you can't assign evolution feelings, opinions, emotions. you can't personify it like that. to do so is at best- a misstatement, and at worst - an intentionally manipulative scare tactic. every successful adaptation is a mutation. mutations happen constantly. some are more attractive than others. but someones "less attractive" mutated genes don't deem them useless. i'm short, have bad teeth and i run slow. i still bred. but evolution has 0 opinions on the matter because it does not have a personality. i am valuable only because of my ability to mean something to someone and find meaning in someone else. "survival of the fittest" does not describe which adaptations are "better" and therefore not "useless", it was a term coined by a social darwinist to justify gross poverty and legitimize human suffering.

Right, this is my point. Evolution is deaf dumb and blind. The only measure of success is whether something can reproduce or not. Many of the people who have these kinds disabilities could never survive on their own. Evolution would eliminate them from the gene pool entirely if other people didn't intervene. So really, by taking care of them we are doing something contrary to evolution. Why should we do that if it is contrary to evolutionary principle? Isn't it more harmful to humankind to perpetuate their genes?

anyone that has the ability to love and be loved is intrinsically valuable. if love and morality have an evolutionary basis, which they do, then i see no need for god. your attempt to demonize evolution with callous and offensive personifications is weak. and gives a bit of insight into your own morality and how you view people. evolution didn't deem kids with syndromes or other disabilities as worthless, you did. god didn't generously bestow upon them the ability to "behave nobly", they're human beings .. they did that on their own. this self righteous, pompous ass interpretation of the "miracle" of admirable behavior being displayed by someone you obviously view as "less than" can fuck right off

The only basis of "moral" behavior in evolution is selfishness. Morality, on the other hand by definition is unselfish. What you're talking about are simply behaviors conditioned into animals by their environment to act in ways that benefit the survival on the species, You've given that a label you call morality. If it were more beneficial to harm people rather than help them you would call that moral too.

But under these terms everything we do is selfish..you have to ask yourself, why should I be unselfish? Because it benefits the group. Why should I care about benefitting the group? Because it benefits the species. Why should I care about benefitting the species? Because it benefits me. So, the motivation of being unselfish is selfishness! I think you know this isn't how morality works. For something to be moral, it needs an objective basis that evolution doesn't provide, a purely unselfish reason. If what's moral is just whats best to keep us surviving and reproducing, then you can justify any kind of behavior undet those terms.

You speak about meaning and value, which are entirely subjective and have nothing to do with evolution, as if you could derive them from a mindless unconscious process. How do you find any personal agency in any of this? What makes you valuable is to love and be loved? No, what makes you valuable under your terms is your ability to perpetuate the species, an entirely selfish motivation on your part. And that entirely contridicts love, which is never selfish. I'm sorry but evolution doesn't explain these things at all, not noble self-sacrifcial behavior and certainly not love. It actually just makes the idea of them utterly ridiculous, perfectly shallow and base. I mean your idea of love is that it is a chemical reaction in the brain that developed so you wouldn't leave your babies in a ditch somewhere instead of taking care of them. I find that utterly sad.

As far as your judgments on my character are concerned, I am merely postulating hypotheticals based on the terms science presents. My personal views are that all human life is equally valid and valuable. So, please check your preconceived notions about me at the door..thanks.

Heres my live-comment on the video

"New knowledge has shaken the foundations of Darwins theory"

No. In fact, everything in biology, especially the discovery of DNA in 1953 have confirmed, and established once and for all that the foundation of Darwins theory based on the Natural selection of hereditery properties (Darwin called them traits, we now call them genes) is true.

"When Darwin was alive, they thought the cell was a simple blob"

Wow, that was only like 3 seconds between lie #1 and lie #2! Impressive, Behe. Lets drag up Darwins corpse, and see what he had to say, even if its largely irrelevant to the fact of evolution and the practice of modern biology:
http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/07/16/darwin_and_the_cell_not_just_p/

"Like a car factory where everything has to fit together"


Not really, cells are messy things, and the processes inside is based on chemical reactions and physical laws (such as entropy) They look nothing like these tidy animations meant for illustration purposes. The production of proteins, for instance,is a process where the amino acids float around and bind themselves chemically to rna, not in an orderly "wait my turn"-style, but they latch on naturally to the RNA because they are chemically attracted to the 5 different nucleic acids on the RNA chain. It would be more similar to a redox reaction you can do with electrodes in water where the iron rod attracts the oxygen molecules, forming rust.(in the sense that theres nothing intelligent going on, just chemistry.)

"Darwinism was a lot more plausible when we thought the cell was a blob"

No.

"Flagellum"

A , Behes flagship of his idiot argument, he always pulls it out, all debunking be damned, he cant even hear how people have destroyed this silliness over and over:

http://youtu.be/a_5FToP_mMY

Utter bullshit.

you can't assign evolution feelings, opinions, emotions. you can't personify it like that. to do so is at best- a misstatement, and at worst - an intentionally manipulative scare tactic. every successful adaptation is a mutation. mutations happen constantly. some are more attractive than others. but someones "less attractive" mutated genes don't deem them useless. i'm short, have bad teeth and i run slow. i still bred. but evolution has 0 opinions on the matter because it does not have a personality. i am valuable only because of my ability to mean something to someone and find meaning in someone else. "survival of the fittest" does not describe which adaptations are "better" and therefore not "useless", it was a term coined by a social darwinist to justify gross poverty and legitimize human suffering.

anyone that has the ability to love and be loved is intrinsically valuable. if love and morality have an evolutionary basis, which they do, then i see no need for god. your attempt to demonize evolution with callous and offensive personifications is weak. and gives a bit of insight into your own morality and how you view people. evolution didn't deem kids with syndromes or other disabilities as worthless, you did. god didn't generously bestow upon them the ability to "behave nobly", they're human beings .. they did that on their own. this self righteous, pompous ass interpretation of the "miracle" of admirable behavior being displayed by someone you obviously view as "less than" can fuck right off. >> ^shinyblurry:

Is this called argument from offense? Do you have a point here? In any case, whether you like or not, that's what they are according to evolution..genetic abberations. ie, useless people.
>> ^peggedbea:
you don't know what i do for a living, so i'll skip the part where i yell at you passionately kids with downs/people with disabilities/kids with syndromes.
furthermore, survival of the fittest was not a phrase coined by darwin. and did not originally apply to the evolution of organisms. applying it to people with genetic disorders further offends me. >> ^shinyblurry:
Surely, you can invent value, which has meaning to yourself..but there is no intrinsic value to anything created by mere chance. It is only the arbitrary value that we assign that makes something meaningful. I valued people when I didn't believe in God, loved them very dearly, yet there wasn't a logical reason to do so.
Consider, what is the value of someone born with a severe disability, like downs syndrome. They are a burden to society and they themselves cannot enjoy life as a normal human being. They are pretty much genetic baggage as far as evolution is concerned, a disturbing abberation to be eliminated. In the survival of the fittest, they should be culled from the gene pool. Yet, even they are capable of noble behavior, something your science cannot explain. Can evolution explain this one: http://teachingsofjon.com/ ?
>> ^peggedbea:
again, statements like this make me feel like the world must look terrifying.
your intrinsic value to me is not dependent on whether or not a creator meant for you to exist.
>> ^shinyblurry:
If the Universe was created by chance, life has no intrinsic value or meaning. You can believe it does, but then you could get hit by a bus. It truly doesn't matter what you believe, because you are at the mercy of a random fate. Not that you could even trust your own mind, being that you are just a biological machine whose thoughts are just chemical reactions.
No matter how noble human beings become, a meteor doesn't know anything about that..humankind could come close to utopia, but wandering black holes are not impressed. Nothing that anyone accomplishes will have any lasting impact on a Univese that will fall into heat death and fade away. To say life is absurd and futile under these circumstances is a kindness.

yes, they would be. lots of other people would too. people with weaker immune systems, people with psoriasis, people with bad teeth and lazy eyes and bone spurs. i'm short and i run slow. but we are a civilized society and do not need to write anyone off as human refuse. and how self righteous of someone to think that their specific path from creation to enlightenment is the only thing keeping "less desirables" from becoming total human refuse. that some large male diety in the sky is the only thing blessing the freaks with the ability to behave "nobly" and that without HIM these "burdens on society" would just need to be left in a landfill somewhere.

oh and also, every successful adaption started off as a MUTATION. not that i think fragile X or angelman's syndromes are the future of the human race or anything. i just resent absolutism and self righteousness. and every statement he makes at me stinks of both.

i totally understand that he doesnt mean to come off like a complete dick and doubt that he is actually a complete dick, but every interaction i have with him.... he comes off as a complete dick.
In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Although I largely disagree with shinyblurry, I will concede that if we were not a civilized society, people with either physical or mental disabilities would be at a much greater risk of death. MOST new genetic mutations are deleterious, that is to say, they cause harm to their respective owners. And while I fully understand that Darwin didn't coin the phrase, it doesn't change the idea that some people are vexed by their genes in one way or another.

However, I DO agree that writing said people off as "genetic baggage," as he put it, is callus and unkind. We could just as easily say that "love" is simply a chemical reaction in the brain, and can be written off as such. But it's the value we place on those feelings, the choices we make to assign it meaning, much like the choices we make to care for one another, that give our own lives meaning and purpose.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
you don't know what i do for a living, so i'll skip the part where i yell at you passionately kids with downs/people with disabilities/kids with syndromes.
furthermore, survival of the fittest was not a phrase coined by darwin. and did not originally apply to the evolution of organisms. applying it to people with genetic disorders further offends me.

Although I largely disagree with shinyblurry, I will concede that if we were not a civilized society, people with either physical or mental disabilities would be at a much greater risk of death. MOST new genetic mutations are deleterious, that is to say, they cause harm to their respective owners. And while I fully understand that Darwin didn't coin the phrase, it doesn't change the idea that some people are vexed by their genes in one way or another.

However, I DO agree that writing said people off as "genetic baggage," as he put it, is callus and unkind. We could just as easily say that "love" is simply a chemical reaction in the brain, and can be written off as such. But it's the value we place on those feelings, the choices we make to assign it meaning, much like the choices we make to care for one another, that give our own lives meaning and purpose.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
you don't know what i do for a living, so i'll skip the part where i yell at you passionately kids with downs/people with disabilities/kids with syndromes.
furthermore, survival of the fittest was not a phrase coined by darwin. and did not originally apply to the evolution of organisms. applying it to people with genetic disorders further offends me.

Is this called argument from offense? Do you have a point here? In any case, whether you like or not, that's what they are according to evolution..genetic abberations. ie, useless people.

>> ^peggedbea:
you don't know what i do for a living, so i'll skip the part where i yell at you passionately kids with downs/people with disabilities/kids with syndromes.
furthermore, survival of the fittest was not a phrase coined by darwin. and did not originally apply to the evolution of organisms. applying it to people with genetic disorders further offends me. >> ^shinyblurry:
Surely, you can invent value, which has meaning to yourself..but there is no intrinsic value to anything created by mere chance. It is only the arbitrary value that we assign that makes something meaningful. I valued people when I didn't believe in God, loved them very dearly, yet there wasn't a logical reason to do so.
Consider, what is the value of someone born with a severe disability, like downs syndrome. They are a burden to society and they themselves cannot enjoy life as a normal human being. They are pretty much genetic baggage as far as evolution is concerned, a disturbing abberation to be eliminated. In the survival of the fittest, they should be culled from the gene pool. Yet, even they are capable of noble behavior, something your science cannot explain. Can evolution explain this one: http://teachingsofjon.com/ ?
>> ^peggedbea:
again, statements like this make me feel like the world must look terrifying.
your intrinsic value to me is not dependent on whether or not a creator meant for you to exist.
>> ^shinyblurry:
If the Universe was created by chance, life has no intrinsic value or meaning. You can believe it does, but then you could get hit by a bus. It truly doesn't matter what you believe, because you are at the mercy of a random fate. Not that you could even trust your own mind, being that you are just a biological machine whose thoughts are just chemical reactions.
No matter how noble human beings become, a meteor doesn't know anything about that..humankind could come close to utopia, but wandering black holes are not impressed. Nothing that anyone accomplishes will have any lasting impact on a Univese that will fall into heat death and fade away. To say life is absurd and futile under these circumstances is a kindness.

you don't know what i do for a living, so i'll skip the part where i yell at you passionately kids with downs/people with disabilities/kids with syndromes.
furthermore, survival of the fittest was not a phrase coined by darwin. and did not originally apply to the evolution of organisms. applying it to people with genetic disorders further offends me. >> ^shinyblurry:

Surely, you can invent value, which has meaning to yourself..but there is no intrinsic value to anything created by mere chance. It is only the arbitrary value that we assign that makes something meaningful. I valued people when I didn't believe in God, loved them very dearly, yet there wasn't a logical reason to do so.
Consider, what is the value of someone born with a severe disability, like downs syndrome. They are a burden to society and they themselves cannot enjoy life as a normal human being. They are pretty much genetic baggage as far as evolution is concerned, a disturbing abberation to be eliminated. In the survival of the fittest, they should be culled from the gene pool. Yet, even they are capable of noble behavior, something your science cannot explain. Can evolution explain this one: http://teachingsofjon.com/ ?
>> ^peggedbea:
again, statements like this make me feel like the world must look terrifying.
your intrinsic value to me is not dependent on whether or not a creator meant for you to exist.
>> ^shinyblurry:
If the Universe was created by chance, life has no intrinsic value or meaning. You can believe it does, but then you could get hit by a bus. It truly doesn't matter what you believe, because you are at the mercy of a random fate. Not that you could even trust your own mind, being that you are just a biological machine whose thoughts are just chemical reactions.
No matter how noble human beings become, a meteor doesn't know anything about that..humankind could come close to utopia, but wandering black holes are not impressed. Nothing that anyone accomplishes will have any lasting impact on a Univese that will fall into heat death and fade away. To say life is absurd and futile under these circumstances is a kindness.

Surely, you can invent value, which has meaning to yourself..but there is no intrinsic value to anything created by mere chance. It is only the arbitrary value that we assign that makes something meaningful. I valued people when I didn't believe in God, loved them very dearly, yet there wasn't a logical reason to do so.

Consider, what is the value of someone born with a severe disability, like downs syndrome. They are a burden to society and they themselves cannot enjoy life as a normal human being. They are pretty much genetic baggage as far as evolution is concerned, a disturbing abberation to be eliminated. In the survival of the fittest, they should be culled from the gene pool. Yet, even they are capable of noble behavior, something your science cannot explain. Can evolution explain this one: http://teachingsofjon.com/ ?

>> ^peggedbea:
again, statements like this make me feel like the world must look terrifying.
your intrinsic value to me is not dependent on whether or not a creator meant for you to exist.
>> ^shinyblurry:
If the Universe was created by chance, life has no intrinsic value or meaning. You can believe it does, but then you could get hit by a bus. It truly doesn't matter what you believe, because you are at the mercy of a random fate. Not that you could even trust your own mind, being that you are just a biological machine whose thoughts are just chemical reactions.
No matter how noble human beings become, a meteor doesn't know anything about that..humankind could come close to utopia, but wandering black holes are not impressed. Nothing that anyone accomplishes will have any lasting impact on a Univese that will fall into heat death and fade away. To say life is absurd and futile under these circumstances is a kindness.

again, statements like this make me feel like the world must look terrifying.

your intrinsic value to me is not dependent on whether or not a creator meant for you to exist.
>> ^shinyblurry:

If the Universe was created by chance, life has no intrinsic value or meaning. You can believe it does, but then you could get hit by a bus. It truly doesn't matter what you believe, because you are at the mercy of a random fate. Not that you could even trust your own mind, being that you are just a biological machine whose thoughts are just chemical reactions.
No matter how noble human beings become, a meteor doesn't know anything about that..humankind could come close to utopia, but wandering black holes are not impressed. Nothing that anyone accomplishes will have any lasting impact on a Univese that will fall into heat death and fade away. To say life is absurd and futile under these circumstances is a kindness.

The definition of morality or its application is not applicable to this argument. NEXT

Wrong. jonny is stating that even if God does exist he is not necessary, because he thinks he can be moral without Him..it's very applicable to the discussion

Your "Was the universe created by a supreme being?" question creates a false dilemma. NEXT

It's a valid question..even dawkins admitted that the Universe appears to be designed for life. He attempts to solve this dilemma by positing infinite Universes and we just happen to be in the one that looks like it was designed. I can give at least a few reasons why that couldn't be true..if you don't like this question, ill keep framing them until we boil it down to its essence. How about this..

Does the Universe exist because of design or chance?

Design = Theist

Chance = Atheist

Don't know = Agnostic

The fact that Athiests know more about religion is a testament to the fact that they have searched very hard for god. I myself suffer from wishful thinking of life after death, I do certainly wish it was true and would like very much for my consciousness to continue to exist after I die. NEXT

If the Universe was created by chance, life has no intrinsic value or meaning. You can believe it does, but then you could get hit by a bus. It truly doesn't matter what you believe, because you are at the mercy of a random fate. Not that you could even trust your own mind, being that you are just a biological machine whose thoughts are just chemical reactions.

No matter how noble human beings become, a meteor doesn't know anything about that..humankind could come close to utopia, but wandering black holes are not impressed. Nothing that anyone accomplishes will have any lasting impact on a Univese that will fall into heat death and fade away. To say life is absurd and futile under these circumstances is a kindness.

Or, we have a moral Creator and lawgiver, whom has created us with eternal life in mind, and this life is merely a transition to it. A proving ground designed to prepare us for life eternal, a trial to perfect us in His image, so that like Him we can exist eternally in paradise, forever. That life is not in fact random, and there is no such thing as coincidence (which some of you may suspect). The things of this world are merely a distraction from the real treasure, which is within each one of us.

People are argued into believing in jesus every day. They're called children! NEXT

Children are actually closer to God than adults because they have not yet conformed to the ways of the world. Their hearts and minds are open and attuned to the truth. It's obvious even to very small children what God is about. Someone asked a 4 year old boy what God was. He said..God is the water around the edges (of his consciousness)

A CEO owns you in as much as he owns the way you are making a living and hope to prosper from your work when you go home. He creates the working conditions and decides who stays, who goes, and passes judgement indiscriminately. The analogy is very fitting. FIN

I think you missed your curtain call..being dependent on someone for livelyhood is not the same as being someones property.

@shinyblurry

The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material.

Big bang theory doesn't say the universe sprang forth from nothing, it says the universe rapidly expanded from the singularity. All the matter of today's universe existed, in some form, in the singularity. Any proposals about the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch are pure speculation. The rest of your argument is all based on this false presupposition so I won't bother refuting it.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted?

I say that's a wonderful validation for agnosticism. I just explained this to you the other day. We cannot know anything for sure because we only have our flawed senses and limited mental capacity to rely on. That's agnosticism.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness.

Humans were social creatures long before they invented/discovered Yahweh. We lived in tribes. Hunters cooperated to bring home meat for everyone while gatherers collected fruits/vegetables to also share. Children were raised by the tribe as a whole. The tribe had safety in numbers. Members who were found to be stealing or cheating would find others were no longer willing to cooperate with them, possibly they would face exile. Tell me, would you be more likely to survive, especially in the wild, if you worked in harmony with the others or if you had to do everything for yourself? Similar traits are common in many mammals and birds. Warm-blooded creatures are generally too high-maintenance to be entirely self-sufficient. We can't crank out hundreds of offspring every mating season and walk away. We need to cooperate to survive. None of those non-human mammals have heard God's Word, either, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Coveting might lead to theft, murder, etc, or it might lead to nothing. Someone on my block drives a nice Audi A6. I see it now and then and think, "Man, I wish I had an A6" and then I go on with my day. I do not envy them, steal from them, assault them, or murder them. The line is drawn at which point I cause another person harm. Wishing I had an A6 doesn't hurt anyone.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

I do not lack an objective standard for morality. Harmfulness is pretty damn objective. It's not my feelings, it's theirs. It's not ok to rape people because people don't like being raped, ergo rape is not morally justified in my world view. Is it justified in some peoples' world view? Yes, unfortunately it is, but they are a very small minority of the total population (though I'd be very happy for them to be even smaller).

@xxovercastxx

I don't know if there are multiple universes. It's a fun idea, but at this point it's just an idea with no supporting evidence. At least, I'm not aware of any. It's not a topic I keep up on. I lack a belief in multiple universes at this point. Immaterialism falls into the same boat.

Apparently, if the other Universes had different physics, it would be impossible to detect them anyway. So to me it's a fairly useless supposition. So, just one Universe and nothing but the material.

I subscribe to the big bang theory, fully aware that it leaves plenty of questions to be answered. There are always more questions. Anything prior to singularity is a total mystery and I imagine it will be that way for a very long time.

Time and space had a beginning at the big bang, so really it would always be impossible to measure it. The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material. It's creation ex nihilo..IE, creation from nothing. Which funnily enough happens to uniquely support the judeo-christian belief.

How does something from from nothing? Only nothing can come from nothing..So therefore, if time and space had a beginning, there must be something outside of time and space which created it. These have always been identified as Gods attributes, of existing outside of time and space in an eternal continuim with no beginning or end. Isn't a transcendent creator necessitated here?

I do not feel consciousness is as fancy or magical as many people do. We seem to be getting along just fine with the model that it's all just physical processes in the brain. There's still room for a surprise, sure, but until that surprise comes I'm ok with a physical model.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted? Without an independent existence from the body, IE the soul, this seems to be the conclusion you're left with.

Morality is interesting. In practice, it really comes down to consensus and I feel it's largely based on emotions. It's fortunate that the vast majority of people have very similar feelings about what is or isn't moral, at least when it comes to the big ones (murder, theft, honesty, slavery, etc). I don't think anything that doesn't harm other people is immoral, which is where you and I part ways on the subject.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness. In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Homosexuality, for example, poses no moral dilemmas for me because what people do to themselves and/or to other willing participants doesn't harm anyone else.

Bestiality, on the other hand, harms animals and it's also really fucking weird. This is not acceptable behavior to me. Mind you, it's the act that crosses the line. I don't think people who find themselves sexually attracted to animals are immoral so long as they don't act on it. All of us has some strange shit on our minds from time to time and I'm not ok with prosecuting thought crimes with either earthly or celestial judges.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

Putting aside, for a moment, your apparent war on etymology, what if you believe the universe is a simulation running on a computer? What if you believe it was created by an advanced alien race? According to you, these people would be theists.

Well, you could say the Universe started 5 seconds ago and all of your memories are false. And if the Universe was simulated, the question is meaningless..but point taken..the better question is..Was the Universe deliberately Created by supreme being?

Making obvious my ignorance of science in my formative years, why exactly is a fuel combustion not an explosion?

According to wikipedia, a combustion is the reaction of an oxidant and fuel to create heat and light involving a chemical change whereas is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy potentially caused by a chemical reaction.

Isn't that in some cases ... the same thing?

It didn't "melt" the cans... that implies a state change, not a chemical reaction.

Anyway, I recently tried something similar with a penny and 12M HCl. There was some reaction with the copper plating (which surprised me), but it vigorously attacked the zinc core leaving a soft hollow shell.


Edit: Also, I'm pretty sure the reaction in the video produces Aluminum Hydroxide, not Sodium Aluminate.

What, no suggestion to rape her? You're losing your edge, brother.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I think I can help you out. But you must follow these rules exactly as written.

1. Buy some essential items that will come into use later: two (2) thick muslin clothes (no smaller than 6"x6"), a 1/2 cc hypodermic needle/syringe, a pack of Mentos (your favorite flavor), a can of acetone from Home Depot, a bottle of common house bleach (sodium hypochlorite), a small metal pencil box, a twenty dollar bill, a pair of binoculars.
2. Using the pair of binoculars, watch your prey carefully for days to get his or her routine down.
3. Pinpoint a place where your prey is always alone, and leave a packet of Mentos nearby. You'll need to leave them hidden enough where they won't be easily detected by passers-by. You'll want them later.
4. Next, find a homeless man with AIDS. You can probably find one under a bridge near a hospital or AIDS clinic.
5. Pay him twenty bucks for a syringe full of his AIDS infested blood.
6. Place the syringe inside the pencil box so you don't stab yourself. This will allow for safe carry.
7. Soak one muslin cloth with acetone, and the other with bleach.
8. Wait at the secluded spot you picked out.
9. When your prey arrives, put the two muslin clothes together. A chemical reaction will occur when the acetone and bleach mix creating chloroform. Quickly place that over your prey's mouth and nose.
10. Once your prey is out, remove the syringe from the pencil box and inject the blood inside him or her.
11. Sit back and wait. You can locate your Mentos for added snacking enjoyment.
12. When your prey awakes, surprise him or her with the news of your prank!