| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Horny CockSucker" |
| Date: |
06 Jul 2005 11:57:04 AM |
| Object: |
EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
I have just proved that evolution could not have happened.
If evolution took took place then ugly women would not exist.
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
11 Jul 2005 05:09:53 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 03:51:05 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:16:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:58:32 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 08:52:01 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 03:15:58 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:21:31 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 04:26:36 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
<ue2vc1lgs37isd6o997mn0ns9sjq02euf7@4ax.com>:
On 8 Jul 2005 17:10:09 -0700, "goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
Actually, you should have realized how powerless science is. It can
see the work of God, but can never find God himself.
Science can never find anything for which there is no objective
evidence. Whether or not God exists, science will never have anything
to say about it.
True, because science is physical science, it's incapable to
comprehend the spiritual.
So God has no physical existance?
God is a Spirit. To seek the physical existence of God is to seek an
idol.
Therefore, God is the imaginations of a deranged mind?
Absolutely not. God has nothing to do with imaginations.
But, needs a deranged mind, then, huh?
No. Why do you say that?
Because you didn't rebuke the "deranged" part of the above and deranged
means insane.
I said "absolutely not". I thought I categorically denied everything
you said.
Ah well, you didn't rebuke it with evidence. *shrug*
What kind of evidence are you talking about? Spiritual evidence is the
gift of God which I can not provide.
Therefore, spiritual evidence is not evidence for which I can test, and
therefore, for me, is not evidence at all.
Sorry, God's spiritual evidence is not for testing purposes.
To believe things without evidence and to laugh at others who do not
believe those things are the products of a deranged mind.
Just because you haven't found the evidence, doesn't mean nobody has.
So what? There are people that believe they have found evidence of a
pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There are also people who
believe they are Elvis Presley.
Again, imagination has nothing to do with it.
So, the people that believe they are Elvis Presley, are, in fact, the
late, great King of Rock 'N' Roll?
That's only some kind of imagination. It's nothing similar with the
spiritual evidence of God.
How do you distinguish between such a god and no god at all?
By following the truth. There is God whenever there is the truth.
Pepperoni pizza tastes good to me. Does that mean God is a pepperoni?
If you are lucky, by finding out the truth why pepperoni pizza tastes
good to you, you may actually find God.
My tastebuds say so. Therefore, my tastebuds are God. I see. Thanks.
Freak.
Too bad for you. You don't seem to have the necessary luck.
Luck has nothing to do with it.
It's a figure of speech. Your taste-buds do not make you feel good and
happy, God does.
Prove it.
There is nothing to prove. It is what it is. You just have to learn to
realize it. All of our positive spiritual feelings come from God, and
all of our negative spiritual feelings come from the lack of God.
Actually, what makes me feel good are the endorphins released by my
pituitary gland after the chemical reaction in my tongue is sent to my
brain.
When you are hot, your body sweets. When you are excited, you brain
produces endorphins. It's only chemical reaction of your body. It
doesn't say anything about what you feel emotionally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
11 Jul 2005 05:22:06 AM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 03:51:05 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:16:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:58:32 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 08:52:01 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 03:15:58 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:21:31 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 04:26:36 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
<ue2vc1lgs37isd6o997mn0ns9sjq02euf7@4ax.com>:
On 8 Jul 2005 17:10:09 -0700, "goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
Actually, you should have realized how powerless science is. It can
see the work of God, but can never find God himself.
Science can never find anything for which there is no objective
evidence. Whether or not God exists, science will never have anything
to say about it.
True, because science is physical science, it's incapable to
comprehend the spiritual.
So God has no physical existance?
God is a Spirit. To seek the physical existence of God is to seek an
idol.
Therefore, God is the imaginations of a deranged mind?
Absolutely not. God has nothing to do with imaginations.
But, needs a deranged mind, then, huh?
No. Why do you say that?
Because you didn't rebuke the "deranged" part of the above and deranged
means insane.
I said "absolutely not". I thought I categorically denied everything
you said.
Ah well, you didn't rebuke it with evidence. *shrug*
What kind of evidence are you talking about? Spiritual evidence is the
gift of God which I can not provide.
Therefore, spiritual evidence is not evidence for which I can test, and
therefore, for me, is not evidence at all.
Sorry, God's spiritual evidence is not for testing purposes.
Therefore, there is no evidence at all of God, for me.
To believe things without evidence and to laugh at others who do not
believe those things are the products of a deranged mind.
Just because you haven't found the evidence, doesn't mean nobody has.
So what? There are people that believe they have found evidence of a
pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There are also people who
believe they are Elvis Presley.
Again, imagination has nothing to do with it.
So, the people that believe they are Elvis Presley, are, in fact, the
late, great King of Rock 'N' Roll?
That's only some kind of imagination. It's nothing similar with the
spiritual evidence of God.
It's exactly the same. Those that believe they are Elvis have as much
evidence to their Elvis-ity as they that believe in God have. That is:
Zero.
How do you distinguish between such a god and no god at all?
By following the truth. There is God whenever there is the truth.
Pepperoni pizza tastes good to me. Does that mean God is a pepperoni?
If you are lucky, by finding out the truth why pepperoni pizza tastes
good to you, you may actually find God.
My tastebuds say so. Therefore, my tastebuds are God. I see. Thanks.
Freak.
Too bad for you. You don't seem to have the necessary luck.
Luck has nothing to do with it.
It's a figure of speech. Your taste-buds do not make you feel good and
happy, God does.
Prove it.
There is nothing to prove. It is what it is. You just have to learn to
realize it. All of our positive spiritual feelings come from God, and
all of our negative spiritual feelings come from the lack of God.
Actually, what makes me feel good are the endorphins released by my
pituitary gland after the chemical reaction in my tongue is sent to my
brain.
When you are hot, your body sweets.
To cool off. You know how sweating works, right? When the body gets
hot, the brain sends a signal to the skin to produce sweat in order to
regulate body temperature. Sometimes, the brain is tricked by a cold
and sends the sweat command to the skin when it doesn't need to,
resulting in "cold sweat."
But, then, you knew this, right?
When you are excited, you brain
produces endorphins.
Um, no. That'd be adrenaline, not endorphins. Endorphins are the
pleasure chemicals. Adrenaline is the excitement chemical.
Endorphins are produced by the pituitary gland.
Adrenaline is produced by the adrenal glands.
It's only chemical reaction of your body. It
doesn't say anything about what you feel emotionally.
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
11 Jul 2005 05:49:10 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
11 Jul 2005 05:51:15 AM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
Positive.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
11 Jul 2005 02:36:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:51:15 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
Positive.
You certainly sound like one by what you said in the above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
11 Jul 2005 08:07:19 PM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:51:15 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
Positive.
You certainly sound like one by what you said in the above.
Do you consider all people who disagree with you to be "drug addicts?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
11 Jul 2005 10:32:36 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:51:15 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
Positive.
You certainly sound like one by what you said in the above.
Do you consider all people who disagree with you to be "drug addicts?"
No. I consider all people who disagree with me in a spiritual debate
are my mentors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
11 Jul 2005 11:25:17 PM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:51:15 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
Positive.
You certainly sound like one by what you said in the above.
Do you consider all people who disagree with you to be "drug addicts?"
No. I consider all people who disagree with me in a spiritual debate
are my mentors.
Then why do you insult DanielSan, whom you should consider not just a
mentor but a guru or sensei?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
13 Jul 2005 12:48:16 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 04:25:17 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:51:15 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
Positive.
You certainly sound like one by what you said in the above.
Do you consider all people who disagree with you to be "drug addicts?"
No. I consider all people who disagree with me in a spiritual debate
are my mentors.
Then why do you insult DanielSan, whom you should consider not just a
mentor but a guru or sensei?
I certainly have not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
13 Jul 2005 01:01:33 AM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 04:25:17 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:07:19 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:51:15 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
Positive.
You certainly sound like one by what you said in the above.
Do you consider all people who disagree with you to be "drug addicts?"
No. I consider all people who disagree with me in a spiritual debate
are my mentors.
Then why do you insult DanielSan, whom you should consider not just a
mentor but a guru or sensei?
I certainly have not.
What then was the reason for your "drug addict" question?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
15 Jul 2005 02:25:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 06:01:33 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
Positive.
You certainly sound like one by what you said in the above.
Do you consider all people who disagree with you to be "drug addicts?"
No. I consider all people who disagree with me in a spiritual debate
are my mentors.
Then why do you insult DanielSan, whom you should consider not just a
mentor but a guru or sensei?
I certainly have not.
What then was the reason for your "drug addict" question?
That could be a logical conclusion based on his statement. He is
likely a drug addict for believing human emotions are nothing but
chemical reactions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
15 Jul 2005 04:43:15 PM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 06:01:33 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
Positive.
You certainly sound like one by what you said in the above.
Do you consider all people who disagree with you to be "drug addicts?"
No. I consider all people who disagree with me in a spiritual debate
are my mentors.
Then why do you insult DanielSan, whom you should consider not just a
mentor but a guru or sensei?
I certainly have not.
What then was the reason for your "drug addict" question?
That could be a logical conclusion based on his statement. He is
likely a drug addict for believing human emotions are nothing but
chemical reactions.
Well in that regard, I am, as are you, even if you aren't willing to
admit it.
I studied neurophysiology a long while back, and even then it was
understood that neurotransmission is chemical in nature. Although there
were still some "spark plug boys" who used to believe it happened
electrically.
So if we're not chemical beings, please explain the mechanisms for
Parkinson's Disease. If you prefer, explain Alzheimer's.
In any case, I don't think that addiction is the term to use here.
This from my friend (and yours) Webster.com
Main Entry: ad·dic·tion
Pronunciation: &-'dik-sh&n, a-
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
2 : compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin,
nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined
physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive
use of a substance known by the user to be harmful
Brain chemistry, or any other physiological process does not demonstrate
a compulsive need, and the substances themselves are not exactly
habit-forming. There are no physiological symptoms associated with
withdrawal, except physiological shutdown and death. Although how one
would accomplish withdrawal from acetylcholine, ATP or even lowly
potassium is beyond me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
16 Jul 2005 08:16:25 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:43:15 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 06:01:33 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
Positive.
You certainly sound like one by what you said in the above.
Do you consider all people who disagree with you to be "drug addicts?"
No. I consider all people who disagree with me in a spiritual debate
are my mentors.
Then why do you insult DanielSan, whom you should consider not just a
mentor but a guru or sensei?
I certainly have not.
What then was the reason for your "drug addict" question?
That could be a logical conclusion based on his statement. He is
likely a drug addict for believing human emotions are nothing but
chemical reactions.
Well in that regard, I am, as are you, even if you aren't willing to
admit it.
No, it's rather common sense that human emotions are never chemical
reactions. Emotion causes chemical reaction, but chemical reaction is
not emotion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "EB" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
16 Jul 2005 11:44:40 AM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
(snip)
No, it's rather common sense that human emotions are never chemical
reactions. Emotion causes chemical reaction, but chemical reaction is
not emotion.
http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0008C23C-CEE1-12D2-8EE183414B7F0000
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
16 Jul 2005 11:21:17 PM |
|
|
EB wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
(snip)
No, it's rather common sense that human emotions are never chemical
reactions. Emotion causes chemical reaction, but chemical reaction is
not emotion.
http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0008C23C-CEE1-12D2-8EE183414B7F0000
For those who didn't look, the link points to an article about a drug
for Parkinson's disease one of whose side effects is to induce
compulsive gambling in those taking it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
16 Jul 2005 01:25:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:44:40 GMT, EB <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
(snip)
No, it's rather common sense that human emotions are never chemical
reactions. Emotion causes chemical reaction, but chemical reaction is
not emotion.
http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0008C23C-CEE1-12D2-8EE183414B7F0000
Chemical drugs can make people go crazy. That is nothing new.
.
|
|
|
| User: "EB" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
16 Jul 2005 08:53:18 PM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:44:40 GMT, EB <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
(snip)
No, it's rather common sense that human emotions are never chemical
reactions. Emotion causes chemical reaction, but chemical reaction is
not emotion.
(snip)
Chemical drugs can make people go crazy. That is nothing new.
Hmmm.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
17 Jul 2005 01:34:41 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:53:18 GMT, EB <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:44:40 GMT, EB <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
(snip)
No, it's rather common sense that human emotions are never chemical
reactions. Emotion causes chemical reaction, but chemical reaction is
not emotion.
(snip)
Chemical drugs can make people go crazy. That is nothing new.
Hmmm.
I think you should realize that drugs do affect people's mood, but
people's mood does not depend on drugs. Otherwise, everybody will
become drug addict.
.
|
|
|
| User: "EB" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
17 Jul 2005 07:46:06 AM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:53:18 GMT, EB <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:44:40 GMT, EB <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
(snip)
No, it's rather common sense that human emotions are never chemical
reactions. Emotion causes chemical reaction, but chemical reaction is
not emotion.
(snip)
Chemical drugs can make people go crazy. That is nothing new.
Hmmm.
I think you should realize that drugs do affect people's mood, but
people's mood does not depend on drugs. Otherwise, everybody will
become drug addict.
Current Pharmaceutical Design. 2005;11(8):963-72. "Cytokines as a
precipitant of depressive illness: animal and human studies."By Anisman
H, Merali Z, Poulter MO, Hayley S. Institute of Neuroscience, Carleton
University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada.
"Cytokines whose primary function is that of acting as signaling
molecules of the immune system, have been implicated in the provocation
or exacerbation of mood disorders such as depression. This position has
been supported by several lines of evidence; (1) proinflammatory
cytokines (interleukin-1beta, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis
factor-alpha) and bacterial endotoxins elicit sickness behaviors (e.g.,
fatigue, soporific effects) and symptoms of anxiety/depression that may
be attenuated by chronic antidepressant treatment. Interleukin-2 (IL-2)
induces less profound sickness, but elicits anhedonia, a key symptom of
depression; (2) neuroendocrine and central neurotransmitter changes,
reminiscent of those implicated in depression, may be elicited by some
of these cytokines, and these effects are exacerbated by stressors; (3)
severe depressive illness is accompanied by elevations of cytokine
production or levels, although these effects are not necessarily
attenuated with antidepressant medication; and (4) immunotherapy, using
IL-2 or IFN-alpha, promote depressive symptoms that are attenuated by
antidepressant treatment. It is proposed that chronic cytokine
elevations engender neuroendocrine and brain neurotransmitter changes
that are interpreted by the brain as being stressors, and contribute to
the development of depression. Further, the effects of the cytokine
treatments may act synergistically with stressors, and cytokines may
provoke a sensitization effect so that the effects of later stressor
experiences are exacerbated."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
11 Jul 2005 11:40:10 AM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
We're all the products of chemical reactions. So in that regard, we are
chemical beings. If you want to call us all addicts, so be it.
A better way to look at it is to regard emotions as metaphors for the
chemical reactions that cause them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
11 Jul 2005 02:42:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:40:10 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
We're all the products of chemical reactions. So in that regard, we are
chemical beings. If you want to call us all addicts, so be it.
But you are wrong. We are not chemical beings. We are spiritual
beings. The chemical reactions in our physical body are results of our
spiritual activity.
A better way to look at it is to regard emotions as metaphors for the
chemical reactions that cause them.
Sorry, that's not a better way. That's the wrong way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
12 Jul 2005 05:17:40 AM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:40:10 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
We're all the products of chemical reactions. So in that regard, we are
chemical beings. If you want to call us all addicts, so be it.
But you are wrong. We are not chemical beings. We are spiritual
beings. The chemical reactions in our physical body are results of our
spiritual activity.
All of biology and a few other sciences says you are WRONG ..... you
have it backwards ....... who would I choose to believe ? Unless you can
find some evidence for this claim ..... I have no intention of accepting
it ....
A better way to look at it is to regard emotions as metaphors for the
chemical reactions that cause them.
Sorry, that's not a better way. That's the wrong way.
Prove it ...... there's a ton of evidence that says you are dead wrong
....... where's the evidence supporting your claim ? ......
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
11 Jul 2005 08:09:35 PM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:40:10 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
We're all the products of chemical reactions. So in that regard, we are
chemical beings. If you want to call us all addicts, so be it.
But you are wrong. We are not chemical beings. We are spiritual
beings. The chemical reactions in our physical body are results of our
spiritual activity.
Is this true for cats, dogs and iguanas?
A better way to look at it is to regard emotions as metaphors for the
chemical reactions that cause them.
Sorry, that's not a better way. That's the wrong way.
Oh, forgive me. I'll change my viewpoint to yours immediately.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
11 Jul 2005 10:34:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:09:35 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 16:40:10 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:22:06 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
What we call "emotions" is what happens to our bodies chemically. What
we classify as "emotions" are just chemical reactions.
Are you sure you are not a drug addict? :-)
We're all the products of chemical reactions. So in that regard, we are
chemical beings. If you want to call us all addicts, so be it.
But you are wrong. We are not chemical beings. We are spiritual
beings. The chemical reactions in our physical body are results of our
spiritual activity.
Is this true for cats, dogs and iguanas?
Yes.
A better way to look at it is to regard emotions as metaphors for the
chemical reactions that cause them.
Sorry, that's not a better way. That's the wrong way.
Oh, forgive me. I'll change my viewpoint to yours immediately.
Great. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
11 Jul 2005 08:09:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:42:14 -0400, Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
We're all the products of chemical reactions. So in that regard, we are
chemical beings. If you want to call us all addicts, so be it.
But you are wrong. We are not chemical beings. We are spiritual
beings. The chemical reactions in our physical body are results of our
spiritual activity.
You've got that *****-backwards. Trust me, I'm a Hodgkin's Disease
survivor. HD is cancer of the lymphatic system, which means for about
a year and a half my body chemistry was all over the map. It
measurably altered my world view from day to day, changed my opinions
of things (there was a one month period where I stopped liking
*baseball* for *****'s sake! That one really scared my wife) and
caused massive, unpredictable mood swings.
I hadn't changed my behavior one bit, but massive imbalances in my
endorphins changed who I was at a very basic level.
A better way to look at it is to regard emotions as metaphors for the
chemical reactions that cause them.
Sorry, that's not a better way. That's the wrong way.
Why? Once I understand that my fear is partially the result of
adrenaline dumping into my system I can better control it.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
11 Jul 2005 10:43:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:09:53 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:42:14 -0400, Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
We're all the products of chemical reactions. So in that regard, we are
chemical beings. If you want to call us all addicts, so be it.
But you are wrong. We are not chemical beings. We are spiritual
beings. The chemical reactions in our physical body are results of our
spiritual activity.
You've got that *****-backwards. Trust me, I'm a Hodgkin's Disease
survivor. HD is cancer of the lymphatic system, which means for about
a year and a half my body chemistry was all over the map. It
measurably altered my world view from day to day, changed my opinions
of things (there was a one month period where I stopped liking
*baseball* for *****'s sake! That one really scared my wife) and
caused massive, unpredictable mood swings.
I hadn't changed my behavior one bit, but massive imbalances in my
endorphins changed who I was at a very basic level.
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure the soul suffers when the body can
not function appropriately.
A better way to look at it is to regard emotions as metaphors for the
chemical reactions that cause them.
Sorry, that's not a better way. That's the wrong way.
Why? Once I understand that my fear is partially the result of
adrenaline dumping into my system I can better control it.
I'm sure you can, but I think you should know that is not the cure for
your problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
12 Jul 2005 12:18:13 AM |
|
|
Eric Brze wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:09:53 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:42:14 -0400, Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
We're all the products of chemical reactions. So in that regard, we are
chemical beings. If you want to call us all addicts, so be it.
But you are wrong. We are not chemical beings. We are spiritual
beings. The chemical reactions in our physical body are results of our
spiritual activity.
You've got that *****-backwards. Trust me, I'm a Hodgkin's Disease
survivor. HD is cancer of the lymphatic system, which means for about
a year and a half my body chemistry was all over the map. It
measurably altered my world view from day to day, changed my opinions
of things (there was a one month period where I stopped liking
*baseball* for *****'s sake! That one really scared my wife) and
caused massive, unpredictable mood swings.
I hadn't changed my behavior one bit, but massive imbalances in my
endorphins changed who I was at a very basic level.
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure the soul suffers when the body can
not function appropriately.
A better way to look at it is to regard emotions as metaphors for the
chemical reactions that cause them.
Sorry, that's not a better way. That's the wrong way.
Why? Once I understand that my fear is partially the result of
adrenaline dumping into my system I can better control it.
I'm sure you can, but I think you should know that is not the cure for
your problem.
What if it works?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
13 Jul 2005 12:49:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 05:18:13 GMT, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Eric Brze wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:09:53 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:42:14 -0400, Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
We're all the products of chemical reactions. So in that regard, we are
chemical beings. If you want to call us all addicts, so be it.
But you are wrong. We are not chemical beings. We are spiritual
beings. The chemical reactions in our physical body are results of our
spiritual activity.
You've got that *****-backwards. Trust me, I'm a Hodgkin's Disease
survivor. HD is cancer of the lymphatic system, which means for about
a year and a half my body chemistry was all over the map. It
measurably altered my world view from day to day, changed my opinions
of things (there was a one month period where I stopped liking
*baseball* for *****'s sake! That one really scared my wife) and
caused massive, unpredictable mood swings.
I hadn't changed my behavior one bit, but massive imbalances in my
endorphins changed who I was at a very basic level.
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure the soul suffers when the body can
not function appropriately.
A better way to look at it is to regard emotions as metaphors for the
chemical reactions that cause them.
Sorry, that's not a better way. That's the wrong way.
Why? Once I understand that my fear is partially the result of
adrenaline dumping into my system I can better control it.
I'm sure you can, but I think you should know that is not the cure for
your problem.
What if it works?
Temporarily, maybe. It doesn't solve the problem.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
12 Jul 2005 08:15:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:43:09 -0400, Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:09:53 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
You've got that *****-backwards. Trust me, I'm a Hodgkin's Disease
survivor. HD is cancer of the lymphatic system, which means for about
a year and a half my body chemistry was all over the map. It
measurably altered my world view from day to day, changed my opinions
of things (there was a one month period where I stopped liking
*baseball* for *****'s sake! That one really scared my wife) and
caused massive, unpredictable mood swings.
I hadn't changed my behavior one bit, but massive imbalances in my
endorphins changed who I was at a very basic level.
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure the soul suffers when the body can
not function appropriately.
Dude, it was my body not functioning properly that was causing the
changes. Once the cancer was beaten down, and my medication load
lowered, I returned to being the lovable curmudgeon everyone expects.
Why? Once I understand that my fear is partially the result of
adrenaline dumping into my system I can better control it.
I'm sure you can, but I think you should know that is not the cure for
your problem.
What problem?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION DISPROVED. |
13 Jul 2005 12:54:46 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:15:30 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:43:09 -0400, Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:09:53 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
You've got that *****-backwards. Trust me, I'm a Hodgkin's Disease
survivor. HD is cancer of the lymphatic system, which means for about
a year and a half my body chemistry was all over the map. It
measurably altered my world view from day to day, changed my opinions
of things (there was a one month period where I stopped liking
*baseball* for *****'s sake! That one really scared my wife) and
caused massive, unpredictable mood swings.
I hadn't changed my behavior one bit, but massive imbalances in my
endorphins changed who I was at a very basic level.
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure the soul suffers when the body can
not function appropriately.
Dude, it was my body not functioning properly that was causing the
changes.
I was saying the same thing.
Once the cancer was beaten down, and my medication load
lowered, I returned to being the lovable curmudgeon everyone expects.
Why? Once I understand that my fear is partially the result of
adrenaline dumping into my system I can better control it.
I'm sure you can, but I think you should know that is not the cure for
your problem.
What problem?
The problem that you can not better control your body chemicals.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
