If you're looking for lifelong smokers who die of old age (like the guy in the video) they aren't hard to find. Only around 20% actually get lung cancer. When you factor in all of the other illnesses that smoking can cause, then the odds go up to 60-65% of dying from something related. But that still leaves 35-40% of the 1+ billion smokers in the world to post videos on youtube when they get old saying that it didn't hurt them.
Razziel
JoinedPosts by Razziel
-
-
-
-
52
Good books against evolution?
by bohm inafter reading 'the greatest show on earth' by dawkins, i have been intrigued by how biblical literalists explain the many findings that seem to support evolution and contradict various parts of the bible.
in doing to i have browsed around on aig but i have generally felt let down by the quality of evidence and interpretations they present.
so i would like to ask all non-evolutionists: if i wanted to learn more about the physical case against evolution, what books should i read?
-
-
Razziel
"Are you sure about that? Looks all out of whack to me."
No i agree that it's out of whack because sun/stars is out of order with the rest. Obviously plants can't perform photosynthesis without the sun, and I don't agree with the literal view of genesis in any way what-so-ever.
I just find it interesting that (taking out the sun/stars part) the order is pretty close to what evolution predicts and has been verified by evidence. It's probably a coincidence and just an observation from my reading of genesis. I look at it from the same context as the Mayans/Celtics and other civilizations having an uncanny understanding of the motion of stars and galaxies without the benefit of modern technology.
If you look at my previous posts, I have argued against creationism and ID. If I had to classify myself, I'm agnostic border-line atheist, so I definately don't want my post to come across as support of ID/creationism.
-
1
A Great Interview with Jesse Ventura
by Judge Dread inhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aum0yyqavj0.
judge dread .
-
-
Razziel
I saw a brief interview with Ventura last night on Carson Daily that made me want to read his new book.
-
5
FDA Ignored Scientists Radiation Warningson Medical Tests
by sammielee24 inny times.
washington urgent warnings by government experts about the risks of routinely using powerful ct scans to screen patients for colon cancer were brushed aside by the food and drug administration, according to agency documents and interviews with agency scientists.. dr. julian nicholas, a gastroenterologist, warned the food and drug administration against ct scans for colon cancer screenings.. after staying quiet for a year, the scientists say they plan to make their concerns public at a meeting of experts on tuesday called by the f.d.a.
to discuss how to protect patients from unnecessary radiation exposures.
-
-
Razziel
I think one of the truest statements in the bible is that money is the root of all evil.
Beyond that, most people are really afraid of having surgery (especially if it's first time). There used to be a lot more exploratory surgery. The surgeon opened you up not to fix anything, just to see first-hand what the problem was so they could go from there. The medical community has moved away from that to diagnostic techniques as technology has improved. There are pro's and con's to both approaches.
-
5
FDA Ignored Scientists Radiation Warningson Medical Tests
by sammielee24 inny times.
washington urgent warnings by government experts about the risks of routinely using powerful ct scans to screen patients for colon cancer were brushed aside by the food and drug administration, according to agency documents and interviews with agency scientists.. dr. julian nicholas, a gastroenterologist, warned the food and drug administration against ct scans for colon cancer screenings.. after staying quiet for a year, the scientists say they plan to make their concerns public at a meeting of experts on tuesday called by the f.d.a.
to discuss how to protect patients from unnecessary radiation exposures.
-
-
Razziel
From briefly researching it online, it appears that:
CT scans are about 25% less expensive.
CT scans are faster (5 min for CT, 30+ min for MRI)
CT is better at imaging dense structures (bones, , cancer (non-tumor), bleeding, organ-tear from injuries, fluid from pneumonia)
MRI is better at imaging less dense structures (ligaments, tendons, cancer (tumors, spinal-cord injuries)
And the consensus seems to be that MRI is not very good at all (as of yet) for visualizing the chest/lung area.
-
52
Good books against evolution?
by bohm inafter reading 'the greatest show on earth' by dawkins, i have been intrigued by how biblical literalists explain the many findings that seem to support evolution and contradict various parts of the bible.
in doing to i have browsed around on aig but i have generally felt let down by the quality of evidence and interpretations they present.
so i would like to ask all non-evolutionists: if i wanted to learn more about the physical case against evolution, what books should i read?
-
-
Razziel
What I find interesting is that the order that the creation of life is mentioned in genesis is in general agreement with the order that fossils have shown and evolution predicts. Plants and sea creatures, then birds and land-bound animals, and finally man. The only big discrepancy was that the earth came before the sun which doesn't agree with what we know of the cosmology. Even the "canopy" of water isn't a discrepancy since early in earth's evolution the planet was a lot hotter, which meant a majority of water would be in the form of evaporated moisture. (A global flood on the other hand is another story.)
But this thread is about books and I'm on a tangent.
-
159
CHOICE may be a mere illusion. FREE WILL a trick of the mind's ego
by Terry inthings are what they are.. everything acts according to its nature.. nothing escapes its own nature.. we cannot be other than what we are and our "choices" follow our nature.. consequently, can we not say correctly that free choice is merely our ignorance of the fact that all our actions and choices are predetermined by our nature?.
1. if you are offered either a handful of dog poop or a cold dove bar---is your "choice" really much of a choice?
2. offer a heterosexual male a night with a hot chick or a hot dude...is the outcome really "choice"?
-
-
Razziel
I nominate "it is what it is" as the most overused cliche of the last year.
-
159
CHOICE may be a mere illusion. FREE WILL a trick of the mind's ego
by Terry inthings are what they are.. everything acts according to its nature.. nothing escapes its own nature.. we cannot be other than what we are and our "choices" follow our nature.. consequently, can we not say correctly that free choice is merely our ignorance of the fact that all our actions and choices are predetermined by our nature?.
1. if you are offered either a handful of dog poop or a cold dove bar---is your "choice" really much of a choice?
2. offer a heterosexual male a night with a hot chick or a hot dude...is the outcome really "choice"?
-
-
Razziel
Read the last sentence of the definition you posted, Terry. That's basically what you are arguing for.
What I'm saying is that last sentence is a consequence of the uncertainty principle, it is not the uncertainty principle itself.
-
159
CHOICE may be a mere illusion. FREE WILL a trick of the mind's ego
by Terry inthings are what they are.. everything acts according to its nature.. nothing escapes its own nature.. we cannot be other than what we are and our "choices" follow our nature.. consequently, can we not say correctly that free choice is merely our ignorance of the fact that all our actions and choices are predetermined by our nature?.
1. if you are offered either a handful of dog poop or a cold dove bar---is your "choice" really much of a choice?
2. offer a heterosexual male a night with a hot chick or a hot dude...is the outcome really "choice"?
-
-
Razziel
Only humans require a concept such as CERTAINTY--not an observed or unobserved system. A system is what it is.
Math has uncertainty. It's called probability. Humans go looking for certainty, yes. They want a definite answer. But often times when they follow the math down the rabbit hole, the answers are probabilities. The math shows that definitive certain answers to some questions are not possible in this universe.
QM is very hard to grasp for logical people. I'm a logical person, and you are too, Terry. There were several occasions I was just completely stumped in truly understanding a concept because I was looking for a classical analog to compare the concept to. Sometimes (most times) there are none. Many of the predictions pointed to by the math do not make any logical sense whatsoever. But these predictions are being backed up by experiment and being used in modern technology.
The point is, if you try to understand QM by using the logic of things we see and experience on an everyday basis, you are doomed to fail. The logic leads to predictions and understanding that are contrary to the way QM works.
-
159
CHOICE may be a mere illusion. FREE WILL a trick of the mind's ego
by Terry inthings are what they are.. everything acts according to its nature.. nothing escapes its own nature.. we cannot be other than what we are and our "choices" follow our nature.. consequently, can we not say correctly that free choice is merely our ignorance of the fact that all our actions and choices are predetermined by our nature?.
1. if you are offered either a handful of dog poop or a cold dove bar---is your "choice" really much of a choice?
2. offer a heterosexual male a night with a hot chick or a hot dude...is the outcome really "choice"?
-
-
Razziel
What in the world has the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle got to do with human beings and their Free Will??
The act of observation affects the outcome of an experiment for tangible reasons. The observer must employ interference (electron microscopes, for example) which impact on the object of observation and disturb that object.
I thought I took care of this one in the time travel thread. This isn't what the uncertainty principle is. It was originally developed by heisenberg to explain this, but was later shown to be much more encompassing. The uncertainty is inherent in the system. Sub-atomic particles with BOTH definite position and momentum, DO NOT EXIST in nature. This can be shown mathematically and has nothing to do with any physical measurement or limitations of instrumentation.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is NOT an observer effect. That way of understanding was disproved over 75 years ago.
(Sometimes it's still taught the old way in other science classes by non-QM professors, but it's misinformation.)