FCLittle
fuck-bitches-get-bacon:

no matter how sad I am this never fails to make me laugh

fuck-bitches-get-bacon:

no matter how sad I am this never fails to make me laugh

revolutionary-core:

this-is-letter27:

Macro bee portraits by Sam Droege.

Used to distinguish and catalog the thousands of bee species in North America.

via Hoploid

They’re so fucking cool. They live on our planet! We see them all the time! They’re like little fluffy alien monsters.

Breast milk gives babies your immune system until they are able to develop their own. Vaccinations aren't necessary. There are natural ways in building a stronger immune system. Humans evolve and adapt, they always have. Many preventable diseases that makes you stay clear of wild animals and or consuming animal products. I think are many misconceptions about disease and how to prevent it. Many MDs aren't a CN, the knowledge that they do know about food they think most people rather use Rx pres.

skepticalavenger:

I am not a disease expert, but, well, I do have some problems with your arguments.  While breast milk DOES help infants avoid disease, a simple reading of the article indicates that it only lowers the risk of disease, it doesn’t eliminate it.  Nor would it protect an infant that was exposed to something that the mother was not exposed to, or to something for which the mother’s immunity has worn off.

And yes, there are certainly ways of building stronger immune systems naturally, and humans do evolve and adapt.  One of the common ways that nature takes care of people who don’t have a natural immunity to a disease is simply to kill them.  If, however, the human survives, then they may have built up enough antibodies to protect from infection another infection, which is awesome.  They may also have developed permanent physical disabilities in the process, but Nature did its best.  During a killing epidemic, the survivors are more likely to have a resistance to the disease.  But, even if two thirds of all humans die off due to a disease, humanity will still carry on.

Nature does evolve and adapt.  This is true beyond doubt.  Nature tends to be rather brutal about how it goes about it sometimes, however.

Vaccines may have some dangers beyond the autism nonsense.  Some of the anti-vaxxers may have legitimate arguments based on real science against certain compounds in vaccines.  It’s rather hard to weed out these legitimate arguments from the massive amounts of horrid science that they are surrounded by, however.  I’m still digging.  My suggestion to you is that you do the same, and remain skeptical.  Many of the arguments against vaccines are horrible.  Try to learn to distinguish the good arguments from the bad.

One thing this argument does NOT take into account is that some babies are unable to breast feed.  Sometimes they simply will not.  My daughter was one such baby, and try as her much as she could her mother could never get her to accept it.  

Also, the moment someone says “natural” I see red flags.  Everything is natural, and though this might be a semantic argument I feel like a lot of people have this preconceived notion that anything not derived directly from nature—that is, without the benefit of modern science—is inherently unnatural, i.e., bad for us.  

skepticalavenger:

I think, to an extent, that they may be correct in the way see it; that it’s either/or.  To accept evolution is to throw away the opening words of the Bible and dismiss them as blatantly false.  If you do that; if you throw away the entirety of Genesis Chapter One, then most of the entire rest of the book loses its footing.  The ark story becomes even less likely (if that’s possible).  God lies in book of Job.  The reasons for Jesus’s sacrifice become moot.  If the first words are inaccurate then what else is inaccurate?  To accept evolution one must also accept that the Bible is not a perfect source of information and that a large portion of what they’ve believed since childhood is fundamentally wrong.  Either the Bible is reliable as a perfect work of God, or it is an imperfect human construct and you can never know what to believe in it.
I think I understand why creationists are as blind as they are.  And while I can still feel some sympathy for them, there is no way in hell I can ever condone their nonsensical beliefs and their desire to spread them.

I agree.  I feel that fundamentalists—though I disagree with them—are more correct in their interpretation of their religion.  If you begin to ignore those things that seem barbaric to our 21st century psyches, if you decide that some of the laws of Leviticus are abhorrent but everything Jesus said was kosher—despite Jesus’ endorsement of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17-18: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.") then why continue to follow that religion at all.  If you want to be good to other people, to follow those things that Jesus said that you do agree with, then why not do so, and merely add him to the list of other compassionate rebels who throughout history have reinforced in us that most wonderful of human qualities: our ability to empathize with one another.  
The rest is just mythical baggage.

skepticalavenger:

I think, to an extent, that they may be correct in the way see it; that it’s either/or.  To accept evolution is to throw away the opening words of the Bible and dismiss them as blatantly false.  If you do that; if you throw away the entirety of Genesis Chapter One, then most of the entire rest of the book loses its footing.  The ark story becomes even less likely (if that’s possible).  God lies in book of Job.  The reasons for Jesus’s sacrifice become moot.  If the first words are inaccurate then what else is inaccurate?  To accept evolution one must also accept that the Bible is not a perfect source of information and that a large portion of what they’ve believed since childhood is fundamentally wrong.  Either the Bible is reliable as a perfect work of God, or it is an imperfect human construct and you can never know what to believe in it.

I think I understand why creationists are as blind as they are.  And while I can still feel some sympathy for them, there is no way in hell I can ever condone their nonsensical beliefs and their desire to spread them.

I agree.  I feel that fundamentalists—though I disagree with them—are more correct in their interpretation of their religion.  If you begin to ignore those things that seem barbaric to our 21st century psyches, if you decide that some of the laws of Leviticus are abhorrent but everything Jesus said was kosher—despite Jesus’ endorsement of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17-18: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.") then why continue to follow that religion at all.  If you want to be good to other people, to follow those things that Jesus said that you do agree with, then why not do so, and merely add him to the list of other compassionate rebels who throughout history have reinforced in us that most wonderful of human qualities: our ability to empathize with one another.  

The rest is just mythical baggage.

fuckyeahdinoart:

Dimetrodon_1 by ~SADistikKnight
plaid-monkey:

You garden is quite lovely. It would be a shame if something were to… happen to it…

plaid-monkey:

You garden is quite lovely. It would be a shame if something were to… happen to it…

killerkurves:

londonandrews