Jump to content

ghstofmaxwll

Senior Members
  • Posts

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ghstofmaxwll

  1. Which study did you get this from?

     

    Dont get me wrong, I think the dangers of smoking are sensationalized. The deaths from smoking dont seem to be as many as we are told to believe. benefits may be overlooked in between the antismoking ranting.

  2. Im open to the posibility that we may be altering the climate. Why are you not open to the posibility that this period of warming is natural fluctuation? The only answer I can think of is you guys are indoctrinated by media and political hype towards wholely uncertain principles of climate change of planets.

  3.  

     

     

    It will not be eliminated, though. Humans will make sure to take care of the disabled. Again, I'm certainly not advocating we don't, but the genetic implications are worth noting.

     

     

     

    Agreed.

     

    No! It takes resources to look after the disabled, if there are no excess resources the disabled will be first to go. Thats why war-torn countries allow disabled children to die young and malnourished in poor conditions, at best.

  4. Humans in developed countries are not genetically progressing toward survivability,

    Yes they are! They are progressing towards larger populations and more variety of genes...Todays bad genes could be connected to tomorrows cutting-edge for all we know.

    and in fact, are regressing toward traits that do not favor intelligence, motivation, and responsibility.

    Which is still evolving, if this is indeed so... Its not regression, it is adapting to a change in environment - evolving !

     

    By your rationale, would you say the Sloth has regressed, because it has become slow and lazy? Or would you say it has refined its efficiency to living in an environment lacking predation?

  5. Wtf? How does that possibly make sense?

     

    *sigh*

     

    You know I had intended this thread to become a challenging discussion on the way the scientific community deals with these two movements that sit in opposition to it's consensus position, and perhaps on whether or not these movements contribute. I see people are just too defensive about these issues for that to be possible.

     

    Fine, fine, everybody lay your spins back down and return to your homes. Dispassionate discussion is impossible.

     

    Its funny how you along with the theists can only see people who dont believe as you, as ''belivers in the opposite''.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

  6. But it was clear my contention wasnt about whether I thought paedophilia is legal in my country, it was whether I thought incest of a non-paedophile/rape nature was policed in my country. Jesus Christ! Only a dick would think I was including paedophilia in my doubts of legality in Britain.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.