put on the armour of Godโฆ
>History is interesting.
remember, history was written by the winners. not always true, never complete.
(A) where does it say the winners can't paint themselves as losers (victims)?
(B) religious texts are NOT regarded as "history" by serious historical scholars.
please define "define."
but be a pal and tell me how to do italics, anon.
i said religious texts. i did NOT specify the bible. the mahabharata, the bhagavad gita are likewise not considered reliable historical texts. NOTHING that has an agenda tied to one particular form of religion is ever regarded as a reliable historical account.
^^^^^^^^^
what HE says. exactly. what is considered reliable historical record is always secular. that does NOT mean atheist or anti-religious, so don't get your panties in a bunch. it just means history for the sake of history, NOT history intended to sell a particular belief system.
>There are no reliable historical accounts.
>There are only stories.
yeah, that's what i originally said. but at least THESE guysโฆ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historians
TRIED to make a factual account of the events of their day, whereas religious texts are flat out fables, SOMETIMES based on actual events, written for the sole purpose of promoting one specific religious sect.
in the end, NOTHING can be considered wholly accurate, complete, or unbiased. but religious texts are the worst.
>so many people want to just toss it out or try to put any kind of spin on it that will allow them to discredit the plain truth of the bible.
i am NOT trying to "discredit" the bible as a religious text. STOP putting your words in my mouth, FAGGOT.
all i said is it's not considered on the same par as a purely historical account, WHEN IT COMES TO THE HISTORY PART.
not by me, BUT BY HISTORIANS. can you comprehend what i'm saying WITHOUT getting triggered?
NO ONE CARES what your religious beliefs are, UNTIL you start with the "my religion is the only TRUE religion" bullshit. then you're NO BETTER than any of the other fanatics who want to kill all the infidels.
>Fear is a human construct! Think on that. It is within your scope to live without fear. Truly the beginning signs of evolution!
RETARD. emotions arise from the limbic region of the brain, sometimes called the "snake brain," because all creatures above snakes on the evolutionary tree have that structure, ergo, they all have emotions. animals clearly demonstrate the capacity for deductive AND inductive reasoning. even birds (dinosaurs) make and use tools and can be quite inventive. and animal clearly demonstrate the capacity to communicate among their own species, and even with other species. the singular quality that separates humans from animals is the ability to use ENERGY (fire) as a tool. hence, the myth of Prometheus. even the ancient greeks 3000 yrs ago were more intelligent than you.
>Does it bother you that at least one of the religions might just be true?
what part of not putting your words in my mouth did you not understand, FAGGOT? i NEVER said or implied that religions are all false.
DOES IT BOTHER YOU THAT ALL RELIGIONS MIGHT BE TRUE?
>Why do you specify, "religious text," then?
this began as a discussion about HISTORY. until some biblefag had to interject his 2ยข. so i merely said, that from the perspective of historical scholars, religious texts are not generally considered entirely reliable HISTORICAL documents. from there, a bunch of triggered zealots jumped in and went all hellfire and brimstone, as arational fanatics are wont to do.
I'M not arguing with that. i merely stated the position of academic scholars. can an anon not state an official position WITHOUT being identified with that position?
many events in the mahabharata have also been archeologically verified. so?
and you're right about methuselah being based on gilgamesh, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. the flood legend, ths story of moses, and most of the old testament were plagiarized from the sumerian cuniform tablets.
i just love it when scientifically illiterate 'tards argue science.
synthetic adrenaline is indistinguishable from adrenaline extracted from an organism.
they ALWAYS do cheaper. sometimes that's synthetic, and sometimes it's harvested.
now go read a few THOUSAND books, and come back when you have something intelligent to add.
lesser of two evils. die of anaphylactic shock, or take the tiny risk of a precipitating a heart attack.
NOTHING is risk free, and NO ONE can predict how one specific individual will react.
>I studied ancient history up to the MA level
whooptie fucking do. tell me you were graduated sometime BEFORE 1970, and i might be SLIGHTLY impressedโฆ.
>sauce?
don't ask anons to "sauce" something that is common knowledge, 'tard. READ A BOOK!
you believe a degree of lack thereof proves anything, it only demonstrates what a dipshit you are.
if i listed the 10 smartest people i've ever met, NONE of them have a PhD.
if i listed the 10 biggest morons i ever met, they ALL have PhDs
(btw, besides having a PhD, i'm a published author in peer review journals, and i have 50 yrs experience in industry and academia, so i know a little bit about what i'm saying).
anon, you did your best. they're either shills or retards or both (my guess). let them go. you can't fix stupid, not even with duct tape.
bill gates couldn't operate a hammer without consulting a user manual.
you only prove my point.
>its called: an appeal to authority and it has NO PLACE in a logical debate
and yet it was (You) that asked for sauce. (You) are a walking oxy, moron.
besides his chemistry professor, how about EVERY CHEMISTRY BOOK WRITTEN IN THE LAST 150 YRS?
now FUCK OFF, shill.
yer fucking hilarious. NO ONE needs to sauce common knowledge. if you want an education, go do the work.
now go suck some baby dick, rabbi. soon you and your kind will be nothing, and NO ONE will ever remember you, because
you never created anything, you never invented anything, you never built anything. the only things you have are what you've stolen.
eat shit and die.
>the technique for create a perfect synthetic analog of adrenaline is common knowledge?
OBVIOUSLY you're NOT interested in facts, because any fuckwit could find this in a NY second. eat shit and die, shill.
Japanese chemist Jลkichi Takamine and his assistant Keizo Uenaka independently discovered adrenaline in 1900.[84][85] In 1901, Takamine successfully isolated and purified the hormone from the adrenal glands of sheep and oxen.[86] Adrenaline was first synthesized in the laboratory by Friedrich Stolz and Henry Drysdale Dakin, independently, in 1904.[85]
>We will pursue you to the ends of the earth. Not just a saying.
OH NOโฆ not a flat-earther!
>Patent for synthetic adrenochrome is held by 3M
no one can patent a naturally occurring molecule. the 3M patent is on their method for synthesizing and isolating it. their method is NOT the only method.
>you wouldnt happen to know where I could find a study on its effects in the human body?
Burger's Medicinal Chemistry would have a monograph with LOTS of references. you could also find references to original sources in the Merck Index. even wikipedia and google scholar would lead you to original sources.
>How do you research a substance enough to have the research data to synthesise it?
the first step is separation and isolation.
the second step is elucidating its chemical structure.
the third step is conceiving a synthesis using known starting materials and known reactions.
these steps are more or less independent, tho total synthesis of material identical to the naturally occurring substance is considered final proof of the first two. there HAVE been one or two rare cases where a rearrangement of the natural substance occurred during isolation, and the reverse rearrangement occurred during the synthesis without the knowledge of the researchers. but even those were eventually discovered and corrected. organic chemistry is a fairly mature science at this point.
>electron microscopes i guess
a no-child-left-behind heard fromโฆ HINT: real life is not a multiple guess quiz.
separations and isolations generally involve one or more forms of chromatography (LOOK IT UP AND DON'T ASK).
elucidating the structure is now done spectroscopically, IR, proton and carbon NMR, x-ray crystallography if it's optically active (LOOK IT UP AND DON'T ASK).
>how is it explained when an identical analog has a different effect in the body than its naturally derived counterpart?
identical analog is an OXYMORON. an analog is NOT the same compound. it's a compound with a closely related structure. adrenaline and amphetamine would be an example of analogs.
>Synthetic THC has wildly different effect on people than smoking weed does
synthetic THC is a single pure compound. there are a half-dozen closely related compounds all called THC. a reefer plant has many dozens if not HUNDREDS of compounds closely related to THC. OBVIOUSLY the mixture is going to produce different effects than a single pure compound.
but look, this is NOT the forum to get a chemical education. READ A FEW HUNDRED BOOKS. i'm not here to entertain you.