Who is more willing to hear someone out, Christians or Atheists?

Maybe it’s my own prejudices, but I really think atheists are more willing to listen to and understand them as best they can. Granted, this is most likely because they are looking for more ways to tare into religion, but at least they’re thinking.

So here’s what I’m going to do to test this. I’m going to post a ton of content from a book in a second. I want to see how many people will be put off by reading it and not give the proper answer. If you would so kindly, post what your belief is (atheists, agnostic, christian, ect…) followed by your favorite animal. Then I will know you read up to this point. Thank you, now please disregard the rest of this text.

When we look to the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us, is, that they generally differ much more from each other, than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature. When we reflect on the vast diversity of the plants and animals which have been cultivated, and which have varied during all ages under the most different climates and treatment, I think we are driven to conclude that this greater variability is simply due to our domestic productions having been raised under conditions of life not so uniform as, and somewhat different from, those to which the parent-species have been exposed under nature. There is, also, I think, some probability in the view propounded by Andrew Knight, that this variability may be partly connected with excess of food. It seems pretty clear that organic beings must be exposed during several generations to the new conditions of life to cause any appreciable amount of variation; and that when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally continues to vary for many generations. No case is on record of a variable being ceasing to be variable under cultivation. Our oldest cultivated plants, such as wheat, still often yield new varieties: our oldest domesticated animals are still capable of rapid improvement or modification.

It has been disputed at what period of time the causes of variability, whatever they may be, generally act; whether during the early or late period of development of the embryo, or at the instant of conception. Geoffroy St Hilaire’s experiments show that unnatural treatment of the embryo causes monstrosities; and monstrosities cannot be separated by any clear line of distinction from mere variations. But I am strongly inclined to suspect that the most frequent cause of variability may be attributed to the male and female reproductive elements having been affected prior to the act of conception. Several reasons make me believe in this; but the chief one is the remarkable effect which confinement or cultivation has on the functions of the reproductive system; this system appearing to be far more susceptible than any other part of the organization, to the action of any change in the conditions of life. Nothing is more easy than to tame an animal, and few things more difficult than to get it to breed freely under confinement, even in the many cases when the male and female unite. How many animals there are which will not breed, though living long under not very close confinement in their native country! This is generally attributed to vitiated instincts; but how many cultivated plants display the utmost vigour, and yet rarely or never seed! In some few such cases it has been found out that very trifling changes, such as a little more or less water at some particular period of growth, will determine whether or not the plant sets a seed. I cannot here enter on the copious details which I have collected on this curious subject; but to show how singular the laws are which determine the reproduction of animals under confinement, I may just mention that carnivorous animals, even from the tropics, breed in this country pretty freely under confinement, with the exception of the plantigrades or bear family; whereas, carnivorous birds, with the rarest exceptions, hardly ever lay fertile eggs. Many exotic plants have pollen utterly worthless, in the same exact condition as in the most sterile hybrids. When, on the one hand, we see domesticated animals and plants, though often weak and sickly, yet breeding quite freely under confinement; and when, on the other hand, we see individuals, though taken young from a state of nature, perfectly tamed, long-lived, and healthy (of which I could give numerous instances), yet having their reproductive system so seriously affected by unperceived causes as to fail in acting, we need not be surprised at this system, when it does act under confinement, acting not quite regularly, and producing offspring not perfectly like their parents or variable.

Sterility has been said to be the bane of horticulture; but on this view we owe variability to the same cause which produces sterility; and variability is the source of all the choicest productions of the g
“Where’s that extract from? It was rather interesting”

Origins of Species.
6 atheists/agnostics. 6 points.

1 theists. 0 points.

This is fun!
8 – 8
2 – 0

LMAO!!! God, theists suck!

Spiritually speaking: Isn’t this proof of human evolution?

I was reading up on the villages in the Andes last night. Sorry this was an actual book, I am sure you can search through the National Geographic sites if you feel the need to prove this.

It was speaking of the villages, the highest in the world. These reside at 10,000 feet in the air, above sea level. And according to the locals, they always lived there. The story spoke specifically of their mutated reproductive systems. They in fact have evolved through a few generations to be able to conceive and reproduce at this altitude and thin air climate.

The reason this came to question in the article was that the Spanish tried to populate these villages as well. To migrate, so to speak. And these people cannot conceive, in fact nobody but the locals have adapted, or evolved to allow human reproduction.

This odd evolution of the human reproductive system is now being studied. And science is trying to understand how and why these changes took place. Either way they literally have changed their own reproductive systems out of necessity for survival. Is that not proof of human evolution…change to survive?

Is there really no proof of macro-evolution ? Isn’t evolution asexual and counter productive to Gods creation?

Is evolution a conceited work of design?

Not only do archaeological finds disprove Darwinism, but there is no proof of macro-evolution (species to species mutation) whatsoever. Of course species adapt to their environments and their characteristics can change over time, but there is no evidence in the fossil record or anywhere else to prove that one species transforms into another.

The complete title of Darwin’s book is, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.”

Evolution makes a hero out of death and completely negates all morality and humane compassion. When you tell people that they are evolved animals that are floating on a lawless and indifferent planet in outer space they begin to act as just that–lawless animals with no morality or accountability for themselves.

DNA is proof of a designer. The number of chromosomes from everything from a tomato, to a dog, to a human vary so drastically; there is no evidence of an upward evolutionary progression. DNA is so mind-bogglingly complex that it proves a creator in of its self.

a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary
reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and
independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place.
Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both
reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and
female would also need to be compatible (a).

c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system
(pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical
and electrical compatibility with the eggs of the female
reproductive system.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level
inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision-
processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)

e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through
adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable
adult (who also “accidentally” evolved), would have to be tightly
controlled.

f. This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for
millions of species.

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than
sexual reproduction . But if asexual reproduction (splitting an
organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual
reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise-or survive?
Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for
natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability
to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle !

What is the Report from Iron Mountain ? Well come read it .?

The Report from Iron Mountain –

What you are about to read is the secret report of the ” Special Study Group ” of 15 people brought together during the Kennedy years and now has been declassified . It describes perfectly why and how we live the way we do now .

The proposal for the ” Special Study Group ” as it is known , came around 1961 and was established in August 1963 . Among the people assembled was John Kenneth Galbraith , Robert McNamara , Dean Rusk and McGeorge Bundy . The group was formed to study the implications of a world without war while still being able to maintain the control of the population by having them believe we were at war and filled with the fear of war { read that again to grasp the full understanding }. The contents of this report was revealed by a man who was apart of the group and who felt the public should know what the documents contained . No one knows who this man is , he is only known as ” John Doe ” . The Report laid out the functions of war which the new policies would have to replace , they are –

1. Economic – War has provided both ancient and modern societies with a dependable system for stabilizing and controlling national economies . No alternative method of control has yet been tested in a complex modern economy that has shown itself remotely comparable in scope or effectiveness .

2. Political – The permanent possibility of war is the foundation for stable governments ; it supplies the basis for general acceptance of political authority . It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has ensured the subordination of the citizen to the state by virtue of the residue war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood . No modern political ruling group has successfully controlled its constituency after failing to sustain the continuing credibility of an external threat of war .

3. Sociological – War , through the medium of military institutions , has uniquely served societies , throughout the course of known history as an indispensable controller of dangerous ( free thinking ) social dissidence and destructive antisocial tendencies .

4. Ecological – War has been the principle evolutionary device for maintaining a satisfactory ecological balance between gross human population and supplies available for survival . It is unique to the human species .

What did they say about population control you ask ? Well here it is -

” There is no question that a universal requirement , be procreation limited to the products of artificial insemination which would provide a full control of population levels . Such a reproductive system would of course have the added advantage of being susceptible to a direct eugenic management . Its predictable further development – conception and embryonic growth taking place wholly under laboratory conditions – would extend these controls to their logical conclusion . The ecological function of war under these conditions would not only be superseded but surpassed in effectiveness . The indicated immediate step forward – total control of conception with a variant of ubiquitous ” pill ” , via water supplies or certain foods , offset by a controlled antidote – is already under development . ”

Remember this was the 1960′s . More then 46 years have passed since then and already the so called ” immediate step ” was already under development . So it begs the question – What is going on in our food and water ? Take an example from Professor Paul Ehrlich who wrote in his book , entitled – The Population Bomb – published 2 years after this secret report was completed in 1966 . He wrote and I quote –

” Governments could enforce birth control by the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies and/or food . ”

Yet that quote is labeled as fantasy and mere coincidence that it came out 2 years after the Report from Iron Mountain . Anyway lets move on to what these ” experts ” said about alternatives to further world wars and what to do when no war is present . It says and I quote -

” Unite the population behind their controllers under the threat of war or some other form of destruction and keep them in a permanent state of fear , therefor dependent on there ” saviors ” . In the light of the need to control the population without war we need an omnipresent , virtually omnipotent international police force ; an established and recognized extraterrestrial menace ; massive global environmental pollution ; fictitious alternate enemies ; a modern , sophisticated form of slavery ; new religions or other mythologies ; and a comprehensive program of applied eugenics . ”

There you have it – the Report from Iron Mountain . Now you see why it is so important as it seems as though a serial killer or somebody severely mentally ill wrote all this , but no – the U.S. government did .
Yes there is a question – How does this make you feel ?
I got the information from the Freedom of Information Act not a Sci Fi movie .

would my book get band because of this?

I’m currently working on a series called Malkrow. it’s a book about this artificial race called Malkrow. the Malkrow races comes out of an artificial tree called the Egg Tree, which was created by Vinidi Thornbuckle. the protagonist of the series is a male Malkrow “self-named” Onec (Malkrows name themselves after they are born), codenamed Malkrow21 because he is the 21st malkrow born.

now before I go into the question, let me just something perfectly clear: Malkrows are not eggs. at first they are eggs (literally), and then they are taking out of the Egg Tree (where they are produced) and put in a special ingredient. after a week a Malkrow is born. Malkrows look like human teenagers (from birth to death) and they don’t age physically. they also can live forever. Malkrows may look human but they don’t have the things that we do, both inside and out. they have skin, hair (only on the head, eyebrows, and eyelashes, literally), malkrow blood, skeleton, muscular system (stronger than full grown humans) and a Jenova ( it what keeps the Malkrows alive)

now on with the question: since it is clear that all Malkrows are biological brothers and sisters, due to them coming out of an Egg Tree. I’m just wondering if my book might get band because of incest. during the later part of my series when Onec is 123 marries another Malkrow (obviously his biological sister) named Keyra. and in other parts of the series they adopted a human baby (Malkrows don’t have a reproductive system). this baby of course ,being human as he is, is growing physically. so when his parents adopted him, they looked like teenagers. and then when he was fully grown, they still looked like teenagers.

so tell me, will my book get band because Onec marries one of his many Biological Sister, Keyra? and would they have anything against them rising a baby?

biology ? i cant find it in the book or online?

development and maintenence of female sexual characteristics are mainly stimulated by secretions of the
1. pituiatary
2. hypothalamus
3. pancreas
4. ovaries

and i have one more

which of the following is NOT a major structure of the male reproductive system?
1. testes
2. corous luteum
3. epididymis
4. uretha

Can a health book be biased?

I was reading this woman’s health book and it always mentions fat being bad and I know it is to an extent but it always goes on about vegetarian diets and I don’t want to be a veg. It never tells me any benefit about meats and I know there are. I also read a million times that dairy products will throw off your reproductive system and it was driving me nuts. Can a book lie? I wanted to learn a little more about what I should eat. I am 15 and want to be healthy later on so when I do have kids I won’t have health problems and they won’t. Is milk actually really bad for you because I drink a glass almost every day.
Stefani

Majors and Careers Questions?

I’m going to be a senior in high school and have been looking heavily at majors and their career paths, yet I seek advice.

I’m very interested in language, and how it works, in addition to poltics and uncovering stories, so I was considering the occupation of a journalist. However, I hear it’s incredibly difficult to break into that field and it doesn’t make a very decent pay, along with the stress that comes along with all the deadlines.

I’m also very interested in biology and medicine. It’s something that has consistently held my interest; I love reading medical books and researching the science of biology. However, I’m a bit of a hypochondriac so I sometimes get queasy with talks of the female reproductive system and some of the diseases, so I couldn’t really have a career as a nurse or doctor. I’m very interested in chemistry, but not that great at it. I also have an interest in forensics after taking it as a elective this past year at my high school. It’s so exciting to me
I suppose what I’m really asking is for any insight into those who have had experience with these majors and where they have guided them through careers. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Why does science still teach that organic life sprung from non-organic matter through a natural mechanistic?

The bible has long stated that we are from the dust and were created according to each kind of creature.

Yet by and large, the text books teach that organic life sprung from non-organic matter exclusively through a natural mechanistic process on a pre-biotic earth. That original life form then evolved into more complex life forms through a natural process of random mutations and natural selection. In a nutshell, the majority scientific hypothesis is that matter randomly acting on matter for a long period of time created everything we see.

How can nothing explode?
Where did all that matter and energy come from?
What caused its release?
How did this explosion of everything (from nothing) order itself?
How can simplicity become complexity?
Where did the chemical elements come from?
Where did the mathematical laws and physical properties come from?
How do we explain the design, complexity and fine-tuning inherent in spiral galaxies, solar systems, and stars?

How did life come from a rock?
How did a bird come from a lizard?
Why don’t we see birds come from lizards today?
Why are there no transitional fossils in our museums today?
Why have we never observed beneficial mutations?
Where did the information code in DNA come from?
Where did the language convention that interprets DNA come from?
How can we explain the random development of the human eye, reproductive system, digestive tract, brain, heart and lungs?
What about the subconscious mind?
What about love, morality, ethics, and emotions?

Can these things really evolve gradually and randomly over time?

A joint a day keeps the doctor away?

Are you sick of hearing someone nagging you about letting go of your pot pasttime? Have you been hearing a lot of negative things about the use of marijuana lately? Would you like to know what the real deal is behind the use of this infamous drug? Then read on because you’re in for a surprise.

One of the saddest things in North America is the lack of clinical trials on marijuana use. Many other countries in the world have already performed such tests in order to destroy myths about this drug, which has been in use for thousands of years… mainly for medicinal purposes.

The data from previous studies, published in numerous books and scholarly journals, covered such matters as marijuana’s effects on the brain, lungs, immune and reproductive systems; its impact on personality, developmental and motivational states; and its addictive potential.

Although these studies did not answer all remaining questions about marijuana toxicity, they generally supported the idea that marijuana was a relatively safe drug — not totally free from potential harm, but unlikely to create serious harm for most individual users or society.

The following list will hopefully demystify several myths about marijuana use and help answer a lot of serious questions:

health risk myths & realities

Marijuana Overdose
There is no existing evidence of anyone dying of a marijuana overdose. Tests performed on mice have shown that the ratio of cannabinoids (the chemicals in marijuana that make you high) necessary for overdose to the amount necessary for intoxication is 40,000:1.

For comparison’s sake, that ratio for alcohol is generally between 4:1 and 10:1. Alcohol overdoses claim approximately 5,000 casualties yearly, but marijuana overdoses kill no one as far as any official reports.

Brain Damage
Marijuana is psychoactive because it stimulates certain brain receptors, but it does not produce toxins that kill them (like alcohol), and it does not wear them out as other drugs may. There is no evidence that marijuana use causes brain damage. Studies performed on actual human populations will confirm these results, even for chronic marijuana users (up to 18 joints per day) after many years of use.

In fact, following the publication of two 1977 JAMA studies, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially announced its support for the decriminalization of marijuana.

In reality, marijuana has the effect of slightly increasing alpha-wave activity in your brain. Alpha waves are generally associated with meditative and relaxed states, which are, in turn, often associated with human creativity.

Memory
Marijuana does impair short-term memory, but only during intoxication. Although the authoritative studies on marijuana use seem to agree that there is no residual impairment following intoxication, persistent impairment of short-term memory has been noted in chronic marijuana smokers, up to 6 and 12 weeks following abstinence.

What other myths have been going around about smoking a doobie ?

Heart Problems
It is accepted in medical circles today that marijuana use causes no evident long-term cardiovascular problems for normal persons. Marijuana smoking, however, does cause changes in the heart and body’s circulation characteristic of stress, which may complicate preexisting cardiovascular problems like hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, and coronary atherosclerosis. Marijuana’s effects on blood pressure are complex and inconsistent as of yet.

Hormones
Chronic marijuana use has not been found to alter testosterone or other sex hormone levels. In contrast, heavy alcohol use is known to lower these same testosterone levels.

Reproductive Damage
No trustworthy study has ever shown that marijuana use damages the reproductive system, or causes chromosome breakage. Studies of actual human populations have failed to demonstrate that marijuana adversely affects the reproductive system. Claims that marijuana use may impair hormone production, menstrual cycles, or fertility in females are both unproven and unfounded.

The Immune System
Studies in which lab rats were injected with extremely large quantities of THC (the active compound in marijuana) have found that marijuana (in such unrealistically huge quantities) does have an “immunosuppressive effect” in those lab rats, in that it temporarily shuts off certain cells in the liver called lymphocytes and macrophages. These macrophages are useful in fighting off bacterial, not viral, infections.

But this is only for the duration of intoxication. There also exists some evidence that marijuana metabolites remain in the lungs for up to seven months after smoking has ceased, possibly affecting the immune system of the lungs (but not by turning the cells off).

This said, doctors and researchers are still not sure that the immune system is actually negatively affected in realistic situations since there are no numbers to support the idea. In fact, three studies s
Expensive? You need to start buying in bulk brotha.

Principles of Anatomy & Physiology

Discussions on The Human Body

Category Archives: Reproductive System Books