Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God and the human mind
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 136 of 141 (143581)
09-21-2004 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by jar
09-21-2004 1:47 AM


jar
I said not at present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by jar, posted 09-21-2004 1:47 AM jar has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 137 of 141 (144541)
09-24-2004 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by sidelined
09-19-2004 12:41 AM


I think therefore.......
Hangdawg writes:
Neither do you have a reason for your own existence.
sidelined writes:
I am sorry but I am not sure if this is what you meant to say as of course I have a reason for my own existence.
Rene' Descartes (1596-1650). A French philosopher and mathematician who was called "The father of modern philosophy." ...
The only thing Descartes found certain was the fact he was thinking. He further felt that thought was not a thing-in-itself, and had to proceed from somewhere (viz., cause and effect), therefore since he was thinking the thoughts, he existed --by extension--also. Hence, "thought" and "extension" were the very beginnings from which all things proceeded, "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). His scrapping of previously accepted philosophies marked the beginning of the Man-centered universe beliefs that currently drive Western thought.
So do you justify your existance by the fact that you exist,sidelined? As Christians, it is hard for us to present God to you because
Isa 55:8 writes:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"declares the LORD.
By virtue of our relationship with God, we feel as if though we understand Him somewhat, and occasionally we will say something profound that we know is not our thoughts...but to prove this relationship to YOU is another matter.
sidelined writes:
I am the atheist remember? Proving god's' existence is not on my roster. In what manner do you define an existence without time? (And in reply to Hangdawg)an act of creation implies an event which indicates time.Unless you can explain to me how you logically arrive at a assumption that god can act without an event and therefore a time occuring then I must reject your hypothesis.
It is my belief that time conformed to God...Gods first action was not even measureable because you need another timepoint of reference to measure it by. Gods second action became a point of reference...UNLESS you consider the possibility that God could do an infinite number of things in a single point. How would this be measured without another point of reference?
sidelined writes:
Proving god's' existence is not on my roster.
So, is disproving God on your roster,perchance? Or do you simply enjoy the discussion?
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-24-2004 05:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by sidelined, posted 09-19-2004 12:41 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by sidelined, posted 09-24-2004 8:51 PM Phat has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 138 of 141 (144551)
09-24-2004 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Phat
09-24-2004 6:50 PM


Re: I think therefore.......
Phatboy
So do you justify your existance by the fact that you exist,sidelined?
I do not justify my existence I simply have no evidence to the contrary.I also have a reason for my existence which changes over time with different stages of life.
We are all aware of the line Cogito Ergo Sum yet does existence end when there is no thought?A rock most assuredly exists {if you doubt this try rock climbing and have a piton give and take a drop against a cliff face made of it then get back to me}yet most all of us would agree that rocks do not think.So there is danger in philosophy to make statements that seem brilliant that at the same time are not generalizable to the actual world.
It is my belief that time conformed to God...Gods first action was not even measureable because you need another timepoint of reference to measure it by.
Yes but others on this forum will just as willingly state that god had no beginning so this would conflict with your view.Still others will have been "told by god" that they are right about their view and this will be an entirely different explanation.The most salient explanation for the differences is that they are human generated not the result of divinity.
So, is disproving God on your roster,perchance? Or do you simply enjoy the discussion?
Why would I try to disprove something that has no existence without the ramblings of human beings to give it continued life?Yes I do enjoy the discussions and I also like to take the time to point out the inconsistencies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Phat, posted 09-24-2004 6:50 PM Phat has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 139 of 141 (145295)
09-28-2004 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by sidelined
09-19-2004 12:41 AM


Sorry for another delayed reply... I'll try to reply to the main points.
LOL!! Hangdawg, I am the atheist remember? Proving god's' existence is not on my roster.
I know! And I'm not trying to prove God to you. All I'm trying to do is show that you cannot argue against God's existence by defining him in terms of the physical universe which he created. Again, if you choose to believe that the only reality is bound in the physical, that is your choice. But since you cannot prove this is true, your arguments based on the premise -- that if such a being should exist, he must be bound by the physical -- are invalid.
In what manner do you define an existence without time.
Well, obviously, being a creature of physical nature I have no vocabulary or ability to accurately describe this. But I like how John puts it, "In the beginning, which was not a beginning, was the Word."
Well let's see how this plays out.We can tell that something exists because we can show evidence of physical phenomena related to it.Your god ,as you keep repeating,is beyond the physical so how do you propose that he exists if he does not have a physical existence.
[Just a note: To correctly represent my position, you should say beyond the BOUNDS of the physical because just saying "beyond" the physical implies he is outside and not able to come in]
Like I said before, I cannot explain how or why God exists anymore than you can explain how or why you exist.
If Time is the dimension in which events occur then by what rational do you say that god can do something without the dimension of Time which allows actions to occur as sequential events in the three spatial dimensions?
Again, I have no answer for "how". Can you give me an answer for "how" time exists?
However,it is necessary to show me how you arrive at a reality that is not accessible to our senses... Dman us atheists for requiring actual evidence.
haha... You're not damned for requiring evidence. David asks many times: God where are you? Why don't you show your face?
How I arrive at this reality is through my search for meaning and purpose in life. There is no reason, means, or purpose for existence apart from God. If you open your "heart" (to use a mushy undefined term) to the realities of life and existence from the purpose/meaning perspective rather than looking at everything as the result of a formula that works for no predetermined reason, you begin to see God. When you open your mind or "heart" to this purpose/meaning dimension of reality, God will show himself to you -- sometimes even physically.
I understand your need for evidence to believe in God, and that's ok. I wish God would physically knock on everyone's door and provide physical proof of himself, but that is not his plan for this age. This life is a test, a war, a training ground so to speak to see who can stay focused on the things of real worth and meaning; the things of real worth and meaning are immaterial. All I can say is that this part of our lives is not about the material expressions of power; its about service and love and war and contrasts in life. And if you have shut your mind to an overall meaning of these things in life, you have shut your mind to God.
...I know... Sorry for preachin again.
I am sorry but I am not sure if this is what you meant to say as of course I have a reason for my own existence.
No, you don't. No atheist can provide a reason for their existence (I should say "external" reason; because now that you're here you can find reasons for being here, but you have no reason to exist in the first place).
My question was how he can experience.
And I don't know. Do you know how you can experience? Sure, neurons fire at the synapses in your brain. And electrons which are made of quasi-particles which are made of a quantum soup of energy which comes from -- God knows where. Where does it come from? How and why are you here experiencing?
Nature is crazy go figure.
And this was my point in bringing up QM theory. There you have all kinds of things that seem to contradict reason. Before the mathematical proofs were derived all of it would be hogwash... Nature tells us things aren't always what they seem like they should be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by sidelined, posted 09-19-2004 12:41 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 140 of 141 (145298)
09-28-2004 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by sidelined
09-20-2004 11:53 PM


To continue...
So what is the mechanism that would allow him to physically effect a material world into being if not through material means?
You keep asking "how" as if my lack of an answer makes my assertion false or unprofitable for gaining understanding. I could assert that the sun exists and know nothing about atomic fusion and be correct in my assertion. We don't always have to know "how" something exists to know that it exists. And, yes, I realize we can "see" the sun, but we cannot "see" God.
You are married right? Surely, you must abandon your scientific "how" approach to at least your relationships? We can't have relationships if we are always testing and probing and hypothesizing about people. Instead we have to understand them and get to know them and love them and think about their needs. This is another approximation or illustration for our benefit to understand how we relate to God.
...But there I go preachin again.
I am asking questions that try to penetrate to the core of the assumptions made by people such as yourself that envision god as having human qualities such as a mind without explaining how those qualiies can exist without the same physical apparatus as ourselves.
Saying God has a mind, is only an approximation as is everything. It's written somewhere, "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities have been made known through what is seen."
Also what hope of understanding can be expected of minds that cannot transcend phenomena to find god unless he is phenomena.
To quote again from the Bible (note I'm not using the Bible as proof, just as a better explanation, since it says it better than I can):
"God said, "Go out and stand in front of the LORD on the mountain." As the LORD was passing by, a fierce wind tore mountains and shattered rocks ahead of the LORD. But the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind came an earthquake. But the LORD wasn't in the earthquake. After the earthquake there was a fire. But the LORD wasn't in the fire. And after the fire there was a quiet, whispering voice."
If you are expecting a scientific explanation for God's existence, I'm sorry. If God created the laws of science, he is not defined by them. Saying God is here or not there is only an approximation to understand him. He has "non-locality" in the physical sense. You could say the probability he is anywhere is always 1.
Thanks for your replies. I'm so busy I'm not sure I'll get back to reply again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by sidelined, posted 09-20-2004 11:53 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 141 of 141 (252173)
10-16-2005 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by sidelined
09-03-2004 12:00 AM


politics could
Difficult Questions. Thoughtful Answers. | RZIM
broadcast on
Mars Hill Network – Hope in the Journey
this morning,speaking on the philosopher Kant in the context of a debate on abortion between Gore and Quayle given in the past in Atlanta.
Ravi wanted to "warn" believers that Kant had isolated faith from rationality and correctly portrayed the some philosophical history as to the use put by Kantian's of Kant sympathizers who dissed religion on the base of reason. Ravi's "talk" however could confuse a mind, trying to think God's thoughts "after" HIM because Ravi did not distinguish rationality IN understanding from rationality in a judgement. Kant made that distinction. Ravi wanted to logically help out D. Quale however and interms of oration the point Ravi made gets through to his audience. The "warning" however does not work for my own experience with "faith" and "grace". There is NO politics ABOUT or involved in that, for that was Gore's mistake, not RVs.
There IS an error in Ravi's thinking if this presentation was supposed to speak for any oration he might give. That is not fair to Ravi but taken as was, it is.
There does seem to be a mistake in evolutionistic discussion however that makes the same error on lack of distinguishing rational judgement, rational understanding and reason. Even as a teenager I noticed the difference. I was trying to measure the snout-vent-lengths of salamanders and I used a straight edge ruler to get a measurement. I thought to myself, "what does the slimy thing care that a put a hard straight thing next to it's curvy body, it probably doesnt care if I had used a French Curve with marks on it instead". My rational judgement wanted to measure the the thing with a curve but my rational understanding prevented me from doing so.
When any two biological specialists get together it is clear that some of them make judgments on one kind of critter parts and another specialist on something entirely different (mosquito beaks' longest spike vs leek internode lengths for instance) but they can have the same rational understanding that evolution exists. Evos often try to convert their rational understanding into a rational judgement but it is much easier to perform a personal rational judgment than to communicate a more or less consensus rational understanding.
My own approach to voiding the possible construct that Ravi might have miscommunicated this morning (I was not mislead) attempts to expand the possiblities for evolutionary change understanding (not that evoluion MUST so operate (I do not "defend" evolutionary theory)) so that one can clearly distinguish when rationality is applied in the understanding or the judgment.
Here are four categories of thought that I include under this thought.
A
Niche Construction, Premeditation, and the Use of Economic Analogies
B
Concomitant alterations in Macroeconomics if biomass productivity out competes agriculture
C
Relations to Natural Selection via natural products, distingishing baramins and irreducible complexity on Purpose.
D
How the ecological momement impacts Biotechnology or can human population increases evolutionarily divert from the Keynsian “circular flow”.
Rather than deal with this four-fold division Ravi related it all to an incident in modern politics. Perhaps I noticed this because it was created sometime ago. Not even Schummer made the proper thought when questioning Roberts recently.
As a tease about what I am thinking in this regards where the judgement but not the understanding is involved, one might see from this:
quote:
Concomitant alterations in Macroeconomics if biomass productivity out competes agriculture
B.
"The history of concepts of God should yield a pretty interesting human ecological history. And it suggests something more: if it is indeed the case, as I firmly believe it is, that this mounting loss of species and the accompanying topsoil loss and lack of adequate supplies of fresh water constitute some of the direst threats facing humanity right now, practioners of the world’s religions, many of whom are already aware of the environmental threats to their own lands, can potentially stand as the greatest source of good for the planet. Here, then, is a true millennial issue: a set of environmental problems besetting humanity at the year 2000, but a problem in which science and religion, instead of being enemies, stand a good chance of working together within the larger body politic to effect some truly positive measures. And though I plan to explore this positive side of the interaction between science and religion in book length form elsewhere, I cannot resist ending this present anticreationist tract with a preliminary exploration of these themes, which I do in the final chapter."
Eldredge. The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism
"The kernel of this idea may be found in Von Thunen’s explanation of differences in farming methods in Europe in his classic economic analysis of the interrelationships of agricultural method and location (1826-1966). The economic elements of the analysis, along with a wealth of supporting data for the peasant economy of Russia, are given quite explicitly by Chayanov(1925-66). The hypothesis was used requently by Gourou(1966) in his geographic analysis of primitive agriculture in Europe from 500 to 1850, and probably by other writers of whom I am not aware. It was Boserup’s contribution, however, to have developed the idea at length. She applied it to the long course of pre-industrial and is most responsible for the idea getting some attention. Clark also has developed this idea broadly, and promulgated it (1967;1969)."
Simon p159 The Economics of Population Growth
The Earth’s carrying capacity and the environment’s carrying capacity are not necessarily the same things.
Waddington,
“THE NECESSITY TO CONSIDER MORE THAN ONE ENVIRONMENT The strict Neo-Darwinist paradigm is unsatisfactory in another respect, namely, that it involves only one uniform environment, through which natural selection is exerted in a form which requires specification by one single coefficient for each type of biological entity. Again, as with the omission of the phenotype, there are several different objections to this - though perhaps they should be regarded as different aspects of a basic general objection.
To put the matter abstractly first: There are only two sources of evolutionary change; alterations in the environment, or alterations in genes. A paradigm in terms of a single uniform environment implies either attainment of an equilibrium, or evolutionary changes brought about by the appearance of new genes. But the latter is a very weak prop to rely on, since it is normally held that all possible mutations are constantly occurring at definite frequencies. One could perhaps escape this dilemma by appealing to rare mutational events involving large-scale restructuring of the genotype (additions, deletions, inversions,etc.) or rare incorporation of large masses of genetic information by processes such as iintrogressive hybridization, incorporation of episomes,etc., but this would be an uncomfortable basis for a general theory of evolution.
On a more pragmatic level, one may ask whether the concept of a single uniform environment is ever even conceivably applicapable to the real world, which appears inescapably heterogenous. And if it is not, it should be remembered that evolution provides mechanisms by which any initial inhomogenity will become either exaggerated in kind or increased in the number of sub-regimes. For instance, if we start with a total universe containing two environmental remigmes(niches) A and B, each dominated by a biological species A’ or B’, then it will always be possible for some evolutionary descendeant of one or the oter of these species to delimit as its one niche some appropriate function of the previously existing entities, F(A,B,A’,B’); indeed, there is an infinite set of such functions to be used this way. This is the general explanation for one of the features of evolution which seems to prove most puzzling to physical scientists, who ask why such an enormious variety of different types should have been produced, although the existence of primitive organisms such as bacteria, at the present day, proves that they are functionally quite “fit” enough to survive. The point is that their mere presence opens the possibility that something will evolve to exploit them, e.g., as a consumer of them. The utilization, as an environmental niche, of a function of pre-existing speices and niches F(A,B,A’,B’) will not always demand a biological organization more complex than that of A’ and B’; a mere parasite on A’ may be much less complex or highly evolved than its host. But in general terms one may expect that, among the whole array of functions F which are potentially utlizable, some will actually be used which do require the elaboration of more complex reaction and control systems than any involved in the entities of which the function is composed. We should thus expect to find, not that the evolution of living systems exhibits any universal program of “progressive change” (in the sense of increase in complexity or the like), but that there would be a tendency for the highest degree of complexity reached to increase gradually as the process continues. If the primitive biological world was populated only with bacteria, say, it is, for the reasons just given, difficult to imagine it remaining with no more complex organisms appearing within it, even if the combinatorial possibilities of the genes in the bacteria were sufficient to keep a process of evolutionary change on the move at the bacterial level from those times to the present.”
p40-41 in Poulation Biology and Evolution ed. By Richard Lewontin.
A MesoEvolutionary refinement of the population-push/Invention-pull demographic from applied microevolution to increases in local biomass productivities have come about by (1) exogenous changes in the technical coefficient Af and (2) shifts in practice among already known via two ways population growth unlike Malthus(
“Since Malthus, the established theory of demographic-economic history has been what will be called the “invention-pull” hypothesis in this chapter. It suggests that from time to time inventions appear, independently of population growth, which increase productive capacity and provide subsistence to more people. Population then increases to use this new capacity until all the productive potential has been exhausted. According the Malthusian hypothesis, then, the history of population growth is only the reflection of the history of autonomous invention.”p159
The economics of population growthJUlian Simon Princeton Unive Press 1977
may affect production.
“The argument can also be phrased another way: Any invention increases the choices available to the farmer. But inventions can be of two sorts” (1) Compared to the technology in use at present, the invention may produce the same output with the same amount of land and with less labor (a better calendar is an example); or (2) Though the invention will not produce more output with the same labor and land than the presently used alternative technology, at higher rates of output that would be necessary at a higher population density the invention will produce more output than the alternative method with given amounts of labor and land (an example is multiple cropping when shifiting agriculture is being practiced and were output is still plentiful). An invention must do one or the other, or it is not useful (capital requirements aside)."Simon opcit
The difference between creation and evolution purely continue this mutual exclusivity but in terms of the human population it need not be practically so for any given century. Currently the difficulty is not in the comparison of inventivenesses as there is little but rather not yet the issue of population growth leading to new adoptions of inventions but rather conflicts in pedagogy on how teaching is more effective apriori AFTER scientific knowledge is gained. Some like Herbart insist that Kant was mistaken and that this is never possible, that the increasing number of students has nothing to do with the creation of “new” knowledge since it clearly is not sufficient since the knowledge is passed most often horizontally(by copy) and not vertically as in our genes and from master to pupil
quote:
“Apperception may be roughly defined at first as the process of acquiring new ideas by the aid of old ideas already in mind. It makes the acquisition of new knowledge easier and quicker. Not that there is any easy road to learning, but there is a natural process which greatly accelerates the progress of acquisition, just as it is better to follow a highway over a rough country than to betake one’s self to the stumps and brush.”p176
p184”In apperception we never pass from the known to things which are entirely new. Absolutely new knowledge is gained by perception or intuition. When an older person meets with something totally new, he either does not notice it or it staggers him. Apperception does not take place . .Since the old ideas have so much to do with proper reception of the new, let us examine more closely the interaction of the two. If a new idea drops into the mind, like a stone upon the surface of the water it produces a commotion. It acts as a stimulus or wakener to the old ideas sleeping beneath the surface. It draws them up above the surface level; that is, into consciousness. But what ideas are thus disturbed? There are thousands of these latent ideas, embryonic thoughts, beneath the surface. Those which possess sufficient kinship to this newcomer to hear his call, respond. For in the mind “birds of a feather flock together.” Ideas and thought which resemble the new one answer, the others sleep on undisturbed. Or, to state it differently, certain thought-groups or complexes, which contain elements kindred to the new notion, are agitated and rasied into conscious thought.”
P216”Herbart was an empirical psychologist, and believed that the mind grows with what it feeds upon; that is, that it develops its powers slowly by experience. We are dependent not only upon our habits, upon the established trends of mental action produced by exercise and discipline, but also upon our acquired ideas, upon the thought materials stored up and organized by the mind. These thought-materials seem to posses a kind of vitality, an energy, an attractive or repulsive power. When ideas once gain real significance in the mind, they become active agents. They are not blocks with which the mind builds. They are a part of the mind itself. The conscious ego itself is a product of experience. In thus referring all mental action and growth to experience, in the narrow limits he draws for the original power of the mind, Herbart stands opposed to the older and to many more recent psychologists. He has been called the father of empirical psychology.
Kant , with many other psychologists, gives greater prominence to the original powers of the mind, to the innate ideas, by means of which it receives and works over the crude materials furnished by the senses. The difference between Kant and Herbart in interpreting the process of apperception is an index of a radical difference in their pedagogical standpoints. With Kant, apperception is the assimilation of the raw materials of knowledge through the fundamental categories of thought (quality, quantity, relation, modality, etc.) Kant’s categories of thought are original properties of the mind; they receive the crude materials of sense-perception and vie them form and meaning. With Herbart, the ideas gained through experience are the apperceiving power in interpreting new things. Practically the difference between Kant and Herbart is important. For Kant gives controlling influence to innate ideas in the process of acquisition. Our capacity for learning depends not so much upon the results of experience and thought stored in the mind, as upon original powers, unaided and unsupported by experience. With Herbart, on the contrary, great stress is laid up the acquired fund of empirical knowledge as a means of increasing one’s stores, or more rapidly receiving and assimilating new ideas.”
p216-7 1893 The Elements of General Method Based On The Principles of Herbart by CAMcMurray 1901 Bloomington ILL.
Simonopcit”Since Malthus, the established theory of demographic-economic history has been what will be called the “invention-pull” hypothesis . It suggests that form . The first aim of this chapter is to explicate the invention-pull and population push hypotheses and the economic mechanisms that presumably underlie them, to aid in the examination of claims to explain economic-demographic history. The most important finding is that the apparentconflict between hypotheses is illusory. The conflict results from failure to distinguish between the types of inventions to which each of the two hypotheses does and does not apply."
MY BSM typification in ecosytem engineering below:
TYPE 1= use existing technology of right of water to flow with water mill increasing biological population growth on the same land.
TYPE2 =Migrations abducted from type1 processes already happening created ecological torque such that if applied microevolution knowledge is used can shunt locomotions and causal dispersals (given a suitable theory of evolution) into unused lands BY balancing water balances created during population growing by type1 and type2 but on removal of an equivalne part of the earth to directions the natural type1 caused torque suspects (some conservation technigue of forced population motion might not be counterindicated if the theory of evolution is not suffient and statistical approaches are in operation prematurely) keeping the weight of type 1 changes in balance with moving water.
There will be varying “costs” associated with moving the “wrong” earth and migrations that move not into unused lands but into ones with active type1 ecosystem engineering going on. This will have to be handeled by training agriculturalists to BECOME more biomass productivity conservation managers as the mutations and latent recessivites are exposed on current farm lands as well as dedicated engineering regions.
It is hoped that by using the same power of the industrial revolution that some of the errors in that aspect of human history can propel pre-industrial agriculture beyond the wrongs of my own generation by teaching in retrospect.
Malthus had said, p239
“As in these and similar instances, or to take a larger range, as in the great diversity of characters that have existed during some thousand years, no decided difference has been observed in the duration of human life from the operation of intellect, the mortality of man on earth seems to be as completely established, and exactly upon the same grounds, as anyone, the most constant, of the laws of nature.” An immediate act of power in the Creator of the Universe might, indeed, change one or all of these laws, either suddenly or gradually; but without some indications of such a change , and such indications do not exist, it is just as unphilosophical to suppose that the life of man may be prolonged beyond any assignable limits, of the longing of the soul after immortality.”
Chapter XII Mr. Godwin’s conjecture concerning the indefinite prolongation of human life
but I, BSM, Say
|_____________individualone____________|
|--birth margin--|-------LIFE-----|--death margin--| }species A
xxxx|_____________individual two__________________|
more later...
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-16-2005 12:50 PM
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-16-2005 12:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sidelined, posted 09-03-2004 12:00 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024