Ringer

I've gotten lost in all this fluff. Is the argument that SOME atheist are religious or is it atheism ITSELF is a religion?

That's not a very scientific way to go about it. What if I don't clean my nails that week, what if I didn't clean my nails the week before? What is in lettuce that would increase keratin production? What if the lettuce is processed? etc, etc, etc.

Something I found while procrastinating: http://www.pnas.org/content/87/10/3871.full.pdf

Much of the water loss through skin is regulated through sweat glands. Since water isn't just free flowing throughout your body (it's contained in various places) there isn't an excess amount of water loss through the skin unless there isn't a source of hydration. The same way you can't get enough water to live by sitting in a pool, you won't lose enough water to die by sitting in anything (unless it makes you sweat a lot). Osmotic pressures won't have a large effect because of multiple barriers against water loss.

But arguing that atheism is a belief system comparable to theism is the same as arguing that evolution is a belief system comparable to Creationism. All theistic belief systems have things that would show their deity to exist (answering prayer for example) but no evidence has supported those predictions. It's the same with any supernatural phenomena, there hasn't been anything shown to be impossible to explain without the supernatural so the assumption based on evidence is that the supernatural doesn't exist. That's not to say there aren't people who treat atheism as a dogmatic belief system, but atheism in itself isn't fairly comparable to theism.

What about it? There is no evolutionary difference if that's what it evolved for (it may serve some other function, I haven't researched it so I don't know). I don't know what it occurring naturally has to do with the argument. Ingestion of a chemical can have different effects from when it is released as an endocrine chemical/neurotransmitter. IIRC, DMT analogs are used in mammals and DMT is a byproduct of metabolizing those products. Plus, when ingesting DMT you are ingesting something that is only found in trace amounts. The dosage makes a huge difference in reactions.

Some plants produce capsaicin to deter mammals from eating their fruits. I love spicy food and many areas of the world traditionally eat a lot of spicy food. Just because people eat them for certain effects doesn't falsify the fact that the effects evolved for them to avoid being eaten.

AFAIK pheromones haven't been shown to be a factor in human reproduction.

So you don't respond specifically to iNow's request and then decide to leave once you've made claims you can't back up. That's not a very good strategy to show your side has good points.

He was attempting to make what he thought was a witty insult. 'Cunning linguist' is word play for cunnilingus, hence his oyster diving crack. It's childish, insulting, off-topic, and idiotic.

What's the definition then? It's a property of many pieces of the brain, but consciousness doesn't have a strict definition. To ask for a specific piece that is the cause is multiple levels of misunderstanding. That doesn't follow. Single cellular organisms don't have brains. What is nonsense is saying consciousness happened before life. No, neither have a strict definition of consciousness. You're equivocating the different definitions of conscious. There is no evidence that consciousness or any other experience, however you want to define it (except to specifically say it doesn't include the brain), comes from anywhere except the brain. Please show evidence otherwise if you have any. I thought speculations fell under the rules of science, meaning you can come up with philosophical theories all you want, but if you want to discuss things you should back up your declarations with evidence. You can't explain something that isn't defined. Define it. 1.) Define mental aspects 2.) evidence shows all mental activity that can be measured comes from the brain, so mental aspects come from the brain So are ants, plants, single celled organisms, etc conscious? I know I don't, it'll be pointless

The difference is? Since all evidence points to consciousness is part of the brain it's a good position. Have any counter evidence? Life came after the brain? Our single celled ancestor would disagree. Anyway, the idea is that the ill defined concept of 'consciousness' is a by-product of brain activity. Yeah, psychology doesn't avoid those aspects. Straw-man. What do you think consciousness is? Please just define consciousness if you want any sort of conversation. This is part of the problem with consciousness discussions. So many people go, 'no one can agree on what consciousness is, that's because they don't know how I define it!'. This I can agree with. Again, redefining consciousness isn't helpful unless you can show it's a workable definition.

Isn't the 'great person' vs. zeitgeist argument a philosophical one? And is that really the main topic. I'm really asking because the OP doesn't help much in that regard.

You should really define what the membrane is supposed to be semi-permeable to. I assume you are asking about molecular oxygen, but it's best to be specific. Anyway, veins and arteries consist of 3 layers which makes them fairly non-permeable. The capillaries are pretty much just thin endothelium to allow oxygen permeability.

Figure out what you're testing --> research findings in that field --> see what experiments have been done with what variables --> figure out what variables you want to test --> Find ways to test that variable --> find the ways the variable has been tested before --> find better ways to test that variable --> figure out if those tests REALLY test that variable --> figure out the problems with the tests you plan --> attempt to solve problems with tests --> Repeat all that two or three times --> conduct tests (experiments) --> repeat experiments --> hope that the experiments find something significant (if not negative results still tell you something

Change all your questions to dogs and you may be able to understand the concept of how races can and do develop from common ancestors. The main answer is that races (breeds in dogs) are an artificial construct based on a continuous phenotype that doesn't even have strict boarders. Dog breeds even tend to be much more defined and have much stricter boarders, and even those are fairly artificial.

Getting an answer to a question that you don't understand isn't very helpful to you. What the posters are doing is making sure you understand your own question so you can better understand the answer. Being negative about that help doesn't encourage further help.

So I have to ask, do you think the bacteria live inside the cell? You implying that criticism is analogous to whining really says a lot about now this thread has been going. Please do tell how you will keep them from becoming resistant other than just making a statement that they won't. Well, they would get that question wrong because they can't understand the difference between internal and external environment. It's a pretty important distinction. Again, if the outside of the cell was well oxygenated the circulatory system would be unnecessary. Well, since you now state that you will not change your mind I will happily wash my hands of this thread. But please keep in mind that reality isn't dictated by your belief.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

Oh my god, I think I get it. I understand now that you have repeated the same generic overview of a hypothetical process with no mention of the actual mechanisms. It means something now that it didn't the past 20 times. Then don't snip the context out of the quote. [edit] after looking back I see that the context was there and you just ignored it. To make it simple: Circulatory system = Problem with your idea that the body is oxygen rich Circulatory system =/= and evolutionary problem [/edit] Then please do tell why we have a circulatory system, it seems unnecessary with all the molecular oxygen flying about. Yeah, like the spinal chord right? That's the damn point. Breathing is necessary because the body is a closed hypoxic environment so we need specialized systems to bring oxygen to cells. Somewhere the body is hypoxic? Crap, you got me. . . Wait, how about anywhere there is not continuous blood flow, outside cellular membranes, connective tissues, most areas of epithelium, anywhere encased in cerebrospinal fluid, anywhere you feel sore, etc. etc. etc. Incorrect, I'm starting to think you may not know the difference between hypoxia the medical condition and a hypoxic environment. Or you're trolling, or you don't really care to think that people with experience in the field of biology have any idea what happens in biological systems. If you gave any real biology or chemistry you might have a point. Or maybe this joke is a vague overview of something that you had an idea to talk about but can't really get the point across in words? Except the whole killing the patient Truly?!?!?! You know where all the cancer is?!?!?!??! Really? How will the immune system damage be managed? Please tell me this thoroughly detailed regiment has a great way to do this. Did you know that you can look at what was typed in the past? This is a new question but if answered correctly it should lead you to the original question.

Although you're honest about your end game, it's not a very honest discussion when your only goal is to win souls instead of discuss ideas. I don't want that to be taken the wrong way, but it seems disheartening to even begin discussions this way. The problem with that idea is that science is based on methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. Though many scientists are naturalists it isn't a necessity. So long as naturalism is assumed in the methodology, philosophically one can believe anything. Even in a closed system spontaneous reactions may occur. There is no failure, other than school's failure to teach these things properly. We have beautiful transitions of any number of species and character states that support evolution more than most other scientific theories. All species are transitional, ring species are good examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species Again, incorrect. Most transitional fossils are controversial only in very specific phylogenetic terms, but not that they are transitional species I don't know what this means. We do have the evidence, and they are used against creation. The problem begins with coming into a discussion assuming the answer and ignoring counter-evidence. The reason creation is discounted is because it makes massive assumptions that have no evidence to support them and because you can use ANYTHING to support creation by making further assumptions. If it's unfalsifiable it's not science, so it's ignored. I would start with reading up on any number of sites about evolution. talkorigins.org is a good one I have had this discussion many times in the past (most of my family are creationists) and the arguments you bring are all old and have been beaten to death. The first thing anyone should do when making a factual statement is look for multiple sources (more importantly sources that disagree) to see if the statement is factual. You seem like an intelligent person, use that intelligence to search, question, and explore. I don't care if you're atheist or theist or whatever, just learn. Creationism denies all evidence by basically saying 'magic', is that really satisfying to you? Please search sites that talk about evolution and teach about evolution, don't put blinders on your intellect because of what you are taught.

Gnathostome phylogenies tend to be a mess of paraphyletic groupings. It's a known problem that has been discussed in the literature (though I'm not at all current in that area). There will always be all sorts of nested classes/orders/families because biology is messy. Evolution doesn't care about strict delineation

Another blog that talks about studies about the death toll : http://www.theage.com.au/comment/japans-radiation-disaster-toll-none-dead-none-sick-20130604-2nomz.html I haven't had the time to track down the studies he cites though(why the hell don't they just link them).

This made me laugh because I had a similar thought and was answered with "I haven't mentioned using viruses so I don't know where you got that from?".

And without the division of multiple cell types you would die from the transfusion due to opening up the interior of your body to all sorts of infections.