Think there's no proof for evolution? Have a cigarette!

[LuvRPgrl]

Haven't followed this whole thread, but ST, and your libbie buddies, riddle me this: what do you guys think of the fact that evolutionary theory explains racial difference?

Here's a book to confound both liberals and creationists:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0965683613/002-1126912-4440065?tag=usmb-20

Author says that different environmental pressures made for different selection for whites, blacks and Asians. Today, we see this reflected in high intelligence held by Asians, moderately high intelligence held by whites, and low intelligence held by blacks. Differences also explain why blacks have such high birth rates and low-investment parenting techniques (and sexually transmitted diseases).

Your statements are simply wrong. Besides, high intelligence means nothing. The unabomber was HIGHLY intelligent. Oh well.

 

[Merlin]

If there's no proof for evolution, then by the same standards, there's no proof that smoking causes cancer. So light up!


http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...f+proof+of+evolution&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4

This sounds like a anti smoking advertisement. I'll say unequivocally, and absolutely, that there is not "ONE" shred of evidence that smoking causes cancer or any other kind of sickness. I don't even have to do expensive test to prove that statement. Look around at the people in their 70s and 80s. More chances than not, they smoke. Almost everyone in my family smokes and live into their 80s. Except for one brother out of 7 of us that never smoked a cigarette in his life and died at 48. I've been smoking well over 60 years. I do have a bad heart, but that is from a birth defect. A lot of Dr.'s has their own smoking break room stuck off in the back of their office building somewhere. Smoking is bad for some people, as is 99% of everything else on this planet bad for someone. But that B.S. they spew about smoking is just that. B.S.!!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

This sounds like a anti smoking advertisement. I'll say unequivocally, and absolutely, that there is not "ONE" shred of evidence that smoking causes cancer or any other kind of sickness. I don't even have to do expensive test to prove that statement. Look around at the people in their 70s and 80s. More chances than not, they smoke. Almost everyone in my family smokes and live into their 80s. Except for one brother out of 7 of us that never smoked a cigarette in his life and died at 48. I've been smoking well over 60 years. I do have a bad heart, but that is from a birth defect. A lot of Dr.'s has their own smoking break room stuck off in the back of their office building somewhere. Smoking is bad for some people, as is 99% of everything else on this planet bad for someone. But that B.S. they spew about smoking is just that. B.S.!!

You are joking, right?

 

[Merlin]

You are joking, right?

Joking??? Why would I be joking? I challenge anyone to prove smoking is bad for everyone, or anyone. It can't be done.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Joking??? Why would I be joking? I challenge anyone to prove smoking is bad for everyone, or anyone. It can't be done.

ok, prove dog shit tastes bad.

 

[Hobbit]

So, when my dad used to smoke and started coughing up tar, and when I had better endurance and breath control than the athletes I competed against that smoked, it was all in their heads, right?

Cigarette smoke contains hundreds of toxins and hundreds more carcinogens. You can't honestly think that breathing in smoke isn't bad for you. I mean, most fire casualties are caused by smoke inhalation.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

This sounds like a anti smoking advertisement. I'll say unequivocally, and absolutely, that there is not "ONE" shred of evidence that smoking causes cancer or any other kind of sickness. I don't even have to do expensive test to prove that statement. Look around at the people in their 70s and 80s. More chances than not, they smoke. Almost everyone in my family smokes and live into their 80s. Except for one brother out of 7 of us that never smoked a cigarette in his life and died at 48. I've been smoking well over 60 years. I do have a bad heart, but that is from a birth defect. A lot of Dr.'s has their own smoking break room stuck off in the back of their office building somewhere. Smoking is bad for some people, as is 99% of everything else on this planet bad for someone. But that B.S. they spew about smoking is just that. B.S.!!

Is it dark where you are?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Oh - is that what we're playing - "Spiderman's links are golden and musicman's links are shit"? I'd bail out if I were you, Spiderman; you're not holding the cards. At least my links address facts;

Yeah, but they don't actually specifically provide evidence for many of the points you maintain are true.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

This sounds like a anti smoking advertisement. I'll say unequivocally, and absolutely, that there is not "ONE" shred of evidence that smoking causes cancer or any other kind of sickness. I don't even have to do expensive test to prove that statement. Look around at the people in their 70s and 80s. More chances than not, they smoke.

Uhh, how about instead of "looking around", we actually use scientific data, such as that found http://www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/NHSDA/tobacco/appendixb.htm#table2-10

That way, we don't have to "look around" or take your word for it.

In this 1999 compliation of data, only 10.7% of those 65 and older had used tabacco at all in the month previous to the survey. 1.2% had used cigars. And that's a minimum of one cigarette or cigar in an entire month. You did mean by "smoking" at least one cigarette a month I presume. If so - you are WRONG. Try using actual data instead of just MAKING IT UP.

Almost everyone in my family smokes and live into their 80s. Except for one brother out of 7 of us that never smoked a cigarette in his life and died at 48.

Oh well that just proves it. Your familiy is obviously all the scientific data we need. Nevermind the fact that if we sample the population as a whole you are more likley to die of lung cancer if you smoke - we only need ONE familiy to base the science we use to treat ALL families on. Has anyone in your familiy ever contracted anthrax? Because if not, it must not exist!

But that B.S. they spew about smoking is just that. B.S.!!

Its not any worse than the BS you spew by just making up statistics like "most people in their 70's smoke" when the actual data is WAY off from your made up fantasy world data.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Joking??? Why would I be joking? I challenge anyone to prove smoking is bad for everyone, or anyone. It can't be done.

I'm not responding to your "challenge" to provide "proof" because all such challenges made by anyone for anything are bogus.

I will however provide evidence that smoking is strongly correlated to a higher mortality rate.

http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/DASL/Stories/SmokingandCancer.html

 

[Merlin]

Uhh, how about instead of "looking around", we actually use scientific data, such as that found http://www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/NHSDA/tobacco/appendixb.htm#table2-10

That way, we don't have to "look around" or take your word for it.

In this 1999 compliation of data, only 10.7% of those 65 and older had used tabacco at all in the month previous to the survey. 1.2% had used cigars. And that's a minimum of one cigarette or cigar in an entire month. You did mean by "smoking" at least one cigarette a month I presume. If so - you are WRONG. Try using actual data instead of just MAKING IT UP.



Oh well that just proves it. Your familiy is obviously all the scientific data we need. Nevermind the fact that if we sample the population as a whole you are more likley to die of lung cancer if you smoke - we only need ONE familiy to base the science we use to treat ALL families on. Has anyone in your familiy ever contracted anthrax? Because if not, it must not exist!



Its not any worse than the BS you spew by just making up statistics like "most people in their 70's smoke" when the actual data is WAY off from your made up fantasy world data.

Something weird about this. I don't remember getting surveyed about smoking, and I'm sure my neighbors didn't either. My kin folk sure wasn't. Where did they get all these statistics? Me make up statistics? I haven't even given any statistics. I've given an observation. I'm just not gullible enough to believe any of this stuff about smoking is as bad as some people claim. Look around you. You probably know a lot of my kin people that smoke because most of them live in or around you and your beautiful city and they and their friends believe the same way, that smoking is no worse or no better than a gazillion other products in this world. Besides, I've lived fairly close to seven decades and that is enough for anyone. By the way, I have smoked since I was four years old and don't have any kind of cancer. As I stated before, there isn't one shred of evidence that smoking "CAUSES" any kind of sickness. Aggravates it maybe, but not cause it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Something weird about this. I don't remember getting surveyed about smoking, and I'm sure my neighbors didn't either. My kin folk sure wasn't. Where did they get all these statistics? Me make up statistics? I haven't even given any statistics. I've given an observation.

You made an observation based on a sample size which is far smaller than the sample sizes used to study the effects of smoking. Larger sample size yields smaller statistical errors. This much should be obvious.

I'm just not gullible enough to believe any of this stuff about smoking is as bad as some people claim.

Look at the numbers, it doesn't matter what people claim. Smoking is correlated with mortality rates. If you don't understand the term "correlation" go and read up on some basic statistics.

Look around you. You probably know a lot of my kin people that smoke because most of them live in or around you and your beautiful city and they and their friends believe the same way, that smoking is no worse or no better than a gazillion other products in this world.

Name one gazillion other products which have such a high correlation with mortality rates and increased rates of lung cancer.

Besides, I've lived fairly close to seven decades and that is enough for anyone. By the way, I have smoked since I was four years old and don't have any kind of cancer.

Wow - a sample size of one. What a large sample.

As I stated before, there isn't one shred of evidence that smoking "CAUSES" any kind of sickness.

Except for the fact that the frequency of certain kinds of sicknesses are far greater in the smoking population than the non-smoking population. But I don't know what I'm bothering to inform you of this, that would involve "numbers" and you don't believe in "numbers".


About 85% of those who come down with lung cancer are smokers. About 25% of the population are smokers. If smoking didn't cause lung cancer, only about 25% of those who come down with lung cancer would be smokers. Is this too complicated for you to understand?


You do understand that random effects get smaller the more samples you take, don't you? If you flip a coin 100 times, there is a 90% chance you will get between 40 and 60 heads - a 10% error. If you flip a coin 10,000 times, there is a 90% you will get between 4900 and 5100 heads, a 1% error. The statistical error in sample goes down with the square root of the sample size. If you have a sample which is 4 times larger, your error will be twice as small.

Yourself and your family are not a random cross section of the population. You are basing your conclusions on the assumption that everyone else's genetics with regard to cancer are the same as your family's, and rejecting mounds and mounds of scientific evidence based on this flimsy, faulty, and foolish assumption of yours.

Smoking greatly increases your chances of getting lung cancer. Its a scientific truth, which you are free to be ignorant of. But don't pretend you are basing your conclusions on anything scientific, you are basing them on what you wish the truth was.
















YOUR LOGIC:

Hey, I've driven drunk on several occasions in my life, and never caused an accident. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that drunk driving does not cause accidents, nevermind all these "numbers" and "statistics" they have on it, you'd have to be gullible to believe those. I'm me and everyone else's experience and genetics are exactly the same as mine. I drive drunk - I don't cause accidents - therefore, drunk driving does not cause accidents. Makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[Merlin]

You make very good sense with the information you have, and present it very well. I just happen not to believe the information that is spoon fed to the public. It is a known fact that if left alone without warning that peanuts would kill more people that cigarettes. Look at how the asbestos haters has overblown the ill effects of that. Kills no more people that grapefruit.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You make very good sense with the information you have, and present it very well.

Thank you.

I just happen not to believe the information that is spoon fed to the public.

So even if its true, you're not going to believe it, because its being "spoon fed" to the public. Suit yourself.

It is a known fact that if left alone without warning that peanuts would kill more people that cigarettes.

Known fact how? What study has given evidence to this? Or by "known fact" do you mean "known fact" because Merlin says so.

Look at how the asbestos haters has overblown the ill effects of that. Kills no more people that grapefruit.

Once again - you submit without evidence. Reality isn't something you just fabricate in your head until it sounds right to you. Grapefruit does not cause mesothelioma, scarring of the lung tissue, and lung cancer. Those with prolonged exposure to asbestos have these disorders in much higher numbers than the rest of the population. But then again, that would be a fact, and you are against facts.

I suppose now you're going to tell me benzene isn't carcinogenic, either.

 

[Merlin]

I suppose now you're going to tell me benzene isn't carcinogenic, either.

Glad you brought that up. I have worked in asbestos fibers without a face mask where you couldn't see a flashlight beam at arms length, taken showers in mercury at Stauffer Chemical from leaks, worked in and around benzene, (and still do) all my life with hundreds of co-workers, and I haven't met one, not one that any of this stuff has made sick. The world is just filling up with a bunch of sissies.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Glad you brought that up. I have worked in asbestos fibers without a face mask where you couldn't see a flashlight beam at arms length, taken showers in mercury at Stauffer Chemical from leaks, worked in and around benzene, (and still do) all my life with hundreds of co-workers, and I haven't met one, not one that any of this stuff has made sick. The world is just filling up with a bunch of sissies.

Alright then, you're a ******* retard. I can't help you.

Long term exposure to benzene will damage your bone marrow - not to mention its acute effects, which can be as severe as death.

But you, feel free to keep breathing it. It smells good, doesn't it? I've caught a few wiffs of it before, its temping to keep smelling it, something about it, but since I have a brain, I tightened up my respirator the few times I have smelled it. But you can keep on smelling it. Inhale large quantities of it, see what happens to you. In fact, drink it if you like, I bet it tastes good. Evolution works in strange ways.

You must be one of those "I'm too big of a man to wear a respirator" guys in the chemical industry. Go ahead, keep being an idiot. You'll die before your time and it will likely be a miserable death, and it will be your fault.

 

[Merlin]

Alright then, you're a ******* retard. I can't help you.

You must be one of those "I'm too big of a man to wear a respirator" guys in the chemical industry. Go ahead, keep being an idiot. You'll die before your time and it will likely be a miserable death, and it will be your fault.

You must have went to school in an outhouse. Your vocabulary shows it. Die before my time? When is my time? The way you talk, if I would listened to all the stupidity about what is or isn't good for me, I would have lived to be 500 years old instead of the close to 7 decades I have lived. Thanks but no thanks, I would rather live the experience than read about it in books from some jerk sitting in some office somewhere that don't know the difference between a Turnip and a Rutabaga, or what real life is all about.

 

[Said1]

Glad you brought that up. I have worked in asbestos fibers without a face mask where you couldn't see a flashlight beam at arms length, taken showers in mercury at Stauffer Chemical from leaks, worked in and around benzene, (and still do) all my life with hundreds of co-workers, and I haven't met one, not one that any of this stuff has made sick. The world is just filling up with a bunch of sissies.

I'm not an aspestos expert and I don't know the extend of which you are exposed to it, but I know three people who died from long term exposure/inhalation to that stuff, through their trades. Lung cancer, all three of them.

 

[Merlin]

I'm not an aspestos expert and I don't know the extend of which you are exposed to it, but I know three people who died from long term exposure/inhalation to that stuff, through their trades. Lung cancer, all three of them.

I'm sorry they lost their lives to asbestos. I do believe asbestos is bad for some people, but I don't believe it is any worse than other elements on our earth are on other people. Pick any element on earth and it is going to affect someone somewhere. Its just that myself and coworkers has worked with asbestos and their elements for over 50 years, and I haven't met anyone anywhere in my life that has had any bad side effect from asbestos. I believe there are too many people that "Cry Wolf" and stir up a dust storm about nothing. I've always said to the cry wolfs that "life is life, live it or get out of it but let me alone, I don't believe you".

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You must have went to school in an outhouse. Your vocabulary shows it. Die before my time? When is my time? The way you talk, if I would listened to all the stupidity about what is or isn't good for me, I would have lived to be 500 years old instead of the close to 7 decades I have lived. Thanks but no thanks, I would rather live the experience than read about it in books from some jerk sitting in some office somewhere that don't know the difference between a Turnip and a Rutabaga, or what real life is all about.

So "living life" to you means inhaling toxic fumes, instead of putting on a respirator?