Anyway, there are a number of theories on aging, generally divided into programmed theories and samage theories. The maximum human life span is set based on observation, the record holders for age all die around 120, some manage a couple more years. Just like it is 3.5 for a mouse, 20 years for a dog, and 150 for a galapagos tortoise. You're already familiar generally with the programmed theories it seems, but the other theory (that is not mutually exclusive) is that free radicals build up, and damage cells. Age spots are signs of free radical damage, for example.
In any case, I'll give you a better explanation next year, promise!
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Pvednes said:
Yes, that was wrong, ignore that.Anyway, there are a number of theories on aging, generally divided into programmed theories and samage theories.
I tend to favor the samage theories. Man, after a big meatloaf samage, I feel like I'm eighty.
discussion!
discussion
Myself, I'm happy enough with his continued posting. At least he didnt cop out too bad when people came at him, and didnt start flaming or throwing pity parties.
And people were discussing. The arguement is just rather easy to tear down.
Then they handed me a "packet" detailing why the earth was created by god.
In EVERY single page, I laughed out loud in front of them. They even said that since there's uranium deep in the earth, and that it gives off alpha radiation, and that alpha radiation is (essentially) a helium nucleus, there has to be a LOT more helium in the air then there is today! So the earth MUST be only 5000 years old! I mean, wow! It's like it magically gains two electrons from some magical faraway place and then makes it's way through miles of the earth's crust to just pop into the atmosphere and make us talk funny!
I kinda wish I still had that book, it's always good for a laugh. Even had a picture of a human eye with the "Half an eye?" under it.
quote:
This one time, at nem-x camp:
No one likes my choo choos.
I laughed for a good five minutes at those, Nembot.
quote:
ACES! Another post by theravenofcu:
There are two main views as to the age of the earth and the universe. One states that the universe is billions of years old. The other states that the Universe is only about six thousand years old. It is scientifically evident that the earth and universe are indeed only six thousand years old.
Evolutionists say that man evolved from ape-like creatures around 4,000,000 years ago. They go on to say that modern man has been around for 100,000 years. If humans have been around for that long, then there would have been a large number of deaths, and there would be many remnants from humans who have long since died.
Actually scientists say that apes and humans descended from a common lineage on the evolutionary tree, much as your pet dog is actually a recent breed created from an animal who shares a common lineage to wolves (but is not likely descended from wolves). It is a popular (often willful, particularly on the part of creationists who like to appeal to certain logical fallacies) misconception to say that humans came from monkeys, when that's not what they said at all.
Another key point you seemingly willfully ignore is that evolution (contrary to what comic books like X-Men seem to suggest) does not usually occur with a massive body of individuals all mutating to a new evolutionary step in the same way all at once. New evolutionary traits have to be "bred in" to the mass population. It's only when the new step (in this case Homo Sapiens Sapiens) has a significant number and significant advantages that you see any sort of mass wipe out, but by then the numbers would have been thinned anyway.
quote:
Suppose that a generation passed only once every twenty-five years. If recognizable humans have been around for 100,000 of them that would be four thousand generations. Further suppose that the population of humans never went over 1 million. That would be 4 million humans that were born, buried and died. (Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
When someone was buried, they were buried with their jewelry and other possessions which would identify them as human. So even if a body were to decompose completely, their artifacts and such would still survive. Based on the assumptions of evolution one should be able to dig straight down into the ground anywhere on earth and find at least one grave from a prior generation. However, to this day, only three hundred Neanderthal skeletons, and more importantly only a couple thousand stone-age skeletons have been found.
Item 1: See my above comment about the gradual phasing out of creatures.
Item 2: I guarantee that if you were to disinter the remains of graveyards set in Roman times, you'd find only bone fragments. That's only 2000 years ago. Mummies from Egypt are maybe another 1500 years before that (say 3500 years ago) and it's only their mummification process that allows that.
Item 3: Up until the Egyptian era, metalwork of any notable amount was rare. Even Egyptians favored relatively soft bronze and copper over anything iron. So the "jewelry" you suggest would have been largely comprised of leather (which rots as much as any other flesh), stones (which you'd need a forensic geologist expert in the rocks of the given location more than 3500 years ago), and bone chips (which could easily be accounted for by other explanations such as rats and so forth, assuming they hadn't rotted to dust to begin with)
Item 4: Your term of "a couple thousand stone-age skeletons" further points out that you have little conception of the timeframe you're talking about, or the fact you're essentially breeding in a new collection of universal racial traits.
quote:
(Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
If the Stone Age were categorized by the number of finds they have discovered, it would equal about 500 years, which is consistent with the biblical record where after the flood people would be re-establishing themselves and learning to cope with completely different environments. (Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
Evolutionists state that the earths ocean was formed 1 billion years ago. For that supposed 1,000,000,000 years the oceans are supposedly to have maintained a relatively constant salinity while life evolved from non-living material in it and, once formed by random chance, then life supposedly became more and more complex. (Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
Salt enters the ocean through rivers, glaciers and volcanoes and vents both above and below the surface. A total of about 4% of that amount leaves the ocean every year through sea spray, and evaporation. That would be a 96% net gain of salt. If the oceans were a billion years old, the ocean would be much saltier than it is today.
ttp://www.eas.slu.edu/People/Students/MPyle/petrology/Petro_Project.html)
Shown above is a section of the mountain range that goes all along the earths bottom, beneath the surface of the ocean. Unique to this mountain range is that right through the middle is a rift that separates the continental plates. Also unique are the horizontal lines going through it that appearing to be stretch marks. Evolutionists explain that the continents separated over billions of years, however, in Genesis, we see another possible answer.
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep were burst open, and the sky's windows were opened. (E-sword v6.5 WEB, Gen. 7:11)
The Bible says that all of the fountains of the deep burst open. Basically, what it said was that the water that was below the ground, pushed out of the ground to get to the surface. Would it not make sense that if the water was pushing up, it was also pushing the ground apart? In which case, all the continents that were once close together were suddenly shoved apart. Also note the horizontal cracks going through the vertical rift in the floor. These very closely resemble stretch marks, which happen to women after giving birth, due to their rapid change in shape. Stretch marks only occur when there is a rapid change.
In 1976, a fossilized whale was found standing on its tale inside of a bed of diatomaceous earth (finely milled fossilized shells of minuscule organisms called diatoms) along with other marine mammals. Lets see, a world wide flood. Would a layer of silt which surround the earth constitute proof by any chance, or how about whales which have been discovered running perpendicular to the geological layers. Running through say 50 million years of strata! This suggest that the layers of geological time where layed down fairly quick. - Jeff Dejong (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html)
The only explanation for a whale standing on its tale is that some worldwide catastrophe, such as the flood actually occurred. A dead whale would not stay in the same position for 50 million years as layers of dead fossils settled around it. The oceans movements would have caused it to move away from that spot long before the layers finished gathering around it.
The fallacy you're falling prey to here is a comparison of standards. The "World" to proto-judaic peoples was not the "world" in reference to proto-Greeks, or proto-Chinese, or proto-Africans. The archaeological record suggests that there were several "nodes" of population flow as the creatures we would identify as human beings spread out. One of the major early ones was in a basin in southwest Asia/southeast Europe. The popular theory is that, based on archaeological records, many of the peoples we see much later either came from or were mixed from people from this area.
Robert Ballard was looking for remnants of a much later culture when he found odd discrepancies. He said "Hey let's go back and see what we find" and when he did do some digging, he found that there was a whole mini-civilization in the valley, one virtually wiped out by a massive calamity.
Ballard, by the way, is the guy who found the Titanic's wreckage. The remnants he was initially looking for were ships under a dead sea far too salty and sterile to support life. The body of water? The Black Sea, which geologic records say was created when the Mediterranean broke through a mountain range at the Sea's south end. To the people in the valley, who would have faced waters rising several feet a day (enough so that you couldn't go to sleep without waking up six hours later underwater), it would have no doubt seemed to be a wrath from the heavens.
quote:
The Botanic Gardens in Australia have a Wollemi Pine tree on exhibit. Fossil records indicate that this tree died out millions of years ago. However, a specimen of this tree is sitting on display at the Botanic Gardens. (Dinosaur Tree Behind Bars)
The Coelocanth, another species (in this case, a fish) was thought to be wiped out millions of years ago, but these days there have been quite a few caught and found. Why? Because the world is a big place and for all our human arrogance, it's impossible for us to know everything about everywhere at any given time.
Also keep in mind that grain taken from the tombs of Egyptian pharaohs has been successfully grown under lab conditions. That's grain "Dead" for more time than our civilization has existed.
But if the parallel you were drawing was to insinuate that we're wrong about how long things can be wiped out, and the definition of "extinct", then you also have to explain away why humans are constantly finding new species of insects. The reason is parallel: It's a big world, and there's no evidence that suggests that new races and breeds of creatures are appearing spontaneously.
quote:
How could a species of tree that was supposed to have died out millions of years ago still be around? Perhaps it is because the earth is actually much younger than that, and there are a few of these trees left.
When looking at the age of the universe, Evolutionists use the Hubble Constant. The only problem is that the Hubble Constant isnt constant. It gets changed every few years. (Concerning the Big Bang, the Age of the Universe and Red Shift)
The Hubble constant is supposed to measure redshift, as galaxies get farther away, their light pattern gets shifted into the red. Redshift is best explained as the Doppler Effect. Much as when an ambulance passes with its sirens blaring, as it gets farther away, the sound appears to fade away. However, the sound only sounds lower because the ambulance is getting farther away. (Repp, Andrew. 270)
However, the red shift is not necessarily cause by an expanding universe. There are many ways that can make it appear that there is a red shift without the universe expanding at all. (Concerning the Big Bang, the Age of the Universe and Red Shift)
One of the ways is that God could have created the sun, moon, and stars with all of the waves of light already interconnected. Another is Einsteins theory that space is curved, thus enabling light to travel a 15 billion light year difference in only a few thousand years. Yet another way is through use of the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that everything degrades over time. If this law applies to everything, then should it not also apply to the speed of light? The speed of light could have been much faster 6000 thousand years ago than it is today. (Concerning the Big Bang, the Age of the Universe and Red Shift)
By looking at spiral galaxies, and the fact that they are still around today, we see that the Universe is indeed very young. While the center of a spiral galaxy spins at a constant speed, its arms are spinning at a slower rate, thus causing the spiral. After only two billion years, the spiral would have completely disappeared, yet we still see them today. (Concerning Human Population and the Age of the Earth/Universe)
You have several fallacies here. For one thing, incongruent definitions. If you mean by "evolutionists" the people who believe in Evolution, then you have to discount most scientists' reputations and credited accomplishments, including the majority of the ones who used applications of science to create the computer you're typing on. If by "Evolutionists" you mean biologists and archaeologists who constructed the theory of evolution, then why are they using the Hubble telescope? Astronomers and Physicists use that. It just so happens that what Astronomers and Physicists have found out about universal standards coincides with the estimates and theories of biologists, archaeologists, and geologists focusing on Earth.
You make an appeal to an uncheckable source (IE God) when you make your comment about how "God could have done this". You're arguing against scientific evidence, in the whole paper here, why do you resort to fantastic unsupportable assumptions here?
Likewise, for something 15000 light years away to get here in less time, you would have to find an intervening space (a wormhole, or something like science fiction hyperspace, connecting two points on the curved space). 15000 light years is STILL 15000 light years, even at relativistic speeds (don't confuse time with space; it only serves to make you look silly)
Another fallacy is about the speed of light. The speed of light is a theoretical speed unachievable by any real amount of mass, due to the fact that as you ascend to lightspeed, the amount of energy you'd require would be infinite. Things just after the Big Bang may have been going at a high fraction of lightspeed, when the rules of the universe were still shaping, but it's unlikely they were going in excess of lightspeed. Still, things CAN slow down.
And yet they're not. On a small scale, Earth, for instance, you do see things slow down. And yet the universe is expanding at an ever-quickening rate we can't explain.
Plus you completely ignore the fact that some galaxies have expanded to the point where they're colliding with other galaxies. You also fail to note that even within our own Milky Way galaxy, stars do occasionally collide or tear one another apart, which only happens if high-gravitational bodies aren't being propelled outwards anymore. So it happens, but it's still (pardon the term) an astronomical event.
The biggest problems with this essay of yours is that you fail to comprehend the size of some of the numbers you're dealing with (a hundred thousand years, a million years), and in other cases you seem to get tripped up on the definition of terms (a "Light year" is not a measurement of time, it's a measurement of distance). All of the points you make could be explained away just using variants of those two major fallacies, but then you add, to the mix, a completely botched understanding of the principles of evolution and dissemination of genetic traits into a population base. I imagine Pvednes could have a field day with that alone.
Also your sources are almost all off the internet, which is a fallacy students fall for irritatingly often. The internet is not a research library, nor is it a credible source for anything but hearsay. Just because it's posted on the internet does not necessarily mean it's a good source. Do not treat it as if this were otherwise.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Delphi Aegis had this to say about Punky Brewster:
In EVERY single page, I laughed out loud in front of them.
Aetheism is no excuse for being a cock.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Mr. Parcelan:
Aetheism is no excuse for being a cock.
Parce, you know as well as I do some of the off-the-wall propaganda some religious groups pass out. Christian or whatever all have them. Explaining that the earth is only 5000 years old because of the helium count in the atmosphere IS laughable. Myself, I've enjoyed church youth groups as an agnostic because they havent tried and pulled the lame excuses that some groups do. Personally, I liked my math teacher in 9th grade, local pastor. Combined theory of evolution with the bible and it made sense. To god a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day. Whose to say 7 days isnt 7 trillion? Then again, Ive always believed that that sentence in the bible is a copout way to keep people from questiong time related innacuracy.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Waisz was all like:
Raven's had a very interesting posting "career" so far.
Still better than Somothor at least.
quote:
theravenofcu had this to say about the Spice Girls:
you people take things waay to seriously. for one thing, I never actually stated whether I believed it or not, I just posted it to do exactly what it did, generate discussion. the quickest way to do so is to post something that most people disagree with, whether you yourself agree with it or not.
Havent I mentioned to you before, as have others, that we arent stupid here and dont pull shit like that?
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about Duck Tales:
Aetheism is no excuse for being a cock.
They were a nice bunch of people, and I liked them a lot. But being a reasoned, intelligent person, I could no longer respect them in any way, shape, or form, for passing out this obvious bullshit that ANYONE with an 8th grade science class could tell you was so horribly wrong.
But what I see is Delphi bragging about laughing at the beliefs of people who courteously invited him to something they enjoy and showing him a good time (which he admitted he had).
It's like inviting your best friend to check out something you think is cool and instead he shits on your face.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Mr. Parcelan:
I know.But what I see is Delphi bragging about laughing at the beliefs of people who courteously invited him to something they enjoy and showing him a good time (which he admitted he had).
It's like inviting your best friend to check out something you think is cool and instead he shits on your face.
1, It was about two weeks of going to said church before they handed out this booklet.
2, I exaggerated a bit. I didn't actually laugh in their face, but I did laugh aloud when I read some of the stuff in there (The oceans are not SALTY ENOUGH OMGZ)
3, You're a cock.
5, I kindly declined to attend any more events until he eventually stopped speaking to me. No doubt he thinks I'm some devil worshipping fuckhead, but that's neither here nor there.
4, He was a passing aquantance to begin with, not a "best friend" by a longshot. I suspect his reasons for bringing me had more to do with one of the little "projects" they were giving people then anything else.
8, You're a cock, you cocker cocking poo-head.
Delphi, look at the post times. Parce was replying to me because he hadnt seen yours yet.
edit: No more hot chick to reply to stuff Elvish Crack Piper fucked around with this message on 10-14-2004 at 03:26 PM.
But that's just me.
quote:
This one time, at Blindy. camp:
I think the issue is with people unwilling to accept that the theory of Divine Inspiration was most likely created by a power hungry Roman Catholic church as an excuse to kill heritics and start wars, and the bible should not be considered the unquestionable truth written by the hand of God Himself. And should be read and interprieted as it really is, a collection of stories with a message that can lead you to a more peaceful and understanding life, with some tall tales thrown in explaining the creation of the world written by peoples that had absolutely no ability to scientifically scratch the surface of what actually happened in the time before time...But that's just me.
"All hail the Giant Queen Spider."
Yeah, I agree with Blindy in that its a collection of stories to help people through their lives. Like in Philosophy class when we had to read Jesus Christ Sermon on the Mount. I agreed with some of the things he said, and disagreed with others. But it gets a little annoying when your friends who are deeply devoted to religion will turn their heads and not listen to another side of a story of how everything came to be.
With an extra 
thrown in for good measure.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about (_|_):
The concepts of Faith and Proof are mutually exclusive. If you seek Proof, then you don't have Faith. If you have Faith, then you need no Proof. So pretty much people that set out to prove that there is a God are saying that they have no Faith in God.
Nice point Blindy 
quote:
Vise the Stompy wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
I think it is important to note that many Christian*Like myself* have absoltuly no problem with any scientific discoveries. Many religious zealots don't want to admit that parts of the english version of the bible may have been mistranslated and think that even though it isn;t present in its original context it can;t be wrong *Ex the seven days creation in hebrew isn't a clear cut seven days but rather a word that could mean days, weeks, or any long period of time*
Yeah, I don't have any problem with that. It's when people start reaching for any weakpoint in science to start proving things that it gets irritating.
My church supports gay rights (many Christians are anti-gay), we believe that we can combine faith in everything we do. Our tenets can basically be summed up in that "Everyone needs a hand from time to time."
That said, I think it's insulting and close-minded to scoff at religious people and dismiss them all as nuts based on the actions of an outspoken few. We don't go around calling everyone who isn't of our religion a cross-burning heathen. Please pay us the same respect.
PS: You're going to hell for entirely different reasons than not being our religion.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
My family is Catholic, but we all believe that we evolved from monkeys. There are a good number of religious people who believe in progress and whose ideas change.My church supports gay rights (many Christians are anti-gay), we believe that we can combine faith in everything we do. Our tenets can basically be summed up in that "Everyone needs a hand from time to time."
That said, I think it's insulting and close-minded to scoff at religious people and dismiss them all as nuts based on the actions of an outspoken few. We don't go around calling everyone who isn't of our religion a cross-burning heathen. Please pay us the same respect.
PS: You're going to hell for entirely different reasons than not being our religion.
My best friend in the whole world is a lot like your philosophy. He considers himself a Christian, goes to church, believes in God, but he sees himself more as a Christian Philosopher rather than someone who takes everything verbatim.
People like him, and like you Parce, are what make religions a feasible thing. There's not a thing wrong in Faith so long as you don't get militant or stupid or whatever about it.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Azakias had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
It wasnt the material that really got everyone up in arms. It was the method of deliverance.Myself, I'm happy enough with his continued posting. At least he didnt cop out too bad when people came at him, and didnt start flaming or throwing pity parties.
And people were discussing. The arguement is just rather easy to tear down.
... I'm joking. I was tearing it apart myself.
quote:
Zaza had this to say about Robocop:
Stop embarrassing yourself.
Are you referring to me? If so, f u.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Liam was all like:
Are you referring to me? If so, f u.
I was referring to the original poster.
