• You've discovered RedGuides 📕 an EverQuest multi-boxing community 🛡️🧙🗡️. We want you to play several EQ characters at once, come join us and say hello! 👋
  • IS THIS SITE UGLY? Change the look. To dismiss this notice, click the X --->

HIV might not be the cause of AIDS (1 Viewer)

Roguish

Roguish

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
RedCents
0¢
Almost 2 hour Video Documentary

I have heard about the controversy but last night I found this video and watched it, there are some serious indications that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS and the largest government funded research program ever has been on the wrong track for over twenty years.

In the past ten or so years I've been finding so many messed up scenarios such as this one that if even two percent of them are true we as the people need to start coming out of the woodwork and speaking against them. Speaking as an American we have the the right, and therefore the responsibility to change the world for the better. It has nothing to do with spreading Democracy, it has everything to do with using Democracy to our advantage and doing something about it.

Some other things that are messed up.

The education system teaching evolution as a fact, say what you might, evolution is a theory, always has been a theory and has now become not much more than an official religious belief taught in our public school systems.

Technology that could make cars run 100 miles per hour at a hundred miles per gallon of gasoline being bought out and patented for the sole purpose of suppressing the technology to increase oil demand.

The media's journalists reporting only what they're allowed to report for fear of their jobs. Not all media, America's being a large part of it though.

The trend towards an electronic currency and numbered society will ultimately conceivably end all crime as we know it. Let's face it, if all transactions went through regulated kiosks there would be no way to have a black market and with every human being tracked and their positions being recorded in a database any crime would easily be traced to a criminal. This sounds good but the freedoms given up to achieve these goals would eclipse the Patriot Act and part two of the same name by far.
 
Haha, theory shemeory. HIV causes aids and pissed off muslims blew up the twin towers... The end. (sp reference in this post)
 
evelotion being taught as fact not a theory, because there are no other theory's that come close to being accurate.

would you rather that your children be taught a fairy tale about adam and eve? and about the magical blue elves that get together for a big old orgy? oh wait, that's the smurfs that's fact.
 
Evolution is both a fact (things change, bitches!) and a theory (goo to you via the zoo).
Just depends on the context.

Once abiogenesis is figured out, the theory part might even become accepted fact. Problem with that though is most abiogenesis discussions and studies are closer to a "faith" then science.

Oh and blackobsidian, we all know lube is for n00bs.
 
*refrains from discussing the usefulness of lube regarding the size of penises (penii?) and how long sex lasts for fear of being boastful*

;)
 
alucard said:
Gravity is just a theory as well.

This is most likely a conspiracy theory that isn't actually based on anything, but I could easily be wrong.

EDIT: For an argument that disputes the theories in this documentary read http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm
Click to expand...
Gravity is not a theory it is a law, for more insight refer to newtons laws

lapidusva25 said:
evelotion being taught as fact not a theory, because there are no other theory's that come close to being accurate.

would you rather that your children be taught a fairy tale about adam and eve? and about the magical blue elves that get together for a big old orgy? oh wait, that's the smurfs that's fact.
Click to expand...

In my opinion evolution is a fairy tale ive see many documentary's and ive come to the conclusion there is no possible way for it to be true. It has no absolute beginning sorry but something cannot create ITSELF from nothing, did you create yourself? Second we cannot make life in a laborritory right now with any technology, what makes you think it came together by accident from a bunch of simple gas and amino acids in the water with lightning that is absolutely ridicules. Believe what you want, evolution is classified as a theory in my opinion it is a joke. (Not a flame at the person who said this, just pointing out the facts)
 
In my opinion evolution is a fairy tale ive see many documentary's and ive come to the conclusion there is no possible way for it to be true. It has no absolute beginning sorry but something cannot create ITSELF from nothing, did you create yourself? Second we cannot make life in a laborritory right now with any technology, what makes you think it came together by accident from a bunch of simple gas and amino acids in the water with lightning that is absolutely ridicules. Believe what you want, evolution is classified as a theory in my opinion it is a joke. (Not a flame at the person who said this, just pointing out the facts)
Click to expand...

Those aren't facts...they are your opinions.

Why worry about this anyway? We are here so might as well do something productive instead of debating over something we can not change. Besides...this is cutting into my WoW time. :)
 
No they are facts, 1.Matter cannot be created or destroyed let alone create itself, and 2. It is a known fact at this point we cannot create life in a lab.
 
Fact, law, theory, hypothesis (in that order) has been taught to be a hierarchial ladder depending on proof.

The truth is, that is a common misconception.

A law is a generalized description of what is to be expected.

Working with gravity as an example, we know what gravity does, we do not know why it does what it does.

Hypothesis and Theories are our best attempts at trying to explain the behaiviour.

TSPlayer62 is against the theory of evolution, the goo to you via the zoo model, this is a theory. The weak link (pardon the poor pun) is abiogenesis, the spontaneous eruption of life.

Law: A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

Theory: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961).

Basically a Theory is a hypothesis which has confirming evidence, a law is simply an observation which is held to be consistant "what is heavier then air will fall if not held up".

So saying "it's just a theory" is really not very good for discussion, and is based more in eluding to a misconception and really just "blowing off" an argument instead of looking at it for what it has.

Evolution is the leading theory because it is currently the best natural explanation for what occured, though it does have it's detractions. Newton's law is wrong in some situations (hence why we have quantum physics). But it makes it no less a valid and valued piece of science. Evolution is no different, even if abiogenesis is somehow proven to be impossible other theory's will pop up in it's place.

I believe religion told us why, but science tells us how. Where science detracts in the how, science should be given leeway, no one expected a 8th century BC sheep herder to understand quantum physics, I'm sure God thought the details were not what mattered. Besides, if one held to a strict interpritation of the first 2 chapters of genesis and maintained that strictness, you would have some very odd doctrines.

Just like Newton's laws have detractions, so can the law of conservation of mass and energy. A law in some ways is less "proven" then a theory.
 
TSPlayer62 said:
No they are facts, 1.Matter cannot be created or destroyed let alone create itself, and 2. It is a known fact at this point we cannot create life in a lab.
Click to expand...

And if we ever did create life in a lab we'd actually be proving intelligent design (if you would call humans intelligent).

I didn't mean for this to be an evolution discussion thread, what I said about evolution I thought was pretty clear and I didn't think anyone could argue with it, I guess maybe you can. Evolution is not a fact. Yet it is taught in our schools as fact, that is all I said in so many words. This correlates to the HIV/AIDS thing because it is being revealed that HIV is not proven to cause AIDS, it is not a fact, yet we are constantly being bombarded to believe that it is factual and backed with scientific evidence.

Why does this stuff bother me? Billions of dollars in research has gone into trying to cure HIV. What if this doesn't have anything to do with the AIDS epidemic? Focusing so closely on one possible cause of AIDS because it is the recognized FACT, even though it hasn't been proven, may have already costed the lives of countless people. If we hadn't been so intently focused on HIV maybe we would have found the real cause of AIDS much sooner. Same premise works for the evolution theory, if we didn't give it the weight normally afforded actual scientific proven fact, maybe there would be some leeway here and some over there that researchers might be able to find a better theory that didn't rely so much on breaking most of the proven laws of the universe. Maybe life's origins have to do more with physics than biology, we couldn't even comprehend that right now because our mind has been so clouded by getting the evolutionary theory taught us as if it were fact for the first few dozen years of our life.
 
i love how creationists try to disprove evolution without even attempting to justify god creating eve out of adam's rib or however that bullshit goes.
 
as to the topic of creating life in a lab.

we are making advancements in cloning, i realize that this is not a creating of life, because we are starting with life to make life, but it's a step forward, we take one cell that is not supposed to multiply, and we make it multiply exponentially, just another step closer to creating something out of nothing.
 
lapidusva25 said:
i love how creationists try to disprove evolution without even attempting to justify god creating eve out of adam's rib or however that bullshit goes.
Click to expand...

You thinks thats bad? I hate when evolutionist try to justify the beginning of time, and tell me the universe created itself.
 
TSPlayer62 said:
You thinks thats bad? I hate when evolutionist try to justify the beginning of time, and tell me the universe created itself.
Click to expand...


You have a better theory? other than a fairy tale?
 
An intelligent designer makes sense to me, you know someone who can do things humans cant such as some of the "fairy tales" as you call them. But based on our own rules of science the chances of evolution is like a monkey pounding on a keyboard for a billion years and by accident producing Shakespeares play Hamlet. My advice to you sir would be to actually research on a topic deeply before making assumptions, insults, and accusations.
 
First off, people need to agree on definitions before arguing about something. To me, evolution is the process of random genetic mutation coupled with natural selection. This should be completely separated from theories about where "original life" came from, abiogenesis as CComp calls it. The harder you think about it, the harder it really becomes to define what "life" is in the first place. As I defined it, evolution is pretty much fact. I prefer to leave the second question in the domain of philosophers until scientists advance their techniques.

About the example with monkeys on typewriters. I think a more apt analogy is we give millions of monkeys typewriters and they all randomly pound on keys. Each one gives their finished book to a publisher who selects the best ones. Copies of the best books are given back to the monkeys who edit it, again randomly. Edited copies that are judged to be better than the original are kept for further editing. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Over millions of years, Shakespeare will be humbled.
 
HIV most certainly causes AIDS. HIV viral load can be measured via PCR. The severity of the disease can be measured by CD4 count. if you find someone w/ "AIDS" and has a viral load of zero then they either are on HAART or they have a different cause to their immune deficiency. it most certainly does not mean HIV is not the "cause" of aids. I'm sure we can find some HIV+ blood to inject you with if your that certain you won't get AIDS from it.

I should know look at ma name.
 
TSPlayer62 said:
An intelligent designer makes sense to me, you know someone who can do things humans cant such as some of the "fairy tales" as you call them. But based on our own rules of science the chances of evolution is like a monkey pounding on a keyboard for a billion years and by accident producing Shakespeares play Hamlet. My advice to you sir would be to actually research on a topic deeply before making assumptions, insults, and accusations.
Click to expand...

I could waste my time and go on a long winded diatribe about the flaws in creationist theories, but I found it pointless long ago to argue with heretic.

So instead i make assumptions, insults and accusations, I've found that most creationists base their arguments on the same ones that have been spoon-fed to them since birth.

Here's an experiment how many people do you know that believed in evolution after being raised as a creationist. Now reverse that.
 
Not that I am an expert but I do know Biotech companys are trying to patent genomes so I would think intelligent design is possible in the future, but don't take my word for it.

"The Human Genome Project (HGP) is a project to de-code (i.e. sequence) more than three billion nucleotides contained in a haploid reference human genome and to identify all the genes present in it. The reference human genome sequence was considered pragmatically 'complete' at 92% in 2005 in publications by an international public HGP and somewhat independently by a private company Celera Genomics. Recently, several groups have announced efforts to extend this to diploid human genomes including the International HapMap Project, Applied Biosystems, Perlegen, Illumina, JCVI, Personal Genome Project, and Roche-454. The "genome" of any given individual (except for identical twins and cloned animals) is unique; mapping "the human genome" involves sequencing multiple variations of each gene. The project did not study all of the DNA found in human cells; some heterochromatic areas (about 8% of the total) remain unsequenced."
 
(Yes, I know I'm breaking the redguides rules, but I am God, so I can do it. And you can't.)

TSP said:
Gravity is not a theory it is a law, for more insight refer to newtons laws
Click to expand...

Newton's theories, and the theories of classical physics, are called Newtonian Physics. A good deal of this has been sat on by Relativity. Newton's gravity theories have been disproven time, and time again.

In addition, in science, there are no absolutes. Take, for example, the Big Bang, or other singularities. In these, space-time has an infinite curvature, and thus, all of today's science means squat.

TSP said:
1.Matter cannot be created or destroyed let alone create itself, and 2. It is a known fact at this point we cannot create life in a lab.
Click to expand...

Matter + antimatter = no matter. Matter can be created with enough energy.

Cloned animals aren't alive.
 
Ok Cade I see your point but regardless of whether matter can be created, which i do not actually understand, it cannot create itself simply because before it exists it wouldn't be there to create itself. Its philosophically impossible, and has never proved to have occurred in science.
 
Saying evolution exist does not mean very single form of life evolved. I don’t believe Darwin ever postulated that human beings were a result of evolution from a single cell organism. Unfortunately the detractors are threatened by the very word itself and label the theory as all-encompassing. Creationist or intelligent design believers leave no room in the discussion for evolution to exist which I thing is a huge mistake because they perceive it would weaken their position. But there is huge evidence that evolution does exist for many of natures life forms. And yes MAYBE even us. But denying that evolution exist on any level is just sticking your head in the sand to save your beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Molex said:
Saying evolution exist does not mean very single form of life evolved. I don’t believe Darwin ever postulated that human beings were a result of evolution from a single cell organism. Unfortunately the detractors are threatened by the very word itself and label the theory as all-encompassing. Creationist or intelligent design believers leave no room in the discussion for evolution to exist which I thing is a huge mistake because they perceive it would weaken their position. But there is huge evidence that evolution does exist for many of natures life forms. And yes MAYBE even us. But denying that evolution exist on any level is just sticking your head in the sand to save your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Care to put any fact behind that or would you like to carry on saying what to believe and not why to believe it? You cant prove that evolution is an absolute if someone wants to believe that there is no such thing all together then that is there option, why is evolution an absolute in your opinion bring facts please not just random attacks at creationism.
 
This is what we know to be true:

In the beginning 'something happened and a bunch of shyt was made'

Later on some of the shyt moved all by itself

Later on some of that shyt stood upright and scratched itself

Later on some of that shyt got pissed off with other shyt because it didn't think the same way about how everything started

which brings us back to, In the beginning, something happened and a bunch of shyt was made. Who/what/how it all happened is ultimatly irrelevant because we can't reproduce such an action in a lab 'yet'. So the answer is 3.

Dragon
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9005023/

we're getting close. the fact is we CAN and WILL create never before seen lifeforms within 10 years.

In the grand scheme of things... we COULD be considered to be a highly primitive lifeform.

We can not even accomplish finding another planet capable of support life.... yet. BUT we can create a virus from scratch that will infect and paralyze a mouse.

with this comparison, who's to say that a highly evolved race from a distant galaxy couldn't find a planet capable of supporting a life form. Then whos to say it's impossible for them to then create the lifeform and inhabit it on the planet.

With that said, if it we're possible for our race to do such a thing, would we? I believe that we would.

Im not saying that IS what happened, im just stating that its not impossible. It's improbable at most.

Scientists have made equations including the estimated number of galaxies with an estimated number of planets with an estimated set of conditions that need to be in order for life to exist. With extremely generously estimated numbers... its highly improbable that we are the only solar system in the universe that supports intelligent life, if that is what you would call us.
 
TSPlayer62 said:
No they are facts, 1.Matter cannot be created or destroyed let alone create itself, and 2. It is a known fact at this point we cannot create life in a lab.
Click to expand...

FACT: Black holes can explode, releasing all the matter and energy they gobbled up previously in one massive bang.

(Black holes are thought to end their lives in a violent burst of energy called Hawking radiation. The bigger their mass, the longer they survive before this happens. For black holes to be dying today, about 14 billion years after the big bang, they would have to have a mass of 100 million tones - about that of a small mountain - and have been created when the Universe was less than a billion-billion-billionth of a second old.[sic])

FACT: The universe spawned from a super massive beyond imagining explosive event 14 billion years ago or so.

Add Fact one, with Fact two and you come up with... Theory....

The universe is in a constant state of growth and death. cycling between expansion and contraction. Expansion from a supper massive unimaginably powerful explosion, and the ending death of it all contracting back down into a singularity to start the process all over again, over trillions and trillions of years for each Birth/Death cycle.

Speculation:

We have no idea how many times this Singularity has popped over the true history of the universe. It is quite likely that this has been going on infinitly in the past and will continue to do so infinitly into the future.

Further Speculation: Random chance says that out of billions of potential cyclings of the universe, ONE at the least will produce life. Random chance also suggests that the possibility exists for more than one of those cycled universes could have produced life.

Even Further Speculation: God may be nothing more than the last survivor of a previous universe.

Now that I have twisted yer minds a bit with that thought........

~Dragon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
HIV might not be the cause of AIDS
Next unread thread 🦁

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top