Brian Locke - Yesterday 18:17 - Extended circles
- Comment
Muhammad Irfan Kas - End is Death in Science
In Islam there is a life after Death
In Islam there is a life after Death
Yesterday 18:22 - Edit
Brian Locke - No the end is death period. And until someone actually comes back from the dead to prove otherwise your are using your wants over reality.
Yesterday 18:25
Christine Chiron - Il existe qu'une réalité celle qu'on se crée...
La réalité est celle qu'on a vécu...CC
Jusqu'à preuve du contraire :))))
La réalité est celle qu'on a vécu...CC
Jusqu'à preuve du contraire :))))
Yesterday 18:28
Brian Locke - That statement has zero merit. By that reasoning, we are nothing more than a dream to some sleeping child....until proven otherwise.
Yesterday 18:35
Muhammad Irfan Kas - Ok where were you in between your father and mother have sex and your birth?
Approximately 9 months.
How you get the life?
The semen is not a living thing, am I correct?
But you are, how?
Who was there in the womb who put the life in your body?
Approximately 9 months.
How you get the life?
The semen is not a living thing, am I correct?
But you are, how?
Who was there in the womb who put the life in your body?
Yesterday 18:38 - Edit
Brian Locke - Is your understanding of science that weak? i'm not about to educate you on how life began. It was taught all through school. I'll just assume you were taught in a religious school where they don't allow you to think that there are easy answers to the questions you ask as if they are stumpers. They are mildly amusing because they are coming from a grown man and and not a little kid.
Yesterday 18:46
Muhammad Irfan Kas - Ok answer me I do not know who put the life to a baby's body in the womb of his mother?
Yesterday 18:49 - Edit
Brian Locke - Then this is clearly a topic to advanced for you. Start with the remedial stuff like like life sciences. (That's taught in 3rd grade I think.)
Yesterday 19:32 (edited)
Muhammad Irfan Kas - I do not know who put the life to a baby's body in the womb of his mother? My question is Who? Not How?
Yesterday 18:53 - Edit
Petr Mazak - +Muhammad Irfan Kas Obviously, you suffer with idea, that the Universe is bipolar - so or so, nothing between. Unfortunately for you, it is not so - the Universe is mostly in state of permanent process - from something to something, from 0 across 0,001, 0,1, 0,25, 0,8, 0,98 to 1. There is no such thing as right now fetus begun to be full human - there is just process of fetus becoming to be human - we can say "here it is mostly not (0,2?)" and we can say "here it mostly is (0,8?)", but in between, there is eternal gray zone and the decision is based mostly on our values and willingness to tolerate deficiencies.
Who put life somewhere... basic problem here is, that there is no "life" as separate, unique thing. The word "life" is just our label for one specific set of processes, which surrounds us in nature. And as before, even here is gray zone (on level of viruses, primitive single-cells and so on). There is no "putting life" - there is just elementary particles of our world bounded by electromagnetic force which goes trough extremely, unimaginably complex states and interactions (=processes) which leads to "organism" (another label) - set of matter, energy and interactions which are in controlled equilibrium for some time period consisting few decades.
Well, I suppose that you will not accept this, because you are obviously strongly indoctrinated by, sorry for that word, but primitive (at least in comparison with complexity of real processes) antropomorphic and homocentric ideas bounded together by religion - I'm writing it just because I hope that even that you are not willing to embrace that idea, you could be willing to understand our point of view, no matter how weird it can be for you.
sorry for being a little impolite now
+Christine Chiron English. International language and language of the Internet is English. Chinese got it, Arabs got it, Africans got it, Slavs got it, whole world except France got it. Writing in French is like writing in any extraterrestrial dialect. Deal with it.
Collapse this commentWho put life somewhere... basic problem here is, that there is no "life" as separate, unique thing. The word "life" is just our label for one specific set of processes, which surrounds us in nature. And as before, even here is gray zone (on level of viruses, primitive single-cells and so on). There is no "putting life" - there is just elementary particles of our world bounded by electromagnetic force which goes trough extremely, unimaginably complex states and interactions (=processes) which leads to "organism" (another label) - set of matter, energy and interactions which are in controlled equilibrium for some time period consisting few decades.
Well, I suppose that you will not accept this, because you are obviously strongly indoctrinated by, sorry for that word, but primitive (at least in comparison with complexity of real processes) antropomorphic and homocentric ideas bounded together by religion - I'm writing it just because I hope that even that you are not willing to embrace that idea, you could be willing to understand our point of view, no matter how weird it can be for you.
sorry for being a little impolite now
+Christine Chiron English. International language and language of the Internet is English. Chinese got it, Arabs got it, Africans got it, Slavs got it, whole world except France got it. Writing in French is like writing in any extraterrestrial dialect. Deal with it.
Yesterday 19:22
Christine Chiron - Je t'excuse +Petr Mazak de ton impolitesse,mais au regret de te décevoir ,je suis un extra-terrestre primitif:))))Et j'espère te rencontrer dans un autre monde pour en discuter plus longuement.
Excuse-moi de t'écrire en Français,mais je me comprends mieux:)
Excuse-moi de t'écrire en Français,mais je me comprends mieux:)
Yesterday 19:35
Brian Locke - Yeah that was a little rude. I would hate to think what I sounded like if I had to write in another language.
Yesterday 19:39
Christine Chiron - Oui +Brian Locke ,je préfère écrire dans ma langue et de traduire ensuite,comme ça je ne comprends pas tout....:))))quelquefois c'est mieux...:))))))
Yesterday 19:43
Petr Mazak - +Brian Locke Well, I'm writing in another language... every day, if I think about it. I was in Germany for few month and I spoke Czech only few minutes each weak when I was talking with my parents and friends on videocall. And most of my friends do the same... we do not have much choice, since there is less than 15 million people speaking our language and more than 10 millions are here in our republic. And we do not complain about it - it is simply as it is, everybody speaks English, so we learned English and we use English... actually, native English speakers are currently minority in whole set of English speakers around the world.
You have to admit, that it is a little bit annoying, that I can talk/write in English with almost anybody around the world - with Americans, Iranians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Egyptians, Germans, Russians... - and nobody complains and everybody simply use English. Except by nationalism possessed French, which simply have to speak French because they thing that everybody else is obligated to know it. Well, we are not.
Collapse this commentYou have to admit, that it is a little bit annoying, that I can talk/write in English with almost anybody around the world - with Americans, Iranians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Egyptians, Germans, Russians... - and nobody complains and everybody simply use English. Except by nationalism possessed French, which simply have to speak French because they thing that everybody else is obligated to know it. Well, we are not.
Yesterday 20:05
Christine Chiron - Oui +Petr Mazak ,je suis tout à fait d'accord avec toi.
En France dans nos écoles nous apprenons l'anglais très tard,trop tard même,c'est seulement en train de changer mais un pau tard et il y à du travail....:)))Bon week-end Petr Mazak:))))N.B.cela ne me dérange pas de traduire avec google translate...:)))c'est ça le progrès.!
En France dans nos écoles nous apprenons l'anglais très tard,trop tard même,c'est seulement en train de changer mais un pau tard et il y à du travail....:)))Bon week-end Petr Mazak:))))N.B.cela ne me dérange pas de traduire avec google translate...:)))c'est ça le progrès.!
Yesterday 20:13
Petr Mazak - +Christine Chiron FYI besides English I speak just German (and just poorly) (which is nor really good starting point for getting points from French, I know...) so I'm really skipping everything you write because I wouldn't understand it no matter how much I would try.
Well, I could probably use Google translate, but it's a little bit too much effort for somebody who is just trying to troll me ;)
Well, I could probably use Google translate, but it's a little bit too much effort for somebody who is just trying to troll me ;)
Yesterday 20:24
Christine Chiron - Oui +Petr Mazak ,c'est pourquoi,je réponds dans ma langue et je me sers de google translate pour lire les commentaires...je suis très fainéante également....lol
Bon Week-end à toi et aussi à +Brian Locke car j'ai un peu squatté sa page de commentaires...merci
Bon Week-end à toi et aussi à +Brian Locke car j'ai un peu squatté sa page de commentaires...merci
Yesterday 20:29
Muhammad Irfan Kas - +Petr Mazak The description you are giving is very complicated, is it possible that it develop without any power which guides into this way ?
Yesterday 23:23 - Edit
Petr Mazak - +Muhammad Irfan Kas Yes, it is quite complicated. Unfortunately, nobody never promised, that Universe will be easy to understand - I always regret that I do not have enough time to study physics and biology really deeply :/
But yes, it is not even possible, but it seems to be highly probable, that "life" developed itself into this stage without any "supernatural" guidance - but it doesn't mean, that it happened coincidently. Evolution is really in genius process - it allow things to go (at first sight or in some scale, at least) against the laws of entropy: simple things become to be complex in game of random mutations which are retrospectively verified and therefor really highly complex organism can develop without anything else but laws of physics and chemistry.
Although that I know, that religious people doesn't like him (or often even mentioning him), I would recommend you to study professor Dawkins a little bit - he is teacher and biology professor for all of his life and he is really talented in explaining things - most of things I ever learned about evolution was not from my lousy teachers on high school, but from his lectures on this topic.
He wrote a whole book about it, I heard that it is very good (I still didn't found the time to read it, but I plan to), it's called The Greatest Show on Earth
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution - Richard Dawkins #1 Bestseller Available Now
Collapse this commentBut yes, it is not even possible, but it seems to be highly probable, that "life" developed itself into this stage without any "supernatural" guidance - but it doesn't mean, that it happened coincidently. Evolution is really in genius process - it allow things to go (at first sight or in some scale, at least) against the laws of entropy: simple things become to be complex in game of random mutations which are retrospectively verified and therefor really highly complex organism can develop without anything else but laws of physics and chemistry.
Although that I know, that religious people doesn't like him (or often even mentioning him), I would recommend you to study professor Dawkins a little bit - he is teacher and biology professor for all of his life and he is really talented in explaining things - most of things I ever learned about evolution was not from my lousy teachers on high school, but from his lectures on this topic.
He wrote a whole book about it, I heard that it is very good (I still didn't found the time to read it, but I plan to), it's called The Greatest Show on Earth
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution - Richard Dawkins #1 Bestseller Available Now
01:41
Expand this comment »
01:43
Brian Locke - you can download the book here.https://rapidshare.com/#!download|341p8|329456442|PDF_Illustrations.rar|11565|R~BCE0B93D20C3D1CDFD7BE402AF7F5DE8|0|0 (Don't blame me if the FBI kicks in your door though.)
02:02
Muhammad Irfan Kas - The theory concluded by the scientist has studied biology and the process under goes in a mothers womb is how much old?
15:20 - Edit
Brian Locke - Is your statement trying to say that it's wrong because it's not thousands of years old? If it was an hour old it would make it no less wrong. Remember age does not impart wisdom and only fools believe that it does.
16:34
Muhammad Irfan Kas - How can you suppose? Is Science has got so modern that it can also read the mind?
Now I have just asked a simple question.
The theory concluded by the scientist has studied biology and the process under goes in a mothers womb is how much old?
If you have the answer then just share it.
Now I have just asked a simple question.
The theory concluded by the scientist has studied biology and the process under goes in a mothers womb is how much old?
If you have the answer then just share it.
16:43 - Edit
Brian Locke - Well the Egyptians did it about 1400 + years before the bible was wrote, and I'm sure with a little digging we could trace it even farther back. Why do you ask me questions that are so simple to find out yourself?
16:54
Muhammad Irfan Kas - Because I am not an Aethiest.
17:07 - Edit
17:07 - Edit
Muhammad Irfan Kas - It does not effect me either it is known 16000 year before or today, but it will effect you if you do not know.
17:23 - Edit
Brian Locke - It has obviously effected you as you seem incapable of seeking the answers to the easiest things. Scary and sad is the person who wears a shroud of ignorance like a shield.
17:28
Muhammad Irfan Kas - How can you decide so much things about me.? Just supposition will not work.
17:31 - Edit
Brian Locke - Your denial only strengthens my statement. Of course I'm sure that is lost on you.
18:05
Brian Locke - Your excuse for not seeking knowledge is your religion. I understand that, as it falls apart as soon as you do.
18:14
Muhammad Irfan Kas - Again you are just assuming, without any knowledge of Islam.
Because my religion is Islam, and the first verse which was given to our beloved prophet was "to read with the name of the Creature".
It means Science has just been on assumptions.
Because my religion is Islam, and the first verse which was given to our beloved prophet was "to read with the name of the Creature".
It means Science has just been on assumptions.
18:25 - Edit
Petr Mazak - This arguing of yours leads nowhere. Studies about origins of life (modern studies) begin with Darwin and they have been continuously improved since. In cca 1960 DNA has been discovered and after few decades human DNA gas been decoded and DNA of thousands of other species followed and has been compared. From this comparisons, much other knowledges about evolution has been gained.
Studies of fetus ontology (pre-born development) begin about 300 years ago (mostly naturally aborted dead fetuses or mothers which died during pregnancy has been studied), we got, of course much more relevant knowledges in the beginning of 20th century, since we have got x-ray and ultrasounds (not mention modern fMRI and other high tech machines)
So answer to you're question is not simple: we know what we know for about one or the centuries, depends on how benevolent you will be to the phase "we know"
Collapse this commentStudies of fetus ontology (pre-born development) begin about 300 years ago (mostly naturally aborted dead fetuses or mothers which died during pregnancy has been studied), we got, of course much more relevant knowledges in the beginning of 20th century, since we have got x-ray and ultrasounds (not mention modern fMRI and other high tech machines)
So answer to you're question is not simple: we know what we know for about one or the centuries, depends on how benevolent you will be to the phase "we know"
19:42
Petr Mazak - #one or three centuries, sorry, I'm on phone and I can not edit my previous posts from this interface
19:45
Muhammad Irfan Kas - But We Muslims know about the pre born development since 1400 years.
And it is exactly what today fetus ontology defines.
As the sperm changes into fetus and fetus changes into flesh then bones are developed after the baby got the shape and the creature (Allah) also defines that the life is given to baby by Allah.
So the science has just declared that whatever written in Quran is true.
And it is exactly what today fetus ontology defines.
As the sperm changes into fetus and fetus changes into flesh then bones are developed after the baby got the shape and the creature (Allah) also defines that the life is given to baby by Allah.
So the science has just declared that whatever written in Quran is true.
22:04 - Edit
Petr Mazak - No, you did not know about it. Maybe that some of you believed in it (based on something in Koran), but many of you didn't have an idea (maybe that they red that passages in Koran, but they simply skipped it because it didn't make sense to them or they didn't care about) and I'm pretty sure that some of you claimed that it mean something completely else...
... knowing is something else than having hunch or possessing an idea that it can be that way. Knowing means understanding, knowing means having an evidence, real prove you can point out and say "here is my evidence and even when you do not believe my religion, my world view, my culture, my whatever, if you will look at this, you will simply see that it is so".
There are more examples of this in history. For example many ancient Greeks "knew" about atoms (after all, the word "atom" itself is from ancient Greek) - they had whole theory of world ontology where they described world as a place which is created from elementary particles. Sure, their idea of it was quite primitive in comparison to our present knowledge about it, but the essential fundamentals of atomic theory was more or less right. But they did not have any means to prove that theory, no way how to verify it - and because of it, many other theories has been also created and they has been taken as seriously as the atomic one.
So - is it true, that ancient Greeks had an idea about atoms? Sure it is. At least some of them. But it is true, that they knew about it? No, it is not. They didn't know it. Some of them had that idea and it made sense to them - but knowledge is more than that, knowledge is something you can prove to the others. And that is a treat they did not possessed.
Another example could be... well, there is many of those, but let's mention for instance heliocentric model of our planetary system in early Middle age for all of them (another examples can be found in (especially human) biology, in geology and so on)
Sometimes, some truths about the Universe are so... I'm not sure how to express it in English correctly - logical is not the right word... natural? obvious? ... that somebody realize that it can be that way long before it can be really fully understood, proven and described. That means, that this man was bright and smart (or simply lucky in his guess), but it doesn't mean, that he knew it.
Like when I'm waiting on bus which has delay and I will say "ok, considering the day, hour, traffic situation and so on, I think that the bus will be here in seven minutes" - even when the bus really comes in seven minutes, it doesn't mean that I knew it - it is just good guess, an accurate approximation based on my default knowledges and bright estimate of probabilities - but I could be wrong. The bus could have an accident (or somebody else could have an accident on the street before the bus), bus driver could have had an infarct, traffic jam could be worst than I thought... anything of those could be right and it is just that I was smart enough to estimate that highest probability of delay is traffic jam and correct estimation of gravity of these traffic jam on speed of the bus.
The same is with babies. Just think about default (obvious) knowledge anybody had even five thousands years ago:
- there are humans
- humans are born from women
- ...after women is 9 month pregnant
- women get to be pregnant (only) after she is having sex with men
- men ejaculates during the sex
- there is no indication of baby in the women before the sex (no feelings, no babies in the belly of non-pregnant dead womens...)
- humans consist of flesh and bones (and some organs and so on)
- in nature, everything what is alive grows from small things to its adulthood *) (from seed to plant and so on)
Is it really so hard to deduce, that after sex "baby fetus" is created in women and it grows inside her from almost nothing to the newborn, therefor also it's bones and flesh has to grown in her? It seems to me, considering the default knowledges, to be really highly probably guess about what is going on. But still - without really good knowledge about human anatomy (which we do have just for last... well, about 1000 years in Arabic world, few centuries less in western world), without medical autopsy of many dead pregnant women (which was not allowed for religious reasons in Arabic nor western world until renaissance), without microscopes (which has been invented, if I'm correct, about 500 years ago) and so on - it is not knowledge - it is just highly probably guess.
*) +Brian Locke just for fun, I just almost made really terrible mistake in English - I wanted to write "adulthood", but I was for a second confused by accidence of Czech language and I almost derived from word "adult" the word "adultery" instead of "adulthood"- so yes, sometimes, using other language than your native could be tricky even when you are using it almost every day :D
Collapse this comment... knowing is something else than having hunch or possessing an idea that it can be that way. Knowing means understanding, knowing means having an evidence, real prove you can point out and say "here is my evidence and even when you do not believe my religion, my world view, my culture, my whatever, if you will look at this, you will simply see that it is so".
There are more examples of this in history. For example many ancient Greeks "knew" about atoms (after all, the word "atom" itself is from ancient Greek) - they had whole theory of world ontology where they described world as a place which is created from elementary particles. Sure, their idea of it was quite primitive in comparison to our present knowledge about it, but the essential fundamentals of atomic theory was more or less right. But they did not have any means to prove that theory, no way how to verify it - and because of it, many other theories has been also created and they has been taken as seriously as the atomic one.
So - is it true, that ancient Greeks had an idea about atoms? Sure it is. At least some of them. But it is true, that they knew about it? No, it is not. They didn't know it. Some of them had that idea and it made sense to them - but knowledge is more than that, knowledge is something you can prove to the others. And that is a treat they did not possessed.
Another example could be... well, there is many of those, but let's mention for instance heliocentric model of our planetary system in early Middle age for all of them (another examples can be found in (especially human) biology, in geology and so on)
Sometimes, some truths about the Universe are so... I'm not sure how to express it in English correctly - logical is not the right word... natural? obvious? ... that somebody realize that it can be that way long before it can be really fully understood, proven and described. That means, that this man was bright and smart (or simply lucky in his guess), but it doesn't mean, that he knew it.
Like when I'm waiting on bus which has delay and I will say "ok, considering the day, hour, traffic situation and so on, I think that the bus will be here in seven minutes" - even when the bus really comes in seven minutes, it doesn't mean that I knew it - it is just good guess, an accurate approximation based on my default knowledges and bright estimate of probabilities - but I could be wrong. The bus could have an accident (or somebody else could have an accident on the street before the bus), bus driver could have had an infarct, traffic jam could be worst than I thought... anything of those could be right and it is just that I was smart enough to estimate that highest probability of delay is traffic jam and correct estimation of gravity of these traffic jam on speed of the bus.
The same is with babies. Just think about default (obvious) knowledge anybody had even five thousands years ago:
- there are humans
- humans are born from women
- ...after women is 9 month pregnant
- women get to be pregnant (only) after she is having sex with men
- men ejaculates during the sex
- there is no indication of baby in the women before the sex (no feelings, no babies in the belly of non-pregnant dead womens...)
- humans consist of flesh and bones (and some organs and so on)
- in nature, everything what is alive grows from small things to its adulthood *) (from seed to plant and so on)
Is it really so hard to deduce, that after sex "baby fetus" is created in women and it grows inside her from almost nothing to the newborn, therefor also it's bones and flesh has to grown in her? It seems to me, considering the default knowledges, to be really highly probably guess about what is going on. But still - without really good knowledge about human anatomy (which we do have just for last... well, about 1000 years in Arabic world, few centuries less in western world), without medical autopsy of many dead pregnant women (which was not allowed for religious reasons in Arabic nor western world until renaissance), without microscopes (which has been invented, if I'm correct, about 500 years ago) and so on - it is not knowledge - it is just highly probably guess.
*) +Brian Locke just for fun, I just almost made really terrible mistake in English - I wanted to write "adulthood", but I was for a second confused by accidence of Czech language and I almost derived from word "adult" the word "adultery" instead of "adulthood"- so yes, sometimes, using other language than your native could be tricky even when you are using it almost every day :D
06:32
Petr Mazak - HELL, sorry for that wall of text, I had no idea that I wrote so much... I'll try to moderate myself a little bit in my explanations...
06:33
Petr Mazak - Btw., about that guessing on baby growth in women which are based on default knowledges - for some time, there has been a theory (recognized even in Arabic world) that women do NOT participate in procreation of baby. Educated scholars of that time thought, that every single sperm is COMPLETE human - just very, very very small - and that those "humans" are implanted into the women in the same way, as the seed of the plant is implanted to the ground, where it can growth - therefor that mens are the source of the children and women are just "fertile ground" where those little human can growth to newborns...
...it pretty much shows my point: without understanding of the process, this theory seems to be right - it can actually (without knowledges about anatomy and biology, not mention the DNA) look more probably than the truth, because it IS what you can see everywhere around you - the seed is implanted (by men - let's be honest, in that times, this parallel was relevant) to the ground, the plant will growth - human is implanted by men to the women and new human can growth inside her. Perfect analogy and estimation of the reality based on observation - accept the fact, that it is at least 50% completely wrong. Which, again, you can not know, if you do not really understand...
Collapse this comment...it pretty much shows my point: without understanding of the process, this theory seems to be right - it can actually (without knowledges about anatomy and biology, not mention the DNA) look more probably than the truth, because it IS what you can see everywhere around you - the seed is implanted (by men - let's be honest, in that times, this parallel was relevant) to the ground, the plant will growth - human is implanted by men to the women and new human can growth inside her. Perfect analogy and estimation of the reality based on observation - accept the fact, that it is at least 50% completely wrong. Which, again, you can not know, if you do not really understand...
06:48
Muhammad Irfan Kas - This whole Defines that How everything happens.
There is no answer to Who is making it possible?
Who create this whole universe? Who designed it in such a way that everything in this whole universe is just giving the benefit to Humans only?
Other then there is no any species which is getting the benefit of this universe.
If they are in some way, then ultimately those species come in use to us Humans.
There is a plan set for each and every thing in this universe.
Who made the environment of this world fit for Humans?
The sun. moon and every star and every animal and every species are there only, so that Humans can get benefit from them. Is it True or Not?
How will you define Truth in Science? And also Love in Science?
Same as Hate, and other emotions.
Collapse this commentThere is no answer to Who is making it possible?
Who create this whole universe? Who designed it in such a way that everything in this whole universe is just giving the benefit to Humans only?
Other then there is no any species which is getting the benefit of this universe.
If they are in some way, then ultimately those species come in use to us Humans.
There is a plan set for each and every thing in this universe.
Who made the environment of this world fit for Humans?
The sun. moon and every star and every animal and every species are there only, so that Humans can get benefit from them. Is it True or Not?
How will you define Truth in Science? And also Love in Science?
Same as Hate, and other emotions.
07:22 - Edit
No comments:
Post a Comment