FYI: How Much Bacteria Do People Carry Around?

I can't wait to see a bunch of people comment with something to the effect of; EW THAT IS SO GROOSEEEE ICANT BELEIVEE THAT THERES THAT MUCH BACKTERIA INSIDE MEEEEEEE!!!1!!1!!!!!

To respond to all those that will think that, have you seen what happens to people who have to be on antibiotics for an extended period? The bacteria in our body is very important to our health and can have detrimental effects if it is not there.

You mean I'm mostly bacteria as 9 out of 10 cells in my body are bacteria and I'm not really a human at all but a Frankenstein?

Guess those religious zealots who say 'god created man in his own image' have another thing to think about!

I guess it means too god was a bacteria!

Now I get to watch as all the non-religious and religious people alike argue because of this idiot..

Philosophically speaking, it just shows how much more we are all connected to GIA! No "ew!" need to be said.

As long as we keep our inner biological system in balance, life is good.

Assuming the low end of both estimates, 1 percent of body mass equaling 3 pounds means they assume everyone weighs a minimum of 300 pounds... How did they know my weight?

@ gizmowiz - You fail to recognize that those whom you blanket label as Zealots (including myself) believe that man was created perfect and not in our present state of imperfection. Your comments, although welcome, don't reflect well on your knowledge of the subject. If you care to be enlightened by a religious Zealot, please let me know.

@blad,

ROFL! That picture is hilarious.

Although, really, 2 percent body mass equaling 3 pounds is someone who weighs ~150lbs...

I'd bet lots of people are 150-300 pounds ;)

---

"Do not offer sympathy to the mentally ill.
Tell them firmly:
I am not paid to listen to this drivel.
You are a terminal boob." - William S. Burroughs

@Igot1forya,

So, you are implying that being part human and part bacteria is imperfect.

In your opinion, being perfect must consist of either having no bacteria, or being ALL bacteria then?

Also, please reference which piece of religious dogma you use to come to your conclusions about the "perfect" quantity of bacteria...

---

"Do not offer sympathy to the mentally ill.
Tell them firmly:
I am not paid to listen to this drivel.
You are a terminal boob." - William S. Burroughs

I have a curiosity question. Are we human’s dependant on some of these bacteria’s? I mean if we could eliminate 100% of the bacteria’s, yeast, virus and parasites, would the human body be ok and function as normal?

Or do we need these extra organisms in us for help digest our food and create other useful things or body uses?

@BV - I'm talking about balance; both as independent entities living in a symbiotic fashion. Would you agree that today balance is problem in most systems we see around us, biologically or any other system for that matter?

I'm not arguing that humans do not require some form of bacterial assistance, anyone with digestive problems will know first hand that a balanced gut bacterial culture is a must! But that is my point, balance is key - that balance has been thrown off. One result in this case of imperfection, is a lack of perfect balance with the bacteria that coexists with us.

@1got1forya,

"Would you agree that today balance is problem in most systems we see around us, biologically or any other system for that matter?"

No.

For me to identify a "problem" I'd have to know wtf you meant by "balance".

"One result in this case of imperfection, is a lack of perfect balance with the bacteria that coexists with us."

Again... where is your religious reference that indicates the "perfect" amount of a specific type of bacteria any particular human should have in their body?

Last time I checked, 2000yr old compilations of mythology had no concept of bacteria...

---

"Do not offer sympathy to the mentally ill.
Tell them firmly:
I am not paid to listen to this drivel.
You are a terminal boob." - William S. Burroughs

@Tamiko,

I srsly hope you aren't BubbaGump.

Yes, obviously people are dependent on the bacteria in and on our bodies.

---

"Do not offer sympathy to the mentally ill.
Tell them firmly:
I am not paid to listen to this drivel.
You are a terminal boob." - William S. Burroughs

@BV - You and I both know, the Bible does not speak about Bacteria specifically. There was no need to talk about the specifics as information was dispensed on a need-to-know basis - how would the knowledge of Bacteria help Gods people navigate the times? The Bible does speak at length about practical things, like how to protect ones self from the potential infections one could get, often a cause from poor cleanliness, which is why there are so many regulations regarding the need to quarantine sick people from the masses. Deuteronomy 23 even has instructions for proper disposal of human excrement. Sure they did not know the reason for why they got sick - but the law protected them from bacterial infections the same as if it explained why. Please don't forget either, that the Bible is NOT a scientific journal by any means, but where it makes scientific statements, it does so surprisingly well. Job 26:7 speaks of the Earth "hanging upon nothing", and in Isaiah 40:22 is spoke of the "circle of the Earth" This is many centuries before what was thought to be fact in that the Earth was flat and supported on the back of a Turtle (and Elephant).

@B.V.
I think Tamiko was asking a theoretical question.

In the future, is there a way we can eliminate 100% of the bacteria in our body and still survive?

Perhaps, we will have nano-robots replacing these bacteria in our system performing their tasks in a much more efficient and controlled manner.

"the bible this, the bible that" do you religious life forms have anything better to back up your so called claims? if god mad mad in his own image than im guessing that he made aids to and cancer and all that other bad stuff.

_________________
The people of the world only divide into two kinds, One sort with brains who hold no religion, The other with religion and no brain.

- Abu-al-Ala al-Marri

JediMindset. I can not pull God out of my pocket and put it in your hands. I can not prove love or friendship. I can not qantify any of it. So lets eat, work, sex, and die. The end. According to all those who have no faith. Good luck!

I am going to take a different plane. On this plane their will be people who have faith, care about each other, love and make love and know the true meaning of friendship. I may even find a bug in my dinner on the plane. But hey bugs are part of the evolution, adaptation or even plan of things right. The plane may even crash, but everything is going to be alright. This is my own personal opinion for me. See ya!

@Gizmowiz Realize that you started this flare war that gave me reason to argue on something completely unrelated to the article. We can argue about Truth somewhere else.

@JediMindSet Yes actually, we have 2011 years of writings from various brilliant philosophers and personal accounts littering nearly that full time period, plus Catholics have tradition to fall back on. Although mostly the proofs for any metaphysical statements are logic and philosophy, taking an accepted postulate and constructed a map of reasoning from it. That's why many Greek philosophers ended up with near Christian ideology, which along with Saint Thomas Aquinas's proofs for God are enough to substantiate Christian claims, at least for me, as a very possible truth, although it's still a matter of choice.

@tamiko yeah you do need bacteria, as a near life long vegetarian if I eat meat then it essentially rots in my stomach and I need to go to a hospitable because all the bacteria that digest meat have died off i'm my body, so there's a cool enough thing.

Nadure Baile,
15-year-old Philosopher

@Igot1forya I think its really vain and funny of you that you think man is perfect. man is probably the worst virus on the entire planet.
The catholic church the moon was devine becuase it was perfectly round and anything perfect was devine. Then they saw through it a telescope and realized it wasnt devine anymore.
my point. it only took a different perspective to change the mind of the entire catholic church in a just a moment.

Yup, just like how the Catholic Church has accepted evolution since 1950, and they make up 17% of the 33% of the worlds population that's christian. It's actually pretty funny that they were the only major branch of Christianity to offer no opinion on evolution until they accepted it about a hundred years latter, although most other groups of Christians blame the controversy surrounding it on them. The speed of which they change comes from the fact they believe that science and faith will one day become perfected by each other, and truth cannot contradict truth. Didn't know about the moon thing, was that part of a the Galileo indecent?

Nadure Baile,
15-year-old Philosopher

To clarify on my percentages a little they make up 17% if the worlds population, not 17% of Christians.

Nadure Baile,
15-year-old Philosopher

@nadur.baile
its a matter of opinion. and i don't believe in religion at all. the bible has some good advice to take into account. but it has a lot of contradiction as well which proves its man made.

_________________
The people of the world only divide into two kinds, One sort with brains who hold no religion, The other with religion and no brain.

- Abu-al-Ala al-Marri

Thedicktator, BINGO! Yes, I was making a theoretical suggestion. First if we could remove all bacteria, yeast, parasites from the human body say instantly, my gut feeling is the human would just die from the shock of it all.

But if say we did this over a course of a year, gently removed all other life forms from the human body, would the we adapt and continue to function, maybe better off or would we suffer in a sickly state?

Yes, my question was general and yes theoretical in nature.

@nadur.baile
the catholic church are liars and fakes. where were they during slavery? during the civil right movements? the holocaust? during the extermination of native americans in the america? they didn't care. they also good at covering things up

_________________
The people of the world only divide into two kinds, One sort with brains who hold no religion, The other with religion and no brain.

- Abu-al-Ala al-Marri

JediMindset, In my humble opinion religious books were written in the hand of humans and so can be miss written from the divine nature source. I am Christian primary, but I try to keep my heart open to all cultures and religions. Yes, we humans often corrupt a good idea, it happens.

@inaka_rob - Actually, I'm saying man isn't perfect today (anyone can look around them and see that). The perfect condition I speak of, left us a long time ago when the first man and woman sinned. That original sin eventually led to their death (and ours). This theme of the Bible is based around how man can be forgiven of this sin (which led to imperfection) and what steps we need to take to obtain that.

@JediMindset - The Catholic Church is really good at calling themselves Christian and doing the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. This is especially the case when it comes to endorsing wars, getting involved in politics and adopting pagan holidays. I can only imaging the number of Face-palms Jesus does because of the bad name the Catholic Church gives him and his father in the name of Christianity. Matthew 7:15 warned about these wolves in sheep's clothing. Oh how it has come true.

@1got1forya,

"The Bible does speak at length about practical things, like how to protect ones self from the potential infections one could get, often a cause from poor cleanliness, which is why there are so many regulations regarding the need to quarantine sick people from the masses."

It also has regulations about stoning to death unmarried women who aren't virgins on their father's doorstep, kicking women out of the house when they get their period, chopping off parts of a man's penis, and killing men who sleep with other men.

It has regulations about not eating pork, or shellfish, or catfish. It has regulations about not wearing clothes made out of more than one type of fabric, or shaving your beard, and a multitude of other B.S. regulations that have no practical value.

So what?

Why don't you try answering the question I asked: where in the Bible does it specify what a "perfect" human being should be like?

Given that there is NO empirical description, you have nothing to compare us to when you claim that we aren't perfect. You simply state our imperfection as a postulate (arising out of the belief in "original sin").

If you disprove the 6 day creation cycle, if you accept that evolution is fact, then you must also rule out the story of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden and therefore mankind has no "original sin".

If we have no original sin, we have no need for a Messiah, and pretty soon your whole B.S. mythology falls apart since there is no longer a need to be "saved" by Jesus.

The existence of your belief system depends on a load of crap that has been proven as such by extensive scientific research.

The earth wasn't made in 6 days, 7billion people did NOT come from 2 people, there was no snake in the Garden of Eden, there is no need to repent for the sins of your ancestors, there is no need for Jesus, and no need for your religious dogma (which even you only subscribe to selectively as I sincerely doubt you are sitting there with a full beard, in a single-fabric outfit, after having killed homosexuals, and abstained from eating pork).

---

"Do not offer sympathy to the mentally ill.
Tell them firmly:
I am not paid to listen to this drivel.
You are a terminal boob." - William S. Burroughs

@Tamiko,

If you got rid of ALL the bacteria in/on your body, you would die no matter how slowly you did it.

Not only does it help if digesting food, it also helps to protect you from other bacteria.

Also... how the hell would you even go about removing all of the bacteria? You'd have to stick someone into a pressurized chamber to make sure they don't get new bacteria from the environment around them.

---

"Do not offer sympathy to the mentally ill.
Tell them firmly:
I am not paid to listen to this drivel.
You are a terminal boob." - William S. Burroughs

B.V, It is true that such rules existed at one time, however further study reveals that those restrictions were lifted over time by new covenants (especially when Jesus came on the scene). Those original rules were put in place to protect a very small group of people (Israelites) and specifically to protect the people from outside nations. These rules became obsolete when the focus changed from protecting the lineage of The Christ, to a new continent of forgiveness (among other things) which included the Gentile nations. As for the Earth being created in 6 days; it's unreasonable to conclude this is a literal number as 2 Peter indicates a much longer period of time. I have a feeling that even if I cite the exact verses for each of your arguments that I would be wasting both of our time. Arguing, for arguing' sake is not beneficial to anyone, though I do appreciate a good visceral discussion of things that matter. Clearly, you have come to a conclusion with differs from mine, and that is OK with me.

@Igot1forya,

I would be impressed and would much appreciate if you could cite to me the passages from the new testament which indicate it's OK to eat pork (and the other ridiculous rules I mentioned).

Even if one claims that "6 days" is metaphorical and is in "God Days" not "Earth days"--it would still be impossible for humanity to exist from a SINGLE PAIR of ancestors (whether it's Adam & Eve or later Noah & his family)--therefore no Adam & Eve, no talking snake, no original sin, no Jesus-as-savior.

Additionally, if you start redefining the meanings of words in your religion to better fit the observable reality... why not just redefine the whole thing (thereby abandoning the dogma) and simply base your belief system off of observable reality?

You are already using your ingrained mammalian intuition for determining what (from your religious text) DOES or DOESN'T fit into your views of what is "right" and "wrong"... why not just abandon the religious text all together and simply use that same intuition?

You will still feel compassion for your fellow man, you will still feel love for your children, and you will still feel the desire to help those in need--just as other social mammals do.

None of those things are exclusive to Christians or religious people--there's no need to fear losing them when you break free from the intellectual dishonesty that is religion.

---

"Do not offer sympathy to the mentally ill.
Tell them firmly:
I am not paid to listen to this drivel.
You are a terminal boob." - William S. Burroughs

B.V - no problem, give me some time to put the response in order and I'll post back here later tonight or tomorrow. The subject is a complex one that will need some research. A similar debate occurred in the first century Christian congregation regarding weather or not mean should be circumcised (Acts 15:1-41) and it gives you a gimps of how changes can and does occur when the need is necessary.

Circling back for a moment to the point about the first human pair (as well as Noah and his family). Indeed in our present state, there is no way that a single pair (or in the case of Noah a few pairs) of people can sustain a population without genetic consequences. We would all either be dead or look similar to the isolated African tribe of the Ostrich People (inbreeding big time). But when you think of it this way, those people (Adam and Eve, Noah and his family) were much closer to perfection than we are today. We are living products of generation after generation of people that are moving further away from the original conditions Man stem from (perfection). The further we move away, the more imperfect we become (the more depend on diversity). Its why it was possible then, Adam and Eve and so many others in the original accounts in the Bible lived for many hundreds of years and were able to bare hundreds of children (entire nations as it were). It is also one of the reasons the Bible contains a VERY detailed record of family linage, the ultimate goal of course, was to identify the linage of the then coming Christ.

I'll work on the points mentioned above and get back with you.

@tamiko. yes much of what we consider basic functions of homeostaisis are a result of bacteria. For instance bacteria in your duodenum (first part of your small intestine) is responsible for senthasis of b12 and some bacteria in your large intestines are responsible for flatulence. Think of your body as a working comune of organisms.

I should add that i am also not convinced that you are not bubbagump

@Igot1forya,

You keep talking a lot about "perfection" and yet you continue to refuse to offer any accounts (biblical or otherwise) what exactly a perfect human would be like. Please address this.

Currently it seems like "perfection" is simply anything that would reinforce your belief system: people who can mate with their own children are perfect, but people who can mate only with those of varied DNA are imperfect. Where is the basis for this?

Does the bible say, "He who is without bacteria must lie down with his own offspring, for he is truly perfect and will undoubtedly reproduce?"

Your whole "Adam & Eve were perfect" argument is not based on anything empirical (or even anything stated in the Bible)--it's just a made-up reason to reject the science which obviously points out that such a small group of people could not populate the planet.

It's also a made-up reason to reject the science which obviously proves that due to the way human cell replication works, it's basically impossible to live beyond ~125years--no where near the lifespans claimed in the bible.

Since there is empirical scientific evidence which contradicts the core claims of your religion, instead of admitting that those claims are unfounded, you come up with justifications which have absolutely ZERO basis in reality or fiction.

---

Secondly, the genealogical record in the Bible would indicate that the first humans were created only around 6,000 years ago.

We have hard scientific evidence to prove humans have existed for longer than 6,000 years.

Not only that, but 6,000 years is not enough time for humanity to evolve from some "perfect" specimen (Adam & Even and also Noah and his wife + 3 sons + their 3 wives) into the "imperfect" humans you see today.

Furthermore, the various traits you see different among humans (such as skin pigment, eye shape, hair color, eye color, etc.) would take longer than 6,000 years to develop in isolated populations (like Africa, Asia, South America, Europe, etc).

Even if the first incestuous offspring of Adam & Eve sprinted across the entire globe and started inbreeding in their own little region at the age of 13, there would not be enough time to get white people in Europe and black people in Africa and brown people in India, etc.

---

"Do not offer sympathy to the mentally ill.
Tell them firmly:
I am not paid to listen to this drivel.
You are a terminal boob." - William S. Burroughs

B.V - I promised I'd get back with you but I think we are going all over the place here. Let's stick to one topic at a time.

Let me state the subject on the eating of swine first, there are a number of research angles that the issue of eating or not eating swine can be approached.

To start, let us ask ourselves “Who did the law originally apply to?” Obviously it was for the Jews (none of the neighboring nations had such a law). Speculation exists that this law was instated out of cleanliness; swine were known to be carrion eaters. Perhaps the law was instituted to separate and distinguish the Jews from the rest of the surrounding nations (similar to the command to wear a unique colored fringe on their outer garments – Numbers 15:38). So it begs to ask the question, “Sense it only originally apply to blood Jews, in the time of Jesus did it also apply to Gentiles and adopted Jews?” Deuteronomy 14:8 states that no one should even touch a carcass of one, however Mathew 8:32 tells us that Jesus sends two demons into a herd of swine, which makes you think that someone had to have a purpose for keeping a herd if it could not be eaten or even touched – did they keep them for pets? I can’t say for sure, but likely no. Either a Jew (who ignored the law) or a person of the nations (Gentile) had owned the herd. Likely it was a person of the nation who owned the herd of swine.

There is another area that some feel may also apply, that being found at Acts 10:9 where Peter sees a vision from God. Here, God commanded Peter to eat unclean things (four-footed animals, birds and reptiles). Peter of course knowing the Jewish law refuses to comply several times. However, God tells him outright that he has made these things clean. Although initially bewildered by the puzzling vision, Peter discovers the hidden meaning of the vision, that being that the preaching would now be expanded to include a once unclean people (Gentiles) (Acts 10:34). In this case Peter clearly states that he knows the true meaning of the vision when he openly enters a Gentile home (Cornelius) this creates quite a stir in Jerusalem when he returns. But as mentioned before, some speculate this has a double meaning, applying to both unclean animals and to Gentiles. The Bible contains several examples where certain prophecies had duel fulfillments, which is why some feel this one did as well.

One more area to look at is found at Romans 14:1-9. Many look to this verse regarding what our view should be towards eating meat (it does not say specifically swine, but it puts a negative spin on the term “meat” when it associates it with weak faith). In this case, the point is being made about where we should stand when it comes to judging others (that job is not our own, but Gods). Based on this, some day the eating of “meat” would be a personal matter, not open to judgment by others – however it does not outright say one way or the other, only that we are not allowed to judge based on others choices.

The other area where we can look is to the first century Christian congregation as a whole, which grew exponentially as the preaching work extended out of Judea and into the outlying nations (Acts 1:8). Now, I’m no historian but this area of research goes beyond the slated time I promised for my response; however I leave you with this; if you are interested, we can continue this discussion (and others) elsewhere over email if you like.

@Igot1forya,

1) Every single law in the Bible originally applied to the Jews.

The Ten Commandments were given to the Jews, Jesus was a Jew, etc.

So...? Are you claiming that a "Gentile" would totally be okay with eating pork and murdering his/her family since the commandment to not kill was delivered to Jews, and not that individual Gentile.

You can expand that argument to EVERYTHING in the Bible and say "well, God told all of this to SOMEONE ELSE--not me--so it does not apply to me".

Then what's the point of your holy book?

2) The fact that you cite various portions of the Bible where it's first forbidden to eat swine/even touch one and then portions where it might be interpreted as okay is only evidence that such a self-contradictory work of mythology cannot serve as a foundation for morality or ethics.

That's why you were never able to give a straight answer as to whether or not it was okay to eat pork. Because your answer would have to be based around a bunch of nonsense that says two different and mutually exclusive things about the subject.

3) I don't give out my e-mail to strangers, but if you would like to discuss further on some other forum, paste the link and I will join you there.

---

"Do not offer sympathy to the mentally ill.
Tell them firmly:
I am not paid to listen to this drivel.
You are a terminal boob." - William S. Burroughs