Saturday, December 17, 2011
PILL DISSOLVED IN ESOPHAGUS.... BURNS, HELP!!!?
I just swallowed a causal pill with water, not a lot but still with water. I walk around for like 5 minutes and then it seemed to like explode in my throat and my esophagus began to BURN really bad!!! Also I felt like I was going to puke, but i didnt. Im extremely tierd, and was wondering if there was any household remides that would stop the burning and nausea. I want it to be able to be made without me leaving my house. I took some Peptobismal, but it didnt realy work. I just want something that will stop, or help this at least for the night. Also, is this going to have longterm effects, or will it be fine by tommorow morning??|||Lots of water or milk. I've had that happen and it can really hurt. Keep drinking until it starts to let up. Just don't drink until you get an upset stomach. It's remotely possible to drink too much and over hydrate yourself. If this doesn't help, perhaps you should see your doctor for a check.
Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?
Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.
The atheistic worldview has a variety of effects on individuals and society at large which will be elaborated on shortly. Concerning individuals adopting an atheistic worldview, atheism has a number of causal factors that influence its origination in individuals which will be addressed. In addition, critiques of atheism will be offered and some of the historical events relating to atheism will also be covered. For example, since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.
The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations..." Currently, there are several theories of evolution.
Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists. In 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most United States high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone. Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement." The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution. In 2010, the Gallup organization reported that 40% of Americans believe in young earth creationism. In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain:
"Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons."
The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory. Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution. In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were catalogued and identified in the world's museums. Despite the aforementioned large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." The fossil record will be discussed in greater detail in regards to why the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and why the fossil record is counter evidence to the evolutionary position.
In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidence, the great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.|||it doesn't promote it by itself, but is often USED to promote it|||evoloution and its theory for me natural selection didnt come about the only way animals could transform into new species would have to be by breaking natures code in breeding different related types and thats with human interfearance. all these creatures like lucy were only monkeys nothing more.
|||That's not a question. However, no the ToE does not promote any religious or nonreligious worldview. It's a scientific theory. Scientific theories aren't about religion. In fact, many religions accept ToE, including Catholicism, several varieties of Protestantism and several varieties of Islam.|||it just show the truth does not promote anything ppl reactios do this things
The atheistic worldview has a variety of effects on individuals and society at large which will be elaborated on shortly. Concerning individuals adopting an atheistic worldview, atheism has a number of causal factors that influence its origination in individuals which will be addressed. In addition, critiques of atheism will be offered and some of the historical events relating to atheism will also be covered. For example, since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.
The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations..." Currently, there are several theories of evolution.
Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists. In 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most United States high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone. Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement." The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution. In 2010, the Gallup organization reported that 40% of Americans believe in young earth creationism. In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain:
"Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons."
The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory. Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution. In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were catalogued and identified in the world's museums. Despite the aforementioned large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." The fossil record will be discussed in greater detail in regards to why the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and why the fossil record is counter evidence to the evolutionary position.
In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidence, the great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.|||it doesn't promote it by itself, but is often USED to promote it|||evoloution and its theory for me natural selection didnt come about the only way animals could transform into new species would have to be by breaking natures code in breeding different related types and thats with human interfearance. all these creatures like lucy were only monkeys nothing more.
Report Abuse
|||That's not a question. However, no the ToE does not promote any religious or nonreligious worldview. It's a scientific theory. Scientific theories aren't about religion. In fact, many religions accept ToE, including Catholicism, several varieties of Protestantism and several varieties of Islam.|||it just show the truth does not promote anything ppl reactios do this things
What do you think was/is going on with the Earth's climate, *using numbers*?
I more or less asked this before, but didn't get very good answers, probably at least in part because I used the word "precisely" and people took issue with that rather than answering the question.
There are several subquestions here. Where I ask about temperatures, please use numbers (eg "2 or 3 degrees C", "5 degrees F", "less than 1 kelvin", whatever); for the last question, please give some kind of percentage or percentages.
1. What do you think has been happening to the average temperature of the planet over the last century or so?
2. What causal mechanism or mechanisms do you think are responsible for this behavior? (short answer is OK)
3. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we do not take any special measures to curb our greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise alter the climate?
4. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we take the most drastic anti-AGW measures you consider probable?
5. Short answer/broad outline, how do you think these projected changes will affect us, the ecosystem, et cetera, if they do in fact occur? If you did not think there were going to be changes, what do you think the effects would be if some kind of significant change *did* occur? (this can just be one sentence, eg. "It will be good/bad, except for (group X)")
6. If you had to assign betting odds, how accurate do you think your guesses for 3 and 4 are? And how confident do you feel about your answers to 1, 2, and 5?
Remember, I want answers with numbers in, not "more or less the same" or "rising catastrophically" or whatever. Ranges are fine (though please keep them small enough to be meaningful, saying that average global temperatures have stayed within 20 degrees of the same value is a fairly meaningless statement in this context)|||1 ) It has been rising; there is some natural variation of perhaps +/- 0.1C, also an underlying warming of around 0.8C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global鈥?/a>
Before this, the long term trend was one of gradual cooling of around 0.01C/century.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co鈥?/a>
2 ) Mainly anthropogenic. Some of the warming in the early 20th century was probably due to an increase in solar activity, but with the sun cooling for the last 50 or so years, I think it doubtful that much of the present increase can be put down to 'solar'.
... and with everything else pretty stable, that only leaves the increase in GHG's ... and that is down to us!
Here is what should be happening if the world was in equilibrium energy wise. Energy in = energy out.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co鈥?/a>
By increasing the amount of (mainly) CO2 in the atmosphere, we are slowing the rate that some infrared wavelengths are escaping to space, this putting the planet out of radiative balance. The response is the warming of the surface and this will continue until radiative equilibrium is restored.
3 ) For any combination of forcings and feedbacks, there will be an equilibrium temperature that the system will try to reach. The rate of warming is proportional to the difference between the actual temperature and the equilibrium value.
What I think is happening is that, while CO2 levels continue to rise, the rise in temps is being partly offset by the thermal inertia of the oceans. In other words the full increase is kept low, while we continue to push the equilibrium value higher and higher.
But the oceans can't damp down the increase without warming themselves. As this happens, they will be less effective as dampers; they will also start to emit CO2 rather than absorb it, thereby further raising the equilibrium temperature.
The net result will be an accelerating rate of increase, at least initially.
With a positive balance of other feedbacks, I think 6C or 7C is quite likely over several hundred years, but the bulk of that; 4C or 5C would occur this century.
4 ) If drastic measures were taken, the above would still occur, but the amount would be less. Even if we could stop all anthropogenic GHG's tomorrow, I think we have already committed ourselves to around 2C of warming and I would expect to see most of that in this century.
5 ) This is where I am less certain: Sea levels HAVE to rise; there's no way around that, and at a faster rate than we have seen so far. Similarly, global precipitation HAS to increase.
But what changes would occur regionally, I'm not so sure. I guess the bottom line is, can we afford to take a chance? Do we have the right to take the gamble? ... leaving future generations to pick up the tab?
My feeling is that we can't ... and we don't!
6 ) For 3 and 4; fairly confident, about 90% for both scenarios. I would be less confident if there was a credible alternative explanation for the warming we have already seen, but there isn't!
For 1 and 2; very confident, better than 95%.
For 5; I'm not so sure, I'll say 70% that it would be more bad than good, but within that 70% there is a real possibility that it would be really bad!
It is that possibility we need to avoid.
---------------------------------------鈥?br>
Edit: There was a problem with the first links I used; these have now been replaced and seem to be ok. They are not significantly different from the originals.|||Thanks.
On reflection, I'm not quite as confident of (4) as I am of (3). Certainly, if we took active steps to recover the CO2, such that we had negative emissions, I'm sure we could zero out the warming fairly quickly.
|||I'll just index the list: ~64%.|||. What do you think has been happening to the average temperature of the planet over the last century or so? Probably risen about a half degree F.
2. What causal mechanism or mechanisms do you think are responsible for this behavior? (short answer is OK). I don't think I know and I know no one else does either. Some think they do.
3. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we do not take any special measures to curb our greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise alter the climate? It is hard to say. We seem to heading into a cooling period but the jury is still out. That would be much worse than a continuation of moderate warming IMO, alarmists shrill cries to the contrary notwithstanding.
4. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we take the most drastic anti-AGW measures you consider probable?
Don't know. Drastic anti AGW will likely cause poverty and misery.
5. Short answer/broad outline, how do you think these projected changes will affect us, the ecosystem, et cetera, if they do in fact occur? If you did not think there were going to be changes, what do you think the effects would be if some kind of significant change *did* occur? (this can just be one sentence, eg. "It will be good/bad, except for (group X)")
I doubt that it will matter to your average butterfly if it is a degree warmer.
6. If you had to assign betting odds, how accurate do you think your guesses for 3 and 4 are? And how confident do you feel about your answers to 1, 2, and 5?
Since I am confident of my ignorance as well as everyone else I would give it high confidence.|||1. I think global average temperatures have been rising by perhaps as much as 1C.
2. I believe there two main causes: solar and human. I'm not entirely sure of the exact solar mechanism however evidence for Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray theory may be one of several plausible solar mechanisms. For the human mechanism, it is a combination of land use change, urbanization and altering the atmosphere composition (i.e. especially CO2 levels). Out of all of the possible and plausible warming mechanisms, I put a percentage on CO2 emissions as a range of 2-30%.
3. Well I don't think there is any significant effect we can cause by limiting CO2 emissions. And I mean that from the perspective of not being able to reduce them greatly (enough) and what we do reduce will have much less effect than natural variability. As far as natural variability, I'd look to the Sun again. I don't like the prediction that's it's going to enter a prolonged minimum. If that happened, I'd think we'd see temperatures gradually drop perhaps up to .5C over the next 60 years.
4. Not much different that answer #3 other than perhaps we would make it slightly colder by say .1C.
5. If what I say in answer #3 is close to be correct, then it will be very bad. Much worse than if temperatures went up by the same amount.
6. Betting odds: 1. 90%. 2. 50%. 3. 50%. 4. 50%. 5. 80%.|||I'll refer to my last answer of this question for the accuracy of any predictions. But given you are asking for guesses and estiamted levels of certainty, I'll give it a whirl, wtih little to no confidence.
1. and 2) Aaverage temp of the planet has increased over the last century by about 0.8 degrees celsius, with about 50% being caused by man's increased production of CO2. Other fall under normal fluctuation and coming out of the little ice age, some warming is to be expected.
In the next century, given that we do absolutely nothing to curb the CO2 production (or nothing more) the temps will continue to rise by about 1.3 degrees for each doubling of CO2. I would expect to double once around 2050 adding about 1.3 degrees to be felt by 2070. At around 2050, I would expect that we will be forced to move to more renewable resources or nuclear due to the cost of fossil fuel extraction. This will cause a decrease in CO2 production. Now I think a good estimate of the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere (the general cycle, not one atom of CO2) is about 25 years. so that by 2100 we will be at our current levels of atmospheric CO2. Now given that it takes time for the temps to come back down upon less CO2 in the air, I estimate this to follow a half-life of about 25 years as well. So by quarter century (assuming that today is +0.4 degrees higher that what should normally be the case, I would estimate the following:
2010: +0.4
2025: +0.8
2050: +1.4
+1.7 as high between these 2
2075: +1.5
2100: +1.1
2125: +0.6
2150: +0.2
The above is the warming caused by man. Now the effect would be slightly bad, but manageable. I am not convinced of negative weather pattern changes, but there will certainly be less agrable land due to ocean rises, but more due to higher elevation and latitude land becoming available. The effect will largely be monetary due to movement of the populations from more established location to less. The human life toll would be dependent upon man's actions, which is entirely to variable to guess.
My confidence in my prediction is obviously low due mostly to the specificity of the numbers provided. In fact meeting all of the numbers within the significant digits used I would only give a %26lt;0.1% chance. My justification for such numbers, however, should be intuitively obvious. I doubt many warmers would argue against my numbers if I stated that these were the effects of CO2 warming alone minus all of the positive feedbacks. Simply put, I do not believe that the positive feedback outnumber the negative feedbacks, or more specifcally the huge negative feedback of the oceans. Simply put, the oceans serve as an extremely huge capacitor. One look at the amount of energy that the oceans can hold, with raising even 1 degree would give us all a clue as to their ability to serve as a capacitor. It would take a lot more evidence than the warmers have currently provided for me to believe that the positive feedback have overcome the negative feedback of the oceans. That being said, my confidence in my overall rationale is high. Following the logic of human-caused change in temps and follwoing within say 0.3 degrees of all the numbers I have used, I would put as up to 40% likely. That is to say this 40% is my belief and can certainly be changed by new information or information I do not know.
Hey Dook,
What are you talking about? You act like this question does not have meaning when it has more meaning than all of your questions. Clearly no one knows the future, but this really gets at the heart of where you stand on the issue. You want to pretend we "must" do such-and-such yet you can't answer this question? You want me to sacrifice for your "something bad may happen" garbage? No! In fact, how can I tell if you are scare-mongering some garbage about the world being uninhabitable if you are unwilling to at least hazard what you would consider an educated guess. Further, how much value does my answer provide you, if you paid attention? You might notice that I don't completely disagree and would be willing for some change, which would certianly be a start from the current stalemate.
Edit again for Dook: What lies have I told? I suppose you do not want to use CO2 taxes or really want the govt to regulate any changes at all. I also suppose that preparing for a 5 ft tidal wave and a 20 foot tidal wave requires the same level of preparation, at least according to you.|||Too many subquestions, Chem. It is more like questionaire than a question with subparts. Whatever it is, however, it is far from your best post here.
If you build a child-size sand castle near the ocean's edge shortly after low tide, it is of little use asking about the average velocity of the last 5 incoming waves, the speed and predicted direction of the wind, how many minutes longer the walls around the castle will last if you use the most drastic available little plastic shovel to make the walls higher and thicker, or how the projected changes in the tide level will affect the height and shape of the castle.
In other words, Chem, this question strikes me as bogus. You can get at best a wide range of numbers on all these sub-points, if you consult IPCC etc., so what is the point of asking the deniers, arm-chair scientists, and high school students here, for their obviously much less reliable "numbers"?
Edit to Expel: How about limiting your lies to science, and stop lying about other answers. I never said anything like what you falsely claim: that "we "must" do such-and-such"
There are several subquestions here. Where I ask about temperatures, please use numbers (eg "2 or 3 degrees C", "5 degrees F", "less than 1 kelvin", whatever); for the last question, please give some kind of percentage or percentages.
1. What do you think has been happening to the average temperature of the planet over the last century or so?
2. What causal mechanism or mechanisms do you think are responsible for this behavior? (short answer is OK)
3. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we do not take any special measures to curb our greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise alter the climate?
4. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we take the most drastic anti-AGW measures you consider probable?
5. Short answer/broad outline, how do you think these projected changes will affect us, the ecosystem, et cetera, if they do in fact occur? If you did not think there were going to be changes, what do you think the effects would be if some kind of significant change *did* occur? (this can just be one sentence, eg. "It will be good/bad, except for (group X)")
6. If you had to assign betting odds, how accurate do you think your guesses for 3 and 4 are? And how confident do you feel about your answers to 1, 2, and 5?
Remember, I want answers with numbers in, not "more or less the same" or "rising catastrophically" or whatever. Ranges are fine (though please keep them small enough to be meaningful, saying that average global temperatures have stayed within 20 degrees of the same value is a fairly meaningless statement in this context)|||1 ) It has been rising; there is some natural variation of perhaps +/- 0.1C, also an underlying warming of around 0.8C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global鈥?/a>
Before this, the long term trend was one of gradual cooling of around 0.01C/century.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co鈥?/a>
2 ) Mainly anthropogenic. Some of the warming in the early 20th century was probably due to an increase in solar activity, but with the sun cooling for the last 50 or so years, I think it doubtful that much of the present increase can be put down to 'solar'.
... and with everything else pretty stable, that only leaves the increase in GHG's ... and that is down to us!
Here is what should be happening if the world was in equilibrium energy wise. Energy in = energy out.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co鈥?/a>
By increasing the amount of (mainly) CO2 in the atmosphere, we are slowing the rate that some infrared wavelengths are escaping to space, this putting the planet out of radiative balance. The response is the warming of the surface and this will continue until radiative equilibrium is restored.
3 ) For any combination of forcings and feedbacks, there will be an equilibrium temperature that the system will try to reach. The rate of warming is proportional to the difference between the actual temperature and the equilibrium value.
What I think is happening is that, while CO2 levels continue to rise, the rise in temps is being partly offset by the thermal inertia of the oceans. In other words the full increase is kept low, while we continue to push the equilibrium value higher and higher.
But the oceans can't damp down the increase without warming themselves. As this happens, they will be less effective as dampers; they will also start to emit CO2 rather than absorb it, thereby further raising the equilibrium temperature.
The net result will be an accelerating rate of increase, at least initially.
With a positive balance of other feedbacks, I think 6C or 7C is quite likely over several hundred years, but the bulk of that; 4C or 5C would occur this century.
4 ) If drastic measures were taken, the above would still occur, but the amount would be less. Even if we could stop all anthropogenic GHG's tomorrow, I think we have already committed ourselves to around 2C of warming and I would expect to see most of that in this century.
5 ) This is where I am less certain: Sea levels HAVE to rise; there's no way around that, and at a faster rate than we have seen so far. Similarly, global precipitation HAS to increase.
But what changes would occur regionally, I'm not so sure. I guess the bottom line is, can we afford to take a chance? Do we have the right to take the gamble? ... leaving future generations to pick up the tab?
My feeling is that we can't ... and we don't!
6 ) For 3 and 4; fairly confident, about 90% for both scenarios. I would be less confident if there was a credible alternative explanation for the warming we have already seen, but there isn't!
For 1 and 2; very confident, better than 95%.
For 5; I'm not so sure, I'll say 70% that it would be more bad than good, but within that 70% there is a real possibility that it would be really bad!
It is that possibility we need to avoid.
---------------------------------------鈥?br>
Edit: There was a problem with the first links I used; these have now been replaced and seem to be ok. They are not significantly different from the originals.|||Thanks.
On reflection, I'm not quite as confident of (4) as I am of (3). Certainly, if we took active steps to recover the CO2, such that we had negative emissions, I'm sure we could zero out the warming fairly quickly.
Report Abuse
|||I'll just index the list: ~64%.|||. What do you think has been happening to the average temperature of the planet over the last century or so? Probably risen about a half degree F.
2. What causal mechanism or mechanisms do you think are responsible for this behavior? (short answer is OK). I don't think I know and I know no one else does either. Some think they do.
3. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we do not take any special measures to curb our greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise alter the climate? It is hard to say. We seem to heading into a cooling period but the jury is still out. That would be much worse than a continuation of moderate warming IMO, alarmists shrill cries to the contrary notwithstanding.
4. What do you think is going to happen to the Earth's average temperature over the next century, if we take the most drastic anti-AGW measures you consider probable?
Don't know. Drastic anti AGW will likely cause poverty and misery.
5. Short answer/broad outline, how do you think these projected changes will affect us, the ecosystem, et cetera, if they do in fact occur? If you did not think there were going to be changes, what do you think the effects would be if some kind of significant change *did* occur? (this can just be one sentence, eg. "It will be good/bad, except for (group X)")
I doubt that it will matter to your average butterfly if it is a degree warmer.
6. If you had to assign betting odds, how accurate do you think your guesses for 3 and 4 are? And how confident do you feel about your answers to 1, 2, and 5?
Since I am confident of my ignorance as well as everyone else I would give it high confidence.|||1. I think global average temperatures have been rising by perhaps as much as 1C.
2. I believe there two main causes: solar and human. I'm not entirely sure of the exact solar mechanism however evidence for Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray theory may be one of several plausible solar mechanisms. For the human mechanism, it is a combination of land use change, urbanization and altering the atmosphere composition (i.e. especially CO2 levels). Out of all of the possible and plausible warming mechanisms, I put a percentage on CO2 emissions as a range of 2-30%.
3. Well I don't think there is any significant effect we can cause by limiting CO2 emissions. And I mean that from the perspective of not being able to reduce them greatly (enough) and what we do reduce will have much less effect than natural variability. As far as natural variability, I'd look to the Sun again. I don't like the prediction that's it's going to enter a prolonged minimum. If that happened, I'd think we'd see temperatures gradually drop perhaps up to .5C over the next 60 years.
4. Not much different that answer #3 other than perhaps we would make it slightly colder by say .1C.
5. If what I say in answer #3 is close to be correct, then it will be very bad. Much worse than if temperatures went up by the same amount.
6. Betting odds: 1. 90%. 2. 50%. 3. 50%. 4. 50%. 5. 80%.|||I'll refer to my last answer of this question for the accuracy of any predictions. But given you are asking for guesses and estiamted levels of certainty, I'll give it a whirl, wtih little to no confidence.
1. and 2) Aaverage temp of the planet has increased over the last century by about 0.8 degrees celsius, with about 50% being caused by man's increased production of CO2. Other fall under normal fluctuation and coming out of the little ice age, some warming is to be expected.
In the next century, given that we do absolutely nothing to curb the CO2 production (or nothing more) the temps will continue to rise by about 1.3 degrees for each doubling of CO2. I would expect to double once around 2050 adding about 1.3 degrees to be felt by 2070. At around 2050, I would expect that we will be forced to move to more renewable resources or nuclear due to the cost of fossil fuel extraction. This will cause a decrease in CO2 production. Now I think a good estimate of the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere (the general cycle, not one atom of CO2) is about 25 years. so that by 2100 we will be at our current levels of atmospheric CO2. Now given that it takes time for the temps to come back down upon less CO2 in the air, I estimate this to follow a half-life of about 25 years as well. So by quarter century (assuming that today is +0.4 degrees higher that what should normally be the case, I would estimate the following:
2010: +0.4
2025: +0.8
2050: +1.4
+1.7 as high between these 2
2075: +1.5
2100: +1.1
2125: +0.6
2150: +0.2
The above is the warming caused by man. Now the effect would be slightly bad, but manageable. I am not convinced of negative weather pattern changes, but there will certainly be less agrable land due to ocean rises, but more due to higher elevation and latitude land becoming available. The effect will largely be monetary due to movement of the populations from more established location to less. The human life toll would be dependent upon man's actions, which is entirely to variable to guess.
My confidence in my prediction is obviously low due mostly to the specificity of the numbers provided. In fact meeting all of the numbers within the significant digits used I would only give a %26lt;0.1% chance. My justification for such numbers, however, should be intuitively obvious. I doubt many warmers would argue against my numbers if I stated that these were the effects of CO2 warming alone minus all of the positive feedbacks. Simply put, I do not believe that the positive feedback outnumber the negative feedbacks, or more specifcally the huge negative feedback of the oceans. Simply put, the oceans serve as an extremely huge capacitor. One look at the amount of energy that the oceans can hold, with raising even 1 degree would give us all a clue as to their ability to serve as a capacitor. It would take a lot more evidence than the warmers have currently provided for me to believe that the positive feedback have overcome the negative feedback of the oceans. That being said, my confidence in my overall rationale is high. Following the logic of human-caused change in temps and follwoing within say 0.3 degrees of all the numbers I have used, I would put as up to 40% likely. That is to say this 40% is my belief and can certainly be changed by new information or information I do not know.
Hey Dook,
What are you talking about? You act like this question does not have meaning when it has more meaning than all of your questions. Clearly no one knows the future, but this really gets at the heart of where you stand on the issue. You want to pretend we "must" do such-and-such yet you can't answer this question? You want me to sacrifice for your "something bad may happen" garbage? No! In fact, how can I tell if you are scare-mongering some garbage about the world being uninhabitable if you are unwilling to at least hazard what you would consider an educated guess. Further, how much value does my answer provide you, if you paid attention? You might notice that I don't completely disagree and would be willing for some change, which would certianly be a start from the current stalemate.
Edit again for Dook: What lies have I told? I suppose you do not want to use CO2 taxes or really want the govt to regulate any changes at all. I also suppose that preparing for a 5 ft tidal wave and a 20 foot tidal wave requires the same level of preparation, at least according to you.|||Too many subquestions, Chem. It is more like questionaire than a question with subparts. Whatever it is, however, it is far from your best post here.
If you build a child-size sand castle near the ocean's edge shortly after low tide, it is of little use asking about the average velocity of the last 5 incoming waves, the speed and predicted direction of the wind, how many minutes longer the walls around the castle will last if you use the most drastic available little plastic shovel to make the walls higher and thicker, or how the projected changes in the tide level will affect the height and shape of the castle.
In other words, Chem, this question strikes me as bogus. You can get at best a wide range of numbers on all these sub-points, if you consult IPCC etc., so what is the point of asking the deniers, arm-chair scientists, and high school students here, for their obviously much less reliable "numbers"?
Edit to Expel: How about limiting your lies to science, and stop lying about other answers. I never said anything like what you falsely claim: that "we "must" do such-and-such"
Can someone check my work?
Can someone check this for me?
1. The two branches of statistical methods are
a. theoretical and inferential.
b. intuitive and observational.
c. descriptive and intuitive.
*d. descriptive and inferential.
2. Which of the following was a behavioral psychologist who was opposed to the use of statistics in psychology?
a. Cohen.
b. McCracken.
c. Cronbach.
*d. Skinner.
3. Sixty years ago, opinion polls often used the _(*quota sampling*) method of sampling, which is now largely discredited.
4. How do you set up a hypothesis testing problem?
a. You set it up to test what you predict will happen.
*b. You set it up to test the opposite of what you predict will happen.
c. You set up two problems, one to test what you predict and the other to test the opposite.
d. You set up a test that assumes the two populations are different, regardless of whether that is what you predict or not.
5. As the number of people in each sample gets larger, the distribution of means
a. begins to look less and less like the normal curve.
*b. becomes a better approximation of the normal curve.
c. becomes more positively skewed.
d. becomes more negatively skewed.
6. In studies using a very large number of participants, it is common to get statistically significant results that have a very small _(*p value*)________.
7. If a sample has 27 people in it, the degrees of freedom used in the formula to estimate the population variance would be
*a. 26
b. 27
c. 272
d. 茂茠鈥?7
8. All of the following are true for both the t test for independent means AND the t test for dependent means, EXCEPT
a. population variances are estimated from the information in the sample of scores actually studied.
b. pretest-posttest experimental designs are common.
c. the population means are unknown.
*d. the sample scores (in some form) are eventually compared to a t distribution.
9. To test the null hypothesis that three populations have equal means, you carry out a(n) (*between-groups estimate of the population variance.*)
10. A consumer psychologist is interested in the effects of Annual Income and Motivations to Shop on shopping patterns of consumers. Annual Income (broken into two levels: High and Moderate) and Motivation to Shop (with three levels: Escape, Necessity, and Socializing) are considered in one study. How many cells will there be?
a. 2.
*b. 3.
c. 4.
d. 6.
11. The dots on a scatter diagram seem to form a straight line that goes upward to the right. This situation is called
*a. a positive linear correlation.
b. a negative linear correlation.
c. a curvilinear correlation.
d. no correlation.
12. You want to predict college grades from high school grades. College grades are the
a. predictor variable.
*b. criterion variable.
c. independent variable.
d. causal variable.
13. A contingency table is a table in which
*a. the distributions of two nominal variables are laid out so that you have the frequencies of their combinations as well as the totals.
b. chi-squares for each category are displayed over each level of the predictor variable.
c. F distributions are translated into t distributions.
d. 茂聛拢2 distributions are translated into F distributions.
14. In a square-root transformation,
a. high numbers become lower, and low numbers become higher.
b. moderate numbers remain unchanged, but low numbers become slightly higher.
c. low numbers become much lower, but high numbers remain basically unchanged.
*d. moderate numbers become only slightly lower, but high numbers become much lower.
15. A problem with using _(*test re-test*) reliability for a test of knowledge (such as a vocabulary test) is that when people take it the second time, their performance is likely to be different as a result of having taken the test once|||I think you should look at 8,9,10 again. 9 is correct, but there is a slightly more concise term (and a much more concise abbreviation) for what you said. Good luck.
1. The two branches of statistical methods are
a. theoretical and inferential.
b. intuitive and observational.
c. descriptive and intuitive.
*d. descriptive and inferential.
2. Which of the following was a behavioral psychologist who was opposed to the use of statistics in psychology?
a. Cohen.
b. McCracken.
c. Cronbach.
*d. Skinner.
3. Sixty years ago, opinion polls often used the _(*quota sampling*) method of sampling, which is now largely discredited.
4. How do you set up a hypothesis testing problem?
a. You set it up to test what you predict will happen.
*b. You set it up to test the opposite of what you predict will happen.
c. You set up two problems, one to test what you predict and the other to test the opposite.
d. You set up a test that assumes the two populations are different, regardless of whether that is what you predict or not.
5. As the number of people in each sample gets larger, the distribution of means
a. begins to look less and less like the normal curve.
*b. becomes a better approximation of the normal curve.
c. becomes more positively skewed.
d. becomes more negatively skewed.
6. In studies using a very large number of participants, it is common to get statistically significant results that have a very small _(*p value*)________.
7. If a sample has 27 people in it, the degrees of freedom used in the formula to estimate the population variance would be
*a. 26
b. 27
c. 272
d. 茂茠鈥?7
8. All of the following are true for both the t test for independent means AND the t test for dependent means, EXCEPT
a. population variances are estimated from the information in the sample of scores actually studied.
b. pretest-posttest experimental designs are common.
c. the population means are unknown.
*d. the sample scores (in some form) are eventually compared to a t distribution.
9. To test the null hypothesis that three populations have equal means, you carry out a(n) (*between-groups estimate of the population variance.*)
10. A consumer psychologist is interested in the effects of Annual Income and Motivations to Shop on shopping patterns of consumers. Annual Income (broken into two levels: High and Moderate) and Motivation to Shop (with three levels: Escape, Necessity, and Socializing) are considered in one study. How many cells will there be?
a. 2.
*b. 3.
c. 4.
d. 6.
11. The dots on a scatter diagram seem to form a straight line that goes upward to the right. This situation is called
*a. a positive linear correlation.
b. a negative linear correlation.
c. a curvilinear correlation.
d. no correlation.
12. You want to predict college grades from high school grades. College grades are the
a. predictor variable.
*b. criterion variable.
c. independent variable.
d. causal variable.
13. A contingency table is a table in which
*a. the distributions of two nominal variables are laid out so that you have the frequencies of their combinations as well as the totals.
b. chi-squares for each category are displayed over each level of the predictor variable.
c. F distributions are translated into t distributions.
d. 茂聛拢2 distributions are translated into F distributions.
14. In a square-root transformation,
a. high numbers become lower, and low numbers become higher.
b. moderate numbers remain unchanged, but low numbers become slightly higher.
c. low numbers become much lower, but high numbers remain basically unchanged.
*d. moderate numbers become only slightly lower, but high numbers become much lower.
15. A problem with using _(*test re-test*) reliability for a test of knowledge (such as a vocabulary test) is that when people take it the second time, their performance is likely to be different as a result of having taken the test once|||I think you should look at 8,9,10 again. 9 is correct, but there is a slightly more concise term (and a much more concise abbreviation) for what you said. Good luck.
Is Nicotine the dark horse of Cannabis psychosis?
Cannabis psychosis studies have a major flaw by not including the potential brain damaging effects of nicotine. Also, there is a close correlation between mental illness levels in both tobacco and Cannabis users. This needs to be explained.
Many Cannabis smokers also include tobacco in their mix, and consequently high nicotine levels occur due to the deep inhalation smoking pattern typical in Cannabis consumption. Toxicological research has found that nicotine severely damages a portion of brain in rodents, the fasciculus retroflexus (Carlson et al 2000, Carlson et al 2001, Abreu-Villaca et al 2005), which corresponds with the part of the brain responsible for behavourial control in humans. There is no indication that Cannabis alone causes this type of brain damage. The underlying brain damage caused by nicotine may explain some of the mental disorders ascribed to Cannabis users (Patton et al 2002).
There is a need to clarify the situation regarding the role of nicotine in so-called Cannabis psychosis with further research, as health advice could include specific warnings as to the potential psychiatric risks of smoking tobacco mixed with Cannabis.
A hypothesis regarding nicotine being a major underlying causal factor in so-called Cannabis psychosis reads as follows. Please comment.
First part:
That high, sudden dose of nicotine associated with tobacco and Cannabis co-consumption may cause significant degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus (FR) in humans. The sudden high nicotine doses in humans鈥?may cause an axon excitotoxicological response via nicotinic receptors in the FR.
Discussion: FR degeneration by the nicotine is proven in rat studies (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001, Abreu-Villaca 2005). It鈥檚 uncertain as to how these nicotine toxicology studies may apply to humans. However, damage to FR could explain high rates of depression in tobacco smoking youth (Goodman et al 2000).
The 2nd part:
That degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus in humans (refer to first part), resulting from high, sudden doses of tobacco co-consumed with Cannabis, could result in reduced higher brain control over behaviour (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001). Cannabis then exaggerates any negative emotional states due to the underlying brain damage caused by nicotine, especially in some predisposed individuals.
Discussion: the question arises - is nicotine brain damage a reason for the higher incidence of depression in tobacco smokers. Research shows a 4-fold increase in adolescent depression after a year of moderate to heavy tobacco use (Goodman 2000).
But how鈥檚 this for a coincidence: Cannabis research (Patton 2002) showed a comparable 2 to 5 fold increased risk of depression by age 20 in Cannabis smokers. Does this comparable figure reflect co-use of tobacco by Cannabis users - rather than Cannabis itself being the cause of depression?
But the coincidences between tobacco and Cannabis go further: The level of schizophrenics who have been Cannabis users is up to 80% in some cases. This correlation is given as a reason to be concerned about Cannabis use. However, 75 to 90% of schizophrenics also smoke tobacco.
Is it a coincidence that mental illness levels are similar with tobacco and Cannabis smokers?
Have Cannabis researchers overlooked nicotine as the dark horse in so-called Cannabis psychosis?|||Firstly, I'd like to congratulate you on a fascinating question... unfortunately I don't think I can answer it. However, I'd like to question the following:
"Cannabis then exaggerates any negative emotional states due to the underlying brain damage caused by nicotine, especially in some predisposed individuals."
Surely that should read "ONLY in some predisposed individuals." - I've suffered from massive bouts of depression since I was a kid, culminating in suicidal tendencies when I was about 14, which funnily enough is about a year after I started smoking (tobacco) - I tried cannabis for the first time at about 16, and started smoking regularly (like, every day or at least 4-5 days a week) when I was about 19. I'm now 27 and I smoke about 1/8oz per week - I tend to mix my joints about 60% tobacco (or alternative smoking mix) and 40% weed, but I don't smoke tobacco on its own any more. In the last 8 years, I have only had relapses of depression during periods where I couldn't get hold of any weed (what with it being illegal, and with me being an irregularly working self-employed musician with little cash, it can be tricky).
Some would say that if I hadn't smoked weed in the first place, I wouldn't get depressed at all and that now my depression has become a withdrawal symptom, however I know this is not the case as I have a history of mental illness massively predating my weed smoking. For me, this goes to show that THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) affects different people in different ways. Personally, I can't help but believe there's a good chance I would've offed myself by now if I hadn't been a stoner. As it happens, I'm very happy, getting married in June, have a 3 year old son, 2 dogs and managed to get a first class degree in Music, majoring in production. I'm currently building a recording studio. So screw all the nay-sayers. I'm as motivated and happy as I ever have been.|||Quote, Mr Mackey "Drugs are bad. You shouldn't do drugs. If you do them, you're bad, mmmkay?
Many Cannabis smokers also include tobacco in their mix, and consequently high nicotine levels occur due to the deep inhalation smoking pattern typical in Cannabis consumption. Toxicological research has found that nicotine severely damages a portion of brain in rodents, the fasciculus retroflexus (Carlson et al 2000, Carlson et al 2001, Abreu-Villaca et al 2005), which corresponds with the part of the brain responsible for behavourial control in humans. There is no indication that Cannabis alone causes this type of brain damage. The underlying brain damage caused by nicotine may explain some of the mental disorders ascribed to Cannabis users (Patton et al 2002).
There is a need to clarify the situation regarding the role of nicotine in so-called Cannabis psychosis with further research, as health advice could include specific warnings as to the potential psychiatric risks of smoking tobacco mixed with Cannabis.
A hypothesis regarding nicotine being a major underlying causal factor in so-called Cannabis psychosis reads as follows. Please comment.
First part:
That high, sudden dose of nicotine associated with tobacco and Cannabis co-consumption may cause significant degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus (FR) in humans. The sudden high nicotine doses in humans鈥?may cause an axon excitotoxicological response via nicotinic receptors in the FR.
Discussion: FR degeneration by the nicotine is proven in rat studies (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001, Abreu-Villaca 2005). It鈥檚 uncertain as to how these nicotine toxicology studies may apply to humans. However, damage to FR could explain high rates of depression in tobacco smoking youth (Goodman et al 2000).
The 2nd part:
That degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus in humans (refer to first part), resulting from high, sudden doses of tobacco co-consumed with Cannabis, could result in reduced higher brain control over behaviour (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001). Cannabis then exaggerates any negative emotional states due to the underlying brain damage caused by nicotine, especially in some predisposed individuals.
Discussion: the question arises - is nicotine brain damage a reason for the higher incidence of depression in tobacco smokers. Research shows a 4-fold increase in adolescent depression after a year of moderate to heavy tobacco use (Goodman 2000).
But how鈥檚 this for a coincidence: Cannabis research (Patton 2002) showed a comparable 2 to 5 fold increased risk of depression by age 20 in Cannabis smokers. Does this comparable figure reflect co-use of tobacco by Cannabis users - rather than Cannabis itself being the cause of depression?
But the coincidences between tobacco and Cannabis go further: The level of schizophrenics who have been Cannabis users is up to 80% in some cases. This correlation is given as a reason to be concerned about Cannabis use. However, 75 to 90% of schizophrenics also smoke tobacco.
Is it a coincidence that mental illness levels are similar with tobacco and Cannabis smokers?
Have Cannabis researchers overlooked nicotine as the dark horse in so-called Cannabis psychosis?|||Firstly, I'd like to congratulate you on a fascinating question... unfortunately I don't think I can answer it. However, I'd like to question the following:
"Cannabis then exaggerates any negative emotional states due to the underlying brain damage caused by nicotine, especially in some predisposed individuals."
Surely that should read "ONLY in some predisposed individuals." - I've suffered from massive bouts of depression since I was a kid, culminating in suicidal tendencies when I was about 14, which funnily enough is about a year after I started smoking (tobacco) - I tried cannabis for the first time at about 16, and started smoking regularly (like, every day or at least 4-5 days a week) when I was about 19. I'm now 27 and I smoke about 1/8oz per week - I tend to mix my joints about 60% tobacco (or alternative smoking mix) and 40% weed, but I don't smoke tobacco on its own any more. In the last 8 years, I have only had relapses of depression during periods where I couldn't get hold of any weed (what with it being illegal, and with me being an irregularly working self-employed musician with little cash, it can be tricky).
Some would say that if I hadn't smoked weed in the first place, I wouldn't get depressed at all and that now my depression has become a withdrawal symptom, however I know this is not the case as I have a history of mental illness massively predating my weed smoking. For me, this goes to show that THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) affects different people in different ways. Personally, I can't help but believe there's a good chance I would've offed myself by now if I hadn't been a stoner. As it happens, I'm very happy, getting married in June, have a 3 year old son, 2 dogs and managed to get a first class degree in Music, majoring in production. I'm currently building a recording studio. So screw all the nay-sayers. I'm as motivated and happy as I ever have been.|||Quote, Mr Mackey "Drugs are bad. You shouldn't do drugs. If you do them, you're bad, mmmkay?
Is Nicotine the dark horse of Cannabis psychosis?
Cannabis psychosis studies have a major flaw by not including the potential brain damaging effects of nicotine. Also, there is a close correlation between mental illness levels in both tobacco and Cannabis users. This needs to be explained.
Many Cannabis smokers also include tobacco in their mix, and consequently high nicotine levels occur due to the deep inhalation smoking pattern typical in Cannabis consumption. Toxicological research has found that nicotine severely damages a portion of brain in rodents, the fasciculus retroflexus (Carlson et al 2000, Carlson et al 2001, Abreu-Villaca et al 2005), which corresponds with the part of the brain responsible for behavourial control in humans. There is no indication that Cannabis alone causes this type of brain damage. The underlying brain damage caused by nicotine may explain some of the mental disorders ascribed to Cannabis users (Patton et al 2002).
There is a need to clarify the situation regarding the role of nicotine in so-called Cannabis psychosis with further research, as health advice could include specific warnings as to the potential psychiatric risks of smoking tobacco mixed with Cannabis.
A hypothesis regarding nicotine being a major underlying causal factor in so-called Cannabis psychosis reads as follows. Please comment.
First part:
That high, sudden dose of nicotine associated with tobacco and Cannabis co-consumption may cause significant degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus (FR) in humans. The sudden high nicotine doses in humans鈥?may cause an axon excitotoxicological response via nicotinic receptors in the FR.
Discussion: FR degeneration by the nicotine is proven in rat studies (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001, Abreu-Villaca 2005). It鈥檚 uncertain as to how these nicotine toxicology studies may apply to humans. However, damage to FR could explain high rates of depression in tobacco smoking youth (Goodman et al 2000).
The 2nd part:
That degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus in humans (refer to first part), resulting from high, sudden doses of tobacco co-consumed with Cannabis, could result in reduced higher brain control over behaviour (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001). Cannabis then exaggerates any negative emotional states due to the underlying brain damage caused by nicotine, especially in some predisposed individuals.
Discussion: the question arises - is nicotine brain damage a reason for the higher incidence of depression in tobacco smokers. Research shows a 4-fold increase in adolescent depression after a year of moderate to heavy tobacco use (Goodman 2000).
But how鈥檚 this for a coincidence: Cannabis research (Patton 2002) showed a comparable 2 to 5 fold increased risk of depression by age 20 in Cannabis smokers. Does this comparable figure reflect co-use of tobacco by Cannabis users - rather than Cannabis itself being the cause of depression?
But the coincidences between tobacco and Cannabis go further: The level of schizophrenics who have been Cannabis users is up to 80% in some cases. This correlation is given as a reason to be concerned about Cannabis use. However, 75 to 90% of schizophrenics also smoke tobacco.
Is it a coincidence that mental illness levels are similar with tobacco and Cannabis smokers?
Have Cannabis researchers overlooked nicotine as the dark horse in so-called Cannabis psychosis?|||This is a very good point and I think it does need to be looked into more. However I would say that they would already be doing research on this, it just may be that the public is not made aware until there is concrete proof. Try do some reading on it you might find something - maybe look on a sait called EROWID
Secondly to the first 2 people to answer this question, why would you bother answering if you have nothing productive to say - your cheap quick insults do nothing and they are not even funny - seriously you guys are the ones with too much time on your hands, if you have time to answer this question, with nothing but useless comments|||And You have not enough brain in Your head.|||You have too much time on your hands.
Many Cannabis smokers also include tobacco in their mix, and consequently high nicotine levels occur due to the deep inhalation smoking pattern typical in Cannabis consumption. Toxicological research has found that nicotine severely damages a portion of brain in rodents, the fasciculus retroflexus (Carlson et al 2000, Carlson et al 2001, Abreu-Villaca et al 2005), which corresponds with the part of the brain responsible for behavourial control in humans. There is no indication that Cannabis alone causes this type of brain damage. The underlying brain damage caused by nicotine may explain some of the mental disorders ascribed to Cannabis users (Patton et al 2002).
There is a need to clarify the situation regarding the role of nicotine in so-called Cannabis psychosis with further research, as health advice could include specific warnings as to the potential psychiatric risks of smoking tobacco mixed with Cannabis.
A hypothesis regarding nicotine being a major underlying causal factor in so-called Cannabis psychosis reads as follows. Please comment.
First part:
That high, sudden dose of nicotine associated with tobacco and Cannabis co-consumption may cause significant degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus (FR) in humans. The sudden high nicotine doses in humans鈥?may cause an axon excitotoxicological response via nicotinic receptors in the FR.
Discussion: FR degeneration by the nicotine is proven in rat studies (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001, Abreu-Villaca 2005). It鈥檚 uncertain as to how these nicotine toxicology studies may apply to humans. However, damage to FR could explain high rates of depression in tobacco smoking youth (Goodman et al 2000).
The 2nd part:
That degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus in humans (refer to first part), resulting from high, sudden doses of tobacco co-consumed with Cannabis, could result in reduced higher brain control over behaviour (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001). Cannabis then exaggerates any negative emotional states due to the underlying brain damage caused by nicotine, especially in some predisposed individuals.
Discussion: the question arises - is nicotine brain damage a reason for the higher incidence of depression in tobacco smokers. Research shows a 4-fold increase in adolescent depression after a year of moderate to heavy tobacco use (Goodman 2000).
But how鈥檚 this for a coincidence: Cannabis research (Patton 2002) showed a comparable 2 to 5 fold increased risk of depression by age 20 in Cannabis smokers. Does this comparable figure reflect co-use of tobacco by Cannabis users - rather than Cannabis itself being the cause of depression?
But the coincidences between tobacco and Cannabis go further: The level of schizophrenics who have been Cannabis users is up to 80% in some cases. This correlation is given as a reason to be concerned about Cannabis use. However, 75 to 90% of schizophrenics also smoke tobacco.
Is it a coincidence that mental illness levels are similar with tobacco and Cannabis smokers?
Have Cannabis researchers overlooked nicotine as the dark horse in so-called Cannabis psychosis?|||This is a very good point and I think it does need to be looked into more. However I would say that they would already be doing research on this, it just may be that the public is not made aware until there is concrete proof. Try do some reading on it you might find something - maybe look on a sait called EROWID
Secondly to the first 2 people to answer this question, why would you bother answering if you have nothing productive to say - your cheap quick insults do nothing and they are not even funny - seriously you guys are the ones with too much time on your hands, if you have time to answer this question, with nothing but useless comments|||And You have not enough brain in Your head.|||You have too much time on your hands.
What justice is there in making marijuana illegal?
Washington, DC: Police arrested 847,864 persons for marijuana violations in 2008.Marijuana arrests now comprised one-half (49.8 percent) of all drug arrests reported in the United States.
Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 754,224 Americans were charged with possession only.The remaining 93,640 individuals were charged with “sale/manufacture,” a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use.
Commenting on the 2008 figures, NORML Director Allen St. Pierre said: “Federal statistics released just last week indicate that larger percentages of Americans are using cannabis at the same time that police are arresting a near-record number of Americans for pot-related offenses. Present enforcement policies are costing American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and having no impact on marijuana availability or marijuana use in this country. It is time to end this failed policy and replace prohibition with a policy of marijuana regulation, taxation, and education.”
NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano added, “According to a just-released Rasmussen poll, a majority of American adults believe, correctly, that marijuana is less harmful than booze. The public has it right; the law has it wrong.”
Myth:
Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness.
*Fact:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior.
Myth:
Marijuana is Highly Addictive.
*Fact:
Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty.
Myth:
Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco.
*Fact:
Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana.
Myth:
Marijuana Has No Medicinal Value.
*Fact: Marijuana has been shown to be effective in reducing the nausea induced by cancer chemotherapy, stimulating appetite in AIDS patients, and reducing intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma. There is also appreciable evidence that marijuana reduces muscle spasticity in patients with neurological disorders.
Myth:
Marijuana is a Gateway Drug.
*Fact:
Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistic association between common and uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. Indeed, for the large majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug.
Myth:
Marijuana Kills Brain Cells.
*Fact:
None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study.
Myth:
Marijuana Use During Pregnancy Damages the Fetus.
*Fact:
Studies of newborns, infants, and children show no consistent physical, developmental, or cognitive deficits related to prenatal marijuana exposure. Marijuana had no reliable impact on birth size, length of gestation, neurological development, or the occurrence of physical abnormalities.
Now tell me what justice is in making marijuana illegal.|||I don't understand why it's illegal either. It's no more harmful than any legal drugs out there. But the fact of the matter is, marijuana is going to stay illegal unless enough people are willing to make a stand to change it. In general, people are unwilling to do this, because if they stand up for legalization, they are viewed by the rest of society as being a "pot head" or "druggie", regardless of whether or not this is actually the case.|||Justice has nothing to do with law. They're completely separate concepts - one relates to ethics and one relates to the State.
Understand that you are the property of the State and a slave to its will. Whatever laws it decides to arbitrarily make bind you regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong".|||Thank you for posting an intelligent argument for the legalization/decriminalization of marijuana.
I agree completely. The War has failed, time to try something else.|||I basically agree I don't smoke nor would I if legal.
I don't think people should be allowed to smoke in public areas where the second smoke can affect others. Nor should kids be allowed to smoke ( just like alcohol and tobacco ) It should be taxed and require warning labels. Driving while stoned should be same as dui. Employers
should be able to insist that no one is high at work same with being drunk
or watching porn|||I disagree with some of your so called facts. Just as I disagree with most of the myths. However, that is another discussion. The reason marijuana is still illegal is simple. The Government makes a lot more money keeping it that way then they would by legalizing it. You know the old saying about history, and those who don't learn from it being damned to repeat it? Well, this is a great example of not learning from history. The United States tried to prohibit alcohol way back in the early part of this past century. This proved beyond all doubt in my mind anyway, that you can not legislate morality. Yet, Congress keeps trying.|||I wouldn't call it justice but if marijuana was legalized it would be better for all concerned. I've read that California spends 171 million dollars per year trying to eradicate marijuana usage. 54 million dollars of that money goes towards incarceration of basically non violent pot smokers. Another 71 million dollars is spent on court costs.
Despite the law and all the money spent on law enforcement weed is still relatively cheap and easy to find. Worse yet we have Mexican drug cartels and other violent criminal organizations getting rich from the profits the take in from the cultivation and distribution of illegal cannabis.
Remember in California alone it's estimated that the underground marijuana industry amounts to something like 14 billion dollars per year. We have a situation quite similar to what was happening during prohibition back in the 1920's.
Fact: According to NORML 56% of Californians think marijuana should be legalized then taxed and regulated just like alcohol. 51% of Californians believe alcohol is not only harder not only on ones body but causes more damage to society.
Granted marijuana is a mind altering substance with a distinct potential for abuse but then again so is alcohol so it's not for everybody. Still I can't recall the last time anyone has ever died from a marijuana overdose or for that matter marijuana withdrawals because unlike alcohol marijuana isn't physically addictive.
I also can't seem to recall any event I ever been to that was ruined because somebody got too stoned...I do however remember plenty of times when some fools got too drunk and rowdy which resulted in the police showing up shutting the event down.
I never knew a pothead that made a routine practice of beating up his wife or girlfriend every time he got stoned...but I've ran across plenty of drunks who do it all the time. Alcoholism and domestic violence go hand in hand.
By the way California is on the verge of legalizing marijuana for recreational use. If AB 390 passes it will legalize then tax and regulate marijuana just like alcoholic beverages. It's expected that a legal marijuana industry in California will generate something like 1.2 billion dollars per year in tax revenues alone.
Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 754,224 Americans were charged with possession only.The remaining 93,640 individuals were charged with “sale/manufacture,” a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use.
Commenting on the 2008 figures, NORML Director Allen St. Pierre said: “Federal statistics released just last week indicate that larger percentages of Americans are using cannabis at the same time that police are arresting a near-record number of Americans for pot-related offenses. Present enforcement policies are costing American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and having no impact on marijuana availability or marijuana use in this country. It is time to end this failed policy and replace prohibition with a policy of marijuana regulation, taxation, and education.”
NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano added, “According to a just-released Rasmussen poll, a majority of American adults believe, correctly, that marijuana is less harmful than booze. The public has it right; the law has it wrong.”
Myth:
Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness.
*Fact:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior.
Myth:
Marijuana is Highly Addictive.
*Fact:
Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty.
Myth:
Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco.
*Fact:
Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana.
Myth:
Marijuana Has No Medicinal Value.
*Fact: Marijuana has been shown to be effective in reducing the nausea induced by cancer chemotherapy, stimulating appetite in AIDS patients, and reducing intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma. There is also appreciable evidence that marijuana reduces muscle spasticity in patients with neurological disorders.
Myth:
Marijuana is a Gateway Drug.
*Fact:
Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistic association between common and uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. Indeed, for the large majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug.
Myth:
Marijuana Kills Brain Cells.
*Fact:
None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study.
Myth:
Marijuana Use During Pregnancy Damages the Fetus.
*Fact:
Studies of newborns, infants, and children show no consistent physical, developmental, or cognitive deficits related to prenatal marijuana exposure. Marijuana had no reliable impact on birth size, length of gestation, neurological development, or the occurrence of physical abnormalities.
Now tell me what justice is in making marijuana illegal.|||I don't understand why it's illegal either. It's no more harmful than any legal drugs out there. But the fact of the matter is, marijuana is going to stay illegal unless enough people are willing to make a stand to change it. In general, people are unwilling to do this, because if they stand up for legalization, they are viewed by the rest of society as being a "pot head" or "druggie", regardless of whether or not this is actually the case.|||Justice has nothing to do with law. They're completely separate concepts - one relates to ethics and one relates to the State.
Understand that you are the property of the State and a slave to its will. Whatever laws it decides to arbitrarily make bind you regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong".|||Thank you for posting an intelligent argument for the legalization/decriminalization of marijuana.
I agree completely. The War has failed, time to try something else.|||I basically agree I don't smoke nor would I if legal.
I don't think people should be allowed to smoke in public areas where the second smoke can affect others. Nor should kids be allowed to smoke ( just like alcohol and tobacco ) It should be taxed and require warning labels. Driving while stoned should be same as dui. Employers
should be able to insist that no one is high at work same with being drunk
or watching porn|||I disagree with some of your so called facts. Just as I disagree with most of the myths. However, that is another discussion. The reason marijuana is still illegal is simple. The Government makes a lot more money keeping it that way then they would by legalizing it. You know the old saying about history, and those who don't learn from it being damned to repeat it? Well, this is a great example of not learning from history. The United States tried to prohibit alcohol way back in the early part of this past century. This proved beyond all doubt in my mind anyway, that you can not legislate morality. Yet, Congress keeps trying.|||I wouldn't call it justice but if marijuana was legalized it would be better for all concerned. I've read that California spends 171 million dollars per year trying to eradicate marijuana usage. 54 million dollars of that money goes towards incarceration of basically non violent pot smokers. Another 71 million dollars is spent on court costs.
Despite the law and all the money spent on law enforcement weed is still relatively cheap and easy to find. Worse yet we have Mexican drug cartels and other violent criminal organizations getting rich from the profits the take in from the cultivation and distribution of illegal cannabis.
Remember in California alone it's estimated that the underground marijuana industry amounts to something like 14 billion dollars per year. We have a situation quite similar to what was happening during prohibition back in the 1920's.
Fact: According to NORML 56% of Californians think marijuana should be legalized then taxed and regulated just like alcohol. 51% of Californians believe alcohol is not only harder not only on ones body but causes more damage to society.
Granted marijuana is a mind altering substance with a distinct potential for abuse but then again so is alcohol so it's not for everybody. Still I can't recall the last time anyone has ever died from a marijuana overdose or for that matter marijuana withdrawals because unlike alcohol marijuana isn't physically addictive.
I also can't seem to recall any event I ever been to that was ruined because somebody got too stoned...I do however remember plenty of times when some fools got too drunk and rowdy which resulted in the police showing up shutting the event down.
I never knew a pothead that made a routine practice of beating up his wife or girlfriend every time he got stoned...but I've ran across plenty of drunks who do it all the time. Alcoholism and domestic violence go hand in hand.
By the way California is on the verge of legalizing marijuana for recreational use. If AB 390 passes it will legalize then tax and regulate marijuana just like alcoholic beverages. It's expected that a legal marijuana industry in California will generate something like 1.2 billion dollars per year in tax revenues alone.
Is Nicotine the dark horse of Cannabis psychosis?
Cannabis psychosis studies have a major flaw by not including the potential brain damaging effects of nicotine. Also, there is a close correlation between mental illness levels in both tobacco and Cannabis users. This needs to be explained.
Many Cannabis smokers also include tobacco in their mix, and consequently high nicotine levels occur due to the deep inhalation smoking pattern typical in Cannabis consumption. Toxicological research has found that nicotine severely damages a portion of brain in rodents, the fasciculus retroflexus (Carlson et al 2000, Carlson et al 2001, Abreu-Villaca et al 2005), which corresponds with the part of the brain responsible for behavourial control in humans. There is no indication that Cannabis alone causes this type of brain damage. The underlying brain damage caused by nicotine may explain some of the mental disorders ascribed to Cannabis users (Patton et al 2002).
There is a need to clarify the situation regarding the role of nicotine in so-called Cannabis psychosis with further research, as health advice could include specific warnings as to the potential psychiatric risks of smoking tobacco mixed with Cannabis.
A hypothesis regarding nicotine being a major underlying causal factor in so-called Cannabis psychosis reads as follows. Please comment.
First part:
That high, sudden dose of nicotine associated with tobacco and Cannabis co-consumption may cause significant degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus (FR) in humans. The sudden high nicotine doses in humans鈥?may cause an axon excitotoxicological response via nicotinic receptors in the FR.
Discussion: FR degeneration by the nicotine is proven in rat studies (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001, Abreu-Villaca 2005). It鈥檚 uncertain as to how these nicotine toxicology studies may apply to humans. However, damage to FR could explain high rates of depression in tobacco smoking youth (Goodman et al 2000).
The 2nd part:
That degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus in humans (refer to first part), resulting from high, sudden doses of tobacco co-consumed with Cannabis, could result in reduced higher brain control over behaviour (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001). Cannabis then exaggerates any negative emotional states due to the underlying brain damage caused by nicotine, especially in some predisposed individuals.
Discussion: the question arises - is nicotine brain damage a reason for the higher incidence of depression in tobacco smokers. Research shows a 4-fold increase in adolescent depression after a year of moderate to heavy tobacco use (Goodman 2000).
But how鈥檚 this for a coincidence: Cannabis research (Patton 2002) showed a comparable 2 to 5 fold increased risk of depression by age 20 in Cannabis smokers. Does this comparable figure reflect co-use of tobacco by Cannabis users - rather than Cannabis itself being the cause of depression?
But the coincidences between tobacco and Cannabis go further: The level of schizophrenics who have been Cannabis users is up to 80% in some cases. This correlation is given as a reason to be concerned about Cannabis use. However, 75 to 90% of schizophrenics also smoke tobacco.
Is it a coincidence that mental illness levels are similar with tobacco and Cannabis smokers?
Have Cannabis researchers overlooked nicotine as the dark horse in so-called Cannabis psychosis?|||nice preparation man, apply for a grant, and I'll be one of your test subjects.|||you are talking bullshit
Many Cannabis smokers also include tobacco in their mix, and consequently high nicotine levels occur due to the deep inhalation smoking pattern typical in Cannabis consumption. Toxicological research has found that nicotine severely damages a portion of brain in rodents, the fasciculus retroflexus (Carlson et al 2000, Carlson et al 2001, Abreu-Villaca et al 2005), which corresponds with the part of the brain responsible for behavourial control in humans. There is no indication that Cannabis alone causes this type of brain damage. The underlying brain damage caused by nicotine may explain some of the mental disorders ascribed to Cannabis users (Patton et al 2002).
There is a need to clarify the situation regarding the role of nicotine in so-called Cannabis psychosis with further research, as health advice could include specific warnings as to the potential psychiatric risks of smoking tobacco mixed with Cannabis.
A hypothesis regarding nicotine being a major underlying causal factor in so-called Cannabis psychosis reads as follows. Please comment.
First part:
That high, sudden dose of nicotine associated with tobacco and Cannabis co-consumption may cause significant degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus (FR) in humans. The sudden high nicotine doses in humans鈥?may cause an axon excitotoxicological response via nicotinic receptors in the FR.
Discussion: FR degeneration by the nicotine is proven in rat studies (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001, Abreu-Villaca 2005). It鈥檚 uncertain as to how these nicotine toxicology studies may apply to humans. However, damage to FR could explain high rates of depression in tobacco smoking youth (Goodman et al 2000).
The 2nd part:
That degeneration of the fasciculus retroflexus in humans (refer to first part), resulting from high, sudden doses of tobacco co-consumed with Cannabis, could result in reduced higher brain control over behaviour (Carlson 2000, Carlson 2001). Cannabis then exaggerates any negative emotional states due to the underlying brain damage caused by nicotine, especially in some predisposed individuals.
Discussion: the question arises - is nicotine brain damage a reason for the higher incidence of depression in tobacco smokers. Research shows a 4-fold increase in adolescent depression after a year of moderate to heavy tobacco use (Goodman 2000).
But how鈥檚 this for a coincidence: Cannabis research (Patton 2002) showed a comparable 2 to 5 fold increased risk of depression by age 20 in Cannabis smokers. Does this comparable figure reflect co-use of tobacco by Cannabis users - rather than Cannabis itself being the cause of depression?
But the coincidences between tobacco and Cannabis go further: The level of schizophrenics who have been Cannabis users is up to 80% in some cases. This correlation is given as a reason to be concerned about Cannabis use. However, 75 to 90% of schizophrenics also smoke tobacco.
Is it a coincidence that mental illness levels are similar with tobacco and Cannabis smokers?
Have Cannabis researchers overlooked nicotine as the dark horse in so-called Cannabis psychosis?|||nice preparation man, apply for a grant, and I'll be one of your test subjects.|||you are talking bullshit
Your reasons why marijuana should or shouldn't be legal?
Before you put your reason read these marijuana myths and facts most people don't know
Myth:
Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness.
*Fact:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior.
Myth:
Marijuana is Highly Addictive.
*Fact:
Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty.
Myth:
Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco.
*Fact:
Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana.
Myth:
Marijuana Has No Medicinal Value.
*Fact: Marijuana has been shown to be effective in reducing the nausea induced by cancer chemotherapy, stimulating appetite in AIDS patients, and reducing intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma. There is also appreciable evidence that marijuana reduces muscle spasticity in patients with neurological disorders.
Myth:
Marijuana is a Gateway Drug.
*Fact:
Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistic association between common and uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. Indeed, for the large majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug.
Myth:
Marijuana Kills Brain Cells.
*Fact:
None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study.
Myth:
Marijuana Use During Pregnancy Damages the Fetus.
*Fact:
Studies of newborns, infants, and children show no consistent physical, developmental, or cognitive deficits related to prenatal marijuana exposure. Marijuana had no reliable impact on birth size, length of gestation, neurological development, or the occurrence of physical abnormalities.|||wow mike.....spoken like a true loser. You seem to see people as machines set on earth to make you and your company(s) money. This is not the case sir. Also, your golden drug screening policy is flawed. Alcohol, cocaine, and many other much more serious drugs are metabolised by the body very rapidly meaning they only show on a drug test for a matter of hours. Cannibus, on the other hand, is stored by the body's fat cells and a single smoke may be able to be detected for up to a month. Keep in mind this something i did in my own home on my own time. It breaks down like this mike all your doing is screening all the peaceful smokers and leaving the more serious users to populate your company(s). Sure someone on speed will have better production than a stoner but we grow ours they'll rob you for theirs.|||Good points. I'm not much of a fan of marijuana in general, but I do not have any real problems with it either. I believe Americans should be free to live as they choose. I wouldn't have a problem with marijuana being legalized, but would fear the government taxing the CRAP out of it.|||I agree with all of the points you've made above, but none of them are important to my reason why I think it should be legal.
I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own body as long as they are not causing injury to other people.|||why should we punish a human being for taking a plant that grows in nature and consuming it in some fashion? instead, let's punish the government for oppressing humanity.|||Why wouldn't the government make it legal and tax it? They could be raking in a goldmine. And I personally think its better for you than alcohol!|||Are those "facts" or opinions?
Personally I support keeping the stuff illegal because we already have too many losers in or society without encouraging more.
BTW - would you support my right to fire you on the spot for drug use even if it is 'legal' because my company can show significant improvements in worker morale, productivity, absenteeism, product quality and workplace accidents since we implemented random drug screening and mandatory termination of anybody who fails?
.
Myth:
Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness.
*Fact:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior.
Myth:
Marijuana is Highly Addictive.
*Fact:
Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty.
Myth:
Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco.
*Fact:
Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana.
Myth:
Marijuana Has No Medicinal Value.
*Fact: Marijuana has been shown to be effective in reducing the nausea induced by cancer chemotherapy, stimulating appetite in AIDS patients, and reducing intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma. There is also appreciable evidence that marijuana reduces muscle spasticity in patients with neurological disorders.
Myth:
Marijuana is a Gateway Drug.
*Fact:
Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistic association between common and uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. Indeed, for the large majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug.
Myth:
Marijuana Kills Brain Cells.
*Fact:
None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study.
Myth:
Marijuana Use During Pregnancy Damages the Fetus.
*Fact:
Studies of newborns, infants, and children show no consistent physical, developmental, or cognitive deficits related to prenatal marijuana exposure. Marijuana had no reliable impact on birth size, length of gestation, neurological development, or the occurrence of physical abnormalities.|||wow mike.....spoken like a true loser. You seem to see people as machines set on earth to make you and your company(s) money. This is not the case sir. Also, your golden drug screening policy is flawed. Alcohol, cocaine, and many other much more serious drugs are metabolised by the body very rapidly meaning they only show on a drug test for a matter of hours. Cannibus, on the other hand, is stored by the body's fat cells and a single smoke may be able to be detected for up to a month. Keep in mind this something i did in my own home on my own time. It breaks down like this mike all your doing is screening all the peaceful smokers and leaving the more serious users to populate your company(s). Sure someone on speed will have better production than a stoner but we grow ours they'll rob you for theirs.|||Good points. I'm not much of a fan of marijuana in general, but I do not have any real problems with it either. I believe Americans should be free to live as they choose. I wouldn't have a problem with marijuana being legalized, but would fear the government taxing the CRAP out of it.|||I agree with all of the points you've made above, but none of them are important to my reason why I think it should be legal.
I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own body as long as they are not causing injury to other people.|||why should we punish a human being for taking a plant that grows in nature and consuming it in some fashion? instead, let's punish the government for oppressing humanity.|||Why wouldn't the government make it legal and tax it? They could be raking in a goldmine. And I personally think its better for you than alcohol!|||Are those "facts" or opinions?
Personally I support keeping the stuff illegal because we already have too many losers in or society without encouraging more.
BTW - would you support my right to fire you on the spot for drug use even if it is 'legal' because my company can show significant improvements in worker morale, productivity, absenteeism, product quality and workplace accidents since we implemented random drug screening and mandatory termination of anybody who fails?
.
Can someone check this for me?
1. The two branches of statistical methods are
a. theoretical and inferential.
b. intuitive and observational.
c. descriptive and intuitive.
*d. descriptive and inferential.
2. Which of the following was a behavioral psychologist who was opposed to the use of statistics in psychology?
a. Cohen.
b. McCracken.
c. Cronbach.
*d. Skinner.
3. Sixty years ago, opinion polls often used the _(*quota sampling*) method of sampling, which is now largely discredited.
4. How do you set up a hypothesis testing problem?
a. You set it up to test what you predict will happen.
*b. You set it up to test the opposite of what you predict will happen.
c. You set up two problems, one to test what you predict and the other to test the opposite.
d. You set up a test that assumes the two populations are different, regardless of whether that is what you predict or not.
5. As the number of people in each sample gets larger, the distribution of means
a. begins to look less and less like the normal curve.
*b. becomes a better approximation of the normal curve.
c. becomes more positively skewed.
d. becomes more negatively skewed.
6. In studies using a very large number of participants, it is common to get statistically significant results that have a very small _(*p value*)________.
7. If a sample has 27 people in it, the degrees of freedom used in the formula to estimate the population variance would be
*a. 26
b. 27
c. 272
d. 茂茠鈥?7
8. All of the following are true for both the t test for independent means AND the t test for dependent means, EXCEPT
a. population variances are estimated from the information in the sample of scores actually studied.
b. pretest-posttest experimental designs are common.
c. the population means are unknown.
*d. the sample scores (in some form) are eventually compared to a t distribution.
9. To test the null hypothesis that three populations have equal means, you carry out a(n) (*between-groups estimate of the population variance.*)
10. A consumer psychologist is interested in the effects of Annual Income and Motivations to Shop on shopping patterns of consumers. Annual Income (broken into two levels: High and Moderate) and Motivation to Shop (with three levels: Escape, Necessity, and Socializing) are considered in one study. How many cells will there be?
a. 2.
*b. 3.
c. 4.
d. 6.
11. The dots on a scatter diagram seem to form a straight line that goes upward to the right. This situation is called
*a. a positive linear correlation.
b. a negative linear correlation.
c. a curvilinear correlation.
d. no correlation.
12. You want to predict college grades from high school grades. College grades are the
a. predictor variable.
*b. criterion variable.
c. independent variable.
d. causal variable.
13. A contingency table is a table in which
*a. the distributions of two nominal variables are laid out so that you have the frequencies of their combinations as well as the totals.
b. chi-squares for each category are displayed over each level of the predictor variable.
c. F distributions are translated into t distributions.
d. 茂聛拢2 distributions are translated into F distributions.
14. In a square-root transformation,
a. high numbers become lower, and low numbers become higher.
b. moderate numbers remain unchanged, but low numbers become slightly higher.
c. low numbers become much lower, but high numbers remain basically unchanged.
*d. moderate numbers become only slightly lower, but high numbers become much lower.
15. A problem with using _(*test re-test*) reliability for a test of knowledge (such as a vocabulary test) is that when people take it the second time, their performance is likely to be different as a result of having taken the test once|||Please write in a way so that other people can understand what you actually mean. This Q sounds a bit confused so it is hard to give an exact answer.
a. theoretical and inferential.
b. intuitive and observational.
c. descriptive and intuitive.
*d. descriptive and inferential.
2. Which of the following was a behavioral psychologist who was opposed to the use of statistics in psychology?
a. Cohen.
b. McCracken.
c. Cronbach.
*d. Skinner.
3. Sixty years ago, opinion polls often used the _(*quota sampling*) method of sampling, which is now largely discredited.
4. How do you set up a hypothesis testing problem?
a. You set it up to test what you predict will happen.
*b. You set it up to test the opposite of what you predict will happen.
c. You set up two problems, one to test what you predict and the other to test the opposite.
d. You set up a test that assumes the two populations are different, regardless of whether that is what you predict or not.
5. As the number of people in each sample gets larger, the distribution of means
a. begins to look less and less like the normal curve.
*b. becomes a better approximation of the normal curve.
c. becomes more positively skewed.
d. becomes more negatively skewed.
6. In studies using a very large number of participants, it is common to get statistically significant results that have a very small _(*p value*)________.
7. If a sample has 27 people in it, the degrees of freedom used in the formula to estimate the population variance would be
*a. 26
b. 27
c. 272
d. 茂茠鈥?7
8. All of the following are true for both the t test for independent means AND the t test for dependent means, EXCEPT
a. population variances are estimated from the information in the sample of scores actually studied.
b. pretest-posttest experimental designs are common.
c. the population means are unknown.
*d. the sample scores (in some form) are eventually compared to a t distribution.
9. To test the null hypothesis that three populations have equal means, you carry out a(n) (*between-groups estimate of the population variance.*)
10. A consumer psychologist is interested in the effects of Annual Income and Motivations to Shop on shopping patterns of consumers. Annual Income (broken into two levels: High and Moderate) and Motivation to Shop (with three levels: Escape, Necessity, and Socializing) are considered in one study. How many cells will there be?
a. 2.
*b. 3.
c. 4.
d. 6.
11. The dots on a scatter diagram seem to form a straight line that goes upward to the right. This situation is called
*a. a positive linear correlation.
b. a negative linear correlation.
c. a curvilinear correlation.
d. no correlation.
12. You want to predict college grades from high school grades. College grades are the
a. predictor variable.
*b. criterion variable.
c. independent variable.
d. causal variable.
13. A contingency table is a table in which
*a. the distributions of two nominal variables are laid out so that you have the frequencies of their combinations as well as the totals.
b. chi-squares for each category are displayed over each level of the predictor variable.
c. F distributions are translated into t distributions.
d. 茂聛拢2 distributions are translated into F distributions.
14. In a square-root transformation,
a. high numbers become lower, and low numbers become higher.
b. moderate numbers remain unchanged, but low numbers become slightly higher.
c. low numbers become much lower, but high numbers remain basically unchanged.
*d. moderate numbers become only slightly lower, but high numbers become much lower.
15. A problem with using _(*test re-test*) reliability for a test of knowledge (such as a vocabulary test) is that when people take it the second time, their performance is likely to be different as a result of having taken the test once|||Please write in a way so that other people can understand what you actually mean. This Q sounds a bit confused so it is hard to give an exact answer.
Assignment answer needs editing :)?
This is part of an assignment for my college psychology course. There is no assigned length for this as it depends on our writing/research style :) thanks in advance. (btw, im canadian so don't correct the 'u' in behaviour lol)
Does violence on television and/or in films cause aggression in viewers? Is there a connection between media violence and aggressive behaviour in viewers? If yes, what motivates it? If not, what curtails it? Discuss. Finally, is it correlational or causal?
“By the time the average U.S. child starts
elementary school he or she will have seen
8,000 murders and 100,00 acts of violence on TV.”
-New Scientist, 2007
Whether or not media has a large impact on the aggressiveness of viewers, the above statistic has cannot be a good thing for viewers.
I do believe that media violence has an impact on the aggressiveness of viewers, especially in children and youth whose brains are still developing. In this age of technology, many children have adopted the media as their teacher, parent and role model. These effects can be exacerbated in children as they regularly emulate others, especially those they idolize such as celebrities or television characters. While media violence may not be the sole cause of aggression in viewers, it can certainly bring out said behaviours in susceptible individuals Having said this, I believe media violence works together with other factors to cause aggression and the connection is correlational rather than causal.|||I like what you have, except do you mean 10,000 or 100,000??
Does violence on television and/or in films cause aggression in viewers? Is there a connection between media violence and aggressive behaviour in viewers? If yes, what motivates it? If not, what curtails it? Discuss. Finally, is it correlational or causal?
“By the time the average U.S. child starts
elementary school he or she will have seen
8,000 murders and 100,00 acts of violence on TV.”
-New Scientist, 2007
Whether or not media has a large impact on the aggressiveness of viewers, the above statistic has cannot be a good thing for viewers.
I do believe that media violence has an impact on the aggressiveness of viewers, especially in children and youth whose brains are still developing. In this age of technology, many children have adopted the media as their teacher, parent and role model. These effects can be exacerbated in children as they regularly emulate others, especially those they idolize such as celebrities or television characters. While media violence may not be the sole cause of aggression in viewers, it can certainly bring out said behaviours in susceptible individuals Having said this, I believe media violence works together with other factors to cause aggression and the connection is correlational rather than causal.|||I like what you have, except do you mean 10,000 or 100,000??
How dangerous are religious extremist and did they create this hateful climate we live in today ?
Religious fundamentalists are united by fear. Whether they are Christian, Muslim, or Jew, fear is the common denominator. They fear change, modernization and loss of influence. They fear that the young will abandon the churches, mosques and synagogues for physical and material gratification. They fear the influence of mass media and its ability to subvert the young with song, dance, fashion, alcohol, drugs, sex and freedom. They especially fear education if it undermines the teachings of their religion. They fear a future they can鈥檛 control, or even comprehend.
Perhaps it鈥檚 not surprising to realize that it is fear that also connects the myriad of nationalist, separatist and independence movements who also engage in political violence. Although experts, academics and analysts hypothesize about a multitude of causal effects that lead to violence and terrorism, fear is the underlying motivator.|||Religious fundamentalists are the ultimate bigots. It matters not what their "faith", denomination, or whatever is, they all live by the belief that if you are not like them, you are evil. Not a Southern Baptist? You are doomed to hell. Not a Catholic? Well, there is no hope for you. Etc., Etc.
To consider the power of religion in the United States, consider this question: Would an atheist have a chance at winning an election? At any level of government? I think not. And that is a shame, as there are a lot of very capable, very intelligent, individuals out there who happen to be atheist.|||I think you hit the nail on the head. Fear destroys logic and reason, and people do crazy things to defend themselves against threats, whether those threats are real or imagined.
To answer your question, we got to this hateful climate because both sides moved away from the middle and to the extremes. There were (and are) many, many reasons for the move - technology, gap between rich and poor, shift in global economic power, etc.|||As dangerous as panic could be...|||What hateful climate?
I don't see hate, I see a world controlled by fear. Fear of and by the Government. Religious extremists have been among us for millenia. There is nothing new about that. What has changed today is the general response. In a world afraid to allow nail clippers into a courtroom, it is idiotic to blame religion for the overblown reaction CAUSED BY THE MEDIA you so admire. Religion isn't about fear. That is merely the response of those without access to their Creator. Religion doesn't spread fear, secular society does.|||I think Evangelical Christians are more dangerous than Islamic fundamentalists, because they put Bush into power and he has made terrorism more common throughout the world, and he destroyed what was the most powerful country in the world.
But yes, they are all extremely dangerous...Whether they are trying to force people to follow their religion (potential ban on abortion), or killing the non-believers, it's all bad.
%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;
SSENDRAWKCAB|||1. Muslim terrorists have been trying to destroy Israel for over fifty years.
2. The Muslim Taliban in Afghanistan harbored and protected Usama bin Laden and al-Qa鈥檌da until recently and the remnants are still trying to create havoc and destruction.
3. In the southern Philippines, Muslims terrorize Catholics and kidnap foreigners.
4. In East Timor, Muslims have endorsed the regime's attempts at ethnic cleansing against Christians
5. Algeria is wracked by bitter fighting between Islamic Fundamentalists and the military.
6. Nigeria is in the midst of a civil war between Muslims and Christians.
7. In Kenya the Islamic Party has declared Holy War on the government.
8. In Turkey the secular Muslim government is being challenged by the militant Refah Islamic Party.
9. Christians in Lebanon have largely fled as a result of Muslim persecution.
10. A civil war rages in the Sudan between Muslims in the north against the Christians in the south.
11. A war also rages between Muslim Eritrea and Christian Ethiopia.
12. The result of fighting between Muslim Azerbaijans and Christian Armenians was 35,000 casualties. Armenia was shrunk because of territory "gained" by the "breeding-with-a- vengeance" Muslim population.
13. In Europe, Muslims encourage Radical Islamist separatism in Bosnia and Kosovo, and now in Macedonia.
14. In Russia, Muslims call for the violent secession of Chechnya, and Dagestan.
15. In Egypt, Radical Islamists persecute the Copts
16. In Pakistan, Muslims promote Jihad to sever the multi-ethnic province of Kashmir from India.
17. In Indonesia, Muslims routinely assault the native Christians, particularly in the Moluccas.
18. In America and Europe, Fundamentalists have taken over the leadership of the growing Muslim communities to radicalize them and pave the way for Radical Islamist political action in the service of a global Jihad. Muslim terrorists based in Canada have made a number of attempts against the United States. Muslim terrorists based in the United States carried out the September 11th attack against the World Trade Center and The Pentagon.
19. Turkish Muslims committed mass Genocide against Christian Armenians murdering over 3 million.
20. The Arabic Muslim states in the Middle East are actively acquiring, harboring, sponsoring, aiding, abetting, and deploying terrorists and terrorism, through state sponsorship with the goal of obtaining three major types of Weapons of Mass Destruction--Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear--which they will indiscriminately use against the Infidels.|||Religious factions are no more dangerous than any other group. However, an agenda of violence against those with opposing points of view is where the danger lies.
Tie it to religion, like mindedness, ignorance, poverty, idealism, tradition or whatever you prefer.
However, it should be said that it has been quite some time since the Jews, Baptists, Methodists or Catholics were in the news for torturing or executing non-Jewish or non-Christians. In fact, I don't think we should be too concerned about that happening any time soon.
I know several Baptist extremists. They don't scare me.... unless they get to the lunch buffet before me.
Something to think about....|||You bring up a great point, but I would extend it to ALL extremists, not just religious.
Perhaps it鈥檚 not surprising to realize that it is fear that also connects the myriad of nationalist, separatist and independence movements who also engage in political violence. Although experts, academics and analysts hypothesize about a multitude of causal effects that lead to violence and terrorism, fear is the underlying motivator.|||Religious fundamentalists are the ultimate bigots. It matters not what their "faith", denomination, or whatever is, they all live by the belief that if you are not like them, you are evil. Not a Southern Baptist? You are doomed to hell. Not a Catholic? Well, there is no hope for you. Etc., Etc.
To consider the power of religion in the United States, consider this question: Would an atheist have a chance at winning an election? At any level of government? I think not. And that is a shame, as there are a lot of very capable, very intelligent, individuals out there who happen to be atheist.|||I think you hit the nail on the head. Fear destroys logic and reason, and people do crazy things to defend themselves against threats, whether those threats are real or imagined.
To answer your question, we got to this hateful climate because both sides moved away from the middle and to the extremes. There were (and are) many, many reasons for the move - technology, gap between rich and poor, shift in global economic power, etc.|||As dangerous as panic could be...|||What hateful climate?
I don't see hate, I see a world controlled by fear. Fear of and by the Government. Religious extremists have been among us for millenia. There is nothing new about that. What has changed today is the general response. In a world afraid to allow nail clippers into a courtroom, it is idiotic to blame religion for the overblown reaction CAUSED BY THE MEDIA you so admire. Religion isn't about fear. That is merely the response of those without access to their Creator. Religion doesn't spread fear, secular society does.|||I think Evangelical Christians are more dangerous than Islamic fundamentalists, because they put Bush into power and he has made terrorism more common throughout the world, and he destroyed what was the most powerful country in the world.
But yes, they are all extremely dangerous...Whether they are trying to force people to follow their religion (potential ban on abortion), or killing the non-believers, it's all bad.
%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;%26lt;
SSENDRAWKCAB|||1. Muslim terrorists have been trying to destroy Israel for over fifty years.
2. The Muslim Taliban in Afghanistan harbored and protected Usama bin Laden and al-Qa鈥檌da until recently and the remnants are still trying to create havoc and destruction.
3. In the southern Philippines, Muslims terrorize Catholics and kidnap foreigners.
4. In East Timor, Muslims have endorsed the regime's attempts at ethnic cleansing against Christians
5. Algeria is wracked by bitter fighting between Islamic Fundamentalists and the military.
6. Nigeria is in the midst of a civil war between Muslims and Christians.
7. In Kenya the Islamic Party has declared Holy War on the government.
8. In Turkey the secular Muslim government is being challenged by the militant Refah Islamic Party.
9. Christians in Lebanon have largely fled as a result of Muslim persecution.
10. A civil war rages in the Sudan between Muslims in the north against the Christians in the south.
11. A war also rages between Muslim Eritrea and Christian Ethiopia.
12. The result of fighting between Muslim Azerbaijans and Christian Armenians was 35,000 casualties. Armenia was shrunk because of territory "gained" by the "breeding-with-a- vengeance" Muslim population.
13. In Europe, Muslims encourage Radical Islamist separatism in Bosnia and Kosovo, and now in Macedonia.
14. In Russia, Muslims call for the violent secession of Chechnya, and Dagestan.
15. In Egypt, Radical Islamists persecute the Copts
16. In Pakistan, Muslims promote Jihad to sever the multi-ethnic province of Kashmir from India.
17. In Indonesia, Muslims routinely assault the native Christians, particularly in the Moluccas.
18. In America and Europe, Fundamentalists have taken over the leadership of the growing Muslim communities to radicalize them and pave the way for Radical Islamist political action in the service of a global Jihad. Muslim terrorists based in Canada have made a number of attempts against the United States. Muslim terrorists based in the United States carried out the September 11th attack against the World Trade Center and The Pentagon.
19. Turkish Muslims committed mass Genocide against Christian Armenians murdering over 3 million.
20. The Arabic Muslim states in the Middle East are actively acquiring, harboring, sponsoring, aiding, abetting, and deploying terrorists and terrorism, through state sponsorship with the goal of obtaining three major types of Weapons of Mass Destruction--Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear--which they will indiscriminately use against the Infidels.|||Religious factions are no more dangerous than any other group. However, an agenda of violence against those with opposing points of view is where the danger lies.
Tie it to religion, like mindedness, ignorance, poverty, idealism, tradition or whatever you prefer.
However, it should be said that it has been quite some time since the Jews, Baptists, Methodists or Catholics were in the news for torturing or executing non-Jewish or non-Christians. In fact, I don't think we should be too concerned about that happening any time soon.
I know several Baptist extremists. They don't scare me.... unless they get to the lunch buffet before me.
Something to think about....|||You bring up a great point, but I would extend it to ALL extremists, not just religious.
This is a general question about ****** Control?
I was recently perscribed Yasmin for problems with acne, after trying everything for the past year nothing seems to work. I havn't started taking it yet, I am a little hesistant about it since I've never been on it before. Im 21 years old and I am not a heavy smoker at all, I rarely smoke, usually about 1 at the most per day, or maybe nothing at all. I've heard that it's not good to smoke while on b.c but Im not quite sure I can kick that causal habbit, even though it is causal, if that even makes sense. Although that's not my main concern, I do have other concers. Has anyone ever been on Yasmin to teat acne, or any other birth control for that matter? Are there any other side effects which could be serious, that I should be aware of? My doctor said this would be completely safe, however I am still a little skeptical. Any response is appreciated!|||Why did you bleep out "birth" from you title question? lol.
They say not to smoke while on birth control - mostly if you are over 35 - because there are risks of heart attack and difficulty becoming pregnant when you try. However, this also referring to women who smoke a lot, and since you only smoke 0-1 a day and you are young, then you should be fine.
Does your doctor know that you sometimes smoke? If not then you should tell him, but he probably won't change his mind about the birth control.
There are no long term side effects of birth control.
You may notice a change in your periods - they may become lighter, heavier, longer or shorter, and they may have no cramps or severe cramps.
You may notice that you are less moody or more moody.
You may get nausea and you may gain or lose weight.
All of those are usually temporary as your body adjusts to the hormones, but if they do stay then they will go away after to stop taking it.
It will not make you infertile in any way. I took birth control for 3 years and I am now pregnant with my second baby.
There is nothing to worry about as your doctor has assured you.
Go ahead and start taking it.|||why did u bleep out birth control?|||search yasmin at www.rxlist.com also, google yasmin
They say not to smoke while on birth control - mostly if you are over 35 - because there are risks of heart attack and difficulty becoming pregnant when you try. However, this also referring to women who smoke a lot, and since you only smoke 0-1 a day and you are young, then you should be fine.
Does your doctor know that you sometimes smoke? If not then you should tell him, but he probably won't change his mind about the birth control.
There are no long term side effects of birth control.
You may notice a change in your periods - they may become lighter, heavier, longer or shorter, and they may have no cramps or severe cramps.
You may notice that you are less moody or more moody.
You may get nausea and you may gain or lose weight.
All of those are usually temporary as your body adjusts to the hormones, but if they do stay then they will go away after to stop taking it.
It will not make you infertile in any way. I took birth control for 3 years and I am now pregnant with my second baby.
There is nothing to worry about as your doctor has assured you.
Go ahead and start taking it.|||why did u bleep out birth control?|||search yasmin at www.rxlist.com also, google yasmin
All you computer people see this!?
So, I wanna sell my ps3 with a load a games so i can upgrade my computer(not saying thats enough $) I have an inspiron 530s (slim) right now and i was wondering if i should just buy a whole new Pc or just upgrade this one, ive read that it being a slim effects the hardware you can put inside, I want to have causal gaming, i dont care if i play on normal graffix or even low, but can u put a list of hardware i would need for this,and the cost. if u post an answer thanks a ton!|||You are starting over, man. If you don't want to build a new computer, the best bet is to buy a cheap computer (as cheap as you can find) that has a 3.0GHz or faster CPU clock speed and at least 2GB of RAM, as well as Windows 7 Home Premium.
THEN, buy a new power supply (EA-500D suggested) as well as a new video card.
But make sure your new computer doesn't have a "slim" case!
Oh, look for a computer around $400 roughly. Then figure 75-100 bucks for a video card and 50 bucks for a power supply.
So about $550 total.|||You can't run good games in a Notebook, sell it, sell your PS3 and buy a good desktop!
The result will not be the best, I wold keep my PS3 because you need at Least 2000 bucks to build a good gaming PC.
Man, keep your PS3
You can play at 1080p with no problems, don't sell it unless you want to sell your Notebook, your PS3, your games and also add like $700 ...
Also you will have to buy a good audio system and a new TV.
Also don't forget that you will have to upgrade it soon.
Don't do that, keep playing in HD on your Ps3.
PC gaming is only good if you want to spend a LOT of money with it.
If your PS3 allows you to play on a big TV with a great resolution.
If you buy a PC, with less than $2000 all you will Be able to play is GTA IV with m茅dium resolution.
Keep your PS3 and your notebook.|||Your best bet is the sale and buy a whole new computer like the guy above said. I'm currently selling mine for almost 20% off what I built it for and it will run anything that is out right now at the highest settings with no lag.
http://swva.craigslist.org/sys/2183685450.html
THEN, buy a new power supply (EA-500D suggested) as well as a new video card.
But make sure your new computer doesn't have a "slim" case!
Oh, look for a computer around $400 roughly. Then figure 75-100 bucks for a video card and 50 bucks for a power supply.
So about $550 total.|||You can't run good games in a Notebook, sell it, sell your PS3 and buy a good desktop!
The result will not be the best, I wold keep my PS3 because you need at Least 2000 bucks to build a good gaming PC.
Man, keep your PS3
You can play at 1080p with no problems, don't sell it unless you want to sell your Notebook, your PS3, your games and also add like $700 ...
Also you will have to buy a good audio system and a new TV.
Also don't forget that you will have to upgrade it soon.
Don't do that, keep playing in HD on your Ps3.
PC gaming is only good if you want to spend a LOT of money with it.
If your PS3 allows you to play on a big TV with a great resolution.
If you buy a PC, with less than $2000 all you will Be able to play is GTA IV with m茅dium resolution.
Keep your PS3 and your notebook.|||Your best bet is the sale and buy a whole new computer like the guy above said. I'm currently selling mine for almost 20% off what I built it for and it will run anything that is out right now at the highest settings with no lag.
http://swva.craigslist.org/sys/2183685450.html
Can someone explain to me what is meant by this paragraph? Philosophy?
Jaegwon Kim鈥檚 causal exclusion argument says that if all physical effects have sufficient physical causes, and no physical effects are caused twice over by distinct physical and mental causes, there cannot be any irreducible mental causes. In addition, Kim has argued that the nonreductive physicalist must give up completeness, and embrace the possibility of downward causation. This paper argues first that this extra argument relies on a principle of property individuation, which the nonreductive physicalist need not accept, and second that once we get clear on overdetermination, there is a way to reject the exclusion principle upon which the causal exclusion argument depends, but third that this should not lead to the belief that mental causation is easily accounted for in terms of counterfactual dependencies.|||they are talking abut different approaches to the mind body connection...too many undefined terms for me to figure out exactly where this is going.|||craporama. High sounding fart noise.
Does the string of words "what caused the universe" have a meaning?
There are many rough equivalents, from "Where did the universe come from, " to "What caused the big bang," ect. I hesitate to put question marks at the end, because that would imply a question is actually being asked.
Here's my take: A cause must come before an effect. That means that any question about causality implies the existence of time. But time only exists as an aspect or dimension of the universe. So, attempting to ask a causal question about the universe as a whole amounts to using language in a way it can't be sued, and thus ends up being meaningless. That would mean no answer is needed, since no question is being asked.
Please explain if you think I'm missing something important here. Thanks|||Hey, I like this argument. It actually made sense to me, as if you're an actual person with actual thoughts using actual words, instead of the closed-minded baboons on any side of this argument substituting large words for actual logic. I think it's probably stupid to assume that one particular thing caused the universe, or that we could isolate some element as "the beginning".|||Sometimes causes and effects are instantaneously linked, with no time delay. Causal priority and temporal priority are not necessarily equivalents, although they usually are.
A cause must be causally prior to an effect, but it needn't be temporally prior.
There was a time zero, at which the universe was calibrated. It was calibrated by something, not nothing. Something has existed since time zero, i.e. "always," since there was no time before that. This cosmological stuff can all get very subjective once you get into causes, effects, and demanding to include counterintuitive quantum mechanics in your description.
There is something true about the origin of the universe. It isn't nothing at all. There is definitely some explanation of why we are here. And physicists are working on it.|||It is not clear at this point whether the universe had a beginning in the usual sense, so "what caused the universe" may or may not have meaning. There's some indication that the universe is as it is because of the inherent characteristics of space-time (although please don't ask me to explain that). More research is needed.|||"So, attempting to ask a causal question about the universe as a whole amounts to using language in a way it can't be sued"
If it is a non question, it is a non question atheist physicists have tried to answer without using the word "God".|||You know what people mean Mr. English major.
C'mon Gutbucket...you're really going to throw in the towel on the biggest question there is?|||Shh! We need to beg the question that god exists so we can teach he hates brown people.|||The 'what', 'why', 'how', etc. would imply that a question is being asked and that an answer is needed.|||Deep, deep meaning.|||You're sort of right.
Can the instability of empty space be seen as a "cause"?|||I don't think so, and it is useless to ponder it.|||They do, under specific circumstances. If time began in the Big Bang it is impossible that the Universe was caused by anything outside it, for without time there is no causality. In this case it would indeed be meaningless to talk about something causing the Universe.
However, remember that we don't know if time really did begin in the Big Bang. We know our models break down at that point, but that may be a failure of our models instead of the beginning of time. That time began in the Big Bang is the orthodox view in science at present but the reasons for it are mostly theoretical, there is no observable evidence that clearly supports this claim. If time predates the Big Bang and for example has always existed then in that case the phrase would have meaning.|||1. The Thomist CA ( TCA )
The TCA argues that the universe requires a first cause.
The simplified TCA: Everything has a cause that precedes it. (no effect can cause itself)
The(ongoing) existence of the universe is an effect wich requires a cause that is itself the effect of a preceding cause, and so on.
This chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite; there must be a first cause that is itself uncaused to begin the chain of causation.
This uncaused first cause we call God.
2. The Leibnizian CA ( LCA )
The LCA begins with the question, "Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all?"
Leibniz argued that this question must have and answer because"nothing happens without a sufficient reason".
According to this principle of sufficient reason, there must be an explanation for why something contingent--something that could have been otherwise than it actually is-- is the way it is, or why it exists instead of not existing.
within the universe itself there is no sufficient reason for the existence of the universe. Therefore the reason for the universe's existence must be outside the universe; in a being who is its own sufficient reason and who is the reason for the existence of the universe as well.
this sufficient reason of all things is God, whose own existence explained only by reference to himself.
3. The Kalam CA ( KCA )
Everything that began to exist has a cause of it existence.
the universe began to exist.
therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.
this cause is God.
The premise,"the universe began to exist", is supported by philosophical argument and scientific evidence:
In philosophy it can be shown that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist; therefore the succession of past moments of time cannot be infinite.
In science, the "big bang" theory, for which there is a great deal of astronomical evidence, includes an absolute beginning to the physical universe, refuting the belief in an eternal cosmos. The second law of thermodynamics (entropy) implies that if the universe were eternal, it would have experienced "heat death" by now.
In the conclusion, " the universe has a cause", the cause must exist outside the univers. Since this"cause" must decide whether and when to bring the universe into existence, this cause must be a personal agent, because only a personal agent can decide something. Therefore the God eho id the cause of the universe is a person.
Here's my take: A cause must come before an effect. That means that any question about causality implies the existence of time. But time only exists as an aspect or dimension of the universe. So, attempting to ask a causal question about the universe as a whole amounts to using language in a way it can't be sued, and thus ends up being meaningless. That would mean no answer is needed, since no question is being asked.
Please explain if you think I'm missing something important here. Thanks|||Hey, I like this argument. It actually made sense to me, as if you're an actual person with actual thoughts using actual words, instead of the closed-minded baboons on any side of this argument substituting large words for actual logic. I think it's probably stupid to assume that one particular thing caused the universe, or that we could isolate some element as "the beginning".|||Sometimes causes and effects are instantaneously linked, with no time delay. Causal priority and temporal priority are not necessarily equivalents, although they usually are.
A cause must be causally prior to an effect, but it needn't be temporally prior.
There was a time zero, at which the universe was calibrated. It was calibrated by something, not nothing. Something has existed since time zero, i.e. "always," since there was no time before that. This cosmological stuff can all get very subjective once you get into causes, effects, and demanding to include counterintuitive quantum mechanics in your description.
There is something true about the origin of the universe. It isn't nothing at all. There is definitely some explanation of why we are here. And physicists are working on it.|||It is not clear at this point whether the universe had a beginning in the usual sense, so "what caused the universe" may or may not have meaning. There's some indication that the universe is as it is because of the inherent characteristics of space-time (although please don't ask me to explain that). More research is needed.|||"So, attempting to ask a causal question about the universe as a whole amounts to using language in a way it can't be sued"
If it is a non question, it is a non question atheist physicists have tried to answer without using the word "God".|||You know what people mean Mr. English major.
C'mon Gutbucket...you're really going to throw in the towel on the biggest question there is?|||Shh! We need to beg the question that god exists so we can teach he hates brown people.|||The 'what', 'why', 'how', etc. would imply that a question is being asked and that an answer is needed.|||Deep, deep meaning.|||You're sort of right.
Can the instability of empty space be seen as a "cause"?|||I don't think so, and it is useless to ponder it.|||They do, under specific circumstances. If time began in the Big Bang it is impossible that the Universe was caused by anything outside it, for without time there is no causality. In this case it would indeed be meaningless to talk about something causing the Universe.
However, remember that we don't know if time really did begin in the Big Bang. We know our models break down at that point, but that may be a failure of our models instead of the beginning of time. That time began in the Big Bang is the orthodox view in science at present but the reasons for it are mostly theoretical, there is no observable evidence that clearly supports this claim. If time predates the Big Bang and for example has always existed then in that case the phrase would have meaning.|||1. The Thomist CA ( TCA )
The TCA argues that the universe requires a first cause.
The simplified TCA: Everything has a cause that precedes it. (no effect can cause itself)
The(ongoing) existence of the universe is an effect wich requires a cause that is itself the effect of a preceding cause, and so on.
This chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite; there must be a first cause that is itself uncaused to begin the chain of causation.
This uncaused first cause we call God.
2. The Leibnizian CA ( LCA )
The LCA begins with the question, "Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all?"
Leibniz argued that this question must have and answer because"nothing happens without a sufficient reason".
According to this principle of sufficient reason, there must be an explanation for why something contingent--something that could have been otherwise than it actually is-- is the way it is, or why it exists instead of not existing.
within the universe itself there is no sufficient reason for the existence of the universe. Therefore the reason for the universe's existence must be outside the universe; in a being who is its own sufficient reason and who is the reason for the existence of the universe as well.
this sufficient reason of all things is God, whose own existence explained only by reference to himself.
3. The Kalam CA ( KCA )
Everything that began to exist has a cause of it existence.
the universe began to exist.
therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.
this cause is God.
The premise,"the universe began to exist", is supported by philosophical argument and scientific evidence:
In philosophy it can be shown that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist; therefore the succession of past moments of time cannot be infinite.
In science, the "big bang" theory, for which there is a great deal of astronomical evidence, includes an absolute beginning to the physical universe, refuting the belief in an eternal cosmos. The second law of thermodynamics (entropy) implies that if the universe were eternal, it would have experienced "heat death" by now.
In the conclusion, " the universe has a cause", the cause must exist outside the univers. Since this"cause" must decide whether and when to bring the universe into existence, this cause must be a personal agent, because only a personal agent can decide something. Therefore the God eho id the cause of the universe is a person.
Do countries with a higher urban population have a higher HDI?
In a multivariate research course, I must present a hypothesis of a causal relationship between two variables while controlling for spurious or intervening variables.
I was thinking that the basis of my hypothesis would be that as urban populations grow, Human Development will become higher. (Additionally, in countries with higher rural populations, we can generally expect a lower HDI.)
The relationship between the two variables is linear, has a corr of .78, and slope= .33+ .006x.
The t-value for the coef is 12.59, R-squared is 61.7, and the P-value is 0.00.
All looks good except the slope and intercept, though there is a relationship, is the effect of X on Y too small? All other data seems to indicate statistical evidence.
Any help would be appreciated, especially with overall identifying significance (if there is one because of the slight change in "Y") of relationship and interpreting F-value === F(1, 98) = 158.39, Prob %26gt; F ) = 0.0.
(This is about 30% of my grade for the course, professor gave us 'til Monday to do it...I know I'll get a "do your own homework" response but I'm looking for honest help. I'm not a statistician and this is a time-crunched assignment.)|||Urbanization is probably not causal in this case.
There is a very strong correlation between GDP per capita and HDI
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/20鈥?/a>
and as a country moves from under-developed to developed, the percentage of the population that is rural declines and the percentage that is in the metropolitan areas increases. That gives the correlation between HDI and urbanization.
This is because as the economy develops, agricultural workers become more productive. That means the rural areas need fewer workers so the workers have no choice but to go to the cities to find jobs in the factories.
This has been the pattern in every instance of industrialization, from England, centuries ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agr鈥?/a>
through China today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanizatio鈥?/a>
For example, in the U.S. less than 0.6% of the labor force is in agriculture:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications鈥?/a>
For Bangladesh, with a per capita GDP 1/40th that of the U.S.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou鈥?/a>
the percentage in agriculture is 63%
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications鈥?/a>
For India, where the per capita GDP is 1/20th that of the U.S., 60% of the labor force is in agriculture:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications鈥?/a>
While for China, where it is 1/9th the U.S. per capita GDP, it is 43%
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications鈥?/a>
I was thinking that the basis of my hypothesis would be that as urban populations grow, Human Development will become higher. (Additionally, in countries with higher rural populations, we can generally expect a lower HDI.)
The relationship between the two variables is linear, has a corr of .78, and slope= .33+ .006x.
The t-value for the coef is 12.59, R-squared is 61.7, and the P-value is 0.00.
All looks good except the slope and intercept, though there is a relationship, is the effect of X on Y too small? All other data seems to indicate statistical evidence.
Any help would be appreciated, especially with overall identifying significance (if there is one because of the slight change in "Y") of relationship and interpreting F-value === F(1, 98) = 158.39, Prob %26gt; F ) = 0.0.
(This is about 30% of my grade for the course, professor gave us 'til Monday to do it...I know I'll get a "do your own homework" response but I'm looking for honest help. I'm not a statistician and this is a time-crunched assignment.)|||Urbanization is probably not causal in this case.
There is a very strong correlation between GDP per capita and HDI
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/20鈥?/a>
and as a country moves from under-developed to developed, the percentage of the population that is rural declines and the percentage that is in the metropolitan areas increases. That gives the correlation between HDI and urbanization.
This is because as the economy develops, agricultural workers become more productive. That means the rural areas need fewer workers so the workers have no choice but to go to the cities to find jobs in the factories.
This has been the pattern in every instance of industrialization, from England, centuries ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agr鈥?/a>
through China today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanizatio鈥?/a>
For example, in the U.S. less than 0.6% of the labor force is in agriculture:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications鈥?/a>
For Bangladesh, with a per capita GDP 1/40th that of the U.S.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou鈥?/a>
the percentage in agriculture is 63%
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications鈥?/a>
For India, where the per capita GDP is 1/20th that of the U.S., 60% of the labor force is in agriculture:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications鈥?/a>
While for China, where it is 1/9th the U.S. per capita GDP, it is 43%
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications鈥?/a>
What value does not believing in the paranormal have if you still believe in the supernatural?
Posted a few minutes ago:
%26lt;You cant. Studies indicate the more highly educated a person is leads to more superstitious beliefs:
“Surprisingly, while increased church attendance and membership in a conservative denomination has a powerful negative effect on paranormal beliefs, higher education doesn’t. Two years ago two professors published another study in Skeptical Inquirer showing that, while less than one-quarter of college freshmen surveyed expressed a general belief in such superstitions as ghosts, psychic healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, clairvoyance and witches, the figure jumped to 31% of college seniors and 34% of graduate students.”
Hemingway, Mollie Ziegler, Look Who’s Irrational Now, The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 19, 2008, p. W13
Source(s):
Sorry to burst your dogma with fact. I know how you hate that%26gt;
Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
Soooo...
1)What value does not believing in the paranormal have when one still believes in the supernatural?
2) Does it do justice to Christianity to make an article that points out a correlation say that it is in fact a causal relationship?|||Believe me, the problem is not what one believes, it is that one believes at all.
Kuma|||Since paranormal things are outside the realm of what we consider "normal", and supernatural things are beyond the natural scope of "normal' I would say it has no affect whatsoever.|||I find it odd that the author doesn't provide the title for that supposed study in Skeptical Inquirer.|||Satan exist and so with supernatural.. we all know that, many people hard believed in God but then they believed all this things.
better watch supernatural|||Aren't they synonyms?
Linky not worky,it says oops yada yada.|||1.) The phrase "paranormal" lumps all things not explained by mainline science in one big category. There are two main aspects of paranormal; extraterrestrial, and supernatural. Christians will believe the supernatural aspect (i.e. God, Satan, angels %26amp; demons) and pay no attention to the extraterrestrial. My view of paranormal is based on the Bible, and there are several instances of sorcery in there. Also, the Bible clearly states to give all paranormal activity the "Jesus Test" found in 1 John, chapter 4.
2.) Based on what was stated, I have to be a bit skeptical about that article. I would have to see their sampling groups to believe that study. If the study holds true, it does Christianity no justice, because people can believe in the supernatural and not believe in Christ. If there is a group this does justice to, it is theists in general.
%26lt;You cant. Studies indicate the more highly educated a person is leads to more superstitious beliefs:
“Surprisingly, while increased church attendance and membership in a conservative denomination has a powerful negative effect on paranormal beliefs, higher education doesn’t. Two years ago two professors published another study in Skeptical Inquirer showing that, while less than one-quarter of college freshmen surveyed expressed a general belief in such superstitions as ghosts, psychic healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, clairvoyance and witches, the figure jumped to 31% of college seniors and 34% of graduate students.”
Hemingway, Mollie Ziegler, Look Who’s Irrational Now, The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 19, 2008, p. W13
Source(s):
Sorry to burst your dogma with fact. I know how you hate that%26gt;
Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
Soooo...
1)What value does not believing in the paranormal have when one still believes in the supernatural?
2) Does it do justice to Christianity to make an article that points out a correlation say that it is in fact a causal relationship?|||Believe me, the problem is not what one believes, it is that one believes at all.
Kuma|||Since paranormal things are outside the realm of what we consider "normal", and supernatural things are beyond the natural scope of "normal' I would say it has no affect whatsoever.|||I find it odd that the author doesn't provide the title for that supposed study in Skeptical Inquirer.|||Satan exist and so with supernatural.. we all know that, many people hard believed in God but then they believed all this things.
better watch supernatural|||Aren't they synonyms?
Linky not worky,it says oops yada yada.|||1.) The phrase "paranormal" lumps all things not explained by mainline science in one big category. There are two main aspects of paranormal; extraterrestrial, and supernatural. Christians will believe the supernatural aspect (i.e. God, Satan, angels %26amp; demons) and pay no attention to the extraterrestrial. My view of paranormal is based on the Bible, and there are several instances of sorcery in there. Also, the Bible clearly states to give all paranormal activity the "Jesus Test" found in 1 John, chapter 4.
2.) Based on what was stated, I have to be a bit skeptical about that article. I would have to see their sampling groups to believe that study. If the study holds true, it does Christianity no justice, because people can believe in the supernatural and not believe in Christ. If there is a group this does justice to, it is theists in general.
Atheists, would this be a more consistent description of God according to your perceptions?
Suppose that one day in the far, far future, the existence of a divine creator of the universe was shown to be true. I know you're atheists, but just entertain the notion for a moment.
But... even if proof of the creator was provided, that doesn't prove the account of God in monotheistic scripture is accurate. So, what would be an accurate description of God?
Here's my proposal:
Even if there is a creator (lets call it "God"). Maybe he doesn't actively moderate what goes on in the world. Maybe God initiated the Big Bang, but after that, he left the events of the universe take on by itself, all the way up to the evolution of life from the pre-biotic soup. Essentially, he does not care about life the same way we value it. God does not reach out to humans, and chooses to remain hidden and invisible. Instead, he is more of a passive observer, and lets everything happen as it should. Maybe life serves some purpose, but life is not meant to be immortal.
From what you have seen, is this a more accurate description of God?
On a side note: I subscribe to the philosophical perspective of causal determinism, so even if there is a God, he does not need to actively moderate everything, but lets cause and effect take place.|||Sometimes, when I prepare plates for bacterial smears, I wonder how the creatures would think of me, if they could. I have created an entire world for them, laden with food and free from any predators. A kind of paradise that they will dwell in for thousands and thousands of generations. I am interested in what they do, and watch them closely. And someday I will take their world and destroy it utterly, killing everything within. I wonder if they would see me as a god or as a devil. Then I go and make another plate.|||What you're talking about is commonly called "deism".
It certainly sounds more reasonable than the personal, interventionist God described by most Christians, and less directly contradicted by reality; but even the deist god is still completely unsubstantiated by anything resembling evidence.|||I'm not a deist if that is what you are asking.
Deist, atheist, different words, you know.|||Actually, what you're describing is deism. That belief already exists, and to my knowledge, atheists don't accept that viewpoint either (otherwise, they'd be deists).
So *if* God exists, under today's scientific scrutiny, the one that has the best chance of existing is the deistic god. But even then, all arguments supporting a deistic god are fallacious in nature, not differing very much from theism.|||If there is a "God", and I'm not a believer, but if there was one.... then, yes, I think your description is pretty accurate.
But, then again, if I was a deist, I wouldn't be an atheist.|||I wouldn't say so. Since it's all speculative, it's all speculative. I can't call Cinderella more "accurate" than Snow White because they are both made up.|||Your "proposal" describes a deistic-type deity.
The real "God" could be anything that people have already thought up, or something that was never invented yet. Either way, that description could only satisfy the one who believes it, and atheists don't believe in any deities.|||You are describing Deism. If there were a god, (and I don't believe there is) Deism is the only version I could envisage being true.|||Deism is certainly the more rational descriptions of a deity that are out there.
I still don't believe, but it's more rational.|||I would think that God, were he to exist, had created the universe but was not all powerful, nor would he answer to prayers or intervene in our lives. At best he would be a casual observer, watching things unfold.
I also think that were you to meet him, you would find he had a sense of humour, I think you'd have to in order to watch the dumb things people do without completely breaking down.
But... even if proof of the creator was provided, that doesn't prove the account of God in monotheistic scripture is accurate. So, what would be an accurate description of God?
Here's my proposal:
Even if there is a creator (lets call it "God"). Maybe he doesn't actively moderate what goes on in the world. Maybe God initiated the Big Bang, but after that, he left the events of the universe take on by itself, all the way up to the evolution of life from the pre-biotic soup. Essentially, he does not care about life the same way we value it. God does not reach out to humans, and chooses to remain hidden and invisible. Instead, he is more of a passive observer, and lets everything happen as it should. Maybe life serves some purpose, but life is not meant to be immortal.
From what you have seen, is this a more accurate description of God?
On a side note: I subscribe to the philosophical perspective of causal determinism, so even if there is a God, he does not need to actively moderate everything, but lets cause and effect take place.|||Sometimes, when I prepare plates for bacterial smears, I wonder how the creatures would think of me, if they could. I have created an entire world for them, laden with food and free from any predators. A kind of paradise that they will dwell in for thousands and thousands of generations. I am interested in what they do, and watch them closely. And someday I will take their world and destroy it utterly, killing everything within. I wonder if they would see me as a god or as a devil. Then I go and make another plate.|||What you're talking about is commonly called "deism".
It certainly sounds more reasonable than the personal, interventionist God described by most Christians, and less directly contradicted by reality; but even the deist god is still completely unsubstantiated by anything resembling evidence.|||I'm not a deist if that is what you are asking.
Deist, atheist, different words, you know.|||Actually, what you're describing is deism. That belief already exists, and to my knowledge, atheists don't accept that viewpoint either (otherwise, they'd be deists).
So *if* God exists, under today's scientific scrutiny, the one that has the best chance of existing is the deistic god. But even then, all arguments supporting a deistic god are fallacious in nature, not differing very much from theism.|||If there is a "God", and I'm not a believer, but if there was one.... then, yes, I think your description is pretty accurate.
But, then again, if I was a deist, I wouldn't be an atheist.|||I wouldn't say so. Since it's all speculative, it's all speculative. I can't call Cinderella more "accurate" than Snow White because they are both made up.|||Your "proposal" describes a deistic-type deity.
The real "God" could be anything that people have already thought up, or something that was never invented yet. Either way, that description could only satisfy the one who believes it, and atheists don't believe in any deities.|||You are describing Deism. If there were a god, (and I don't believe there is) Deism is the only version I could envisage being true.|||Deism is certainly the more rational descriptions of a deity that are out there.
I still don't believe, but it's more rational.|||I would think that God, were he to exist, had created the universe but was not all powerful, nor would he answer to prayers or intervene in our lives. At best he would be a casual observer, watching things unfold.
I also think that were you to meet him, you would find he had a sense of humour, I think you'd have to in order to watch the dumb things people do without completely breaking down.
How do the Buddhist concepts of Dhamma-Vicaya and Pratityasamutpada relate to Panaentheistic skepticism?
Dhamma-Vicaya - Understanding Nature - This means to adopt an objective, scientific approach to understanding the causal relationships between various phenomena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Bud鈥?/a>
Pratityasamutpada - Dependent Origination - Essentially the Cosmological Argument which includes a view of interdependent cause and effect for all things in the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_o鈥?/a>
Panaentheism, (pan-ay-en-thee-izm), the belief that the universe is sacred and everything is related into a oneness. There are no beliefs or preclusions from beliefs in the system about deification, creation, conscious design, after life, universal consciousness, etc. It is held that life is sacred, existence is sacred, and all parts of the universe are sacred.|||I was watching PBS yesterday afternoon. Interesting program about asian religions - and it compared many religious sects that have evolved from Buddhism / Hinduism /Sikh - and a bit on christianity that was not very fairly represented - especially by the fundamentalist evangelical christian who said that it is a christian's responsibility to revere all religions. (who-da-thunk-it?). Still, if it comes on again, it is well worth watching.
I like the concept of interdependent cause and effect in Pratityasamutpada. I loved yesterdays representation of Jain (Jainism? - Jain Dharma). Close to my beliefs.
I would question one part of your panenteist definition. If everything is sacred, then is anything sacred? Does the use of the word "sacred" cause one to forget that he/she is also sacred in this context? I think that I might prefer the word divine - because I am a powerful being - embued with the powers of the divine (gods).
Ultimately, they are so close that there isn't a lot to waste time arguing about. All recognize the divinity of our fellow beings and our self as one. (If I remember correctly)
Then again, I'm still not sure if I use the word Panentheist correctly. Is it consistent with a multi-dimensional reality as I think it is?
Glad to see tht you weren't raptured on the 21st. World is a better place for it.|||Buddha lived at a time in India when the general belief was polytheism. Buddha did not deny the existence of these gods but said it was not necessary to rely on them for liberation from samsara as these beings too were trapped within the beginningless wandering. He realised that it was our own wrong views, wrong intentions and wrong actions that kept us immersed in samsara through dependent origination. Panentheism and Pantheism arose later in a response and through a deeper understanding of Buddhist knowledge. In Mahayana and Vajrayana a form of Pantheism is used as a "skillful means" to liberation from samsara.|||Understanding something and believing in something are two different concepts To understand something you need to know about it and it's properties, to believe in something you only need need to know what it is called, not anything else, like if it is a real thing or a made up thing, or is it a good thing or a bad thing, is it human or is it spiritual, is it necessary or just a bother??? Delusional god worshipers do not even know if there is a god or not, but i know no gods or devils exist anywhere outside of ones properly inculcated mind!!!|||Well, I'm guessing, but I have spent some time with these ideas in the past.
My thought would be that if all is one, and that one is sacred, then it's only sensible to understand how things work together in the interactions taking place within the one. The idea is that the sacred is not beyond the here and now, so the study of science *is* the study of the sacred.
P.S. - As you say, no Deity required.|||This sounds like a homework question, work it out yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Bud鈥?/a>
Pratityasamutpada - Dependent Origination - Essentially the Cosmological Argument which includes a view of interdependent cause and effect for all things in the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_o鈥?/a>
Panaentheism, (pan-ay-en-thee-izm), the belief that the universe is sacred and everything is related into a oneness. There are no beliefs or preclusions from beliefs in the system about deification, creation, conscious design, after life, universal consciousness, etc. It is held that life is sacred, existence is sacred, and all parts of the universe are sacred.|||I was watching PBS yesterday afternoon. Interesting program about asian religions - and it compared many religious sects that have evolved from Buddhism / Hinduism /Sikh - and a bit on christianity that was not very fairly represented - especially by the fundamentalist evangelical christian who said that it is a christian's responsibility to revere all religions. (who-da-thunk-it?). Still, if it comes on again, it is well worth watching.
I like the concept of interdependent cause and effect in Pratityasamutpada. I loved yesterdays representation of Jain (Jainism? - Jain Dharma). Close to my beliefs.
I would question one part of your panenteist definition. If everything is sacred, then is anything sacred? Does the use of the word "sacred" cause one to forget that he/she is also sacred in this context? I think that I might prefer the word divine - because I am a powerful being - embued with the powers of the divine (gods).
Ultimately, they are so close that there isn't a lot to waste time arguing about. All recognize the divinity of our fellow beings and our self as one. (If I remember correctly)
Then again, I'm still not sure if I use the word Panentheist correctly. Is it consistent with a multi-dimensional reality as I think it is?
Glad to see tht you weren't raptured on the 21st. World is a better place for it.|||Buddha lived at a time in India when the general belief was polytheism. Buddha did not deny the existence of these gods but said it was not necessary to rely on them for liberation from samsara as these beings too were trapped within the beginningless wandering. He realised that it was our own wrong views, wrong intentions and wrong actions that kept us immersed in samsara through dependent origination. Panentheism and Pantheism arose later in a response and through a deeper understanding of Buddhist knowledge. In Mahayana and Vajrayana a form of Pantheism is used as a "skillful means" to liberation from samsara.|||Understanding something and believing in something are two different concepts To understand something you need to know about it and it's properties, to believe in something you only need need to know what it is called, not anything else, like if it is a real thing or a made up thing, or is it a good thing or a bad thing, is it human or is it spiritual, is it necessary or just a bother??? Delusional god worshipers do not even know if there is a god or not, but i know no gods or devils exist anywhere outside of ones properly inculcated mind!!!|||Well, I'm guessing, but I have spent some time with these ideas in the past.
My thought would be that if all is one, and that one is sacred, then it's only sensible to understand how things work together in the interactions taking place within the one. The idea is that the sacred is not beyond the here and now, so the study of science *is* the study of the sacred.
P.S. - As you say, no Deity required.|||This sounds like a homework question, work it out yourself
Please Help Love question
I asked this question on singles and dating but maybe should have posted it here - they seem young :-( on singles and dating. Anyway;
Recently I have been having feelings for my first love even though we have not been together for years and years. We are both single but rarely see each other. When we do it is just a fleeting exchange hi how are you etc. but he is always really pleased to see me and would give me hug and check me out subtley In fact he has always been a complete gentleman as I had been in a relationship, he even asked me once what my then boyfriend did for a living which made me wonder if maybe he was jealous. Over the past few months I have been in the local paper with work related things and A few days ago I was crossing the road and he was driving past, he said hello then he jokingly said he wouldnt be buying the local paper anymore cos I was always in it. He said this in a laughing jokey way. What I wonder is could this be deemed as flirting, it seemed like it to me. Also do you think he might have feelings for me. I know this reads like a teenager has written it which is riduclous cos we are our 30's but he just has this effect on me. I would never call him or suggest coofee or anything but I just live for these causal meetings which can be months apart. Do you think he cares about me.
|||OBVIOUSLY he carea bout you, dont hold youself back from your feelings. Ask the guy to get a cofee, and if it turns into soemthing tell him how you were never happier than when together with him... Follow that heart that explodes when filled with iodien|||Sounds like something could be there, but the only way you will know is to go for it and see what happens. You seem to have stayed friends over they year and maybe its time to give it another shot. He could be feeling like you, not knowing if he should say something or leave it alone. If I was in your shoes I think I would go for it. He could be the one that makes ya stop looking around :)
Good luck in whatever you decide. |||You two will always have special feelings towards each other, thats how first loves work, so without a doubt, i think he still does as u probably do him as well. What could it hurt for calling him up and asking him for coffee, for old times sake for an old friend? That will lead to a conversation over that coffee and u never know where it might go and you'll look none the worse by doing so. An old friend getting aquainted with an old friend, how can u go wrong, JUST DO IT and good luck to ya|||he girl, you're in your 30s, your both matured, most of all, both professional. asking him for a coffee for a little chat is not shameful in your case. specially you've had a history together. go ahead, take the guts. don't wait till it's too late.of course i trust you can handle it diplomatically. you know how immature women act %26amp; talk %26amp; advice ;) goodluck!
this is your best %26amp; probably the last time for you to find a good husband :)|||I'm not sure if that means he cares for you but you should always take into account how and why you broke up in the first place, If it was a mutual thing then ok! But be careful it may be just a booty call thing.
Some men just like the thought that women still want them, but right now it sounds like harmless flirting. Goodluck : )|||If you are interested, at thirty-something you should know this:
"Nothing ventured, nothing gained".
If he is single, you need to make a move. If you don't, you will never know. You could even be married to someone else before you find out! What a waste of good times. You are not getting any younger!|||I think your Coffee kicked in Dude....lol
I read your letter and I will say that perhaps you should capatilize on your feelings rather than leaving them hanging in the wind sort of speak.
Invest it and make something happen and don't wait for something to come to you...you make it happen.
Improvise....overcome|||Yup.
Or he's constantly reliving his glory days.
Either way, enjoy your little run-ins with each other, and the anticipation of them.
And if it really gets to you, ask him to have a coffee with you.
But do enjoy the game :)|||What are you waiting for my dear? Go for it. Ask him out. That's what he wants. That's what you want. You're in your 30s now...you don't need to play games, just go ahead and ask him. You'll be happy you did and then you won't have to worry again! :)|||no-one knows if he cares about you but you
i think you know the answer
but you want us to bck it up
go for it!
the worst thing that'll happen is he says no..
and thats still better than wondering if you lost mr right..
good luck
xx|||Well if you are both free agents........you will never know until you give it a go.
He may be feeling the same as you and a somewhat apprehensive about how you feel.
Go for it...casually ask him if he has time for that coffee...and take it from there.
Good luck.|||it sounds like love :)
help me?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>|||It seems to a case that he hasn't really got over you ( or the hate u have cos him) even though he thought he has.
Maybe try talking as friends again and see how things goes.|||I feel you. I still have feelings for my first love, even though I live across an ocean, and am now in an new relationship. You must constantly remind yourself why things ended, and why it didn't work, and not let the good feelings you have when you encounter him cloud your judgement. There were very specific reasons why my ex and I broke up, and I have to remind myself how unhappy I actually was at times.
On the other hand, if you are both single, and it ended amicably, why aren't you giving it another try? I am sure there are very good reasons why he is single as well, and if I had to judge from your encounters, I would say that he still probably has feelings for you as well.|||Well, its very difficult determining if men r interested in their women coz they hardly let any1 know. U never know. U can try calling him asking him for sme help. Try meeting him often with some or the other excuse and during ur conversations find out if he is seriously having any one else in his life and wot does he think bout ur personal relationships with other ppl. If he is interested, he will promptly agree to meet u. That will be first sign.
So, put ur mind to work.
Recently I have been having feelings for my first love even though we have not been together for years and years. We are both single but rarely see each other. When we do it is just a fleeting exchange hi how are you etc. but he is always really pleased to see me and would give me hug and check me out subtley In fact he has always been a complete gentleman as I had been in a relationship, he even asked me once what my then boyfriend did for a living which made me wonder if maybe he was jealous. Over the past few months I have been in the local paper with work related things and A few days ago I was crossing the road and he was driving past, he said hello then he jokingly said he wouldnt be buying the local paper anymore cos I was always in it. He said this in a laughing jokey way. What I wonder is could this be deemed as flirting, it seemed like it to me. Also do you think he might have feelings for me. I know this reads like a teenager has written it which is riduclous cos we are our 30's but he just has this effect on me. I would never call him or suggest coofee or anything but I just live for these causal meetings which can be months apart. Do you think he cares about me.
|||OBVIOUSLY he carea bout you, dont hold youself back from your feelings. Ask the guy to get a cofee, and if it turns into soemthing tell him how you were never happier than when together with him... Follow that heart that explodes when filled with iodien|||Sounds like something could be there, but the only way you will know is to go for it and see what happens. You seem to have stayed friends over they year and maybe its time to give it another shot. He could be feeling like you, not knowing if he should say something or leave it alone. If I was in your shoes I think I would go for it. He could be the one that makes ya stop looking around :)
Good luck in whatever you decide. |||You two will always have special feelings towards each other, thats how first loves work, so without a doubt, i think he still does as u probably do him as well. What could it hurt for calling him up and asking him for coffee, for old times sake for an old friend? That will lead to a conversation over that coffee and u never know where it might go and you'll look none the worse by doing so. An old friend getting aquainted with an old friend, how can u go wrong, JUST DO IT and good luck to ya|||he girl, you're in your 30s, your both matured, most of all, both professional. asking him for a coffee for a little chat is not shameful in your case. specially you've had a history together. go ahead, take the guts. don't wait till it's too late.of course i trust you can handle it diplomatically. you know how immature women act %26amp; talk %26amp; advice ;) goodluck!
this is your best %26amp; probably the last time for you to find a good husband :)|||I'm not sure if that means he cares for you but you should always take into account how and why you broke up in the first place, If it was a mutual thing then ok! But be careful it may be just a booty call thing.
Some men just like the thought that women still want them, but right now it sounds like harmless flirting. Goodluck : )|||If you are interested, at thirty-something you should know this:
"Nothing ventured, nothing gained".
If he is single, you need to make a move. If you don't, you will never know. You could even be married to someone else before you find out! What a waste of good times. You are not getting any younger!|||I think your Coffee kicked in Dude....lol
I read your letter and I will say that perhaps you should capatilize on your feelings rather than leaving them hanging in the wind sort of speak.
Invest it and make something happen and don't wait for something to come to you...you make it happen.
Improvise....overcome|||Yup.
Or he's constantly reliving his glory days.
Either way, enjoy your little run-ins with each other, and the anticipation of them.
And if it really gets to you, ask him to have a coffee with you.
But do enjoy the game :)|||What are you waiting for my dear? Go for it. Ask him out. That's what he wants. That's what you want. You're in your 30s now...you don't need to play games, just go ahead and ask him. You'll be happy you did and then you won't have to worry again! :)|||no-one knows if he cares about you but you
i think you know the answer
but you want us to bck it up
go for it!
the worst thing that'll happen is he says no..
and thats still better than wondering if you lost mr right..
good luck
xx|||Well if you are both free agents........you will never know until you give it a go.
He may be feeling the same as you and a somewhat apprehensive about how you feel.
Go for it...casually ask him if he has time for that coffee...and take it from there.
Good luck.|||it sounds like love :)
help me?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>|||It seems to a case that he hasn't really got over you ( or the hate u have cos him) even though he thought he has.
Maybe try talking as friends again and see how things goes.|||I feel you. I still have feelings for my first love, even though I live across an ocean, and am now in an new relationship. You must constantly remind yourself why things ended, and why it didn't work, and not let the good feelings you have when you encounter him cloud your judgement. There were very specific reasons why my ex and I broke up, and I have to remind myself how unhappy I actually was at times.
On the other hand, if you are both single, and it ended amicably, why aren't you giving it another try? I am sure there are very good reasons why he is single as well, and if I had to judge from your encounters, I would say that he still probably has feelings for you as well.|||Well, its very difficult determining if men r interested in their women coz they hardly let any1 know. U never know. U can try calling him asking him for sme help. Try meeting him often with some or the other excuse and during ur conversations find out if he is seriously having any one else in his life and wot does he think bout ur personal relationships with other ppl. If he is interested, he will promptly agree to meet u. That will be first sign.
So, put ur mind to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)