Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Return to Immortality -- There is no death by natural causes
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 100 (561186)
05-19-2010 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by goldenlightArchangel
05-18-2010 4:59 PM


Re: To return is stopping from dying
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
To return to immortality is stopping from dying when stopping from giving continuous sequence to a search for knowledge of food that does not remain. Routine food is a type of good that never strays apart from its evil, which costs four times more expensive than it appears.
I believe the tradition is to toke then pass. You seem to just be toking, probably constantly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-18-2010 4:59 PM goldenlightArchangel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by onifre, posted 05-19-2010 1:33 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 100 (561953)
05-24-2010 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by goldenlightArchangel
05-24-2010 4:37 PM


Re: Any educational directives that have not been camouflaged
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
"what is the probability that the population would have reached 6 billion persons in each of the three seasons of 14 thousand years prior to the last 7 thousand years"
...so the question you ask is deemed to be a tough or non comprehensible one...causing many to not answer because of the perception that to answer it is producing proof against a theory...
It appears that your argument is that if people are unwilling to answer the quoted question for reasons like:
Modern-looking humans have been on earth for around 200,000 years, not 50,000.
Why are 14,000 year clusters at all relevant to statistical studies? Are you suggesting human population would need to start over between them, and if so why?
Given that humans have been around for 4 times longer than you think, and don't have to start over every 14 thousand years, assigning probabilities for population in the context of that question is pointless. Also, given that the world population only crossed 6 billion people within the last few years, we already know the probability. Probabilities are assigned to events in the future; past events don't have probabilities, they happened or they didn't.
...If any of those reasons prevents a meaningful response to the question, you seem to be claiming that it constitutes evidence against some unspecified theory, which presumably you will again misinterpret as evidence in favor of your own theory.
Allow me to provide an alternate hypothesis: If a meaningful answer is unable to be provided for your question, it may be because it is a nearly incomprehensible stream of babble seemingly stemming from mental illness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-24-2010 4:37 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-25-2010 5:52 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 100 (562105)
05-25-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by goldenlightArchangel
05-25-2010 5:52 PM


Re: Any educational directives that have not been camouflaged
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
The question that initiates the discovery...blah blah..., is not asking for one to bring up any probability from past events but from what Humans are according to their nature,...blah blah
So what you are saying is your question "asks/brings up the probability from what humans are according to their nature."
That isn't a question or concept that makes sense. It is literally nonsense.
Is English a second language, or is there some other impediment to your conveyance of a cogent idea?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-25-2010 5:52 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-26-2010 2:27 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 100 (562206)
05-26-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by goldenlightArchangel
05-26-2010 2:27 PM


Re: Any educational directives that have not been camouflaged
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
---- When the concept of probability for population growth is applied to kangaroos; and when the Australian government says that ‘a kangaroo population can increase fourfold in five years if it has continuous access to plentiful food and water’, then nobody says it is not a concept that makes sense.
Then it is the word "probability" that is the trouble; you seem to mean rate or speed of population growth, not probability.
Humans can double their population in a span of 40 years. This was demonstrated from 1950 to 1990 where the world population went from 2.5 to 5 billion people. The rate of population growth wasn't always that high of course; were it that rapid it would be possible to go from two mating humans to more than 8 billion people in 1,240 years.
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
what is the probability that the population would have reached 6 billion persons in each of the three seasons of 14 thousand years immediately prior to the last 7 thousand years,
The likelihood that the population would reach 6 billion more than 7 thousand years ago is zero; it never happened. If you mean probability in the sense of plausibility, then the answer is still nearing zero. If you said "probability" and mean something completely different, then you need to examine your international dictionary more closely.
Given the appropriate conditions the speed of human breeding is certainly capable of attaining 6 billion people within any arbitrary 14 thousand year period. It would of course be aided by access to an appropriate breeding stock larger than two people, otherwise we would end up with a genetic variability problem like the cheetah. (This is incidentally more evidence for the scientific view of human population growth rather than theistic.) I am still not clear on why 12 thousand year periods are important; why the focus on those lengths of time, or the 50 thousand year period?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-26-2010 2:27 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-27-2010 5:57 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 100 (562292)
05-27-2010 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by goldenlightArchangel
05-27-2010 5:57 PM


Re: Answering the six billion diamond question
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
Due to the perspective that there would have been Humans living on the Earth 70 thousand years ago, the probability of reaching 6 billion persons in each of the three seasons of 14 thousand years is above 100% because of the fact that when the population of the Earth was 1 million persons it took much less than 7 thousand years to reach 1 billion.
This is simply wrong, because you seem to be forgetting that population growth depends on factors other than time. People require food, shelter, not being killed, and other similarly important things to increase their population. Growth will be slower, stop, or even backtrack depending on conditions.
Simply saying that because something is possible in the correct conditions does not at all imply that it must occur in other, completely different conditions.
The rest of your post appears to be in the style of: "Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" Which is of course to say unparsable gibberish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-27-2010 5:57 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-27-2010 6:51 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 100 (562343)
05-27-2010 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by goldenlightArchangel
05-27-2010 6:51 PM


Re: Answering the six billion diamond question
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
You do not have evidence that the basic limit of 1 million inhabitants, who would have been living on the Earth 49 thousand years ago, were less intelligent and would have not been able to create and do all things that the Humans in the last and single cluster of 7 thousand years have done, even when the population of the Earth was 1 million inhabitants.
Do you really think that there is no evidence humans have increased in technology that would aid their population within the last 50 thousand years?
I have to assume that this is a language barrier problem, as the alternative would be that you have no long-term memory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-27-2010 6:51 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 09-01-2010 3:23 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 100 (562521)
05-29-2010 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by goldenlightArchangel
05-28-2010 4:22 PM


Re: Conclusion of the parable of the diamonds robbed
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
Let’s abandon that perspective of 70 days ago, and let’s not investigate the past attempts to rob the bank 49 days ago, (during the time that was mentioned, from 1:14 a.m. to 3:14 a.m.) since they didn’t and the probability is Zero; it never happened. ---- A proposal similar to what many men have been doing when proposing that the question should not be asked.
To draw some parallels with human population growth, isn't it like the bank manager saying "I'm not interested in investigating bank robbery methods that don't work, I am interested in investigating the one that did,"? That seems like a reasonable approach to me.
Humans have been steadily increasing in their ability to sustain larger populations throughout history. Asking the probability of developing a given advancement at an earlier time is not only a pointless endeavor, but also likely impossible to meaningfully answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 05-28-2010 4:22 PM goldenlightArchangel has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 100 (577183)
08-27-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by goldenlightArchangel
06-30-2010 2:41 PM


Re: The real cause of death by old age
CrazyDiamond7 emphasis on CRAZY writes:
If it keeps on raining levee is goin’ to break. — If the liquid substance (proteins and hormones) are constantly poured out from the brain, then the entire resistence is going to terminate. The skull that retains the density from the liquid substance intrinsically Human is a cranium strong like ivory. A second Human skull was verified; it was excessively breakable and it fragmented into dust because the liquid substance had been continuously poured out.
General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm.
General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 06-30-2010 2:41 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Nij, posted 08-28-2010 5:07 AM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 74 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 08-30-2010 4:09 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 100 (581489)
09-15-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by goldenlightArchangel
09-14-2010 3:24 PM


Re: If Evolution were right then the majority of casualties would be avoided
So am I to understand that you are arguing against evolution based on Operation Overlord during World War 2 not involving bulletproof shields for individual soldiers?
The desire to avoid being shot by a 7.92x57mm Mauser cartridge moving at 2,477 ft/s was well known, but unfortunately such a firearm was capable of penetrating any armor a soldier could carry. Even "bulletproof" vests and shields available today would be torn to shreds by such high powered weaponry. Reference photos below: (middle cartridge is the one for this particular common machine gun)
Furthermore, even if such shields were available and not used you would seemingly be arguing that the Christian god was responsible. Surely you wouldn't be arguing that the prayers of the Christians involved in the operation were ignored, right?
But even ignoring all that, I still don't see how this has any relation to the original post's claims about attaining immortality through proper diet (apparently solely of fruit, it is rather unclear). It may be related to EvC's general goal, but specific evolutionary challenges appear to be off topic within Faith and Belief. In addition, even if evolution were proved incorrect that wouldn't in and of itself be support for creation; it would be just as reasonable to consider the development of life's diversity to be the result of some as yet unknown process.
Instead I would like to address what I consider a more pertinent topic: Your current mental health. I mean this in the most sincere way possible, and apologize for my earlier joking about Dr. Strangelove. Recent posts within this thread have been disturbingly erratic, rambling, and largely nonsensical. Were I to encounter such behavior in person I would consider it appropriate to contact medical assistance.
It is also quite possible that you are simply trolling, or too young to put together coherent and meaningful posts. Regardless of my private opinion of your intentions, I don't believe that you are following the community rules of staying on topic (even within your own thread), attempting to stay narrowly focused, or supporting your points with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. You also appear to be engaged in bare assertions or the inclusion of material not of your own without attribution; where did you get the prediction of 70% fewer casualties during the invasion of Normandy?
It appears that moderation is turning a blind eye toward this thread, but that is no excuse to use this area as a mental waste outlet. Please address these concerns if you intend to continue the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 09-14-2010 3:24 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 09-16-2010 4:02 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 100 (581624)
09-16-2010 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by goldenlightArchangel
09-16-2010 4:02 PM


Re: If Evolution were right then the majority of casualties would be avoided
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
even having an experience available giving a variety of clues that the use of incompatible food is the real cause of death by old age.
Cite?
If you are unfamiliar with the term, it is a request to back up your unsubstantiated claim with references. In this case I would like to know what exact experience you are talking about, why exactly you would conclude from it that incompatible foods lead to old age, and why you believe that immortality through proper diet is attainable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 09-16-2010 4:02 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 09-17-2010 2:54 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 100 (581794)
09-17-2010 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by goldenlightArchangel
09-17-2010 2:54 PM


Re: Brief compilation of the facts — why incompatible foods lead to old age
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
Experience: To only eat fruits from the compatible solid trees
Estimate time to initiate the reduction of intragastric acidity: 3 and a half weeks
Approximate time to change the stability of the nervous system: 49 days
How much of this experiment have you actually performed, and what are your controls and testing methods? For instance, how are you measuring the acidity of your gastric system and from what points? What evidence do you have that gastric acidity relates in any meaningful way to longevity? How are you measuring the "stability" of the nervous system?
Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 09-17-2010 2:54 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 09-24-2010 2:20 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 100 (583083)
09-24-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by goldenlightArchangel
09-24-2010 2:20 PM


Re: Brief compilation of the facts — why incompatible foods lead to old age
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
Otherwise all of us would have to believe in the word of man rather than getting rid of believing since assurance and knowledge of the truth do completely dispense with the need to work up a belief.
If I can glean any meaning from this word salad, I think you answered "no".
So you have a theory which you have not tested in any way. How can you honestly claim to know that any of your claims are truthful if you have never tested them in any way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 09-24-2010 2:20 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 09-28-2010 4:46 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 100 (583739)
09-28-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by goldenlightArchangel
09-28-2010 4:46 PM


More useless ramblings
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
The statement that says there is no death by natural causes and the two Ascertained Facts listed in Message 81 are not claims but simply deductive reasoning and clues based on the message that comes from the first instruction of Genesis as originally written.
Ok, so you don't necessarily think those things are true? Because if that is the case, you totally didn't make that clear at all.
If you do think they are true, then its on the order of claiming that "Hobbits exist and like to eat," is simply a logical deduction from reading the first chapter of "The Hobbit".
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
When a person does not know about the proposed new experiment then (s)he has the option of seeing the clues from the contents of Message 81 and the two ascertained facts which stand still intact up to this day; these facts had not been proven wrong by the evolutionist belief in death by natural causes.
I have always had trouble parsing your posts, but it seems you have several things wrong here.
For one, "death by natural causes" isn't an "evolutionist belief". It is simply an observation by all of sane humanity that people die both from injury and ailment, and simply from age or malfunction.
Second, most people don't think that Genesis actually says what you interpret it to say. The story doesn't say that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was poisonous, it says that it was *forbidden*. Adam and Eve dying after eating from the tree was a punishment, which was conveyed to their offspring no matter their behavior. Their children even if allowed to stay within the garden and obeying all God's commands (including avoiding the tree) would still have died based on this concept of "Original Sin".
Finally, so what if people have the option of making this wild interpretation and imagining an experiment that hasn't ever been performed? Even if its proposal of an immortality diet hasn't been disproved by anyone (mainly because nobody knows that the diet would possibly be, and the conditions of a positive test would take an infinite period of time) that doesn't lend it any credence.
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
When a person drinks the right wine then the digestive system will produce a lower level of acidity during the digestion of regular food which contributes to longevity.
THERE! Thats a claim. Cite your sources, provide your data, and provide your testing criteria. If you had any of that you would probably be able to say what the "right wine" actually is, rather than just making crap up.
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
And when one eats solely fish rather than red meat then that person tends to live longer since the comsumption of red meat does require the production of a gastric juice with a higher level of acidity and therefore more nutrient compounds that are properly Human being released and decomposed.
Same as above, but also define what you mean by "properly Human". You seem to think that people can be depleted of "human essence" or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 09-28-2010 4:46 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 09-29-2010 4:15 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024