|
KAG (f)
|
Response to Drusilla Yes, science is generally "flexible" and attempts to avoid dogmatism as much as possible; however, that is not to say that the findings of today, especially at the most basic levels (e.g. change is allele frequencies of a population is observed to occur and can cause wholesale changes), are wrong. Furthermore, usually, the findings of science today are usually more "right" than the previous views - including dogmatic religious views. Again, Science has nothing to do with Religious or Faith views. Whether dogmatic or liberal. It has limited itself to that which is measurable. I don't think you understood what I meant (Or maybe I have misunderstood your response) While scince tries not be dogmatic and reliant on "faith" it can comment on religious and faith based claims provided those religious views are making claims that deal with the natural and often testable world. For example, the religious belief that the Earth comprised of a disk atop the back of elephants can and was dispelled by science. Faith and religion on the other hand does pertain to science and can comment on it, because it does not limit itself to only measurable findings. Science, however, doesn't have to take it seriously and can dismiss the religious and faith based claims when evidence has shown them to be wrong. Beautiful. I was just making a similar point to KAG.
Evolution can 'both' match some parts of the bible 'and' not match others at the same time. Of course. Most things in the world, with selective reading, can match the words from many large books. Nobody need think that this interfere's with their faith in a literal reading of the bible. And the many other ways that the bible forces us to read it (Spiritual, Natural, specific and general, mythical, allegorical, etc, etc.) I disagree. A literal reading of many parts of the Bible completely contradict what has been found in reality. That is not to say, though, that one cann't be a Christian and accept science theories like evolution, germ theory, etc, just that a literal reading prevents that. I think destroyng Christanity was the last thing on Darwins mind, I think that in general there was a great need to answer the question: "Are whites evil for what they have done to Black people?" I don't know where you got that version from, but yeas, Darwin was a Christian when he penned the [i]Origin of Species[i] but it had nothing to do with answering the question of ""Are whites evil for what they have done to Black people?", nor is there any reason to thin it did. |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
Religion will always be a superior argument. Religion isn't a superior argument, it's limiting and often seeks to avoid answers. For instance, to paraphrase an old illustration, when faced with deciphering a rainbow, simply answering that a rainbow is nothing more than a sign put up by God doesn't actually tell you anything. Sure, you could argue that a rainbow was put there to remind Noah about floods, but the questions, "what is a rainbow?" and "how does it come into existence?" will remain unanswered until science is used. |
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
Kag,
Science loses any time it leaves its boundaries of answering: "What?"
Religion answers the questions human ask: "Why?"
Humans know what they feel in their souls.
And they should be thankful for the beauty and majesty God has put in this world in nature. It is a witness of God. You a liar from the pits of hell, if you say you never met nothing in nature that makes you say Wow!
Science is great, answering what. I love that National Geographic. And Discovery channel. Good for all of us.
Yet it can never answer why.
The Bible does that. Religion does that. God does that into each human soul.
Science messed up when it tried to say the what, meant the why, thus we can do without some of the people in the world, the lessers.
And I am fully aware of the fact that those scientists weren't your cousin. As all evolutionists now try to claim. Those scientists though were Darwins Son, Cousin and Grandfather.
Do I want my I pod and cell phone along with Nuclear Bombs, Biological Weapons, Superbugs, selling human organs?
Science ain't proved itself to be a real winner with me yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
I just was reading the other day about Nigeria having one of the lowest incidences of mental illness. I wonder when they will get to the level of 46 percent like in America, from one day having totally adopted this civilization that their told having an Ipod makes it all worth it.
I wonder when Nigeria will be like most all European civilizations (even in Asia) that can not reproduce themselves(have enough babies), cause everybody is waiting to have kids until they have gotten done with playing with their Ipod.
We going to run off that cliff with them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
Kag,
Science loses any time it leaves its boundaries of answering: "What?"
Religion answers the questions human ask: "Why?" Depends on how the question is framed, no? For instance, why are bodies attracted to each other? The theory of relativity - science theory - deals with that. I don't see how religion can answer that question except with something spurious. Humans know what they feel in their souls. What do humans feel in their souls? What is the soul? And they should be thankful for the beauty and majesty God has put in this world in nature. It is a witness of God. You a liar from the pits of hell, if you say you never met nothing in nature that makes you say Wow! Oh, I've definitely been enthralled by many things in the world, except I don't see any reason to attribute it to any Gods. Aesthetics can easily be explained naturally. Science is great, answering what. I love that National Geographic. And Discovery channel. Good for all of us.
Yet it can never answer why. I'm pretty sure science can provide plausible responses to "why?" questions. The Bible does that. Religion does that. God does that into each human soul. What "why" questions does the Bible answer? If any, are they any more acceptable than the answers that other religious texts may possibly give? How do we verify the answers are right? Also, does simply making up a response to sate human curiousity count as a worthy answer? Science messed up when it tried to say the what, meant the why, thus we can do without some of the people in the world, the lessers.
And I am fully aware of the fact that those scientists weren't your cousin. As all evolutionists now try to claim. Those scientists though were Darwins Son, Cousin and Grandfather. What? I didn't get that.
Do I want my I pod and cell phone along with Nuclear Bombs, Biological Weapons, Superbugs, selling human organs?
Science ain't proved itself to be a real winner with me yet.
Don't forget that scientists have also devised measures against polio, heart attacks, tuberculosis, and other terrible ailments. Just saying. |
|
|
|
|
|
NINETOFIVE (m)
|
I have been trying to go through this discussion for some time now and I must admit that the gist from nferyn , 925 , Druissila and co have been revealing. Kudos to You guys.
Thanks Uche2nna for the compliment, Kudos to you too bro. |
|
|
|
|
|
NINETOFIVE (m)
|
Nferyn, Mutation is an unguided, undirected process. Environmental conditions (such as an increased exposure to cosmic rays because of magnetic pole switches) do have an effect on the number of mutations, but not on the direction they take.
What are you talking about, are you just interested in saying things that are not applicable just because some popular evolutionist said it?,
So are you claiming that mutations are directional?
The answer is a capital YES that's proved, don't bother rephrasing the question, cause that is your stock in trade]
this a shackle you would need to loose, of course the swapping [ I use the word swapping because I know the case of reversal of the magnetic poles is as questionable as the evolution theory] of the magnetic poles directs mutation,
How does it direct mutation? In what direction and by which mechanisms? Please substantiate your claims.
Nfferyn quit being childish, how low can you go, this question has been dealt with, all you do is read up the evolution gibberish, but anything that is got to do with reasoning is kind of mountainous to you, put on a spontaneous thinking hat
What are you talking about, are you just interested in saying things that are not applicable just because some popular evolutionist said it?, this a shackle you would need to loose, of course the swapping [ I use the word swapping because I know the case of reversal of the magnetic poles is as questionable as the evolution theory] of the magnetic poles directs mutation, if the magnetic pole swaps and your geographical location falls on the temperate region the kind of mutation required in those kind of region would start taking place, if it falls in the warmer part, that becomes the tropics, and eventually the kind mutation required in those kind of places would start taking place, and if your geographical location falls in the polar region, then your part of the world faces ice age, lets forget those childish principles of evolution, desuetude our selves of folk tales and look at the logic's that works.
Do you understand all what i copied from my previous post in red above?, smarten up, smarten up.
if the magnetic pole swaps and your geographical location falls on the temperate region the kind of mutation required in those kind of region would start taking place, if it falls in the warmer part, that becomes the tropics, and eventually the kind mutation required in those kind of places would start taking place, and if your geographical location falls in the polar region, then your part of the world faces ice age, lets forget those childish principles of evolution, desuetude our selves of folk tales and look at the logic's that works.
So what you're saying is that mutations that have phenotypical effects are only caused by magnetic pole reversals? Genetical evidence tells a different story
quit trying to be smart with me , you can not out smart me in a million years, now this was your question below;
Nferyn's question
Now, in the case of human evolution, the effect of magnetic pole switches is minimal, as it happened long before homo sapiens entered the stage and thus cannot have had any effect at all (see: [url]http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/reversals_e.php [/b])
NINETOFIVE'S Answer
You can not quantify the effect [swapping of the magnetic pole which equally effects the geographical poles], because it is the process that starts it, and I would prefer not to use the word evolution, cause if you subtract macro evolution from evolution, there is no evolution, then we would be searching for a new word.
now is there any where I said that mutations that have phenotypical effects are only caused by magnetic pole reversals, nferyn if you like talk up and talk down, without the weather there wont be any mutation at all including the selective pressure you are almighty fond of saying, to an indolent person the swapping of the magnetic poles is not important in the weather mechanism but is apparently affecting the whole earth weather today, how ironic
When there is an increased mutation rate, the speed of evolution can increase, also because the events that cause a higher rate of mutation can also cause a higher level of selective pressure because of a changing environment.
Nferyn this is very daft, for example in the UK today, the average White British men and the women don't marry each other today, the most they could do is stay as partners, If you see a British white guy that is married, if you investigate him, you will see that he is married to Either Eastern European woman, A Filipino or a Black woman, now can you attribute this kind of selective pressure to environment?, Did I say such a thing?
then what are you saying?.
no , this is pretty much social, they are going for those women because they are more subservient than the average western women, and if you watch the British media today you would see that this condition is making White British women more racist towards the foreign women,
And it's still a minority that looks outside of their 'race' regardless of how you look at it. Anyway, it has nothing to do with mutation rates or selective pressure.
since when does foreign women mean only women of other race.
Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology. The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in his groundbreaking 1859 book The Origin of Species[1] in which natural selection was described by analogy to artificial selection, a process by which individuals with traits considered desirable by human breeders are systematically favored for reproduction. if Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common, then how do you go about proving that mutation has no aim according to evolutionist, you must agree that this are people dealing with a subject they don't have a full grasp of.
It's rather that you don't fully grasp evolutionary processes, mutation provides the variability from which natural selection selects. Traits are a result of mutation, the traits that are providing a reproductive benefit are selected precisely because of the differential reproductive success of the organisms.
I guess the Europeans are yet to benefit from this process.
Skin, hair and eye colour are controlled by only a few genes and thus a few simple mutations can have a significant impact, especially because the environment subjects human populations to an intense selective pressure. Populations can gain or lose colouration very quickly
I want you to answer this honestly,
1, Do you know that climate change would alter the skin colour of the Europeans in the nearest future?
2, would it be right to attribute this changes to selective pressure?,
Forget about UFO stories and be honest here.
1. The change of skin colour would rather be because of recombination than through evolution, as it takes too long for evolution to have a significant effect. There's not going to be a significant effect of selection in the next decades, but immigration of darker people from Asia and Africa will have an effect.
''nearest future'' is not quantifiable nearest future could mean 10,000 years, now I would rephrase the question in a fraud proof manner.
1, Do you think [apparently you don't know] that climate change would alter the skin colour of the Europeans in the future?
2, would it be right to attribute this changes to selective pressure?,
Forget about UFO stories and be honest here.
I was only pulling your legs, but the natural selection issue is a pure bull crap, first of all natural selection can be described as a natural process that results in the survival of individuals or groups best adjusted to the conditions under which they live and that is equally important for the perpetuation of desirable genetic qualities and for the elimination of undesirable ones as these are produced by recombination or mutation of genes, look at it this way, people never get adapted to any whether [After many thousands of years a European that lives in the arctic all his life needs the same amount of heart to keep warm, as an African that lives all his life in hottest part of the tropics] while at the same time every body adapts to every whether, or how else can we explain the fact that an African can survive in Europe effortlessly and Equally European can survive in Africa.
1. It's not because members of populations can survive in specific climates that they are ideally suited to do so. Since we humans have gained culture and the mental traits to change their environment (either through clothing or through housing) to allow them to live in environments they naturally couldn't live in. For example the spread of agriculture in the northern parts of Europe only started with the spread of iron working from Africa as heavy strong ploughs and cattle power were necessary to tilt the clay soil of the region that was created by the retracting glaciers from the ice ages. The fact that people can create clothes to keep warm is still are way of surviving, and it still proves that nobody can adapt to any whether, or else Europeans would have been walking about in the winter without wearing winter jacket, is it not ironic that an Africa equally needs the same winter coat in European winter, what that is actually responsible for the narrow nose and tiny lips is excessive wind, which equally shrinks the bones. The narrow nose is probably caused by the need to warm up the air before it reaches the lungs. This way you have less of a thermic shock in cold weather
How does this negate my view?.
Broad or thin lips are most likely a result of sexual selection.
leave out all this gibberish, the same process that stream lined the Caucasian nose is the same process that causes tinny lips, take an African nose, hold it up in the shape of the European nose, the lips goes inside automatically [try the experiment if you can], here is concrete prove of my wind theory; all the African countries that are closer to the Sahara desert which we all know the excessive strenght of the wind there, all have tiny straight nose no matter how dark they are, including the northern part of Nigeria, the Igbos are by far fairer than people from sokoto state who are on the contrary as dark as charcoal but have straight nose, nferyn you are so divorced from reality
2. Adaptations in human populations till play out over geological time scales, no individual is going to change into another species
believe me human can not change into another specie in 800 Zillion years.
I don't believe you. As we have evolved from other species we will evolve in another specie as well (if we don't get extinct before that happens)
The fossils of crocodile shows they 've not evolved in 70,000,000 years, this evolution you are talking about must be quite customized and might only happen to Nferyn.
Quote from: NINETOFIVE on June 09, 2007, 11:31 PM
remember, that though modern scientists does not favor this any more but the expression survival of the fittest was used to describe this process in the nineteenth century, which is very convenient to say that the Anglo Americans annihilation of the red Indians was also a process of evolution, now keep proving to me that evolution is not just a principle created to legitimize the dog eat dog nature of capitalism Quote This just doesn't apply. It's a misappropriation of scientific terminology to fit socio-political goals. It's a bit similar to the abuse of quantum theory nowadays. Nferyn my friend, I don't expect you not to have anything to say , blah blah blah. Is that your reply?
sure thing.
Blonde hair is just recessive and will only express itself if all alleles responsible for blonde hair are turned on. There is also only selective pressure for blonde hair where it is beneficial and that is in the high north of Europe.
Nferyn stop sounding funny, what are the benefits of blond hair in the northern Europe, use your number six, blond hair was prevalent in the northern Europe because of the arctic weather that created it, now this whether is receding and so is the blond hair No, it is going extinct because it is a recessive trait and intermarriage with people of darker hair causes it to disappear, the change in weather is too recent to have had any significant effect.
Nferyn you are so naive if you are saying that the change in weather is just recently, they 've been experiencing the effect of climate change in India for a a very long time before the effect is felt in Europe, why do you think the Indus has problems accepting whom they are by presenting the few remaining fair skin people they have left in Indian bolly wood, because the Indus diversity is a product of the on going climate change, forget about the staged world racial history [if you are smart enough], is very clear the southern Indians and the northern Indians are the same people, the same facial signature, the same features etc, India is only tanning out from south to north because of climate change, the climate change has started before the Europeans set their foot in Africa.
Research has recently proved that the weather of YORKSHIRE in Britain 10,000 years ago was like that of the northern Canada, which proves that the north pole is a lot lesser than 10,000 years old, could be approximately [7,000 years] answering the question why the Eskimos, the Chukchi's are darker than the Europeans [who are lighter because of ''double effect'' as per time ratio, ie the effect of the previous ice age in Europe which swapped to the current poles, which equally affects Europe, and at an equal rate proving my case of swapping of the magnetic pole over the reversal theory], because it takes approximately 10,000 years for a dark person to completely bleach out because of the effect of cooler weather, while on the contrary lighter skin people tans out quickly in a warmer whether, southern Indians and Australian aborigine are living proves because they still retain a lot of their Caucasoid features while the skin has tanned out, the same YORKSHIRE has been proved by researches to have had the exactley same weather as sub saharan Africa today 120,000 years ago, there are findings that the weather of the place has swapped many times in that manner, this finding equally answers the question why pollar bear are slightly dark when shaved .
1. mutation doesn't depend on the weather at all. The only weather phenomenon that could be considered is excessive exposure to sunlight for people without sufficient melanin. This does cause mutation and mostly only to non-germ cells, resulting in cancer, it doesn't get transmitted to the next generation
by your answer it means that the case of cancer might be more prevalent in Europe this days because of the intensity of the sun which is extra ordinarily high particularly in the northern hemisphere [by the way researches has proved that the intensity of the sun this days is even higher in Europe than the tropical zones], a reason why the evolutionist are intensively sucking up, which even led to the annulment of race to encourage Europeans to mix with darker people in the quest for melanin, thanks for exposing the mind set of evolutionist, thank you thank you, you sure have every thing taken care of, vuiy ochen predusmatriytylno
2.weather depends on the ice age?
ice age effects the distribution of weather around the world.
3. why can weather dependent mutation not cause speciation?
The most extreme level of mutation in human as far as phenotypes are concern is the blond hair Caucasian and Ironically the magnetic poles is already swapping and altering the weather of the northern hemisphere which was responsible for such mutation, just like it swapped when the Australian aborigines ware at the same stage the Scandinavian are currently experiencing, proving it twice that this is only how far mutation can go because of whether mechanism and its circle which mutation depends on.
4. Again, what mechanism prevents micro-evolution to lead to speciation and thus macro-evolution? You still haven't answered the question.
all your questions has been answered, I can't get into your skull to make you understand . |
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
Don't forget that scientists have also devised measures against polio, heart attacks, tuberculosis, and other terrible ailments. Just saying.
Kag, Like the polio vaccine trial that gave us AIDS. Heart attacks are known as a disease of the wealthy. Tuberculosis is not under control anywhere except wealthy countries. Fixing problems for the rich and harming the poor to test out their theories hardly makes science man's best friend. |
|
|
|
|
|
Donzman (m)
|
How did all these DISEASES come about anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
Polio and Tuburcolosis on such a wide scale are attributed to industrialization.
When workers were brought to live together in overcrowded cities, many diseases can use these overcrowded, unsanitary conditions in populations to explode on.
Heart Attack -- comes from eating to much red meat, saturated fats, etc. It is a disease that is listed as a "rich man's" disease.
Thus heart attacks are the number 1 killer in America, and other wealthy places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
Oh.
AIDS came from a polio vaccine trial .
In the 1950's and 1960's, over 1 million people in the Congo were used as guinea pigs by white scientists to try out their polio vaccine.
The Congo was still colonized at the time.
White people gave African AIDS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
And for the investigative among Nigerians.
The book is titled "The River".
Written by Ed Hooper. I Think.
It tells the story of how AIDS got to Africa.
Written by 4 white boys from Britain. if I remember correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
Kag,
Like the polio vaccine trial that gave us AIDS. Allegations do not negate the near eradication of poilo. Heart attacks are known as a disease of the wealthy. Unfortunately, they are also prevalent amongst the poor and middle-class. Tuberculosis is not under control anywhere except wealthy countries. However, with each passing year the rate of tuberculosis in most in the world gets reduced. Fixing problems for the rich and harming the poor to test out their theories hardly makes science man's best friend. However, fixing ailments that affect humans, regardless of status, makes science a worthy cause. |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
How did all these DISEASES come about anyway?
Polio and Tuburcolosis on such a wide scale are attributed to industrialization.
When workers were brought to live together in overcrowded cities, many diseases can use these overcrowded, unsanitary conditions in populations to explode on. While I had an idea of what cause(s)(d) polio, I didn't about tuberculosis. According to wiki, although like most diseases it's caused by bacteria, it's origin is uncertain ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis#History). Heart Attack -- comes from eating to much red meat, saturated fats, etc. It is a disease that is listed as a "rich man's" disease.
Thus heart attacks are the number 1 killer in America, and other wealthy places.
You'D be surprsied at the number of relatively poor people that are slain by heart attacks. Oh.
AIDS came from a polio vaccine trial .
In the 1950's and 1960's, over 1 million people in the Congo were used as guinea pigs by white scientists to try out their polio vaccine.
The Congo was still colonized at the time.
White people gave African AIDS.
While, that hypothesis sounds interesting, it doesn't seem to explain SIV (simian version of AIDS) which most likely caused AIDS. |
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
While, that hypothesis sounds interesting, it doesn't seem to explain SIV (simian version of AIDS) which most likely caused AIDS.
Kag, Actually it is explained somewhere. The polio vaccine scientists who were conducting the experiments with monkeys, in the congo. Kept monkeys with SIV naturally in their populations and allowed them to mate with all kinds of monkeys. The SIV began to morph - evolve-- (as you know HIV is quick to do even now) as it was spread around the various monkeys who were being caged as part of the polio trial vaccine. These morphed SIV diseases were shot into the Congolese people. One of them caught on and morphed successfully with some of the Congolese. They took SIV and made it into HIV. |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
Kag,
Actually it is explained somewhere. The polio vaccine scientists who were conducting the experiments with monkeys, in the congo.
Kept monkeys with SIV naturally in their populations and allowed them to mate with all kinds of monkeys.
The SIV began to morph - evolve-- (as you know HIV is quick to do even now) as it was spread around the various monkeys who were being caged as part of the polio trial vaccine.
These morphed SIV diseases were shot into the Congolese people. One of them caught on and morphed successfully with some of the Congolese.
They took SIV and made it into HIV.
Hmm, I thought the AIDS virus was caused when "over 1 million people in the Congo were used as guinea pigs by white scientists to try out their polio vaccine"? Second, do you have evidence? Not conjecture, but evidence. What you've described above doesn't sound like a medical trial run or the practice of doctors; it reads more like the actions of the archetypal mad scientist. Finally, would you be willing to accept scientific evidence that counteracts any claims that attempts to tie polio, foul play and monkeys with AIDS? |
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
Finally, would you be willing to accept scientific evidence that counteracts any claims that attempts to tie polio, foul play and monkeys with AIDS?
Kag, The original polio vaccine drug they were trying out that was used? The American company that had samples of this refused for a decade, to release the originals. Then they claimed they lost them. So to answer your question. Ahh. Scientists for 10 years who refused to turn over the originals, then claimed to have lost them. No, what they say can not convince me of anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
Kag,
The original polio vaccine drug they were trying out that was used?
The American company that had samples of this refused for a decade, to release the originals.
Then they claimed they lost them.
So to answer your question.
Ahh. Scientists for 10 years who refused to turn over the originals, then claimed to have lost them.
Do you have evidence? Not conjecture; evidence. No, what they say can not convince me of anything. That's an interesting state of mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
Do you have evidence? Not conjecture; evidence. The new evidence will put more pressure on the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, which conducted the trials in Africa under the auspices of Hilary Koprowski, to release its stocks of polio vaccine which date back to the late 1950s. http://www.aegis.com/news/misc/1999/ID990801.htmlI think it is well documented that apparently Wistar whoever would not release the originals. That's an interesting state of mind.
We could have cleared it right up. The company chose not to and then ran some sham testing on not the originals. Fine, you believe those type of shenanigans if you want. African Americans know better. Everybody at that company would have came up a suicide victim before the company would have turned itself over to possibly being sued for giving out AIDS to all those Africans. Ain't nothing more to say. The originals are gone. Nothing more to test. Now only rhetoric. And I ain't open minded about that. |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
The new evidence will put more pressure on the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, which conducted the trials in Africa under the auspices of Hilary Koprowski, to release its stocks of polio vaccine which date back to the late 1950s. http://www.aegis.com/news/misc/1999/ID990801.html I think it is well documented that apparently Wistar whoever would not release the originals. We could have cleared it right up. The company chose not to and then ran some sham testing on not the originals. Fine, you believe those type of shenanigans if you want. Perhaps there's some truth to the fact that the "originals" no longer existed at the time of the controversy, but surely, they can't be faulted for providing the similar vaccines for testing. In any case, scientific studies into the claims have ruled out the likelihood that HIV was caused by polio vaccinations. Example: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/Worobey04.pdf (warning! PDF file). African Americans know better. Everybody at that company would have came up a suicide victim before the company would have turned itself over to possibly being sued for giving out AIDS to all those Africans. Why would African Americans know better? Ain't nothing more to say. The originals are gone. Nothing more to test. Now only rhetoric. And I ain't open minded about that.
Actually, there's plenty that can and have been tested without testing the vaccines. The evidence, including study of genetic and molecular structures of the virus and both apes invloved, points away from the idea that HIV was caused by polio vaccinations. |
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
Kag,
Well, Anyways.
Let me tell you what touched me about what Ed Hooper said. The author of the book "the River".
He said he was invited to America, to discuss his theory, supposedly, and that it stunned him to hear American scientists at a round table discussion, completely dismiss his book without looking at the evidence and then go on to discuss Africans having sex with green monkeys.
He describes it as kind of an shocking eye-opening moment for him.
He had never seen scientists who would rather discuss cartoonish sex with green monkey theory's, rather than well laid out scientific arguments.
I just chuckled when I read that. He found out what any AA could have told him.
There is no way on God's green earth, that those scientists were even going to allow anything which might support the Afrocentric claim that "whites gave Africa AIDS" to get any discussion time.
They would rather think that Africans have sex with little green monkeys than do that. He was only invited as a political ploy. They did not need to actually discuss his theory. All they needed was for him to be there, so they could announce to the world that his theory was part of the discussion but had been dismissed by scientists as not credible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
Kag,
Well, Anyways.
Let me tell you what touched me about what Ed Hooper said. The author of the book "the River".
He said he was invited to America, to discuss his theory, supposedly, and that it stunned him to hear American scientists at a round table discussion, completely dismiss his book without looking at the evidence and then go on to discuss Africans having sex with green monkeys.
He describes it as kind of an shocking eye-opening moment for him.
He had never seen scientists who would rather discuss cartoonish sex with green monkey theory's, rather than well laid out scientific arguments.
I just chuckled when I read that. Anecdotes and conjcture do not count as evidence. Irrespetive of what Hooper may claim, the evidence in this instance points away from his assertions. He found out what any AA could have told him.
There is no way on God's green earth, that those scientists were even going to allow anything which might support the Afrocentric claim that "whites gave Africa AIDS" to get any discussion time.
They would rather think that Africans have sex with little green monkeys than do that. He was only invited as a political ploy. They did not need to actually discuss his theory. All they needed was for him to be there, so they could announce to the world that his theory was part of the discussion but had been dismissed by scientists as not credible.
Really? Is that what African Amricans could have told him? First, while it isn't beyond belief that "White" people could infest Africa with disease, the evidnce doesn't support that belief in this instance. Anythig else misses that valid point. Evidence trumps conjecture. Second, while it isn't impossuble that some may have claimed sex with a monkey may have passed AIDS on, the general consensus point out a more likely scenario: an injury getting infected. Finally, his "theory" was taken seriously and investigated. That he and his supporters have refused to acept the findings and have resorted to inane accusations does littel to change the finindings on this matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
Drusilla (f)
|
First, while it isn't beyond belief that "White" people could infest Africa with disease, the evidnce doesn't support that belief in this instance. Anythig else misses that valid point. Evidence trumps conjecture. Kag, In this case, destroying evidence, dissapearing the evidence has led to now pure conjecture on the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
Kag,
In this case, destroying evidence, There's no evidence that evidence was destroyed by any party. dissapearing the evidence has led to now pure conjecture on the subject.
There's also no evience that any evidence was disappeared. The claims started with conjecture and have continued with conjecture even in the face of findings that have falsified the claims made. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sista (f)
|
Whites did put aids in South Africa. Ask yourself this question, Why did Aids suddenly appear in Africa during a time when it looked like South Africans just might have their way? Their way meaning, getting whites out of South Africa. Next thing you know, Aids is in South Africa and now whites get to stay in South Africa because ironically they (Whites) are the only ones who have the (aid) that can so call help those monkey ape like people the Greeks refer to as Afreekans, who are now infested with aids. Here is another question, why weren't there any early reports of white people in that region with the aids virus when aids first hit the seen? What, white people don't screw green Monkeys  |
|
|
|
|
|
عبدالكريم (m)
|
they share ancestors somewhere down the blood line (Roots) and that means that we are all a family would not the same apply to non-blacks too? |
|
|
|
|
|
JustGood (m)
|
I don't believe it. It's just more convenient to state that all black people descended from Africa. Anyway it has become irrelevant in contempiorary world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Poll
Author
