0 members (),
619
guests, and
1
robot. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Senior Member
|
OP
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119 |
The Origins Of DeathAlthough most people think of aging as one of the most immutable and inescapable facts of life there is increasing scientific evidence and theoretical support for the idea that aging will eventually be much more medically treatable than previously thought. Darwin\'s Dilemna
Darwin's theory of evolution says that essentially everything that distinguishes a man from a microbe is the result of natural selection. Yet Darwin's theory also says that animals and humans should not age. For more than 140 years, scientists have been torn between believing that aging is an evolved adaptation and part of an animal's design resulting from natural selection, despite Darwin's theory, or believing that it was not an adaptation despite extensive and growing evidence that it was. Traditional, currently highly respected, "non-adaptive" theories of aging, developed mostly in the 1950s, tend to be very pessimistic regarding the possibility of successful major medical intervention in the aging process, thus discouraging anti-aging research. "Adaptive" theories, proposed in 1882 and now revived by a growing number of theorists suggest that aging is functionally more like a universal genetic disease and is therefore potentially highly treatable. Intervening discoveries including modern genetics and the discovery of aging genes provide increased support for the adaptive theories. Increasing understanding of the actual mechanics of inheritance and evolution including the digital nature of the genetic code suggest that Darwin's theory itself needs some adjustment. The Evolution of Aging
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184 |
I am glad that at least someone else also challenges some of these stupid theories which confuse mankind. Ageing and death are part of life, for without them our spiritual elemnt cannot progress.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Senior Member
|
OP
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119 |
Originally posted by Philege: I am glad that at least someone else also challenges some of these stupid theories which confuse mankind. Aging and death are part of life, for without them our spiritual element cannot progress. During his more than 30 years at NASA?s Goddard Space Flight Center, Theodore Goldsmith held many different positions mainly specializing in the design, development, and management of digital data systems for NASA scientific spacecraft such as the International Ultraviolet Explorer, International Sun-Earth Explorer, Space Shuttle, and the Hubble Space Telescope. He has been a computer programmer, digital systems engineer, microcircuit designer, and project manager and is a recipient of NASA?s Exceptional Service Medal. In 1995 he became interested in the digital aspects of genetics and has written numerous articles about genetics, evolution theory, and aging theory. Goldsmith has a degree in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is the CEO of a small Internet company. He lives with his wife in Annapolis, Maryland. Daniel 5:26"God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it." --Jesus Christ Matthew 10:30"But the very hairs of your head are all numbered." --Jesus Christ
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184 |
Look when that poor sheep 'Dolly' was cloned. No doubt the idea foremost in the mind of the scientists who cloned her was that this was a means to stay young. Wasn't it funny that before long they found that the cloned 'Dolly' was actually the same age as the original Dolly. What a shocker (Just to emphasize my point)There are many good reasons why we age, one of which is so that we can die and go back to God (Read Ecclesiastes Chapter 12) from whom we came. For those who believe in reincarnation when we are ready for a new lesson we return again, then die and return. See what I mean by the spiritual element. Death is by no means the end, as modern scientist would have us believe but is merely the beginning of another form of life (Beyond the scope of people with certain IQs because like Jesus said, one needs the mind of a little child in order to understand)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Senior Member
|
OP
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560 |
Philege! YOU MORON! Ageing and death are NOT part of life, they are merely another product of universal laws and will (or maybe not) one day be possible to overcome. THROUGH SCIENCE.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184 |
Oh another personal attack, Rob, I just luv it.You and Science can go **** in the lake for all I care
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560 |
If that's what you think then why on earth are you on a science web site? Get lost, go and join godagogo or something.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414 |
Originally posted by Garry Denke: Yet Darwin's theory also says that animals and humans should not age. Where does it say that?
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." --S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636 |
Rob, please note you are on the "Origins Forum"
Did you miss the Forum you wanted? jw
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636 |
?What is the origin of death??
My first thought is ?life? is the origin. No life = no death. So why does life culminate in death? As a language issue it is the natural termination of what we call life- which brings up the question of whether if creatures lived forever we would call it ?life?. What would we call creatures that never died? Alive implies there is an opposite, such as with rocks. But we do not refer to rock as being dead because they never lived (that we know of).
So, for me, the origin of death is a poorly evolved creature that never learned to replace all of its cells as they wore out. If there was a properly defined millions of year?s evolution we should have done better.
From the creationists perspective it is the means by which we get a chance to do better the next time around by being reborn- only to die again and again and again ??.
jjw
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560 |
The origin of death?! In universal terms, death doesn?t exist. It's simply a change in the arrangement of particles.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 13
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 13 |
Originally posted by Rob: The origin of death?! In universal terms, death doesn?t exist. It's simply a change in the arrangement of particles. Absolutely. Too bad humans are cursed with self-consciousness. BTW - I find that flaming and such is a waste of time. If we all were in a bar together talking face to face, we wouldn't act up like that. VB
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura, ch? la diritta via era smarrita. salimmo s?, el primo e io secondo tanto ch'i' vidi de le cose belle che porta 'l ciel, per un pertugio tondo. E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636 |
Rob and Bellator:
When your mparticles change and you no longer exist where do they go? Are they re-assembled and put forth as some other particle object or simply dispersed to spread knowledeg in the wind? jjw
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560 |
what's an mparticle? I am assuming it's just another word for a particle. If it is, then here is your answer: They are indeed re-assembled as something completely different. What you said about spreading knowlege in the wind is nonsence. If you were to put your pocket-watch at the center of a nuclear explosion the particles would not be dispersed to spread the time in the wind.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Rob discussing anything intelligent with jjw004 is still-borne. jjw has as little interest in learning as does the invisible purple rhinoceros in making himself visible.
Consider this question he just asked: "When your mparticles change and you no longer exist where do they go?"
The question is pure nonsense. Cells in our bodies die all the time from the moment of conception on ... where do they go? This is not an intellectual challenge for anyone with an IQ over room temperature.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I know. They get recycled. They get made into other cells in the embryo. Which then die and get recycled. Like aluminum cans, only neater.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560 |
Humans are like waterfalls, you always see the same waterfall but you never see the same water.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636 |
Rob said:
The origin of death?! In universal terms, death doesn?t exist. It's simply a change in the arrangement of particles. Jjw asked Rob, in essence, where do the particles go? DA offers that jjw004 is less than lucid, still-born.
Jjw rep:
DA, I am flattered that I appear to disgust you so much. You and your purple Rhinoceros have never offered anything constructive to this Forum that I have seen so your methods are self evident. Uncle Al can be caustic at times but he offers reasons and links to information- what do you offer? jjw
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
I offer a buffer between you and anyone reading your random thoughts and thinking they contain substance.
The truth, with respect to this thread, is that you are no more capable of defining death than you are life: No one can because there is no universally accepted definition of either word. Not in science, not in theology, not in philosophy.
But death, as we know it as applied to sexually reproducing organisms, is an essential component of evolution. In fact one of the strongest arguments in favour of evolution is death. Feel free to forever and prove Darwin wrong if you wish. Others have tried. None of succeeded.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
|