2
   

veracity of evolution

 
 
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 07:33 pm
@odenskrigare,
Actually, Pathfinder, the reason for this has been shown to you, but you don't want to stop there, and that is the problem. The reason the cell is not alive in the circumstance that we call death, just as the organism (that build of cells) is not alive in the circumstance we call death, is because there is no process; that's it.

Now what you are trying to say, is that that circumstance, that process, IS a 'spiritual' thing...something non-material...something of a creator's gift or thought, or some other imagination. What you are missing is that the process is a process of material things, so death is a material state . . . there is hardly any room at all to consider that the circumstance we term 'death' is anything other than a material state of breakdown in process. That, Pathfinder, is why.
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 07:39 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;86386 wrote:
Since 1990 life expectancy has increased by around 3 years for men and 1 year for women. Since 1909 it's increased by 25 years for men and 27 years for women.


Cuba, which only spends a few hundred dollars per capita, has a national life expectancy that approximates the U.S.

Aedes;86386 wrote:
Yeah, that's all we do in hospitals, trick people to come in so that we can kill them.


Well, if you are going to take credit for all of the stuff that goes on in hospitals, you are going to have to take credit for all of the stuff.

Aedes;86386 wrote:
Complicated systems have errors,


Yep. That is why I stay away from physicians and hospitals.

Aedes;86386 wrote:
give us a goddamned break, we're working on it and I'm getting sick of your chafing haughtiness towards my job, my colleagues, and a career in which I actually see people's lives getting better.


No problem. You do your thing and I will do mine. I am quite OK not having been to a hospital or a physician in 30 years. BTW, the same for my son and my ex. We just figured out how to stay healthy.

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 07:46 pm
@richrf,
richrf;86395 wrote:
Cuba, which only spends a few hundred dollars per capita, has a national life expectancy that approximates the U.S.


ok but they're basically a Western country and they use Western medicine

we're not talking about politics or economics

richrf;86395 wrote:
No problem. You do your thing and I will do mine. I am quite OK not having been to a hospital or a physician in 30 years. BTW, the same for my son and my ex. We just figured out how to stay healthy


Hasty generalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

rich I know it's a bit perverse to say this but I hope the work units I am doing here with Folding@Home:

http://fah-web.stanford.edu/awards/cert.php?u=hammerkrieg&pts=4&t=wus&bg=3

contribute to a cure for Alzheimer's and you get Alzheimer's and then you get cured and then I'll have some neurally-hijacked fly on the wall with a camera watching the doctor say "ha ha rich you didn't believe that Western medicine is better than the alternatives what do you have to say for yourself now" and I'll sit there in my comfortable lunar apartment fapping to Boxxy while laughing it up with the doctor and drinking sparkling water
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 07:54 pm
@richrf,
richrf;86395 wrote:
Well, if you are going to take credit for all of the stuff that goes on in hospitals, you are going to have to take credit for all of the stuff.
Well, it's ignorant to throw problems around like a slogan with blind lack of recognition that error reduction is a major movement in American medical education and research.

richrf;86395 wrote:
Yep. That is why I stay away from physicians and hospitals.
Yep, and the human body is also a complex system. I'd never generalize about all humans from a single case -- but that's what you do every time you mention your own good health. And populations with millions of individuals are much more complex systems than a single individual.

richrf;86395 wrote:
No problem. You do your thing and I will do mine.
Will do -- but the difference between me and you is that I'll never be as disrespectful, haughty, or demeaning towards your belief or practices as you constantly are to mine. Does qi make people arrogant and mean?

richrf;86395 wrote:
I am quite OK not having been to a hospital or a physician in 30 years. BTW, the same for my son and my ex. We just figured out how to stay healthy.
Hey, that's great. Want me to tell you about the 21 year old college student in septic shock again? Or would you just ignore it one more time? Either way, consider how things might have turned out for her if her dad were "quite OK" not taking her to the hospital.
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 07:55 pm
@William,
William;86361 wrote:

Here is what I feel is the scary part associated with what began with Darwinian thought. In those invasions of the human body and that of the animal as we associate those two we added two new terms to those vast tomes of scientific rhetoric; "unfit variants and genetic mutants" as those so brilliant are bought to create the "perfect human" as it seems the one we represent was "flawed" in it's original design? Is this an accurate appraisal? Perhaps not, but it makes sense; to me anyway. But who am "I" to question? Ha! Even I have a difficult time figuring that one out as I think most human beings do.


I think maybe you are mixing up what is called "social darwinism" and legitimate, modern evolutionary theory. In the old days (and not-so-old days), the idea of "social darwinism" was introduced by certain elitists, in order to weed out the inferior people of the human race, so that society could be advanced. These ideas have sometimes been linked with capitalism, and free market economics, but famously with fascist regimes such as the Nazis and their ethnic cleansing.

When you hear about "evolutionary fitness", it is really just referring to how successful an organism is in passing on its genes. You can be fat, ugly, and have plenty of medical problems, but if you have 10 children who each have a bunch of grandchildren and so on, you are much more "fit" than most people.

I can understand your concern with science though. Science is a very powerful tool, and can lead to discoveries that could be used for good things as well as bad things, as history has proven. I think one big problem is that many scientists are so motivated to come up with the next great discovery, that they fail to consider whether or not the discovery will help or hurt humanity. A nobel prize and a nice patent and large contract for whatever the new technology is seems to be the main (or sole) motivator, most of the time.
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 07:56 pm
@Aedes,
You guys just don't want to give up. Why don't you just try to fix someone else up? I feel OK as I am.

Rich
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 07:59 pm
@richrf,
richrf;86400 wrote:
I feel OK as I am.
Hmm, you spend a lot of time trying to bring other people down for someone who feels OK.
0 Replies
 
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 08:05 pm
@Pangloss,
Aedes;86398 wrote:
Well, it's ignorant to throw problems around like a slogan with blind lack of recognition that error reduction is a major movement in American medical education and research


Aedes why are you even entertaining this line of attack

he's using the US healthcare system which is pretty flawed by post-industrial standards (which is not to say you are a terrible doctor) as a strawman for all Western medicine

it's like saying "Nickelback sucks, therefore all rock bands suck"

Aedes;86398 wrote:
Will do -- but the difference between me and you is that I'll never be as disrespectful, haughty, or demeaning towards your belief or practices as you constantly are to mine


lol edit. dig up the mortality statistics, just listen to that cackling homunculus with an axe buried deep in you that says "DO IT! DO IT!" whenever Satan gives you a brilliant idea

Aedes;86398 wrote:
Hey, that's great. Want me to tell you about the 21 year old college student in septic shock again? Or would you just ignore it one more time? Either way, consider how things might have turned out for her if her dad were "quite OK" not taking her to the hospital.


her yin had stagnated

Pangloss;86399 wrote:
I can understand your concern with science though. Science is a very powerful tool, and can lead to discoveries that could be used for good things as well as bad things, as history has proven. I think one big problem is that many scientists are so motivated to come up with the next great discovery, that they fail to consider whether or not the discovery will help or hurt humanity. A nobel prize and a nice patent and large contract for whatever the new technology is seems to be the main (or sole) motivator, most of the time.


nobody at the top is in it for the money

people who are in it for the money just barely eke out a bachelor's degree in their field and try to booze and party their way through life. they succeed, more or less, and never amount to anything

now as for the topic of eugenics I think it is not necessarily a bad thing. I think the world would be very boring with just blond-haired blue-eyed people, and that's not what I want, but I see no issues with making the human race (or indeed, people in general, i.e. transcending the human race) smarter, stronger, faster, etc.
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 08:06 pm
@richrf,
richrf;86400 wrote:
You guys just don't want to give up. Why don't you just try to fix someone else up? I feel OK as I am.


Good for you, but the purpose of this thread is not to discuss your personal health habits.

I hope you or your family members who disregard modern medicine never develop some type of serious health problem, such as cancer. Good luck curing that one with diet and exercise...

It's not that big of a deal that you're criticizing doctors and health care; sure, they have plenty of problems that need to be worked out. But you really come off as disrespectful to others who have had serious health problems by somehow implying that they just simply weren't as smart as you (or as 'healthy') and didn't discover your magical diet and exercise plan. I've got news for you...at some point, someone in your family will develop a serious health problem that will require treatment at a hospital, and I'm betting you will go running to one when that time comes.
William
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 08:06 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;86386 wrote:
Sorry, but you're wrong. Theory has a specific meaning in science that is different than the colloquial use you mention.
Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thank you Paul for being so ultimately definitive as you quote wiki, the god of our understanding. I clearly said this was my observation and noted the reasons. I fully understand what "science" espouses as to what "theory" means. I just disagree as I do with many of their opinions and their proclaimed reasons as I will again say you can never believe all you see if those inspections are the results of 'invasion'. I explained that too. Thanks anyway.

William
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 08:09 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;86405 wrote:
lol edit. dig up the mortality statistics, just listen to that cackling homunculus with an axe buried deep in you that says "DO IT! DO IT!" whenever Satan gives you a brilliant idea
I think I'm supposed to set a good example or something here :flowers:
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 08:13 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss;86406 wrote:
I've got news for you...at some point, someone in your family will develop a serious health problem that will require treatment at a hospital, and I'm betting you will go running to one when that time comes.


Appreciate the warning. Now, can we get on with the subject.

And next time, before you become so indignant and so huffy and puffy, please check out the thread, and check out who keeps on bringing up my health style.

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 08:17 pm
@Aedes,
William;86407 wrote:
I fully understand what "science" espouses as to what "theory" means


no you dont otherwise you wouldnt be calling it "mere opinion."

William;86407 wrote:
I just disagree as I do with many of their opinions and their proclaimed reasons as I will again say you can never believe all you see if those inspections are the results of 'invasion'. I explained that too.


is heart surgery "invasion"?

you can wallow in anti-modernism all you like but lo and behold you are sitting there using the Internet to complain about how curmudgeonly science takes out its mean old can of Lysol and masks the odor of magical unicorn farts wafting in the air

Aedes;86409 wrote:
I think I'm supposed to set a good example or something here :flowers:


do it

do it

doooo iiiiiit
0 Replies
 
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 08:17 pm
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;86405 wrote:

nobody at the top is in it for the money

people who are in it for the money just barely eke out a bachelor's degree in their field and try to booze and party their way through life. they succeed, more or less, and never amount to anything


The people who invest in the research are certainly in it for the money. The scientists themselves though I'd say are mostly in it for the fame, glory, and pure excitement of the whole thing, to complete their goal. You should read the memoirs written by the physicists and engineers who worked on the atom bomb; for pretty much all of them, they never considered the ramifications of such a device until it was finally completed. Until that point, they just wanted to finish the project they had been given and get the acclaim and satisfaction that goes with that. Then once they saw the bomb go off, you have Oppenheimer's famous quoting of the Bhagavad-Gita, Feynman's noted existential crisis, among other similar experiences, that went along with the realization of what they had created.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 08:19 pm
@odenskrigare,
William in other conversations has revealed quite a bit about his own medical illnesses. He would be wise to consider the amount of scientific research that has gone into the therapies he has received.
0 Replies
 
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 08:24 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss;86413 wrote:
The people who invest in the research are certainly in it for the money


ok but we're not talking about them

Pangloss;86413 wrote:
The scientists themselves though I'd say are mostly in it for the fame, glory, and pure excitement of the whole thing


*cough*

Isaac Newton
Karl Wilhelm Scheele

*hack*

OH MY LUNGS!!

Nikola Tesla
Rachel Carson

*COUGH COUGH* EXCUSE ME!

Carl Sagan
Robert Bakker

*WHEEZE WHEEEEEEZE* somebody get an ambulance
Pangloss;86413 wrote:
to complete their goal. You should read the memoirs written by the physicists and engineers who worked on the atom bomb; for pretty much all of them, they never considered the ramifications of such a device until it was finally completed. Until that point, they just wanted to finish the project they had been given and get the acclaim and satisfaction that goes with that. Then once they saw the bomb go off, you have Oppenheimer's famous quoting of the Bhagavad-Gita, Feynman's noted existential crisis, among other similar experiences, that went along with the realization of what they had created.


cool hasty generalization bro
0 Replies
 
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 08:25 pm
@richrf,
richrf;86410 wrote:
Appreciate the warning. Now, can we get on with the subject.


Yea, if you'll let us.

Quote:
And next time, before you become so indignant and so huffy and puffy, please check out the thread, and check out who keeps on bringing up my health style.
I've checked out enough of the last couple pages of this thread to know that you're the one getting huffy and puffy and indignant. :sarcastic:

The fact is, evolutionary theory is as solid as any other scientific theory. The "debate" only continues because some people are biased against science, thanks to the creationist belief structures that they have in place. Those people won't accept anything unless it can be found in black and white in the bible, so there's not much you can do with them. :brickwall:

If you want to take a philosophical stand against the possibly flawed basis of all science, that would at least be more reasonable, though it's quite impractical.

---------- Post added 08-28-2009 at 09:35 PM ----------

odenskrigare;86416 wrote:


Isaac Newton
Karl Wilhelm Scheele
Nikola Tesla
Rachel CarsonCarl Sagan
Robert Bakker


You don't think any of these people were somewhat motivated by the desire for fame? Or at the very least because they were simply excited about the things they studied?

Quote:
cool hasty generalization bro
Obviously I'm not a mind reader, and don't claim to know any scientists' inner desires when pursuing their chosen career more than anybody else. Just giving my opinion, which has been somewhat verified by first-hand accounts I've read, and the fact that many science has been put to bad use as soon as possible after it was discovered. Of course I'm generalizing, though not hastily, I do have some reason behind my opinion; you apparently then do not know what a fallacy of reasoning is. My generalization could be a weak inductive argument, but it's not a "hasty generalization". Thanks for trying though, bro. :sarcastic:
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 08:46 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss;86418 wrote:
You don't think any of these people were somewhat motivated by the desire for fame?
only for knowledge

Rachel Carson cared about the environment not about fame

Carl Sagan cared about people learning to think straight

Robert Bakker cared about whether dinos were warm-blooded which is not exactly going to catapult you to fame

Pangloss;86418 wrote:
Or at the very least because they were simply excited about the things they studied?


sure

but that's an intrinsic not an extrinsic reason

Pangloss;86418 wrote:
Just giving my opinion, which has been somewhat verified by first-hand accounts I've read, and the fact that many science has been put to bad use as soon as possible after it was discovered


that's an ethical issue more than anything else
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 08:51 pm
@richrf,
richrf;86410 wrote:
check out who keeps on bringing up my health style
Thanks for the suggestion.

All quotes are permalinked to the original thread.

richrf;67583 wrote:
I haven't had to go to the doctor in 27 years, nor has my wife, nor has my son.


richrf;67597 wrote:
I have no need for pills or such. Haven't had one since I was 20 - over 37 years ago.


richrf;86395 wrote:
. I am quite OK not having been to a hospital or a physician in 30 years. BTW, the same for my son and my ex. We just figured out how to stay healthy.


richrf;86365 wrote:
I am a very healthy 58 year old, by ignoring advice such as yours for three decades.


richrf;77711 wrote:
I have been able to keep myself plenty healthy for 28 years without using any drugs, without going to any physician...BTW, the same goes for my son and my ex, so it is not a matter of luck.


richrf;86339 wrote:
Something to investigate. I have been doing that for 30 years, and have discovered lots of interesting things to keep me healthy. But that is just my gig.


richrf;86313 wrote:
I will not get sick and someone else will. It is because I have a healthy body.


richrf;86261 wrote:
For me, it has kept be healthy for the last 30 years. No pharmaceuticals and no doctor visits. However, I do practice yoga and Tai Chi, as well as eat well and do self massage (Chinese Tuina), to improve my energy (qi), blood (yin) and breathing (prana). It is a simple matter of knowledge of simple concepts.


richrf;83604 wrote:
I came to the exact same conclusions as these scientific studies are now concluding, on my own, just by observing, over 30 years ago. How to live a healthy life has been known for over 2500 years


and that's not even all of them -- but I don't have the stamina to keep going
0 Replies
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 09:08 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss;86418 wrote:
I've checked out enough of the last couple pages of this thread to know that you're the one getting huffy and puffy and indignant. :sarcastic:


Really now.

Pangloss;86418 wrote:
If you want to take a philosophical stand against the possibly flawed basis of all science, that would at least be more reasonable, though it's quite impractical.


Let's make a deal straight off. You don't tell me how to think and I won't tell you.

Rich


---------- Post added 08-28-2009 at 10:24 PM ----------

Nice job of editing Paul. Besides your own cute highly biased and edited post, I now present for completeness sake:

odenskrigare;86347 wrote:
I knew you wouldn't give a straight answer

But I'll rephrase the question

"Under circumstances which would incur a high probability of contracting HIV, do you think a jump rope would protect you?"


TickTockMan;86348 wrote:
So what would you tell the parents of a child who has succumbed to some form of disease? That their child did not get enough exercise and had Qi/Chi stagnation?


odenskrigare;86356 wrote:


well let's say, hypothetically, that rich gives himself a bunch of knicks with a pocket knife and he starts jumping rope and I stand by in a hazmat suit flicking fresh HIV-infected blood at him with a paintbrush

other things being equal, will the jump rope really help him?


Aedes;86386 wrote:
Since 1990 life expectancy has increased by around 3 years for men and 1 year for women. Since 1909 it's increased by 25 years for men and 27 years for women. Infant mortality has dropped by 90% in the last century. The annual mortality of measles has dropped by millions since the vaccine was introduced in the early 1960s. In the last decade it's dropped by nearly a million measles deaths per year in African children alone.

Yeah, that's all we do in hospitals, trick people to come in so that we can kill them. Oh, by the way, I admitted a 21 year old girl to the hospital two days ago who was in septic shock from a kidney infection, and would have been dead within a couple days if not for my interventions. And she's an athlete, so you can't blame the lack of jump-roping.

Complicated systems have errors, and we see that constantly in medicine, in economic stewardship, in airlines, in product safety, in computer safety, etc. We're trying to make it better. In our hospital we have computerized documentation and computerized physician order entry, which has greatly reduced dosing errors and illegibility problems. The ACGME has mandated more humane work hours for residents, so that they are not working while exhausted. We're trying to make it better.

So give us a goddamned break, we're working on it and I'm getting sick of your chafing haughtiness towards my job, my colleagues, and a career in which I actually see people's lives getting better.


odenskrigare;86393 wrote:
ok, so if I were flicking HIV-infected blood at rich's open cuts and he were using a jump rope would it save him





odenskrigare;86397 wrote:
ok but they're basically a Western country and they use Western medicine


Aedes;86401 wrote:
Hmm, you spend a lot of time trying to bring other people down for someone who feels OK.


odenskrigare;86405 wrote:
Aedes why are you even entertaining this line of attack

he's using the US healthcare system which is pretty flawed by post-industrial standards (which is not to say you are a terrible doctor) as a strawman for all Western medicine
it's like saying "Nickelback sucks, therefore all rock bands suck"

lol edit. dig up the mortality statistics, just listen to that cackling homunculus with an axe buried deep in you that says "DO IT! DO IT!" whenever Satan gives you a brilliant idea

her yin had stagnated



Pangloss;86406 wrote:
Good for you, but the purpose of this thread is not to discuss your personal health habits.


It's not that big of a deal that you're criticizing doctors and health care; sure, they have plenty of problems that need to be worked out.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 11:46:38