Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

Because you don't know what facts are or where they come from. You wrongly think your religious beliefs are facts.

This is disharmony between us.

Which you have not shown for your claims.

I think, either you are not careful in reading my post or just ignore contents in my post.

Remember when you had to ask me to define all those logic terms? Now try again to claim I'm the one who isn't well experienced in logic. You really are living in your own little bubble.

Both.

 

[JayUtah]

I think, either you are not careful in reading my post or just ignore contents in my post.

Most of your posts are unintelligible. Yes, I read them. And the problem is that the statements they contain are expressions of your belief, not observations of fact. You don't know the difference between belief and fact. You don't know the difference between a claim and evidence. This is why few people attempt to engage you.

Both.

This makes no sense in response to what I said. Please endeavor to improve your English.

 

[Kumar]

And when did humans stop evolving?

On conversion to energy for some time. Then restart. All constructions can be followed by destruction and vice versa depending upon their quantity.

 

[JayUtah]

On conversion to energy for some time. Then restart. All constructions can be followed by destruction and vice versa depending upon their quantity.

The human race has not been destroyed. Do you agree that it continues to evolve, and will continue to do so until it is destroyed?

 

[JayUtah]

Some direct or indirect clues can be got from this link with dedicated efforts:

I'm still waiting for you to give a yes-or-no answer to whether you are a scientist. That answer is necessary before I can formulate a proper response to what you have attempted to argue in this post. Please provide the answer to my question without further delay.

 

[bruto]

The boy stood on the burning deck,
Whence all had fled but him.
"I'd like to say I'm brave and good,
But really I just cannot swim."

 

[Kumar]

Most of your posts are unintelligible. Yes, I read them. And the problem is that the statements they contain are expressions of your belief, not observations of fact. You don't know the difference between belief and fact. You don't know the difference between a claim and evidence. This is why few people attempt to engage you.



This makes no sense in response to what I said. Please endeavor to improve your English.

No. Sense should not be much dependent on perfect language. It is not natural. We do understand many many even without language. Yes, I am thankful to you that you try best to understand my language. But probably perfect sense and perfect language has some opposition. Till things are A&F in science, I base logic+science+odds & evens from it. Forget all, until things become A&F. Just take calculative view/risk as I indicated. You can/should not climb Mt.Everest unless you know it A&F. Otherwise there will be bif risk.

 

[Kumar]

I'm still waiting for you to give a yes-or-no answer to whether you are a scientist. That answer is necessary before I can formulate a proper response to what you have attempted to argue in this post. Please provide the answer to my question without further delay.

Provided. But still you want again it is no not advanced academically qualified. But studied science academically upto 12th standard.

 

[JayUtah]

No. Sense should not be much dependent on perfect language.

Straw man. Far from being perfect, most of your posts are not comprehensible English. It's a serious problem in attempting to converse with you.

Till things are A&F in science...

Straw man. As was pointed out in your other thread, you just invoke "A&F" as an excuse not to be questioned on some weak point of your argument. The weak point of your argument in this case is your assertions come from your religion, not from the observation of fact over time. Science observes facts over time, then formulates and tests hypotheses to develop knowledge of the natural world.

 

[JayUtah]

Provided. But still you want again it is no not advanced academically qualified. But studied science academically upto 12th standard.

So you are not a scientist. You have simply received a rudimentary instruction in science, such as everyone in the civilized world receives. You seem to be trying to answer the question truthfully "no" but in a way that seems to sound like "yes." You've also attempted to rewrite the question so that you can truthfully answer "yes" to it instead of to the question I asked. This means you recognize the need for appropriate qualifications, but you don't want to admit that you don't have them.

Very well, you provided a link to an article written by Jains who are claiming that mainstream academic science has, in some cases, confirmed Jain cosmology. Is that something a non-scientist would be qualified to determine? Specific reference was made to Einstein having confirmed some particular thing. Keeping in mind that Jain authors you've cited have already told one lie about Einstein, how likely is that claim to be true? How likely is it that Einstein or any of the other scientists whose work is referenced in that article endorse the Jain interpretation? I represent that I can supply equivalent claims from Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, and many other mainstream religions who also claim that science confirms their beliefs. Given that every religion claims science backs them up, how likely is that claim to be true only in the Jains' case?

 

[bruto]

No. Sense should not be much dependent on perfect language. It is not natural. We do understand many many even without language. Yes, I am thankful to you that you try best to understand my language. But probably perfect sense and perfect language has some opposition. Till things are A&F in science, I base logic+science+odds & evens from it. Forget all, until things become A&F. Just take calculative view/risk as I indicated. You can/should not climb Mt.Everest unless you know it A&F. Otherwise there will be bif risk.

The issue here is not perfect language, though, as you should well know by now. Many here have tried hard to make sense of your language, but the problem goes beyond imperfection. Wrong usage, unique definition, and just plain error are not imperfections. Many persons are poor spellers and their grammar is clumsy, but consistent refusal to use standard terms and consistent insistence on using words in a way nobody understands are not that. As usual, it's clear from this post that you have no real intention of learning, preferring to insist that it is the duty of others to understand your incoherence, and the fault of others when they don't.

 

[Kumar]

So you are not a scientist. You have simply received a rudimentary instruction in science, such as everyone in the civilized world receives. You seem to be trying to answer the question truthfully "no" but in a way that seems to sound like "yes." You've also attempted to rewrite the question so that you can truthfully answer "yes" to it instead of to the question I asked. This means you recognize the need for appropriate qualifications, but you don't want to admit that you don't have them.

Very well, you provided a link to an article written by Jains who are claiming that mainstream academic science has, in some cases, confirmed Jain cosmology. Is that something a non-scientist would be qualified to determine? Specific reference was made to Einstein having confirmed some particular thing. Keeping in mind that Jain authors you've cited have already told one lie about Einstein, how likely is that claim to be true? How likely is it that Einstein or any of the other scientists whose work is referenced in that article endorse the Jain interpretation? I represent that I can supply equivalent claims from Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, and many other mainstream religions who also claim that science confirms their beliefs. Given that every religion claims science backs them up, how likely is that claim to be true only in the Jains' case?

You can be right, if we anticipate academically and experianced scientist in one field shall also be entitled in his and in all subjects in A&F. If we can't anticipte it, otherwises can also be anticipated. Basis of all understandings should not be academic qualification. Science made on observing Apple fall, was not based on previous academic understanding. Basis of all new and dynamic reseach should also be some different than just academic qualification. New Truths may be acieved from any source due to our inhetited natural knowledge.

 

[Kumar]

Straw man. As was pointed out in your other thread, you just invoke "A&F" as an excuse not to be questioned on some weak point of your argument. The weak point of your argument in this case is your assertions come from your religion, not from the observation of fact over time. Science observes facts over time, then formulates and tests hypotheses to develop knowledge of the natural world.

If so, why science ot its advocators stamp many understanding of science as A&F? By A&F I do not only mean omniscience but also mean some, whatever already well understood. Few should be there like: Sun is appeared from earth, to be rising from east and setting toward west. Clouds in front of it should not interfere in this A&F understanding.

 

[Kumar]

So you are not a scientist. You have simply received a rudimentary instruction in science, such as everyone in the civilized world receives...
I represent that I can supply equivalent claims from Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, and many other mainstream religions who also claim that science confirms their beliefs. Given that every religion claims science backs them up, how likely is that claim to be true only in the Jains' case?

...2

Alike me, since you are seriously commenting on these, Do you strictly follow Jainism, Catholicism, Judaism or Islam as your religion or dedicated option or qualified in these? Please tell 'yes' or 'no'?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

All Kumar threads are one thread

 

[Kumar]

The issue here is not perfect language, though, as you should well know by now. Many here have tried hard to make sense of your language, but the problem goes beyond imperfection. Wrong usage, unique definition, and just plain error are not imperfections. Many persons are poor spellers and their grammar is clumsy, but consistent refusal to use standard terms and consistent insistence on using words in a way nobody understands are not that. As usual, it's clear from this post that you have no real intention of learning, preferring to insist that it is the duty of others to understand your incoherence, and the fault of others when they don't.

Yes I know but I also know people interact with me. Moreover new odds can be due to new technology & overload. Should I follow Jebba's calculated style i.e replying one post against somewhat 10/20 posts?

 

[Kumar]

Globally, we are losing our large carnivores," said William Ripple, the report's lead author. "Many of them are endangered and their ranges are collapsing. Many are at risk of extinction, either locally or globally. And, ironically, they are vanishing just as we are learning to appreciate their important ecological effects."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/26/endangered-species-carnivores-extinction

How it is happening? Is there any link in that, carnivores esp big ones got exitinted early? Can it be like it: carnivores get exitented early, ornivores somewhat normal and herbivores late? In quantity: Herbivores plenty(maximum), omnivores normal & carnivores esp big one scrace?

 

[Peregrinus]

How it is happening? Is there any link in that, carnivores esp big ones got exitinted early? Can it be like it: carnivores get exitented early, ornivores somewhat normal and herbivores late? In quantity: Herbivores plenty(maximum), omnivores normal & carnivores esp big one scrace?

Look at the world around you. There is a great variety of carnivores, herbivores & omnivores.

 

[Kumar]

Look at the world around you. There is a great variety of carnivores, herbivores & omnivores.

Yes but goats, cows, pigeons, deers etc. seems to me much more than lions.

 

[JayUtah]

You can be right, if we anticipate academically and experianced scientist in one field shall also be entitled in his and in all subjects in A&F.

No, your generalized "A&F" excuse for non-discussion is not accepted. Do not keep beating this drum, as it has nothing to do with either science or with the real world.

The article you cited made specific reference to mainstream academic science performed by scientist who were not only experienced but eminent. It made claims regarding that science and its relationship to Jainism. I asked you a series of questions designed to make you think critically about those claims. Since you chose not to answer those questions, I have no choice but to assume that the truthful answers are the ones least favorable to your argument.

Would you like another chance to answer those questions and not to frantically evade them?