NapoleonGH

Citric acid is by far the more commonly introduced element to aid in any orally consumed drug, especially mushrooms. take a few glasses of orange juice with it and it'll make the effects potentiate faster

biochemistry: you are rather wrong because your thoughts make assumptions. First off we have recorded observations showing that it HAS happened, so clearly it isnt impossible. Secondly, you are assuming that modern protiens form a. by complete random mechanisms and b. that life required the very specific protiens currently used. Niether of these are the case, life could have evolved using any of several other basic protein types it is only accident that the current choice on earth was selected. also certain amino acids (which we have proved experimentally could very easily come into existance based on what chemicals and conditions existed on earth back in the 3-4 million year mark about 50 years ago and ever since) combine naturally in certain ways, same way that chemical bondings dont happen randomly but certain atoms bond naturally to other atoms. The same is the case here.

http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms.shtml all you need to know

no a previous post had stated that the earth is 15 billion years old rather than the correct 4 billion, and that number is derived from quite a few different independant sources, both astronomical and geological, best as i know. That is the mistake i was correcting

i know that is what he says, but i wanted to correct that little mistake anyway and i figured it would be a way of both correcting that little mistake and pissing off a creationist, my two favorite pasttimes

earth IS much younger than 15 billion years though, it is only like 4 billion years old

why not clown? plenty of hypothesis out there for what caused the big bang. where the cosmic egg came from ect, but mind you since there was no such thing as time or space prior to the bigbang it doesnt actually need a cause or anything to happen before it in order for it to have happened.

no cases of weed induced lung cancer have ever been found by an properly conducted studies that I have known. Regardless if it did that would be in extremely heavy, long term prolonged use, and that would be from smoking anyway and there are several other ways of administering weed. Opiates on the other hand according to most studies available cause very little long term damage other than physical addiction. No increased risk of heart disease, cancer, and the like. The bowel problems associated with it are indeed trouble, but they dont qualify as long term problems in that they stop when you stop using or soon after at least. lsd fafalone is right on about flashbacks arent actual problems of the drug, they are just like normal flashbacks to any intense emotional experience, and tend to come from bad trips. its tolerance, Like mushrooms, is short lived and only short term. mushrooms, i disagree about there being a big problem with them being poisonous. If you are picking them out of the wild, then yea, but most that are sold for recreational use are now specifically cultivated under very set conditions, and thus the chances of them being poisonous drops to near nothing. excess just to note would be defined by me in a different way for each drug. With weed id say an ounce a week or more (which is exactly the amount that the UK government report specified as being necessary to cause noticable damage). With opiates id be more inclinded to say anything above sporatic use, say more often than twice a week (mind you people have been smoking opium in good sized quantities up to and beyond three times a day in central asia for centuries and they still have babies and dont die after a single caugh).

ambiogenesis began with self replicating RNA though, but yea it follows the basic idea of dna

as far as i know shrooms are in the category like weed and lsd and opiates of causing no real long term harm to the body except in excess unlike the opiates but just like weed and lsd shrooms are nonaddictive. like weed and lsd there is a very high ld50 (when 50% of lab animals died during testing) so it is hard to OD and kill yourself but if you od you can have a majorly bad trip and go nuts. the biggest danger of shrooms comes in if you try to move/walk around/drive (never drive, only walk with a sober/more sober friend with you)

Bilke: first off we have observed it, to the extent that we have observed napoleon winning waterloo. in otherwords, we have seen such a plethora of evidence demonstrating that we share a common ancestor with chimps and that goes back and back through the fossile record and genetics etc that it would be silly to think it hadn't happen, that is a scientific fact, as much as as gravity it doesnt only give statistical bits aobut ambiogenesis, it also shows the steps it takes, its not "protien magically bacterium" as you suggested. some of your comments followed typical creationist pseudoscientific arguments, hence my statement

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. and NO. Evolution is an observed fact, we have observed speciation, we have bred for specific traits etc, darwinian evolution is quite real and an observed fact. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html (i suggest looking up Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Evolution as fact and theory" in its entirety, only a tiny bit is included here. Here are some obseved instances of speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html what is a theory is the theory of natural selection. Common decent is as true as gravity About ambiogenesis et al http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html this should clear up the creationistic pseudoscience you are spreading

Bilke, no. Observations are "facts" theories are what explain the obersved facts. Hence evolution being a fact and a theory. Ambiogenesis, protiens were syntehsised in 1954 based on stuff that was present on earth back in the day, and single cells need not arrise like magic, there is a well thought out progression between cells and protiens about 15 steps i think. Big Bang: As i said an observed phenomina like the existance of a force pulling us to the earth. Where it all came from, the cosmic egg, which has been hypothesised to be a giant singularity, or a collapsed previous universe, but it doesnt need to come from anywhere, because it existed outside of the universe before time existed, hence the rules applying to the cosmic egg dont need to include law of conservation of mass energy.

it is but in our analogy that would be the big bang, and only the big bang, as such wouldng apply today

no it isnt, if you throw a ball in the air, it has instantaneous acceleration, the minute it is released it is accelerating towards the ground at a constant rate

what do you mean "modern science has yet to come up with a suitable answer to our origins"? Evolution and the concept therein is one of the most well supported theories and most commonly observed facts out of all of science. The Big Bang likewise isn't a theory it is an observed fact (its effects are at least). and Occams Razor would support quantum mechanics because as i already said it only deals with 2 theories that have the SAME PREDICTIONS. Hence it would be between Quantum mechanics and another theory that proposes the exact same results in all cases under all circumstances which includes greater complexity

valid point there. we got bacteria from about 3.5million years ago (i think) in earth based fossiles too, and before someone says it, yes we do know they COULD be of terrestrial evolution, there has been a workable theory of ambiogenesis for quite a while.

i dont think i do, at least i dont have easy access, but if posting such a large thing would take up too much room please email it to me.

k, thanks for giving me info

im quite sure that we found recently something that indicated that the universe's expansion is accelerating

name them, because i can bet that it hasnt if you look at the big picutre

simple it isnt that they are having a continual velocity, they have ever increasing velocity an acceleration, that is NOT something that would be caused by a singular explosion

The reason why there was not a big crunch is 2 fold, 1 is the already stated one, and the other is that there is some force counter acting gravity, all the galaxies are accelerating away from each other meaning that there is a force pushing on them

Entropy does rule in the universe as a whole (the closed system) entropy is increasing constantly, stars die matter is converted to energy big bangs happen, etc. Chaos does rule all (look at heisenberg everything is chaos) within the open system of earth and the open system of life order can be formed at the cost of increasing the entropy of the surroundings, that is how all order forms, stars form by increasing the chaos of their surroundings. that is the way 2nd law of thermodynamics works

too bad that that is an illogical view. There is a philosphical concept that is the corner stone for almost all modern thought, that is applied to engineering, all forms of theoretical sciences, mathematics, and well everything. It is the concept of "Occams Razor" Which states that when you have two theories that predict the same results and are in all ways equal but 1 theory is more complex than the other (ie it encorporates redundancy think math you could have 1 + 1 -4 + 4 = 2 or you could have 1 + 1 = 2 the first includes redundnacy which should be removed) the less complex theory should be chosen because it does not encorporate the redundancy that the more complex theory does. Under these results, your beliefs are illogical as God is a redundant concept and thus logically must be removed from the concepet