Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then WHAT DID YOU MEAN? Seriously, you retract everything you say - you expect people to read your convoluted mind and when they can't you're upset. You have a communication problem. I've asked before, is English your second language? If you want people to understand you then present your case logically instead of in sweeping generalities.
I have explained this before: Things are not always ALL THIS vs ALL THAT. Things are not always black or white, and nothing in between.
Please, this is easy.
Nature being beyond human comprehension means that nature, the universe, is infinite, while we are finite. If nature is intelligent, as I and many others believe, and we are only a small part of nature, then we are limited in comparison with nature.
No matter how much we learn about something that is infinite, there is still infinitely more that we don't know.
Interesting that just because YOU don't understand what I write, the communication problem must be mine. It can't possibly be you.
Calling someone "asinine" has to be against the rules here.
What you are denying is that those benefits have contributed to increased longevity. It is clearly obvious that they have.
Calling a specific poster asinine is against the TOS; calling an opinion expressed by that poster asinine is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
T"his research was supported by the following companies: Aventis, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, and Pharmacia."
Oh please, SuzyQ, that was just silly. They counted new drugs introduced, but no idea how many took them or if they worked. And the increased average lifespan was tiny.
Drug companies are so creative with their deceptive research.
The paper was from the National Bureau of Economic Research.
"Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals."
Please describe exactly what is deceptive about the conclusions drawn by Lichtenberg and show evidence that the source of funding (which is disclosed in a large font) influenced those conclusions.
Small gains become big gains with compounding over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
I NEVER said that! Evolution by chance is an atheistic philosophy. You could ask Darwin, if he were alive.
Denial of the randomness inherent in evolution is a religious concept. Sorry, but it is espoused by those, like you, who believe in a divine power driving evolution. It does not matter whether you call that divine power "God" or "the intelligence of nature".
In actuality, evolution is not entirely random, though genetic mutations are.
"Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but. Natural selection favours mutations that provide some advantage (see Evolution promotes the survival of species), and the physical world imposes very strict limits on what works and what doesn’t. The result is that organisms evolve in particular directions."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
I know that you know that I could not have possibly meant that humans can never understand nature at all.
Then why did you say, "There are many respected scientists who say that nature is beyond human comprehension."
If "nature is beyond human comprehension" that means it is not possible to understand it.
You still have not told us who those "respected scientists" who say that are, by the way. How about a link to a source that supports your claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
You really don't understand what I said? That smoking has DECREASED, which accounts for some of the decrease in heart disease?
Some of it, but not all of it, and smoking still has an overall negative effect on average life expectancy in the US.
As far as heart disease is concerned, reducing all risk factors, not just smoking, accounts for about half the improvement; medication and treatment also about half. Reduced smoking accounts for about 10 to 15% of the improvement. See Table 2. Yes, the data are old but there is no reason to think that the relative impact of reduced smoking has changed markedly in the last twenty years. If you have data, real numbers, that tell us differently, please provide it.
No, data isn't just math!! There are all kinds of ways to analyze and interpret data. Again, you have obviously never had anything to do with scientific research.
With regard to longevity it is simple arithmetic. Either we are living longer or we are not, and we are living longer when the figures are adjusted for age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Chronic degenerative diseases develop gradually and get worse as a person ages. Obviously. That doesn't mean they are CAUSED by age! Age is a factor.
You have a lot of trouble understanding causality.
I am not the one having difficulty understanding here. If age is a "factor" how does that work? What is a "factor"?
The prevalence of certain conditions increases with age because those diseases take time to develop. With advances in medical care, people are living to older ages before those chronic diseases become clinically apparent.
You ignored another question, too. What does someone who dies of "old age" actually die from"? Why does the heart stop?
I don’t buy the —live with Mother Nature -pitch
Mother Nature is a merciless killer -she does this bek she loves babies
And new growth
That would not be me
In nature -we get old sick and die -and the young get our stuff-
God bless kaiser
I have explained this before: Things are not always ALL THIS vs ALL THAT. Things are not always black or white, and nothing in between.
Please, this is easy.
Nature being beyond human comprehension means that nature, the universe, is infinite, while we are finite. If nature is intelligent, as I and many others believe, and we are only a small part of nature, then we are limited in comparison with nature.
No matter how much we learn about something that is infinite, there is still infinitely more that we don't know.
Interesting that just because YOU don't understand what I write, the communication problem must be mine. It can't possibly be you.
I think there are enough others saying the same thing that your ability as a communicator is in question. Since you trying to plead your case I'd think you would want to express yourself in a way your audience understands rather than continually insulting them.
I read the first several pages, and realized I have no idea what it is the OP is trying to say.
I don't know anyone who "worships" the "modern medicine myth" but I know plenty of people whose lives were most definitely saved by modern medicine (including me and my husband, for which I am eternally grateful).
I don't get why OP is insisting that longevity has not been increased by modern medicine. Do doctors have ALL the answers? Of course not. Are some people taking Rx meds that perhaps they don't need, or that have unwanted side effects? Of course. But overall have advances in medicine been a good thing? I certainly vote yes.
Perhaps as others have said, OP has a communication problem.
Most people haven't thought about it. Even if they believe in evolution (and most educated people do), they are not usually aware of what extreme Darwinism actually says.
All the evidence for evolution supports the fact that species did evolve. They did not appear on earth from nowhere.
However, there is no evidence that your theory explains it. Most people get very confused about this. Atheists present the evidence for evolution as if it were evidence for their particular theory of evolution. It is not.
But this is off topic. So forget it. I just want you to know you are wrong.
No one knows much about evolution. They also don't know how life began. Atheists make up theories about life beginning by accident, and of course they present their theories as fact.
For those of us who believe the universe is alive and intelligent, it only makes sense that life would appear and evolve.
Not going to debate you. This question has no scientific proof either way. It is way beyond what anyone actually knows.
And now I understand why I haven't been able to make sense of OP's posts.
"Neither hunter-gatherers nor wild chimpanzees appear to suffer from atherosclerosis
or die from heart disease. It has often been remarked that few
risk factors for heart disease and cardiovascular disease exist among active
members of small-scale societies (Eaton et al. 1994). Obesity is rare, hypertension
is low, cholesterol and triglyceride levels are low, and maximal oxygen
uptake (VO2max) is high."
"For huntergatherers
who survive to the age of reproduction, the average modal adult
life span is about seventy-two years of age (range: 68–78;"
Um..... it also says the increase in life expectancy since the 1900s is due to modern medicine (sanitation, improved diet), which says the opposite of the point of your thread.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Obviously modern medicine is a big factor with longevity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are some people taking Rx meds that perhaps they don't need, or that have unwanted side effects? Of course. But overall have advances in medicine been a good thing? I certainly vote yes.
