And it came to my mind, that if a virus isn't alive to begin with, (which I already knew from college biology class) then is it really "dead" when we use it for other things, like arousing our immune systems?

Can it reactivate even though it appears to be non-contagious?

Can parts of a virus affect living cells even though it cannot actually replicate?

how can we be sure that it is unable to do any other kind of damage -- being "damaged" itself?

If our immune systems work by learning to "tag" the virus to get rid of it, does this mean it is really understanding this virus threat or is it just "understanding" a piece of a virus, and maybe it is not always recognizing the most important piece of the viral object?

If we can't really understand virus's very well, then can we really know the risks involved in injecting pieces of RNA into our systems?

So I am wondering; can the mitochondria inside our cells (the bacteria already inside our cells that help us in a number of ways) get "sick" with a viral infection, too? But in a different way than our cells do?

Herbal drugs aren't all "rip-offs." You are right, drugs often are made from herbal ingredients or synthesized from analysis of an herbal remedy. In that sense, it is the DRUG that is the so-called "rip-off" of the herbal remedy, then. Aspirin was developed from White Willow Bark. The active ingredient in BOTH is the same. The herbal is milder and less likely to cause side-effects, and might be less likely to be overdosed on or misused

People who use every last scientific study, no matter how dubiously undertaken, to substitute for their own common sense get muddled results, also

considering science can become corrupted by both politics AND religion....

If you take a non-living packet of information coated in protein, and it is the same kind of object that the nucleus of our cells is made of, how does this affect us when we use it on massive amounts of people? Are we changing our genetic code?

The way we use vaccines now can be improved on...//

Defining viruses as life changes the amount of biomass in the world. Include viruses and the biomass is tremendously larger and more ubiquitous.

The Canadian government, and more specifically the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia, have suspended the 'normal' seasonal flu shots for anyone under 65 in response to this study.

We don't know what happens when the immune system is busy attacking more than one virus. It is possible that by needing to attack more than one pathogen, this leaves the immune cells themselves at risk of infection and weakening,

Just curious, why do you think I would personally artificially inflate the amount of Autism out there? I haven't quoted any numbers.

and cocaine used to be added to Coca-Cola instead of caffeine as a stimulant.

That had Bromide in it. Which was quietly removed and replaced with acetaminophen when bromine was found to be very toxic. It is now used as a flame-retardent, a gasoline additive, for fumigation, as a pesticide, (and you can find it in brominated vegetable oil used as an emulsifier, bromated bread products, some toothpastes, and in Mountain Dew, still.) Doctors used to prescribe this toxin as a sedative, and to reduce a woman's sex drive. Lately, bromine has been implicated in thyroid disorders, and it has been banned from bread the UK

the vaccine scar on my mothers arm is the size of a Toonie, mine is the size of a dime... permanent scars at the point of entry, think about that... a small needle leaving such a horrid obvious permanent scar on the skin, the toxins were that damaging,

imagine what it did once inside the blood stream

Autism is diagnosed

as part of a "spectrum" that includes ADD, some traits of OCD, Asperger's Syndrome, High Functioning Autism, and a type of Schizophrenia

Clearly the Southern Ocean was not interacting with Antartica as it is now otherwise it would be "completely covered" as it is today

Clearly the Southern Ocean is capable of influencing the climate of Antartica and it is not impossible for Antartic to have been more temperate than it is today.

This suggests the ice record goes back to 400 000 years . Not even half a million years

However Ocean currents may have made it relatively moderate and not quite the refrigerator you describe.
I can not think of an analogy since the Artic Ocean is virtually landlocked and not surrounded in entirity by an ocean which could have been more mild than present effectively keeping the Antartic above freezing.

In the Artic there are no mountain ranges which are at right angles to weather systems
Kamchatka and Alaska are not similar as Kamchatka interupts westward winds blowing of Asia and both are two far south to be anolougous to West Antaric Range or Trans Antartic Range. The Aleutian Chain of Volcanoes is obviously parallel to prevailing winds.

So I remain totally unconvinced about your NPHIA stance. (No ProtoHominids In Antarica)

Clearly any evidence there might be will have been destroyed by any glaciation.

Someone may find an exposed cave in which there are Australopithicus/Neanderthal type bones alongside lemurs , mammoths sloths and above them on the cave roof pictures of hunting scenes including hunting of sealife from boats.

When Magellan arrived at Cape Horn were there not indigenous tribes who were hunter gatherers who used the seas and forests surounding ghe seas

Were there not Inuits above the Artic Circle in Canada before the Europeans arrived and inhabit land and ice from Greenland to Eastern Russia.

Are there not Yenets and Nenets tribes living in central Siberia which has temperatures as low as -71 C during winter?

Are there not Lapps well above the Artic Circle

who speak Sami unrelated to Swedish

Clearly all these people have thrived for thousands of years in extreme conditions so I can not understand your disbelief that a protohominid could have survived and evolved on a warmer than today Antartica coastline with temperatures c +5C in winter

PS I have checked my chart produced by BBC /Sir David Attenborough and OU team.
RING TAILED LEMUR lemur is clearly spelt RING TAILED LEMUR and not GIBBON as you curiously suggest

I have checked other branches of the primate "tree" and can find no branch with "Homo ballatro" either but I can assure you they exist.

but I do not understand why A. K. is dismissed as an ancestor. Both are in different time periods, and why does the evolution of A. Ramidus, dismiss A. Kadabba? Especially since it has been alluded to, before, (as an ancestor). I cannot seem to find enough research on A. Kadabba, other than the examination of teeth and and bits and pieces. Trying to find this information without the internet...has been nearly impossible.

Has anyone considered the 'aquatic ape' hypothesis? Doesn't it seem likely that an intermediate form that was bipedal but contains no evidence of knuckle walking strengthens the argument for an ancestor that reverted to the oceans, or at any rate spent a large period of time swimming?

The hip and wrist structure can be explained very well by a creature which at some time in its development lived in forests and/or the water.

To include ground walking as well introduces complications and requires special explanations which violate Occam's razor.

Conversely, take a creature of this sort (bipedal, able to climb) and put them in a savannah afterwards and they have immediate advantages over an organism transitioning directly from tree dwelling to the ground - and might thus dominate as a result.

Where is the Bible pushing here? In order for your "bait and switch" accusation to be true the luminaries would have to be pushing the Bible or some other scriptural dogma after people accept the "bait."

Who is doing this? Is Dembski, Behe and Meyer arguing this way? How about Mike Gene? Hell, offer up anyone at the Discovery Institute. I'm not a creationist, I follow this movement closely and I don't see what you're claiming. If they were I'd be on the front row shouting it down. Personal motives don't count. Show me where a leading ID proponent is using ID arguments as some sort of justification to accept Biblical creationist theology

Above that are the primates one branch is the Golden Lion Tamarin
Above that is the apes and Lemurs and chimps and humans

This strongly suggests that lemurs, chimps and humans have major connections to the southern continents and southern Africa.

"By definition, a protohominid would be an ape related to the ancestors of gorillas" .I assume this is your definition.

I doubt that any evidence will ever be gathered for any mammal.or marsupial or eutherian from deposits on Antartica because a) it is presntly buried in ice and b) the glaciation will have removed all pliocene deposits including fossils and bones.

That does not mean that life did not exist or evolve there.

Before the glaciation at approx same time as Ardi Antartica was presumably covered in deciduous forests and possibly coniferous forests and ferns.

The area to the leeward side of The West Antartic Range and the Transantartic Range would have been relatively mild climate albeit one that went into perpetual darkness for months of the year.

Since it has been proved by Thor Heyerdahl that long distant ocean travel is possible it is not impossible to envisage a journey by raft from West Antartica to West coast of Africa by hunter gatherers .

Clearly the marsupials, ardvarks, elephants are linked to southern continents so why exclude Antartica.

If you dont exclude Antartica then why exclude marsupials, ardvarks,elephants lemurs from living there in the last 20 million years.

However that does not exclude both homo sapiens and Homo Neanderthals having part of our origins in Antartica as well as Africa.

Stating the obvious that "all evidence points to Africa" is simplistic and illogical

Antartica:
It has been covered with ice since approximately the beginning of the Pliocene, about 5 million years ago.

It is interesting that protohominids existed in Madagascar in the form of lemurs which were isolated from monkeys and other protoapes

Antartica was similarly isolated since approx 20Ma

Is it possible that hominids in the form of Nanderthals evolved separately on Antartica in low light conditions approx 5 million years ago eventually being forced to flee "using their intelligence" from Antartica to Angola Namibia

Is it possible that Ardipithicus c 5 Ma are not hominids at all

and that the real cradle of humanity is Antartica which is now covered in ice

Meyer's claims were never independently verified, and later he was found guilty of fraud in an Ohio court. He died of an aneurysm, but some theories persist that he was poisoned. I personally lean towards poisoned, as he was creating so much awareness for the idea, someone wanted him dead.

has been mauled over by many great thinkers, myself certainly included :)

If my logic seems cryptic,

Military members are taxpayers too, you can't differentiate.

Broken information on the H1N1 vaccine combined with acclimating hysteria is likely to kill people. Broken information such as health professionals saying its perfectly fine to get both the seasonal flu vaccine and H1N1 vaccine at the same time.

Another is of some schools doing vaccinations, which some kids would have to get up to four shots at the same time depending on age and if they have ever been vaccinated before.

Again, another is not taking into account of mixing different brands of vaccine when vaccinating people with the seasonal flu and H1N1 vaccine at the same time.

All of these result in the vaccine not doing what it is designed to do and/or unknown complications.

Its not rocket science that the H1N1 vaccine is experimental

The civilian population is getting vaccinated for H1N1 before the military. This strategically makes sense because you don't want to give your military an experimental vaccine, then have it become crippled as a result of some miscalculation. Obviously, that would jeopardize national security. If H1N1 were truly as much of a threat to national security as presented, the military would be vaccinated before the civilian population.

What sort of complications? No one knows, because there has been little to no testing done for the H1N1 vaccine, which is why it is called an experimental vaccine.

... yes, the ignorance and misinformation around vaccines has proven to be very harmful

According to it, there have been only 12 deaths in Alberta, up to October 29, but I tend to believe you, FrogO

me a few others have our certainty that vaccines cause harm..... blessings

critics constantly use these obfuscating tactics, such as the applications and abuses of agriculture and electricity, etc., in an attempt to strip the gravity from the argument.

Excuse me, but someone asks if an expiry date on a milk jug is in any way shape or form related to some catastrophic end of the world scenario on a science and philosophy forum nonetheless and you expect people to respond HOW exactly??

Ardi had highly flexible wrists, so she was not totally bipedal

I don't understand...how was it planned? I understand how it is not a surprise...but planned?

To me , a "true" Christian is one that considers the Bible to be the only source of "truth" in existence. To my understanding , isn't that what the Bible says Christians are supposed to be ?

The point I was trying to make still stands though for the simple reason that one cannot be a "true believer" in the Bible and accept evolution. A person could do it I suppose but only through careful re-interpretation of Biblical text that has otherwise already been "correctly interpreted" by some Christian sect or another.

it's fair to say that a significant number of Christians deny the evidence provided by science.

As far as I know (and to your credit I engaged in further research)

the Catholic church has made no official pronouncement on the matter of evolution.

In the case of the Catholic Church , an official stance is indeed difficult to make because it would necessitate a review of all previous interpretations of the Bible on the matter of Genesis (for starters)

'no opposition between faith's understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences

'In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points ... Today, more than a half- century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.

'In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly discip- lines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies - which was neither planned nor sought - constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour of the theory.

During the conference, Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said there was a 'wide spectrum of room' for belief in both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator.

'While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of the first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago.

'Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution

The Christians deny the possibility that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.

Totally wrong.
Science doesn't deny religion per se.

what exactly was so important that religion did that actually served manking nearly as well as the advances science has made ?

Science and the belief in God cannot and will not ever be divorced in intelligent minds.

I cannot address or heal the fearful and proud. But there are strong individuals who hold both domains easily and without guilt in their minds and hearts. Without question science can rest aside a belief in God.

Material existence does not suffice as an answer to the crucial question. Why do I exist? Why everything?

And not credulous minds. I said intelligent. Credulous minds are often not that intelligent after all.

Please do not be glum about the possibility that you and I do not KNOW everything

As I understand it, she has characteristics of early humans, but also of lemurs which are more of a "cousin" than a direct descendant

People who dont care aboiut anyone else, who run around like little vectors spreading their stinking viruses.

I feel like philosophy is fun to explore...I really enjoy reading the different viewpoints. Each have their place, and sometimes the two will overlap.

Now if he didn't say "I am", but did say "I will be" then that means he "wasn't" at the time he spoke to Moses. Now how can something that "isn't" have spoken to Moses?

So how can your god know and practice anything if he is yet to be?

So to say that some form of GOD does not exist is to go against mathematics, WHO'S SIDE IS SUPPORTED BY REASON AND SCIENCE?

As St. Augustine tells us, even if I were to be mistaken about my existence, that would mean that I do exist and am therefore correct about my existence.

A simpler way to discern the "truth" of the actions of the people is to just see if it is violent in its practice.

it is usually when the so called leader is dictatorial to the followers, and "quoting" radical interpretations of the peoples founding beliefs. also, this usually coincides with the peoples viewing of the leader as "godlike" in that he can do no wrong.

if the persons belief is based on philael love of all peaceful beliefs that nurture the humanity and not quash it, then it is that he/she is truly has a "good" & humane "religion"

Females dont choose the amount of eggs they store.

Females in the wild (I'm assuming you knew I was reffering to animals in the forest right?) do not have a choice in the matter.

He would let go and she would run under the couch. There was NO pleasure on her part.

Only in human society does the female decide when she wants sex.

I think your buying into that whole romantic thing that we as humans have evolved sex into. It's nothing more then a simple biological function that man has romantisized over the countless centuries into the sex maniac society that we have become

If we had to sit around and wait for them to want it, we would have become extinct looooong ago

And that even the smallest of animals running around have one.

And since they mate by instinct, why would they need one?

The rest do it by instinct only

But the truth of the matter is that scientists can be "persuaded" by outside influences.

IN MY MIND, most, if not all fits in with creation

They dont need to enjoy sex in order to reproduce.

Soon, you won't be able to do any of them justice. Then people will think you're just nuts.

You must have faith in order to persevere in your planned effort to prove something through "method".

If I can demonstrate that there is no such thing as "Objective Evidence",

how would that effect your position on this matter?

Taken to it's extreme, my arguments lead to acceptance, tolerance, and respect.

You're free to judge their evidence however you like, just as I'm free to judge your evidence that the earth is round however I like

Ultimately we wind up in the same boat. Your judgment of their evidence regarding God doesn't matter to them, and my judgment of your evidence of a round earth doesn't matter to you

To say that the amount of nuclear arms that India and Pakistan have puts them in the same league as the US/Soviets is laughable.

All of these matters have to be considered

As far as non nuclear third parties, they are an irrellevancy to this conversation

That just leaves the big dogs to settle things.

You don't care to admit that the situation in Japan was ended with a LOT of people NOT dying that would have, had we not dropped the two bombs.

what they have done is force those with the big sticks to play nice

If that isn't saving lives...

So now tell me how dropping the two bombs did not save the lives of those who would have likely died during an all out invasion?

It can be compared to "Herd Imunity". Do you really think that we would have let the Soviets take Canada and camp out on our border? In other words, you won't be attacked in an all out assault, because "they" know "they" would have to deal with the USA

It may be fallacious to you, but none the less true

As for examples, one only has to look at the commitment that people ascribe to Darwin's theory, and the way they see everything as being a part of evolution, that it qualifies under the notion of deism polytheism to be a "god".