Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
megabyte

my theory why we have such short lifespans

175 posts in this topic

The remark about credentials was mine, Abramelin. I was just stating that physicsolved wasn't aware of the experience and background of some of the people he's been disputing. I was annoyed that physicsolved, like some other UM posters with whom we're familiar, tends toward the practice of just dismissing evidence to bolster their own ideas. Or egos. Or whatever.

I know it was you who posted that remark the first time, Kmt_sesh.

I just repeated it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it was you who posted that remark the first time, Kmt_sesh.

I just repeated it.

My bad, Abramelin. I guess Post 97 was his way of showing his "credentials." But as I pondered in my previous post, you'd think that someone who's studied so many disciplines would have some idea of how research is performed. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what do you come up with? The Bible.

Look, if you like I will write the Newest Testament, and tell you I was inspired by Joe Hova.

Then you will believe it, right?

Credit where it is due ..... that was some funny s##t :w00t:

TiP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh!

I will not pursue this line of argument. Nothing you have said historically invalidates the flood nor where the ark came to rest nor the supposed “impossibilities” of humans descending the mountain range ( a range that encompasses “2 conical peaks separated by a deep depression….as well: (only) the last 3,000 ft up to its summit is perpetually covered with snow.) If what is true of the modern scenario was true of the ancient time of the ark this would represent a traversing of less than 1 mile down the slope. As well given humans are “relatively smart” ( evolutionists: a little more than apes) they utilized the many animals to aid them in the descent. Riding on animal backs, wearing animal skins, plenty of drinking water carried by animals, plenty of food carried by animals. Plenty of fire ( evolutionists: good thing animals had epiphanies..eh), Plenty of wood( extracted from the ark) , smart enough to make wheels for a warm carriage big enough for 8 people drawn by animals ( take there pick) etc..etc… Thus: with these provisions they could travel up the mountain back down up again and back down. And yet they really only had to travel a little more than 2 miles.

And you insult the intelligent faculties of humans that lived a little more than 4,000 years ago. You state something that is so absurd that it is inexcusable. Thus you imply that Noah and his family had “no equipment or experience.” Yet only 8 of them built and ark bigger than the titanic that housed many animals and provided them shelter from the divine storm for 1 year. Yet they lacked tools and equipment to build a carriage with wheels! Ridiculous.

This is how evolutionists think. Thus this is how they are easily exposed as “absurd in their thinking processes.” You see Noah as a grunting ape with a small brain who cannot even master how to get termites out of a termite mound. You consider his immediate family of “hominoid retarded people.” as incapable of collectively much less individually devising a way to walk down a mountain for about 2-3 hours.

Most of the responses of this room are predisposed to see our human forefathers in this light. This being so certainly explains the desperate to the point of fanciful reasoning expressed relative to some posts. The refusal to think about anything reasonably and to acknowledge the logical and historical relevancies of anything.

And some in the room say they are growing weary of debate with me. Sigh!

I can only say: Skepticism - Accept it, Embrace it. For this seems to be the "incurable" mental modem of operandi

As I said in my last post, the flood could not happen as accounted in the bible. I never said there was no flood. I proved the bible wrong in one respect that either the waters covered Mt Everest or the Ark came to rest on Mt Ararat, but with the vast difference in heights between the two mountains, both can not be true though the bible erroneously indicates they both were. If there can be an error there, other errors can also exist. Though the bible says the mountains of Ararat, the only option, if one reads carefully, is Mt Ararat itself. The Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, but the tops of the mountains were not visible for another 74 days, so the only mountain that the Ark could have come to rest on would have been the highest mountain which is Mt Ararat.

It is not the distance they would have to travel down the mountain that proves the difficulty but the conditions they would have encountered in that trek. To quote my own research paper concerning the conditions on Mt Ararat.

As well as snow and ice, air pressure there is 40% of normal, average temperatures range from 0 C to -40 C, quantities of carbon dioxide mix with the already reduced level of oxygen, fog blankets large areas, deep crevasses can be encountered unexpectedly and dangerous lightning exists. Altitude Sickness, Frostbite, Hypothermia, Confusion and fluid buildup on the brain and lungs would have affected humans and animals alike.

It would not have been the simple descent and ascent as you would like to believe but far more perilous. Deep snows, ice, invisible trails and lack of sufficient oxygen would all have played their parts in the difficulties encountered.

I find that some of your posting is lacking in the research department, for example your assertion that the ark was bigger than the titanic. This is untrue the ark was 450 L x 75 W x 45 H the titanic was 882 L x 92 W x 60 H. You may wish to make quick searches on the internet before posting comparisons to be sure of the accuracy of the facts.

No one on here, except you, in your flawed observation above, has ever referred to or believes Noah to be "a grunting ape with a small brain who cannot even master how to get termites out of a termite mound".

I have approached this subject with logic and common sense, while others, mostly believers in the bible, look at the facts like the conflict between a landing at Ararat and the covering of Everest or the effects the environmental hazards at the summit of Ararat would have on the passengers of the ark, as well as other facts, and choose either to ignore them completely or make rush judgments that they in no way invalidate anything, without ever looking into it more thoroughly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thus you imply that Noah and his family had “no equipment or experience.” Yet only 8 of them built and ark bigger than the titanic that housed many animals and provided them shelter from the divine storm for 1 year. Yet they lacked tools and equipment to build a carriage with wheels! Ridiculous.

So you're assuming, against all reason, that the ark did actually exist then?? Wow. I mean, sure. If 8 people could build a boat bigger than the titanic, out of wood, defy the laws of physics to make it sail, get animals from all over the globe, keep each of the millions of species alive (and separate), feed them and deal with the staggering amount of crap produced, desalinate the land once the waters had gone and return all the animals to their prospective places around the globe (marsupials in Australasia etc), then sure - they could build a carriage with wheels.

This is how evolutionists think. Thus this is how they are easily exposed as “absurd in their thinking processes.” You see Noah as a grunting ape with a small brain who cannot even master how to get termites out of a termite mound. You consider his immediate family of “hominoid retarded people.” as incapable of collectively much less individually devising a way to walk down a mountain for about 2-3 hours.

What on earth does this have to do with "evolutionists"?? Modern humans emerged about 50,000 years ago. 4,000 years ago humans were, culturally aside, exactly the same as we are now.

Most of the responses of this room are predisposed to see our human forefathers in this light. This being so certainly explains the desperate to the point of fanciful reasoning expressed relative to some posts. The refusal to think about anything reasonably and to acknowledge the logical and historical relevancies of anything

No, most of the responses don't believe in biblical truths. Creationists have a particularly scathing view on what rational peop - sorry - "evolutionists" believe (ie - know to be true).

I can only say: Skepticism - Accept it, Embrace it. For this seems to be the "incurable" mental modem of operandi

What on earth is a "modem" of operandi???

Edited by Emma_Acid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Modem of Operandi" :w00t:

The only definition i could think of is

Modem (of) Operandi - The Armchair Pseudo-Whatever-ianTM's way of posting garbage on forums.

from The Spartan's Cynic Phrases & idioms

Edited by The Spartan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we live such short life cycles because that is the way nature sets a natural balance between life and death.if we all lived 2 times our normal age,there would be no food to eat,no place to live,and would increases the carbon footprint like a billion times higher!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The remark about credentials was mine, Abramelin. I was just stating that physicsolved wasn't aware of the experience and background of some of the people he's been disputing. I was annoyed that physicsolved, like some other UM posters with whom we're familiar, tends toward the practice of just dismissing evidence to bolster their own ideas. Or egos. Or whatever.

In any case I for one appreciate your joining the fray. I know it's more or less fruitless to try to spread some light into the dim murkiness of the extreme fringe, but when absurd claims are made, a response is appropriate. Case in point:

The kinds of things you claim to have familiarity with are exactly the kinds of things we're trying to get you to rise to, physicsolved. If you truly understood the methodologies and research principles that have gone into these fields for more than a century, you would not be arguing against us at all. You would be agreeing with us.

On an aside, I've decided not to expound on the earlier post (I suggested I might, back in post 83). I mean, what would be the point? Folks like Abramelin and cormac have seen me do it countless times before and probably already knew the information as well as I, so the only immediate benefit would be yours. And you don't like real research and corroboration of evidence, so I'm going to give myself a break.

And on a final note, earlier you wrote: "I would encourage Abrameline to visit my thread in this forum discussing language and anatomy." I know it's probably not evident to you, physicsolved, but there's a reason that thread of yours is a digital ghost town.

Thanks for the many conVOLUted EVOLuted EVALuations of the room. ( evaluations of, but not confined to: history/language/anthropology/archeology/science/geneology/geology.

Many posts in the room represent “numerous coils”. Many posts are redundantly tangential (“thought disorder”..?) . The many scenarios expressed in the room represent the facts according to the “we in us.” ( convoluted pedestals beginning with we and running along the same lines as… we).

Many maintain the character of “ rolling longitudinally along themselves” relative to their convenient self-estimations of “facts”(“grain of salt”). That’s how “they roll”. “They” are a “highly complex or intricate and occasionally devious….mass(guild) of diverse customs”………… verses laws and principles.

Namely: “I do not know how to debate you.”

Many are a victim of “fate”( evolutionary dogma distorting their ability to reason on things correctly). As a result of this inferior mindset many view “ape” actions( or fish; microorganisms) as a “major factor” in what happens to them. With such disposition these ones will remain “powerless to effect change” on both the course of their reasoning(s) as well the occasional evolution VS creation …debates.

Evolutionary dogma results necessarily in “low self-esteem.” This usually is as a result of seeing the world as “random without any guiding rules.” Those who maintain this “world view” are “likely to get frustrated.” People with an external locus of control may be superstitious- it was the “lucky rat” that enabled the Israelites to overthrow Senachrib, not the mighty hand of an extra terrestrial entity. ( Note: Principle of physics: Invisible power ( energy)and force can act upon visible “mass” either in a favorable or destructive way.) A little bit of “invisible organism” can go a long way…186,000 miles a sec( 185,000 Assyrians)

Many people view “change” ( from religious views; not dissimilar to evolutionary ideology) with fear, since people with external locus of control robs the individual ( evolution robs humans of dignity and feelings of self-worth) of his expectations of making things better.( evolution: no hope, no justice, no purpose…what’s the use). These ones feel “powerless and uncertain as to what did happen and may happen, or where they may fit into the system.” These ones..” individually may not actually like the current situation ( of human thought), but because life is random and the consequences of actions cannot be predicted, they resist change.” This occurs equally when this view is taken…”collectively.”

Better to suffer with what they have now ( evolutionary interpretation of.. everything) than to risk it getting worse(better= Intelligent design relative to a benevolent creator who always upholds principles of love, hope, justice …thus a world wide retribution for those who reject such noble and beneficial …principles and laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bad, Abramelin. I guess Post 97 was his way of showing his "credentials." But as I pondered in my previous post, you'd think that someone who's studied so many disciplines would have some idea of how research is performed. :rolleyes:

According to "you"...define for me "how research is performed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said in my last post, the flood could not happen as accounted in the bible. I never said there was no flood. I proved the bible wrong in one respect that either the waters covered Mt Everest or the Ark came to rest on Mt Ararat, but with the vast difference in heights between the two mountains, both can not be true though the bible erroneously indicates they both were. If there can be an error there, other errors can also exist. Though the bible says the mountains of Ararat, the only option, if one reads carefully, is Mt Ararat itself. The Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, but the tops of the mountains were not visible for another 74 days, so the only mountain that the Ark could have come to rest on would have been the highest mountain which is Mt Ararat.

It is not the distance they would have to travel down the mountain that proves the difficulty but the conditions they would have encountered in that trek. To quote my own research paper concerning the conditions on Mt Ararat.

It would not have been the simple descent and ascent as you would like to believe but far more perilous. Deep snows, ice, invisible trails and lack of sufficient oxygen would all have played their parts in the difficulties encountered.

I find that some of your posting is lacking in the research department, for example your assertion that the ark was bigger than the titanic. This is untrue the ark was 450 L x 75 W x 45 H the titanic was 882 L x 92 W x 60 H. You may wish to make quick searches on the internet before posting comparisons to be sure of the accuracy of the facts.

No one on here, except you, in your flawed observation above, has ever referred to or believes Noah to be "a grunting ape with a small brain who cannot even master how to get termites out of a termite mound".

I have approached this subject with logic and common sense, while others, mostly believers in the bible, look at the facts like the conflict between a landing at Ararat and the covering of Everest or the effects the environmental hazards at the summit of Ararat would have on the passengers of the ark, as well as other facts, and choose either to ignore them completely or make rush judgments that they in no way invalidate anything, without ever looking into it more thoroughly.

I suppose you would equally assert ( rather than prove) that evolution is NOT riddled with "errors"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many posts are redundantly tangential

Bloody hell, you're not wrong there love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said in my last post, the flood could not happen as accounted in the bible. I never said there was no flood. I proved the bible wrong in one respect that either the waters covered Mt Everest or the Ark came to rest on Mt Ararat, but with the vast difference in heights between the two mountains, both can not be true though the bible erroneously indicates they both were. If there can be an error there, other errors can also exist. Though the bible says the mountains of Ararat, the only option, if one reads carefully, is Mt Ararat itself. The Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, but the tops of the mountains were not visible for another 74 days, so the only mountain that the Ark could have come to rest on would have been the highest mountain which is Mt Ararat.

It is not the distance they would have to travel down the mountain that proves the difficulty but the conditions they would have encountered in that trek. To quote my own research paper concerning the conditions on Mt Ararat.

It would not have been the simple descent and ascent as you would like to believe but far more perilous. Deep snows, ice, invisible trails and lack of sufficient oxygen would all have played their parts in the difficulties encountered.

I find that some of your posting is lacking in the research department, for example your assertion that the ark was bigger than the titanic. This is untrue the ark was 450 L x 75 W x 45 H the titanic was 882 L x 92 W x 60 H. You may wish to make quick searches on the internet before posting comparisons to be sure of the accuracy of the facts.

No one on here, except you, in your flawed observation above, has ever referred to or believes Noah to be "a grunting ape with a small brain who cannot even master how to get termites out of a termite mound".

I have approached this subject with logic and common sense, while others, mostly believers in the bible, look at the facts like the conflict between a landing at Ararat and the covering of Everest or the effects the environmental hazards at the summit of Ararat would have on the passengers of the ark, as well as other facts, and choose either to ignore them completely or make rush judgments that they in no way invalidate anything, without ever looking into it more thoroughly.

I stand corrected: With regard to size of the ark. Rather I meant to say: Noah’s ark would "have a displacement nearly equal to that of the Titanic.

This was merely representative of the sentiments of a former poster who stated he would have to "wait before he gets to his computer" to post references. I spoke relative to "rote" based upon VAST research I have did with regard to both the size and relevance of the Ark. If you would care to speak on these relevancies I would certainly be involved in the discussion. The difference may be that what I would post with regard to the conversation would represent all the information you would post and cut along with other things you would not find in your "surfing the web". Determinations that could be proven as sound and would certainly "weigh heavily" on the conversation. You know " unique fresh perspectives" verses the unyielding parroting of books ( many it would seem confined to evolutionary "references"

Sigh you basically repeated yourself....and in no way did this serve to invalidate the "surety" as well "simple task" of 8 humans going down a mountain with the aid of human intellect and animal power.

I can admit mistakes...so long as the mistakes are defined relative to facts. You presented the facts as to the size of the ark thus you got appropriate acknowledgment from me. As it is true and related to the conversations of the room your correction of my post certainly ( in harmony with presented stats verses interpretations of "data") represents "isolated occasion."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're assuming, against all reason, that the ark did actually exist then?? Wow. I mean, sure. If 8 people could build a boat bigger than the titanic, out of wood, defy the laws of physics to make it sail, get animals from all over the globe, keep each of the millions of species alive (and separate), feed them and deal with the staggering amount of crap produced, desalinate the land once the waters had gone and return all the animals to their prospective places around the globe (marsupials in Australasia etc), then sure - they could build a carriage with wheels.

What on earth does this have to do with "evolutionists"?? Modern humans emerged about 50,000 years ago. 4,000 years ago humans were, culturally aside, exactly the same as we are now.

No, most of the responses don't believe in biblical truths. Creationists have a particularly scathing view on what rational peop - sorry - "evolutionists" believe (ie - know to be true).

What on earth is a "modem" of operandi???

Sigh. The ark was not designed to sail it was designed to FLOAT. It needed no ( nor had any) rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut rapidly through the water. Further: The ark did NOT require steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat. The ark’s shape was very stable, could not be easily capsized, and contained about one third more storage space than ships of conventional design. ( check to validate these physics indicatives).

Sigh. “Nothing” on earth has to do with “Evolutionists.” I agree: Thus: Everything on earth has to do with intelligent design whether intelligent design of superhuman entities or intelligent designs of humans seeking to imitate this design as observed in all flora and fauna.

Indeed: You put it well: “most responses of the room DON’T BELIEVE in biblical TRUTH. This belief in “truth” represents a “scathing view” to those who choose to believe in things less than “truthful.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we live such short life cycles because that is the way nature sets a natural balance between life and death.if we all lived 2 times our normal age,there would be no food to eat,no place to live,and would increases the carbon footprint like a billion times higher!

Indeed the "present plight" ( verses the former pre flood..situation) represents a "short life cycle". What did MAN do to change the former state in to the later? Indeed due to MANS decisions; trying to live long, eat well, and live somewhere is difficult due to many environmental decisions made by man.

"...pave paradise and put up a parking lot" ( Genesis...Garden of eden= "paradise")

Indeed the "carbon footprint" ( decisions and structures) of man....stomping out pardisiac conditions.

Note: "When a true GENESIS appears,you may know IT by this sign,

when the dunces are all in confideracy against IT"

{johnathan swift}

Edited by physicsolved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Succinct! Respectful

1) Please provide "scientific" proof that "fresh clean water" is a modern phenomenon. Please provide scientific evidence that "microbes/parasites" are NOT a product of creation.

Note: As for when these "living organisms" were created the bible does not define the exact length of time nor the exact time theses creative events transpired . However the bible does state that these creatures ( Genesis 1:20: " let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living things") were created on the 5th "day". This day came after the 1st through 4th day. Thus living organisms dependent on processes of light and photosynthesis( 1-4 day) naturally and scientifically proceeded the "coming to be " of light and luminary. The word "day" has many meanings in the Hebrew language. Thus the "day" when these "microbes/parasites" were created could have represented thousands of years BEFORE the 6th day( when man was created). As it is the term "day" has a broader meaning than just a 24 hour period. One thing for sure it took more than "144" literal hours to accomplish all the works of creation. Thus when these "aqua-swarms" were created and how long the process took is not specifically stated in the bible. However the bible does indicate that the extra terrestrial that is God certainly predates the creation of the heavens and earth. As well the bible indicates that "one day to Jehovah is 1000 years"( to man). Thus if each creative day represented a complete 1,000 years( inferential verses any defined methodology of chrono) then this could "indicate" that the "microbes/parasites" could have came into existence about 12,000 years ago. However this is not definitive. What we do know is that the earth is billions of years old. Take into consideration the broad use of the Hebrew word "day" then from the strictest standpoint all time preceding the 6th day could have been used in the creative processes.

2) Many geological, anthropological, cultural, and geographical "qualifications". Equally as feasible as the "lack of proof" you would seek to "prop up" relegating this possibility.

3) Not interested in your "interpretive references." Been there, saw the movie, have done the research ( open mindedly)…not convinced. Moved on!

4) Correction: Human! ( verses "hominoid"= a witty preposterous evolutionary "term"). "current state" of evolutionary dogma is inferior to the "current state" of creation(ary) evaluations. ( save evolutionary "peer review")

"..lack of understanding.." No! Rather: A better ability of perceiving the principles of creation as demonstrative relative to what you call 'indicatives."

Equally indifferent to your references. Many if not most of which I have entertained.

5) Rhetoric! "..more in depth references.."= selectively choosing ones ideals and subsequently framing a RELIGIOUS belief system around them. Religion in the particular being…."chance."

6) I will choose logical over "illogical chance fallacy" at all times. ( Note: Where the word "fallacy is necessarily removed from the "logical" equations)

You will admit: History/science/anthropology/geology...all of these human endeavors represent actualities "orchestrated" to conform to mans ideologies. I know it is a travesty of historic justice but it is a phenomenon that cannot be denied. Thus true history is only obscured or distorted relative to mans way of thinking.

History= orchestra (aich+ eye+es+te+owe+are+y)....akestory....."orchestra"

Humans "playing the keys of history" in a way that appeals to themselves.

orchestrate ( defined): to arrange or manipulate, especially by means of clever or thorough planning or maneuvering: to arrange, organize, or build up for special or maximum effect.

Some of those who "arrange, manipulate," history do so with the purpose of "stretching the strings", "warping the sounds" ..so as to produce "distorted, false" histories. Others "play the instruments" by closely adhering to the "true" sounds" and do not deviate into "wantonness" of historical musicality.

Re: (1) - The name Protista means "the very first", and some of the 80-odd groups of organisms that we classify as protists may well have had long, independent evolutionary histories stretching as far back as 2 billion years.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Protists.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

This, and similar documentation would not appear to be consistent with your proposed time-line. As a note on the time-line factor, you would appear to vacillate in this regard. What relatively precise date do you regard as the beginning point of your speculation?

Re: (2, 3) - In blithely dismissing this research you are effectively disavowing the existence of geologic formations (and the knowledge that can be obtained from them), biological organisms (and the knowledge that can be obtained from them), the existence of lasers, and the existence of geo-stationary satellites, to name but a few. By the way, is your computer functioning? How?

Re: The rest. Speaking of rhetoric. Not to mention lack of cohesive or relevant presentation.

Re: Credentials - There is much more to becoming credentialed in a field than reading a few books (were they actually books?) without the background to fully interpret and understand their meaning. You have listed a number of fields. You would appear to be quite confident and assertive in regards to your knowledge and understanding of these fields. What are your degrees in these fields and how much experience do you have working in these fields?

Re: Dating - Yet again, your knowledge of this topic would not appear to be comprehensive. Within just a few years of the introduction of radiocarbon dating by Libby in 1949, it was recognized that fluctuations in the levels of atmospheric C14 could affect the accuracy of the method. This has led to extensive application of cross-dating methods in order to calibrate radiocarbon dates. Amongst the cross-references are (as previously mentioned by Abe) dendrochronology, foraminifera from varved sediments (sea bed coring), and Uranium series coral dating. See Reimer et. al. (2004) for the period 0 - 26 CALKYRBP. See J. van der Plicht et. al. (2004) for the period 26-50 CALRCYBP.

In addition there a number of other methods that are utilized, depending on the age and material. For a brief overview:

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/

Please take the time to explore the listed topics.

As is readily apparent to all the readers, you have yet to provide qualified corroborative substantiation for you position. Until such time as you can accomplish this, you will not likely garner any degree of respect or support.

Keep in mind that closing your eyes to the facts does not make them go away, just as closing your eyes as you stand at the edge of a canyon will not make the canyon go away. Your next steps forward will rapidly reinforce this.

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference may be that what I would post with regard to the conversation would represent all the information you would post and cut along with other things you would not find in your "surfing the web". Determinations that could be proven as sound and would certainly "weigh heavily" on the conversation. You know " unique fresh perspectives" verses the unyielding parroting of books ( many it would seem confined to evolutionary "references"

OK, you're claiming the facts you would present would not be found online and would not come from books...

Umm, talking about something that may or may not have happened a few thousand years ago, the only thing that leaves is studying an actual artifact or "paranormal knowledge".

You are either claiming to have Noah's ark in your garage or to be able to remote view events lost in the fog of time. Just want to get that clear since it's a pretty big deal as relates to the information you post.

While I can't say you don't have knowledge the rest of humanity does not, it does tend to be a fall-back position of those who know they have a weak argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i have heard of it along with acid racemization. Both of which are demonstratively unreliable. As well always relative to the predispositions of those utilizing these unreliable systems used to "date"...things,times and events.

One evolutionist to another:

1)"hey what did you "come up with" when you dated that object"

2)"A million billion years."

1)" Well i "came up with" a billion million years."

(1$2...colussion/colaboration/credentials:

" Well it "proves" the creationits wrong, so does it really matter." ( Mowahahahahah)

Can you support these accusations, or are you just making up nonsense again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many are a victim of "fate"( evolutionary dogma distorting their ability to reason on things correctly). As a result of this inferior mindset many view "ape" actions( or fish; microorganisms) as a "major factor" in what happens to them. With such disposition these ones will remain "powerless to effect change" on both the course of their reasoning(s) as well the occasional evolution VS creation …debates.

Evolutionary dogma results necessarily in "low self-esteem." This usually is as a result of seeing the world as "random without any guiding rules." Those who maintain this "world view" are "likely to get frustrated." People with an external locus of control may be superstitious- it was the "lucky rat" that enabled the Israelites to overthrow Senachrib, not the mighty hand of an extra terrestrial entity. ( Note: Principle of physics: Invisible power ( energy)and force can act upon visible "mass" either in a favorable or destructive way.) A little bit of "invisible organism" can go a long way…186,000 miles a sec( 185,000 Assyrians)

Many people view "change" ( from religious views; not dissimilar to evolutionary ideology) with fear, since people with external locus of control robs the individual ( evolution robs humans of dignity and feelings of self-worth) of his expectations of making things better.( evolution: no hope, no justice, no purpose…what's the use). These ones feel "powerless and uncertain as to what did happen and may happen, or where they may fit into the system." These ones.." individually may not actually like the current situation ( of human thought), but because life is random and the consequences of actions cannot be predicted, they resist change." This occurs equally when this view is taken…"collectively."

Better to suffer with what they have now ( evolutionary interpretation of.. everything) than to risk it getting worse(better= Intelligent design relative to a benevolent creator who always upholds principles of love, hope, justice …thus a world wide retribution for those who reject such noble and beneficial …principles and laws.

Wow. You have a very uneducated interpretation of evolution and biology. It seems like you found a new boogeyman to blame everything on.

However if the evolutionists are so inferior, why are you the one dragging your knuckles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: (1) - The name Protista means "the very first", and some of the 80-odd groups of organisms that we classify as protists may well have had long, independent evolutionary histories stretching as far back as 2 billion years.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Protists.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

This, and similar documentation would not appear to be consistent with your proposed time-line. As a note on the time-line factor, you would appear to vacillate in this regard. What relatively precise date do you regard as the beginning point of your speculation?

Re: (2, 3) - In blithely dismissing this research you are effectively disavowing the existence of geologic formations (and the knowledge that can be obtained from them), biological organisms (and the knowledge that can be obtained from them), the existence of lasers, and the existence of geo-stationary satellites, to name but a few. By the way, is your computer functioning? How?

Re: The rest. Speaking of rhetoric. Not to mention lack of cohesive or relevant presentation.

Re: Credentials - There is much more to becoming credentialed in a field than reading a few books (were they actually books?) without the background to fully interpret and understand their meaning. You have listed a number of fields. You would appear to be quite confident and assertive in regards to your knowledge and understanding of these fields. What are your degrees in these fields and how much experience do you have working in these fields?

Re: Dating - Yet again, your knowledge of this topic would not appear to be comprehensive. Within just a few years of the introduction of radiocarbon dating by Libby in 1949, it was recognized that fluctuations in the levels of atmospheric C14 could affect the accuracy of the method. This has led to extensive application of cross-dating methods in order to calibrate radiocarbon dates. Amongst the cross-references are (as previously mentioned by Abe) dendrochronology, foraminifera from varved sediments (sea bed coring), and Uranium series coral dating. See Reimer et. al. (2004) for the period 0 - 26 CALKYRBP. See J. van der Plicht et. al. (2004) for the period 26-50 CALRCYBP.

In addition there a number of other methods that are utilized, depending on the age and material. For a brief overview:

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/

Please take the time to explore the listed topics.

As is readily apparent to all the readers, you have yet to provide qualified corroborative substantiation for you position. Until such time as you can accomplish this, you will not likely garner any degree of respect or support.

Keep in mind that closing your eyes to the facts does not make them go away, just as closing your eyes as you stand at the edge of a canyon will not make the canyon go away. Your next steps forward will rapidly reinforce this.

.

“MAY …. well have had long, independent evolutionary histories stretching as far back as 2 billion years. “

(note: definition of the word “may.”: to indicate possibility

to express a strong wish:

Conclusion: just because you wish possibilities…doesn’t make it so.)

http://idiom.wishfull thinking : (believing that something is true or that something will happen just because one wishes that it were true or would happen)

“Not appear to be”= they way “I” see it…doesn’t appear to be the way you see it. Yet there is no “appearance” of facts to the contrary.

“This research” ( I assume yours)…proves nothing. Conjectures many things.

‘..Knowledge obtained.”…Then knowledge interpreted based on predisposition.

“..computer functioning.” As a direct result of the functionality of the HUMAN brain. Brain= intelligently designed computer. Question: Does the apes brain work? Rhetorical. Does the ape know how to use the equally designed computer. A computer designed relative to the HUMAN brain? This explains “how” the computer works as well as the human brain. Reiteration: Intelligent design verses chance. The chance that an ape or a fish or a microscopic organism will ever “use” much less “design” a computer.

Chance mentality= “lack of cohesive or relevant”…mental resolve or intellectual fortitude.

“there is MUCH more to becoming credentialed‘..than self-delusion and wishful thinking.

Credentials= “interpret…the meaning.” You said it.

I am not being so “confident and assertive” rather logical, reasonable. Using the power of my computer brain and the functionality of the “observational” eye in processing knowledge so as to deduce reasonable, logical and observational “conclusions.” However I do not relegate others “interpretations” so long as these deductions are in harmony with ..logic, reasonableness and observation.

My “degrees” naturally necessitates my “digress”(degrees) away from the myriad interpretations of “data” that are extant today. Those degrees naturally represent “deviation” from the ability to logically, reasonably and coherently( consistently and accurately) process knowledge and then logically, reasonably and coherently form appropriate conclusions. My posts will stand on there own merits as both “degree of knowledge” as well as “ability to reasonably , logically and coherently” form conclusions relative to such “degree of knowledge”.

This part of your post represents one thing: evolutionary condescension.

“Dating.”…: “As a consequence, the radiocarbon method shows limitations on dating of materials that are younger than the industrial era.

“"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." …

Not only is carbon 14 dating limited in its theorectical usefulness any farther back in time than 50,000 years,3 but its dating accuracy seems to be in question for anything greater 4 or 5 thousand years. This is possibly do to the fact that the 14C atmospheric concentration (relative to 12C) is rising and is not the same as it was only a few thousand years ago. ( If man had any “chance” of using this “farce dating system” ………..man has went and screwed it up again.)

Your calibration “theory” does not alter these facts to any significant degree.

Question? How does your calibration answer the following questions:

When did the world begin. What date. When did man arrive? What date? How old is the “attique yomin.” How intelligent is he? What was the date of human speech? What was the date when humans realized that fire was hot? What was the date when humans climbed out of the cave into the light? What was the date when a fish meandered to the seashore? What was the duration of time that it took this fish to evolve to higher life form? What time period would have allowed this fish to live that long without rotting( so as to evolve)? What date was it that proteins and amino acids simultaneously/spontaneously “came to be” ( one without the other precludes “one or the other”) etc…

Does your “dating methods” (utterly deficient) ..answer these questions?

You are correct: “there are a number of other methods that are utilized.” to vainly attempt to “crutch up” evolutionary dogma. A dogma that could not be appropriately validated even if a great sequoia tree were the crutch.

You have provided no, “corroborative substantiated” proofs for your position. Thus until you do so it would be quite unusual for you to ask for such from me as if you have already validated yourself and your own positions. This lack of substantiation should (verses is) also be “apparent to all the readers..” Thus it would seem, due to this reality that , “ you will not likely garner any degree of respect or support.”

Sweat ( oops…swede: “Keep in mind that closing your eyes to the facts does not make them go away..”

I have presented some facts. However, as is predominately the case most things presented as facts are not FACTS at all. Thus due to that reality most of my posts represent “observation, logic, reasonableness” relative to potentialities verses real proven facts.

Can you be so modest? If not then , “Your next steps forward will rapidly reinforce this.”

.

CALIBRATION..........C A LIBERATION. cALIBRATION= THE SELF ASSURED OPINION THAT THIS WITTY TWEEKING OF "LAUGHABLE DATING PROCESS" SOMEHOW "LIBERATES" MAN FROM THE BELIEF IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, you're claiming the facts you would present would not be found online and would not come from books...

Umm, talking about something that may or may not have happened a few thousand years ago, the only thing that leaves is studying an actual artifact or "paranormal knowledge".

You are either claiming to have Noah's ark in your garage or to be able to remote view events lost in the fog of time. Just want to get that clear since it's a pretty big deal as relates to the information you post.

While I can't say you don't have knowledge the rest of humanity does not, it does tend to be a fall-back position of those who know they have a weak argument.

I am not claiming that what I present are facts. Rather the ability of reasoning on those things that can be demonstrated as fact while being cautiously ( and intelligently) logical and reasonable with the things that are less proven as …fact.

Paranormal? If you mean this as providing information that would aid one in being logical and reasonable I would agree. However I do not ascribe to the occult practice of paranormal research. Save this. The word para means : alongside. Normal means…normal. Thus if this is the way you were applying the term then I would agree that considering entities as relative to us ( alongside ) and that these entities are above our normal experiences as terrestrials then I agree that examining any and all information coming from these alongside normal humans may be appropriate to understanding many things. Understanding them in a way that does not represent normal human thinking. Thus why I have and do consider the Bible as the sole way of understanding this above normal human thinking and experience …information.

This extra earthly information indeed discusses Noah as well as the Ark. This information is relegated due to normal deviant ideologies and is remotely the mental disposition of most. Note: Indeed! Before this deluge the earth was watered by a mist or fog if you will. That fog ( a product of an expanse above) represented a very pleasurable experience for those before the flood. After the expanse was removed this pleasant fog experience ( steady pleasurable temperature) was lost. Can this life experience of extreme protection from radiation be returned? Can man accomplish this?

Yes many present week arguments as well call interpretations of data ..facts. This type of fanciful approach to processing information has resulted in the delugions of the past world and the present delusions.

Note: There ARE many things to be discovered on the sphere earth if one knows the principles of how to look. This thread as well as others will continue to define this relevant principles. OBSERVATION is a fundamental principle of science.

Edited by physicsolved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“MAY …. well have had long, independent evolutionary histories stretching as far back as 2 billion years. “

(note: definition of the word “may.”: to indicate possibility

to express a strong wish:

Conclusion: just because you wish possibilities…doesn’t make it so.)

http://idiom.wishfull thinking : (believing that something is true or that something will happen just because one wishes that it were true or would happen)

“Not appear to be”= they way “I” see it…doesn’t appear to be the way you see it. Yet there is no “appearance” of facts to the contrary.

“This research” ( I assume yours)…proves nothing. Conjectures many things.

‘..Knowledge obtained.”…Then knowledge interpreted based on predisposition.

“..computer functioning.” As a direct result of the functionality of the HUMAN brain. Brain= intelligently designed computer. Question: Does the apes brain work? Rhetorical. Does the ape know how to use the equally designed computer. A computer designed relative to the HUMAN brain? This explains “how” the computer works as well as the human brain. Reiteration: Intelligent design verses chance. The chance that an ape or a fish or a microscopic organism will ever “use” much less “design” a computer.

Chance mentality= “lack of cohesive or relevant”…mental resolve or intellectual fortitude.

“there is MUCH more to becoming credentialed‘..than self-delusion and wishful thinking.

Credentials= “interpret…the meaning.” You said it.

I am not being so “confident and assertive” rather logical, reasonable. Using the power of my computer brain and the functionality of the “observational” eye in processing knowledge so as to deduce reasonable, logical and observational “conclusions.” However I do not relegate others “interpretations” so long as these deductions are in harmony with ..logic, reasonableness and observation.

My “degrees” naturally necessitates my “digress”(degrees) away from the myriad interpretations of “data” that are extant today. Those degrees naturally represent “deviation” from the ability to logically, reasonably and coherently( consistently and accurately) process knowledge and then logically, reasonably and coherently form appropriate conclusions. My posts will stand on there own merits as both “degree of knowledge” as well as “ability to reasonably , logically and coherently” form conclusions relative to such “degree of knowledge”.

This part of your post represents one thing: evolutionary condescension.

“Dating.”…: “As a consequence, the radiocarbon method shows limitations on dating of materials that are younger than the industrial era.

“"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." …

Not only is carbon 14 dating limited in its theorectical usefulness any farther back in time than 50,000 years,3 but its dating accuracy seems to be in question for anything greater 4 or 5 thousand years. This is possibly do to the fact that the 14C atmospheric concentration (relative to 12C) is rising and is not the same as it was only a few thousand years ago. ( If man had any “chance” of using this “farce dating system” ………..man has went and screwed it up again.)

Your calibration “theory” does not alter these facts to any significant degree.

Question? How does your calibration answer the following questions:

When did the world begin. What date. When did man arrive? What date? How old is the “attique yomin.” How intelligent is he? What was the date of human speech? What was the date when humans realized that fire was hot? What was the date when humans climbed out of the cave into the light? What was the date when a fish meandered to the seashore? What was the duration of time that it took this fish to evolve to higher life form? What time period would have allowed this fish to live that long without rotting( so as to evolve)? What date was it that proteins and amino acids simultaneously/spontaneously “came to be” ( one without the other precludes “one or the other”) etc…

Does your “dating methods” (utterly deficient) ..answer these questions?

You are correct: “there are a number of other methods that are utilized.” to vainly attempt to “crutch up” evolutionary dogma. A dogma that could not be appropriately validated even if a great sequoia tree were the crutch.

You have provided no, “corroborative substantiated” proofs for your position. Thus until you do so it would be quite unusual for you to ask for such from me as if you have already validated yourself and your own positions. This lack of substantiation should (verses is) also be “apparent to all the readers..” Thus it would seem, due to this reality that , “ you will not likely garner any degree of respect or support.”

Sweat ( oops…swede: “Keep in mind that closing your eyes to the facts does not make them go away..”

I have presented some facts. However, as is predominately the case most things presented as facts are not FACTS at all. Thus due to that reality most of my posts represent “observation, logic, reasonableness” relative to potentialities verses real proven facts.

Can you be so modest? If not then , “Your next steps forward will rapidly reinforce this.”

.

CALIBRATION..........C A LIBERATION. cALIBRATION= THE SELF ASSURED OPINION THAT THIS WITTY TWEEKING OF "LAUGHABLE DATING PROCESS" SOMEHOW "LIBERATES" MAN FROM THE BELIEF IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

For this and many other examples of complete and utter rubbish you are awarded the Fractal Wrongness Award, First Place, with Oak Leaf Cluster.

FractalWrongness.jpg

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“MAY …. well have had long, independent evolutionary histories stretching as far back as 2 billion years. “

(note: definition of the word “may.”: to indicate possibility

to express a strong wish:

Conclusion: just because you wish possibilities…doesn’t make it so.)

http://idiom.wishfull thinking : (believing that something is true or that something will happen just because one wishes that it were true or would happen)

“Not appear to be”= they way “I” see it…doesn’t appear to be the way you see it. Yet there is no “appearance” of facts to the contrary.

“This research” ( I assume yours)…proves nothing. Conjectures many things.

‘..Knowledge obtained.”…Then knowledge interpreted based on predisposition.

“..computer functioning.” As a direct result of the functionality of the HUMAN brain. Brain= intelligently designed computer. Question: Does the apes brain work? Rhetorical. Does the ape know how to use the equally designed computer. A computer designed relative to the HUMAN brain? This explains “how” the computer works as well as the human brain. Reiteration: Intelligent design verses chance. The chance that an ape or a fish or a microscopic organism will ever “use” much less “design” a computer.

Chance mentality= “lack of cohesive or relevant”…mental resolve or intellectual fortitude.

“there is MUCH more to becoming credentialed‘..than self-delusion and wishful thinking.

Credentials= “interpret…the meaning.” You said it.

I am not being so “confident and assertive” rather logical, reasonable. Using the power of my computer brain and the functionality of the “observational” eye in processing knowledge so as to deduce reasonable, logical and observational “conclusions.” However I do not relegate others “interpretations” so long as these deductions are in harmony with ..logic, reasonableness and observation.

My “degrees” naturally necessitates my “digress”(degrees) away from the myriad interpretations of “data” that are extant today. Those degrees naturally represent “deviation” from the ability to logically, reasonably and coherently( consistently and accurately) process knowledge and then logically, reasonably and coherently form appropriate conclusions. My posts will stand on there own merits as both “degree of knowledge” as well as “ability to reasonably , logically and coherently” form conclusions relative to such “degree of knowledge”.

This part of your post represents one thing: evolutionary condescension.

“Dating.”…: “As a consequence, the radiocarbon method shows limitations on dating of materials that are younger than the industrial era.

“"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." …

Not only is carbon 14 dating limited in its theorectical usefulness any farther back in time than 50,000 years,3 but its dating accuracy seems to be in question for anything greater 4 or 5 thousand years. This is possibly do to the fact that the 14C atmospheric concentration (relative to 12C) is rising and is not the same as it was only a few thousand years ago. ( If man had any “chance” of using this “farce dating system” ………..man has went and screwed it up again.)

Your calibration “theory” does not alter these facts to any significant degree.

Question? How does your calibration answer the following questions:

When did the world begin. What date. When did man arrive? What date? How old is the “attique yomin.” How intelligent is he? What was the date of human speech? What was the date when humans realized that fire was hot? What was the date when humans climbed out of the cave into the light? What was the date when a fish meandered to the seashore? What was the duration of time that it took this fish to evolve to higher life form? What time period would have allowed this fish to live that long without rotting( so as to evolve)? What date was it that proteins and amino acids simultaneously/spontaneously “came to be” ( one without the other precludes “one or the other”) etc…

Does your “dating methods” (utterly deficient) ..answer these questions?

You are correct: “there are a number of other methods that are utilized.” to vainly attempt to “crutch up” evolutionary dogma. A dogma that could not be appropriately validated even if a great sequoia tree were the crutch.

You have provided no, “corroborative substantiated” proofs for your position. Thus until you do so it would be quite unusual for you to ask for such from me as if you have already validated yourself and your own positions. This lack of substantiation should (verses is) also be “apparent to all the readers..” Thus it would seem, due to this reality that , “ you will not likely garner any degree of respect or support.”

Sweat ( oops…swede: “Keep in mind that closing your eyes to the facts does not make them go away..”

I have presented some facts. However, as is predominately the case most things presented as facts are not FACTS at all. Thus due to that reality most of my posts represent “observation, logic, reasonableness” relative to potentialities verses real proven facts.

Can you be so modest? If not then , “Your next steps forward will rapidly reinforce this.”

.

CALIBRATION..........C A LIBERATION. cALIBRATION= THE SELF ASSURED OPINION THAT THIS WITTY TWEEKING OF "LAUGHABLE DATING PROCESS" SOMEHOW "LIBERATES" MAN FROM THE BELIEF IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the creation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies. Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old. Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.

The next few pages cover a broad overview of radiometric dating techniques, show a few examples, and discuss the degree to which the various dating systems agree with each other. The goal is to promote greater understanding on this issue, particularly for the Christian community. Many people have been led to be skeptical of dating without knowing much about it. For example, most people don't realize that carbon dating is only rarely used on rocks. God has called us to be "wise as serpents" (Matt. 10:16) even in this scientific age. In spite of this, differences still occur within the church. A disagreement over the age of the Earth is relatively minor in the whole scope of Christianity; it is more important to agree on the Rock of Ages than on the age of rocks. But because God has also called us to wisdom, this issue is worthy of study.

Overview

Rocks are made up of many individual crystals, and each crystal is usually made up of at least several different chemical elements such as iron, magnesium, silicon, etc. Most of the elements in nature are stable and do not change. However, some elements are not completely stable in their natural state. Some of the atoms eventually change from one element to another by a process called radioactive decay. If there are a lot of atoms of the original element, called the parent element, the atoms decay to another element, called the daughter element, at a predictable rate. The passage of time can be charted by the reduction in the number of parent atoms, and the increase in the number of daughter atoms.

Radiometric dating can be compared to an hourglass. When the glass is turned over, sand runs from the top to the bottom. Radioactive atoms are like individual grains of sand--radioactive decays are like the falling of grains from the top to the bottom of the glass. You cannot predict exactly when any one particular grain will get to the bottom, but you can predict from one time to the next how long the whole pile of sand takes to fall. Once all of the sand has fallen out of the top, the hourglass will no longer keep time unless it is turned over again. Similarly, when all the atoms of the radioactive element are gone, the rock will no longer keep time (unless it receives a new batch of radioactive atoms).

Page 2.

Keep reading; Radiometric dating for Christians

Please feel free to specifically refute it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our scientists love the fruit fly because it completes a generation in just 3 weeks and so it is useful when studying what effect a certain substance may have on subsequent generations

could it be that humans have such pitifully short lifespan for the same reason?

[annunaki were supposed to live to age 36000 for example]

could aliens who have been tinkering with our civilization since year dot be using us to study substances over generations before giving it to their own population? someone who lives to age 36000 could study several of our generations after releasing a substance such the plague to see what it does. [yes apparently they saw men in black dressed as grim reapers releasing gas substances around villages prior to that village succumbing to the plague - this was on an episode i just watched called ancient aliens

it is quite obvious from reading ancient writings and also reading about current ufo abduction reports that aliens have always had their own agenda and sometimes it was for our good and sometimes it was not.

I would love to know what others think

We have pretty long lifespans, as compared to most other organisms on earth--Our "natural" lifespan is further modulated by technological know-how. Lifespan is dictated by selection for reproductive success.

Let Matt Ridley and opossums explain (why because they are cute, furry and funny!)

Evidence for this theory comes from a natural experiment studied

by Steven Austad on an island called Sapelo, which lies about five

miles off the coast of Georgia in the United States. Sapelo contains

a population of Virginia opossums that has been isolated for 10,000

years. Opossums, like many marsupials, age very rapidly. By the age

of two years, opossums are generally dead from old age - the victims

of cataracts, arthritis, bare skin and parasites. But that hardly matters

because by two they have generally been hit by a truck, a coyote,

an owl or some other natural enemy. On Sapelo, reasoned Austad,

where many predators are absent, they would live longer and so —

exposed for the first time to selection for better health after two

years of age - their bodies would deteriorate less rapidly. They would

age more slowly. This proved an accurate prediction. On Sapelo,

Austad found, the opossums not only lived much longer, but aged

more slowly. They were healthy enough to breed successfully in

their second year - rare on the mainland — and their tendons showed

less stiffness than those in mainland opossums.8

The evolutionary theory of ageing explains all the cross-species

trends in a satisfying way. It explains why slow-ageing species tend

to be large (elephants), or well protected (tortoises, porcupines), or

relatively free from natural predators (bats, seabirds). In each case,

because the death rate from accidents or predation is low, so the

selective pressure is high for versions of genes that prolong health

into later life.

Ridley M. 2000. Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. Walnut Creek, CA: HarperCollins. 352 p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For this and many other examples of complete and utter rubbish you are awarded the Fractal Wrongness Award, First Place, with Oak Leaf Cluster.

FractalWrongness.jpg

cormac

Surely not?

post-95635-0-23828200-1297266843_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have pretty long lifespans, as compared to most other organisms on earth--Our "natural" lifespan is further modulated by technological know-how. Lifespan is dictated by selection for reproductive success.

Let Matt Ridley and opossums explain (why because they are cute, furry and funny!)

Ridley M. 2000. Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. Walnut Creek, CA: HarperCollins. 352 p.

Radiation amplified "stalls" the reproductive processes

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.