are.
At best, you've described habit forming behaviour not how, as you put it; "marijuana is an addictive substance".
Are you changing that initial statement?
Addictive "substances" contain addictive properties, such as the nicotine in cigarettes, which cause physical dependency on such substances.
I hope that helps.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Nicotine is not addictive in and of itself, it is addictive because of how the brain reacts to it. The same goes for every other drug including weed.
If someone abuses it to the point of becoming addicted to it, their reward pathway will have been altered - they will have a tolerance, and minor withdrawal symptoms can and will occur upon cessation of use. What else defines addiction in your mind?
In short, I have described how the brain can become physically altered in response to any pleasurable substance. Weed is a pleasurable substance. QED.
And again, the distinction between physical and mental is meaningless.
Your uninformed opinion is worthless. Do you just make this shit up the way Shorty Ass-up does? It sure looks like it.

An addiction is PHYSICAL.

An addiction is when one becomes physically dependent upon a drug that they have been using over an extended period of time. They build up a tolerance to that drug, so it takes more and more to get the same effect. They become so physically dependent on that drug that they cannot function normally without it. And when they are suddenly deprived of that drug, they go into actual, physical withdrawl. Sometimes such withdrawls result in the death of the user.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min Just Think 641,610
Play "end of the word" part 2 8 min andet1987 1,728
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 10 min DebraE 104,705
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 11 min NoStress4me 38,265
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 14 min onemale 280,892
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr WasteWater 18,705
Why do white men hate white women who want blac... (May '11) 1 hr Paul is dead 4,112
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr Neville Thompson 44,390
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Steve III 618,401
More from around the web