ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags cancer

Closed Thread
Old 20th April 2015, 03:24 AM   #161
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Making your own definitions again? The increase in life-expectancy and general health is true for ALL humans who have the good luck to be able to apply our "unnatural" medicines.WHAT abnormalities? Be specific.
Ok, one sided. But what about those who are getting pollutions, global warming and nuclear radiation effects?






Quote:
It will impact us very badly. It might wipe us all out.



Oh, Earth will recover. Earth has seen worse in the past.
Whether "wipe us all out" and "Earth will recover" are not bit confusing?



Quote:
It will make no measurable difference to the universe.



A chain reaction is not a multiplying effect, any more than a normal fire is. When the fuel is exhausted, it stops.

Hans
Suppose if earth loose its balance, how it will impact the universe?

Ok, just chain reactions. Can 3rd world war, excessive global warming and pollutions cause chain reaction impacts at earth & unverse level?
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 03:33 AM   #162
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Ok, one sided. But what about those who are getting pollutions, global warming and nuclear radiation effects?

People who are able to use "modern interventions" are living longer than people in the past who couldn't, even with "pollutions, global warming and nuclear radiation effects".

Quote:
Whether "wipe us all out" and "Earth will recover" are not bit confusing?

Only if you take a completely anthropocentric position. The Earth got along fine without us for four and a half billion years.

Quote:
Suppose if earth loose its balance, how it will impact the universe?

Even if the Earth somehow loses its balance, it cannot impact on anything because it won't fall. As Douglas Adams wrote, in an infinite universe there is no "up" for it to fall from.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 04:28 AM   #163
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Whether Human Race akso exist for nuclear weapons, global warming by airconditioning, vehicle pollutions etc. Releasing CO2 on breathing is natural activity.
So you did not read or understand the link?

The Carbon Manifesto is part of the Gaia Hypothesis. She is using human activity to restore the natural temperature of the planet by using us to release the needed amount of CO2.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 06:10 AM   #164
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
So you did not read or understand the link?

The Carbon Manifesto is part of the Gaia Hypothesis. She is using human activity to restore the natural temperature of the planet by using us to release the needed amount of CO2.
Sorry, It is deep study. I am trying to understand it, how it is related to OP.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 09:11 AM   #165
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Sorry, It is deep study. I am trying to understand it, how it is related to OP.

If you rephrase the OP a bit more clearly someone might be able to help you with this.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 09:21 AM   #166
stevea
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,036
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Just a quick note: by "unnatural modern interventions" Kumar probably means demonstrably effective medicines.[...]
My expectation is that most fuzzy-thinkers define "unnatural" as stuff that the less hirsute apes do. They find it perfectly "natural" for the carbonaceous age flora to sequester atmospheric carbon, and perfectly "unnatural" for modern age anthropoids to return it to the atmosphere.

Like a lot of conundrums it evaporates once you drop the stilted nonsense definitions. Bad use of language leads to illogical thinking.
stevea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 09:37 AM   #167
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,480
Originally Posted by stevea View Post
My expectation is that most fuzzy-thinkers define "unnatural" as stuff that the less hirsute apes do. They find it perfectly "natural" for the carbonaceous age flora to sequester atmospheric carbon, and perfectly "unnatural" for modern age anthropoids to return it to the atmosphere.

Like a lot of conundrums it evaporates once you drop the stilted nonsense definitions. Bad use of language leads to illogical thinking.
No. That's a perfectly good use of the word "natural". Carboniferous age plants were not conscious or aware of doing anything, but we are. We can decide whether what we are doing is to our benefit as a species or not and, at least in principle, modify our behaviour if that is expedient. That is the difference between "natural" and "unnatural".

It is thus good use of language to call the destruction of Hiroshima in 1945 "unnatural" but that of Tokyo in 1923 by an earthquake "natural", albeit that nuclear fission is a natural phenomenon, and even though the earthquake killed more people, I think.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 11:05 AM   #168
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,114
Backwards reason is vary good reasonsings

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
How about if we doing TTTT?

That is inharent sense of wrong Kumar have saysed friends, I am alreadies more than six so I can counts to more than one so he must meaning evelybody so not only you is friend of Kumar.
Kumar has already beforetime been so hammered he could not count to two. TTTT is almost also TNT, so go asplode all over someones elses.

And kindly dick own potatoes please.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 11:58 AM   #169
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Kumar has already beforetime been so hammered he could not count to two. TTTT is almost also TNT, so go asplode all over someones elses.

And kindly dick own potatoes please.
Hmmm, TTTT, TNT, hammered ..... you might be on to something
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 01:31 PM   #170
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
This is different story and just a micro level. I am worried about macro levels. Simply, suppose nuclear and non nuclear abnormalities continue. Suppose 3rd world war happen(I do not wish so) and all nuclear weapons are used, how it will impact us, to earth and to universe. One is direct damage and other thought is multiplying effects like chain reactions etc.





This time, we are bit different in nuclear and non nuclear odds than what were in older times. In some theories, epoch/era, comple destruction, Big Bang etc. are indicated. I do not think direct damage can bring that, therefore i thought for some kind of chain reaction to effect it.
If Earth is completely destroyed by Nuclear weapons or any other cause, it will make not the slightest difference for the universe. 10,000.000 times all the nuclear weapons we have ever had on Earth would have no chain reaction force involving the rest of the solar system, much less the Universe. If it would, the Universe would have already been destroyed by the number of stars in it that have blown up in the past.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 01:37 PM   #171
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
His attempted justification of this is rather revealing:
Early on, when I was still being polite, I suggested the same thing. That worked well. Since the style of speaking it duplicates is quite familiar to a goodly number of us and is easy to parody I would not be completely surprised to find he could read/write English just fine and is simply having us on.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 01:38 PM   #172
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Kumar has already beforetime been so hammered he could not count to two. TTTT is almost also TNT, so go asplode all over someones elses.

And kindly dick own potatoes please.
dicks not dick
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 03:52 PM   #173
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Sorry, It is deep study. I am trying to understand it, how it is related to OP.
OK. I'll try.

The Gaia Hypothesis claims that our planet is alive in some sense. The Carbon Manifesto in turn claims that human being are doing good by releasing all that Carbon Dioxide thus causing Global Warming and turning up the atmospheric temperature to one that She (Gaia) is more comfortable with.

OK?
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 08:31 PM   #174
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
If Earth is completely destroyed by Nuclear weapons or any other cause, it will make not the slightest difference for the universe. 10,000.000 times all the nuclear weapons we have ever had on Earth would have no chain reaction force involving the rest of the solar system, much less the Universe. If it would, the Universe would have already been destroyed by the number of stars in it that have blown up in the past.
Right, thanks. That can be different story. It means, we can just be limited to happenings on earth by our abnormal acts.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 08:35 PM   #175
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
OK. I'll try.

The Gaia Hypothesis claims that our planet is alive in some sense. The Carbon Manifesto in turn claims that human being are doing good by releasing all that Carbon Dioxide thus causing Global Warming and turning up the atmospheric temperature to one that She (Gaia) is more comfortable with.

OK?
Thanka.

However I feel truth exist in balance neither excess or low in any thing or being. However such balance can be slightly acceptable in nature(equal to salt/sugar in foods) to accomodate environmental natural/normal changes.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 08:38 PM   #176
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
No. That's a perfectly good use of the word "natural". Carboniferous age plants were not conscious or aware of doing anything, but we are. We can decide whether what we are doing is to our benefit as a species or not and, at least in principle, modify our behaviour if that is expedient. That is the difference between "natural" and "unnatural".

It is thus good use of language to call the destruction of Hiroshima in 1945 "unnatural" but that of Tokyo in 1923 by an earthquake "natural", albeit that nuclear fission is a natural phenomenon, and even though the earthquake killed more people, I think.
Thanks, right. Posters here does understand but have odd habits for TTTT esp. with me.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 08:58 PM   #177
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Look at it;
Quote:
An era is a time of time marked by character, events, changes on earth, etc. When used in science, for example geology, an era denotes a clearly defined period of time of arbitrary but well-defined length, such as for example the Mesozoic Era from 252 Ma–66 Ma, delimited by a start event and an end event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era
Some estimations or perdictions are made almost by all sections about Era/Yuga. There are vast differences in age of these in between different sections. I was just checking, whether, while all estimations have some validity but dependent on foollowing naturality and unnaturality. I mean, maximum age is natural age whereas lesser ages are unnatural ages. Just an example: one person visited a doctor who suggested many treatments. That person just asked doctor: do you believe that breathes of every person is predetermined and fixed. Doctor said: yes I believe. Person said: Then why I should take your treatment if breathes are fixed? Doctor: I agree that I can not change your predetermined breathes but I can just do that, as your breatings is very fast I can make it normal by treatments, so that it will increase your logevity but not total predetermined breathes. Same way, I am checking. Best.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2015, 11:58 PM   #178
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
It means, we can just be limited to happenings on earth by our abnormal acts.

No, we are limited to happenings on Earth by Earth's gravity well.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 12:24 AM   #179
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,748
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
I mean, maximum age is natural age whereas lesser ages are unnatural ages. Just an example: one person visited a doctor who suggested many treatments. That person just asked doctor: do you believe that breathes of every person is predetermined and fixed. Doctor said: yes I believe. Person said: Then why I should take your treatment if breathes are fixed? Doctor: I agree that I can not change your predetermined breathes but I can just do that, as your breatings is very fast I can make it normal by treatments, so that it will increase your logevity but not total predetermined breathes. Same way, I am checking. Best.
I am not sure why I am responding to this, as I am not convinced I know what you are trying to say so I cannot say with surety what I am responding to.

In June 2009, I had a second heart attack when I was in Hospital for a heart attack 12 hours earlier, and my "natural breathing" stopped completely. That is sort of called "dead".

I became a code blue and was sent from Ward to Emergency. Well, they used unnatural methods (according to my understanding of what you are trying to say) to keep me alive, and about 24 hours later I woke up with one of my daughters asking me how I felt.

As near as I can tell, modern medical knowledge and techniques kept me alive "after my time". I woke with a tube stuck down my throat to make me breathe, about four IV's pumping "stuff" into me, a portable Heart Monitor, a Catheter shoved up my penis, and after the tube was removed, an oxygen mask for 3 days - how natural is any of that?

Oh, it is now six years later, and I am still breathing. And the Bladder Cancer they found as well is also in remission thanks to Chemo discovered only a few years earlier. Is Chemo which results in Cancer remission natural, or unnatural? Your turn!

You seem to be the sort of person who possibly thinks that traveling to, and staying in LA is "natural". Just ask the first European settlers to find out how easy it was to go West and colonize the West Coast of the USA. Oh, wait most of them died before they even got there. Now that was natural.

I can get there safely from Australia in 15 hours, and stay there quite comfortably. Is that natural, or should we have to flap our arms to fly overseas?

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 21st April 2015 at 12:28 AM.
fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 01:19 AM   #180
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
.

In June 2009, I had a second heart attack when I was in Hospital for a heart attack 12 hours earlier, and my "natural breathing" stopped completely. That is sort of called "dead"....

I Norm
Sorry. However you have told only one sided angle of unnaturality. Moreover. I can not say how these beneficial looking unnaturalities will be absolute on final. many odds are still thought about modern interventions eg. antibiotic resistance. The other side of coin; Are you suggesting that pollutions, global warming, nuclear weapons etc. are also beneficial to us?
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 02:22 AM   #181
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Sorry. However you have told only one sided angle of unnaturality. Moreover. I can not say how these beneficial looking unnaturalities will be absolute on final. many odds are still thought about modern interventions eg. antibiotic resistance. The other side of coin; Are you suggesting that pollutions, global warming, nuclear weapons etc. are also beneficial to us?
Kumar, he survived because of what you refer to as "only one sided angle of unnaturality". The other side would have been death.
When you get critically ill, you will accept modern interventions because you already know that would be your only chance to survive.

If on the other hand you want to wallow in your disgusting two sided misery and reject modern interventions when you get critically ill, that'll be your choice.
It would suit your life of posting incorrigible utter stupidity.

Stupidity is your 'weapon' and that very same 'weapon' may one day end your life.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 02:34 AM   #182
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,748
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Sorry. However you have told only one sided angle of unnaturality.
So, specifically, do you think that the medical attention given to me was natural or unnatural? Be specific please. If you are not specific you are blowing wind out of your arse.

Quote:
Moreover. I can not say how these beneficial looking unnaturalities will be absolute on final. many odds are still thought about modern interventions eg. antibiotic resistance.
Of course you cant because you don't even understand your own OP. Well, I will be dead one day. So will you. But without the intervention I underwent I would have been dead 6 years ago. Work it out for yourself!

Quote:
The other side of coin; Are you suggesting that pollutions, global warming, nuclear weapons etc. are also beneficial to us?
I am not suggesting anything. I am just trying to establish whether you even understand what is natural and what is unnatural. At this point you have not been able to give a satisfactory explanation. You have only a mantra which you keep repeating and you seen incapable of considering anything at all. So answer the questions below, and please be specific, as your credibility depends on the answers:

"Was having a tube stuck down my throat, 4 IV's in my arms, a Catheter shoved up my Penis, a Mobile Heart Monitor checking me out and later an oxygen mask normal or abnormal?

"Was getting Chemo for Bladder Cancer normal or abnormal?"

" Was the death of most of the early attempts of settlers to travel east to California normal or abnormal?"

BONUS: "Is actually being able to live in LA normal or abnormal?" Extra points if you get this bit right.

"Is flying to LA from Melbourne in 15 hours normal or abnormal?"

Your answers will help me know where you are coming from, since you did not even bother responding to them the first time around. But then, I expected that. And you don't seem capable of doing so. So, don't bother answering if you are only capable of reproducing your mantra.

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 03:11 AM   #183
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Sorry. However you have told only one sided angle of unnaturality.

Kumar, the result of what you describe as "unnaturality" is that people are living longer, healthier lives than they did historically. That is the result we actually see in the real world, where it is not possible to tell a "one sided angle". You are trying to introduce a "one sided angle" by only discussing what you consider to be harmful. You are using a biased argument.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 21st April 2015 at 03:38 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 03:54 AM   #184
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
So, specifically, do you think that the medical attention given to me was natural or unnatural? Be specific please. If you are not specific you are blowing wind out of your arse.



ONorm
I think, I was very clear in my last post. Your tretment was unnatural in my understanding, though beneficial to you. I told this is pros of unnaturality but cons are also there. Just refer one previous post, who told bombing at Hirishima was unnatural but a big earthquake was natural though both outcome was very destructive.

Do you suggest that there are no cons side of unnaturality? MRC told if all nuclear weapons are unsed in 3rd world war, probably we all may wipe out. This may be much more than what pros we are getting from opting unnaturality. Not so?
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 03:59 AM   #185
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Do you suggest that there are no cons side of unnaturality?

Strawman. Nobody is suggesting that.

Quote:
This may be much more than what pros we are getting from opting unnaturality. Not so?

Not so. The undeniable result of "unnaturality", as a whole, is that life expectancies have increased.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 04:00 AM   #186
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Kumar, the result of what you describe as "unnaturality" is that people are living longer, healthier lives than they did historically. That is the result we actually see in the real world, where it is not possible to tell a "one sided angle". You are trying to introduce a "one sided angle" by only discussing what you consider to be harmful. You are using a biased argument.
Don't be so bullish. Not to wish but probably on one darkest day, unnaturality may take us all in one stroke.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 04:02 AM   #187
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Strawman. Nobody is suggesting that.




Not so. The undeniable result of "unnaturality", as a whole, is that life expectancies have increased.
When you are showing bright side of unnaturality, means you are suggesting it is bright in all respect.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 04:50 AM   #188
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,427
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Don't be so bullish. Not to wish but probably on one darkest day, unnaturality may take us all in one stroke.
And if it won't, Nature sure will. Old age, diseases, natural disasters, and so on. Why this focus on natural versus unnatural, when both clearly have the power to harm us? And where do you draw the line? You live in a house, you have access to the power grid, to the internet, through a computer. Clearly all things that are just as unnatural as nuclear bombs and antibiotics.
Porpoise of Life is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 06:44 AM   #189
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,748
Kumar, if I bother to continue posting on this thread, the next time you misquote me, you will be reported. Two Strikes is enough! Strike Three, the Mods may decide.

What you did was just plain rude.

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 07:01 AM   #190
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
His basic error seems to be the assumption that nature has a 'prime goal', or indeed any goals at all.
Nature does have a prime goal though: every living thing is some other thing's food. That might not appeal to kumar, though.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 07:12 AM   #191
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Kumar, if I bother to continue posting on this thread, the next time you misquote me, you will be reported. Two Strikes is enough! Strike Three, the Mods may decide.

What you did was just plain rude.

Norm
I do not calculate myself as rude to you. You post or not post in this topic, is your liking but I shall wish, people here contribute. I hate half or one sided approach. You know, we can acquite many disorders due to odd environment & life style of modern times and which is another half sided consideration. These need to be treated by that which is responsible for acquiring these not nature. Still our natural defence mechanism does its best to save us. Bye.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 07:14 AM   #192
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,916
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Nature does have a prime goal though: every living thing is some other thing's food. That might not appeal to kumar, though.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goal?s=t

Quote:
the aim or object towards which an endeavour is directed
Quote:
the result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end.
Nature is not a conscious entity, it does not have aims, it does not direct effort.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 07:17 AM   #193
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Nature does have a prime goal though: every living thing is some other thing's food. That might not appeal to kumar, though.
Fruits, minerals, water etc?
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 07:20 AM   #194
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goal?s=t





Nature is not a conscious entity, it does not have aims, it does not direct effort.
This is very relevant.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 07:21 AM   #195
Kumar
Guest
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 14,255
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
And if it won't, Nature sure will. Old age, diseases, natural disasters, and so on. Why this focus on natural versus unnatural, when both clearly have the power to harm us? And where do you draw the line? You live in a house, you have access to the power grid, to the internet, through a computer. Clearly all things that are just as unnatural as nuclear bombs and antibiotics.
It is not nature vs unnature. It is unnatural disasters vs ageing.
Kumar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 07:30 AM   #196
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673


Okay, I'm done here. Have a day, kumar.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 07:43 AM   #197
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
When you are showing bright side of unnaturality, means you are suggesting it is bright in all respect.

No, note the words "as a whole" in my post that you quoted. I'm suggesting that whatever the results of individual types of "unnaturality", the overall result of all "unnaturality" is an increase in life expectancy.

You are the one who is trying to restrict the topic to a "one sided angle" by harping on about the negative aspects while ignoring the results. This is precisely the fallacious argument that homoeopaths and other quacks use when they complain that effective medicines have side-effects while ignoring the overall outcome.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 07:51 AM   #198
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Sorry. However you have told only one sided angle of unnaturality. Moreover.I can not say how these beneficial looking unnaturalities will be absolute on final. many odds are still thought about modern interventions eg. antibiotic resistance. The other side of coin; Are you suggesting that pollutions, global warming, nuclear weapons etc. are also beneficial to us?
my bolding

Kumar, stop using this dishonest "Absolute & Final" dodge. You use it whenever you want to ignore evidence presented to you or you want to dodge a question. "Well, science hasn't come to an absolute and final answer, so my magical thinkiing is just as valid, la la la". if you cannot present scientific evidence to supoort your arguments then please start these threads in R&P and not in the science forum.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba

Last edited by ferd burfle; 21st April 2015 at 07:53 AM. Reason: fixed bolding
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 07:58 AM   #199
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Look at it;

Quote:
An era is a time of time marked by character, events, changes on earth, etc. When used in science, for example geology, an era denotes a clearly defined period of time of arbitrary but well-defined length, such as for example the Mesozoic Era from 252 Ma–66 Ma, delimited by a start event and an end event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era
Some estimations or perdictions are made almost by all sections about Era/Yuga. There are vast differences in age of these in between different sections. I was just checking, whether, while all estimations have some validity but dependent on foollowing naturality and unnaturality.

Are you veering off towards Young Earth Creationism?

Quote:
I mean, maximum age is natural age whereas lesser ages are unnatural ages.

Nope. The "natural" age for a human being before all the interventions you object to were invented was significantly less than the "unnatural" age to which we can now expect to live.

Quote:
Just an example: one person visited a doctor who suggested many treatments. That person just asked doctor: do you believe that breathes of every person is predetermined and fixed. Doctor said: yes I believe. Person said: Then why I should take your treatment if breathes are fixed? Doctor: I agree that I can not change your predetermined breathes but I can just do that, as your breatings is very fast I can make it normal by treatments, so that it will increase your logevity but not total predetermined breathes. Same way, I am checking. Best.

This has nothing to do with the Wikipedia passage you quoted, which was about geological eras. And If you want anyone to take your little story about the doctor seriously you will probably need to link to an authoritative source that demonstrates that there is a body of respectable medical opinion that holds that we have a predetermined number of breaths.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2015, 07:59 AM   #200
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
I mean, maximum age is natural age whereas lesser ages are unnatural ages.

This is just a restatement of your "natural good, unnatural bad" fallacy.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.