Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[bruto]

How? Nature has created us. Can't we create nature by growing few trees? Trees are nature. So many other nature we can create because we are manifested matter.

No we cannot create nature by growing a few trees. Trees belong to nature, they are not nature itself! Planting trees is not creating nature. We can manipulate nature by planting some trees, but that is not creating it, and it is not, not, never ever the same as saying that a creature can create its creator. Get a grip. All this argument boils down to a nonsensical, juvenile misunderstanding of basic ideas and basic words.

 

[MRC_Hans]

This topic is bringing lot of dynamic material for further discussions. For it, I would like to understand science of so thought of supernatural and miracle but actually may be a modification of nature creating nature.
What is the science of energy transformation l or conversion into different forms? I need science lnot observation or outcome.

Science is observation and outcome.

Hans

 

[Dancing David]

This "true religion": would it originate in Scotland, by any chance?

Only if it wears a kilt

 

[bruto]

This topic is bringing lot of dynamic material for further discussions. For it, I would like to understand science of so thought of supernatural and miracle but actually may be a modification of nature creating nature.
What is the science of energy transformation l or conversion into different forms? I need science lnot observation or outcome.

This is the thing you find out BEFORE you make comments on the subject as if you knew. Asking the question after seeming to answer it might well be considered one of the signal symptoms of demonstrable incompetence.

Whatever the science of energy transformation might be, it is obvious and a matter of the most basic logic that even if a thing can create copies of itself, it cannot create itself. A human parent can, in a certain sense of the word, create human children, can add to humanity perhaps, but cannot create humanity itself. It has to have been there already! Think think think, don't just punch the keyboard. Try to think like an adult. Nature cannot create nature, unless the laws of time and space are rendered utterly and nonsensically meaningless.

 

[Mojo]

Only if it wears a kilt

Would anything be worn under it?

 

[Kumar]

Sooner or later most fringe claimants come up with some excuse for why they don't have to pay attention to their critics.

No, you don't get to request that your critics stay within the narrow confines of responses you're prepared for. No, you don't get to condition your participation on their renunciation of the rebuttals they've made. I do not apologize that my responses have exposed points you clearly don't want to talk about and are now doing your best to evade. In fact, I will continue to press you on these subjects until we make headway.

Your claims in this thread have as their premise a view of nature that is at odds with the facts. We have determined that your view of nature comes not from observing the natural world, but is in fact the view of nature promulgated by your specific religion. While you do not deny that, you offer that your view of nature is made universal by its having derived from some imaginary proto-religion from which all religions derive, and that this universal basis gives your claims their moral authority.

But none of this is borne out by fact, and it is only through my efforts and those of others that your departure from the facts is made evident. Ongoing efforts to get you to deal with those uncomfortable facts have been met with all manner of deception and evasion. Your latest ploy to declare those efforts off-topic is just more of the same deception and evasion.

Quit whining about being treated so shabbily and start paying attention to your critics.

One sided approach is not true approach. Those who are my habitual critics in their perception can not see the truth or rational. They simple base ego or yet partially cooked scientific understandings. It is true religion of critics/skeptics to doubt. Main question is why I should base them if they have such perception or religion?

True religion should mean, to fulfill specific natural duties for which nature has gifted us in this universe so that nature can be maintained.

Natural food will be that which need no cooking, processing or manipulation like animals take.

Avoid getting attuned.

 

[Kumar]

Science is observation and outcome.

Hans

How can we say those understanding are scientific, if its full science is yet unknown. I shall need to know full science of energy transformation or conversion unless we take these as supernatural or miracles.

 

[Kumar]

I do not remember, If I had mentioned it in this topic. Very relevant;

In 1877, Albert Bernhard Frank used the term symbiosis which previously had been used to depict people living together in community to describe the mutualistic relationship in lichens.[6] In 1879, the German mycologist Heinrich Anton de Bary defined it as "the living together of unlike organisms."[7][8] The definition has varied among scientists with some advocating that it should only refer to persistent mutualisms, while others thought it should apply to any type of persistent biological interaction in other words mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic.[9
Mutualism or interspecies reciprocal altruism is a relationship between individuals of different species where both individuals benefit.

Commensalism describes a relationship between two living organisms where one benefits and the other is not significantly harmed or helped.
A parasitic relationship is one in which one member of the association benefits while the other is harmed.

Amensalism is the type of relationship that exists where one species is inhibited or completely obliterated and one is unaffected by the other.

Synnecrosis is a rare type of symbiosis in which the interaction between species is detrimental to both organisms involved.[3] It is a short-lived condition, as the interaction eventually causes death

Evolution[edit]

Leafhoppers protected by meat ants
Symbiosis is increasingly recognized as an important selective force behind evolution,[4][37] with many species having a long history of interdependent co-evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

Originally Symbiosis, a natural evolutionary term, was related to just mutualisms. However, many variations are added to it later.

Since this is natural system even other than mutualisms , we can try relating, what we opt to true religion.

 

[Kumar]

No we cannot create nature by growing a few trees. Trees belong to nature, they are not nature itself! Planting trees is not creating nature. We can manipulate nature by planting some trees, but that is not creating it, and it is not, not, never ever the same as saying that a creature can create its creator. Get a grip. All this argument boils down to a nonsensical, juvenile misunderstanding of basic ideas and basic words.

Then, according to you, we may ONLY have to relate creation with Big Bang environment?

 

[bruto]

Then, according to you, we may ONLY have to relate creation with Big Bang environment?

No that is not what I said.

 

[JayUtah]

One sided approach is not true approach. Those who are my habitual critics in their perception can not see the truth or rational. They simple base ego or yet partially cooked scientific understandings.

You're being very insulting. The problem with your argument is not that your critics are irrational. It isn't that they are reying on "half-baked" science. You are not an expert in science or religion. You are, in fact, the one apparently acting out of ego. Facts have been presented which refute your claims. You have partially acknowledged those facts, but only after diligent and patient effort from your critics. The problem with your argument is that it is based on a premise that has been thoroughly debunked and contradicts many facts that you cannot explain away.

True religion should mean, to fulfill specific natural duties...

No, that is your religion. There is no universal mandate to worship nature. You have been presented with several different ideologies with varying approaches to nature. You simply dismiss all of it that isn't your personal beliefs. You're doing nothing more noble or rational than arrogantly foisting your religion on everyone.

Natural food will be that which need no cooking, processing or manipulation like animals take.

No, that would not be the natural diet for humans. That may be what your personal religion teaches, but historical fact disagrees. Do not simply preach your religion as if it were universal self-evident fact.

 

[Kumar]

No that is not what I said.

Sorry, you do not try to úndérstand real sense. If we tend to make base or origional creatión, we can only make base of energy present at big bang thereafter all will be ite trasformation.

 

[Mojo]

Sorry, you do not try to úndérstand real sense.

Are you really claiming that you understand what Bruto posted better than he does?

 

[Kumar]

You're being very insulting. The problem with your argument is not that your critics are irrational. It isn't that they are reying on "half-baked" science. You are not an expert in science or religion. You are, in fact, the one apparently acting out of ego. Facts have been presented which refute your claims. You have partially acknowledged those facts, but only after diligent and patient effort from your critics. The problem with your argument is that it is based on a premise that has been thoroughly debunked and contradicts many facts that you cannot explain away.



No, that is your religion. There is no universal mandate to worship nature. You have been presented with several different ideologies with varying approaches to nature. You simply dismiss all of it that isn't your personal beliefs. You're doing nothing more noble or rational than arrogantly foisting your religion on everyone.



No, that would not be the natural diet for humans. That may be what your personal religion teaches, but historical fact disagrees. Do not simply preach your religion as if it were universal self-evident fact.

No. Sorry, if you take boldness as rude or ínsult to you, that will not be mine calculation. Shold I accept and attend, whatever other say or ask even in egoistic and insluting manner? Tolerance also has some limit, after that, ignore or fights start. All should be harmonious and should consider so said, god is omnipresent, mean god in everyone. Moreover understandings are not yet A&F, so nothing can be taken as fact and MPOVs are justified. So just try to opt equanimity even if something do not suit you. Tks.

 

[Kumar]

Are you really claiming that you understand what Bruto posted better than he does?

I shall cordinate with him/her directly. Pls avoid cordinated one sided overburdening me by 1:10 unjustification.

 

[Kumar]

This is the thing you find out BEFORE you make comments on the subject as if you knew. Asking the question after seeming to answer it might well be considered one of the signal symptoms of demonstrable incompetence.

Whatever the science of energy transformation might be, it is obvious and a matter of the most basic logic that even if a thing can create copies of itself, it cannot create itself. A human parent can, in a certain sense of the word, create human children, can add to humanity perhaps, but cannot create humanity itself. It has to have been there already! Think think think, don't just punch the keyboard. Try to think like an adult. Nature cannot create nature, unless the laws of time and space are rendered utterly and nonsensically meaningless.

True, I think, you are talking about creation at prime level not at secodary levels. For it, we may even have to understand prime basis of all forces, energy and matters. I think, we know after it. What is PRIME of all things and beings?

 

[Pixel42]

Shold I accept and attend, whatever other say or ask even in egoistic and insluting manner?

Depends on whether it's true, whether the "insulting manner" is real or imagined, and whether any genuine loss of patience with you is justified.

Moreover understandings are not yet A&F, so nothing can be taken as fact and MPOVs are justified.

The fact that science does not know everything is not an excuse to wilfully ignore what it does know. Lots of things can be taken as fact, and many points of view are unjustified.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Sorry, you do not try to úndérstand real sense. If we tend to make base or origional creatión, we can only make base of energy present at big bang thereafter all will be ite trasformation.

Sorry, but you don't understand science, logic, and English. Please come back once you have done so. You have had plenty of time to do so, in fact it was I that told you to do so, yet you have not. You ignore suggestions, teachings, and logic. You come to an English speaking forum and complain that we can't understand you. Is there a reason that you don't go to your countrymen and talk with them? You keep coming here trying to push diabetic cures, homeopathy, and now trying to push nature vs. natural and trying to anthropomorphize animals and "reason" what they do.

I wonder if you will take the time to read this message and respond to the valid points or will you do a non sequitur. The good money is on the second option.

 

[Kumar]

Sorry, but you don't understand science, logic, and English. Please come back once you have done so. You have had plenty of time to do so, in fact it was I that told you to do so, yet you have not. You ignore suggestions, teachings, and logic. You come to an English speaking forum and complain that we can't understand you. Is there a reason that you don't go to your countrymen and talk with them? You keep coming here trying to push diabetic cures, homeopathy, and now trying to push nature vs. natural and trying to anthropomorphize animals and "reason" what they do.

I wonder if you will take the time to read this message and respond to the valid points or will you do a non sequitur. The good money is on the second option.

Whatever but I am suprised, how you remember all my things even very old without understanding me and my language?

 

[StackOverflow]

Just remember that a single particle fascinates the progressive expansion of human observation.