The supernatural

[Robin]

No. I'm sorry. Do not think childish. Read the answers carefully. Be reasonable.

I am not sure what you mean.

Do you agree that detailed descriptions of embryonic development were already available from more than one source centuries before the Quran was written?

 

[heydarian saeed]

I am not sure what you mean.

Do you agree that detailed descriptions of embryonic development were already available from more than one source centuries before the Quran was written?

Hello. No, thank you. Before you, Scorpion posts left us from the books of Galen and Hippocrates and we read them. If you have any questions or criticisms about the contents of my article on embryology and the stages of fetal development that I have quoted from the Qur'an, please let me know and I will review and answer.
Thank you very much

 

[heydarian saeed]

... Hi. Continue the article:
As far as we know, there are no fossils of early dividers. Man still does not know how the spark of life on our planet was ignited. It remains unclear whether life was created elsewhere and brought to our planet by comets or asteroids, but it can be said with certainty that humans are well aware of the basic components of life, their composition,
the formation of biomolecular structures, and how the whole is made. Life is understood
by these components.
Let's look at some examples of what has been done so far to build a living thing:
A scientist named Jay Craig Venter and his research team took a big step towards creating life in 2011 with the unveiling of the first artificial organism. They made a whole genome of chemicals in the lab, then implanted the artificial genome in an empty cell, and then the cell made a modified version of it through a genetic instruction, along with a lot of effort to build biochemical artificial life. , Computer scientists have also had many successes in building digital life.
There is not much difference between the two lives, because in general the basic purpose of biological life is to reproduce samples of itself through DNA, and a computer program can be designed in a similar way to reproduce samples of itself.
Created in the Digital Evolution Laboratory of the University of Michigan, the Avida Project digital organisms compete, die, and evolve like real beings. Avida digital organisms are like natural viruses that trick a cell into doing their job. The project continues to build living organisms that are able to handle the biological complexities of evolution. The Avida project may be a simulation, but it will evolve in the real world.
This artificial structure requires a cellular system consisting of a natural, pre-existing organism. That's why Arthur Kaplan, one of the researchers in the experiment, believes that Venter did not create life, but showed that an artificial genome could amplify plant microbes. Therefore, it can be said that it has taken an important step towards proving the possibility of building life. Venter and other geneticists continued their efforts to reduce life to molecular nature.

 

[heydarian saeed]

... This molecular nature is a very small design that an independent cell needs to survive and multiply. By studying simple fatty acids and nucleic acids, which are among the most basic structures in life, scientists hope to blur the line between pure chemical reactions and self-sufficient, evolving organisms.
Researchers have created a modified artificial genome to create potential medical benefits. Scientists have created the world's first living organism with a completely synthetic and highly altered DNA code.
A laboratory-made microbe is a strain of bacteria commonly found in human soil and intestines, similar to its natural cousins but living with a smaller structure than genetic instructions.
The existence of this living thing proves that life with a limited genetic code may exist; In addition, it paves the way for the creation of organisms whose biological systems are programmed to produce drugs and beneficial substances, or to add new features such as resistance to the virus.
In a two-year study, researchers at the Medical Research Committee of the Cambridge Molecular Biology Laboratory read and redesigned the DNA of the bacterium Escherichia coli (E coli) to create cells with an artificially altered genome.
The artificial genome has M4 base pairs, the units of the genetic code are written with the letters G, A, T and C. This genome is printed in full on A4 sheets of 970 pages, making it the largest genome ever made by scientists.
"It was unclear whether a genome of this size could be made, or if it could be modified too much," said Jason Chain, an artificial biologist who led the project.
The DNA is twisted inside the cell and holds the commands it needs to function. For example, when a cell needs more protein to grow, it reads the part of the DNA that encodes the protein.
DNA phrases are called codons in triads, such as TCG and TCA.
Almost all life, from jellyfish to humans, uses 64 codons. But many codons have similar functions. In total, 61 codons encode 20 natural amino acids that can be joined together as grains to form all kinds of proteins in nature. The other three codons are stop signals: These signals signal the end of protein synthesis to the cell, such as a complete stop sign at the end of this sentence.
The Cambridge team decided to redesign the E-coli genome by removing some unnecessary codons. Many DNA problems were solved through the work of scientists on a computer. Whenever they came across TCG (a codon that encodes the amino acid serine), they rewrote it with AGC, which had a similar function. They replaced the other two codons in the same way.
With 18,000 edits, the scientists were able to remove all the original bacterial codons. The redesigned genetic code was then chemically synthesized and fragmented into E-coli until the artificial genome replaced the organism's natural genome. The result, also reported in Nature, is a microbe with a completely synthetic and altered DNA code. Known as Syn61, the microbe is slightly more elongated than usual and grows slowly but survives.

 

[heydarian saeed]

... China said this is amazing. When the germs were created, shortly before Christmas, the research team re-imagined a plate of germs taken in the laboratory as the main image of the creation.
China believes that designing these different forms of life can be beneficial. Because their DNA is different, in attacking viruses, it challenges the spread within the host and somehow makes them resistant to the virus. This can be useful.
E-coli is currently used by the biopharmaceutical industry to produce insulin for diabetes and other medical compounds for cancer, multiple sclerosis, heart attacks and eye disorders; But when bacterial cultures become infected with viruses and other microbes, the whole process can be disrupted.
But that's not the end of the story: In future work, artificial genetic code could be proposed to design cells to produce designed enzymes, proteins, and drugs.
"Oscar" is the name of a creature like a fetus that, in addition to the digital brain, has a lung and a kidney. The "Oscar" project was designed to create a living organism that has human cells.
At present, this palm-sized creature has respiratory organs and a brain. His cells can also grow and his organs can be attached to each other. Man is reaching artificial life.
A goal that sooner or later human beings will achieve in different ways. One of these ways is to consider cells as structural units and put them together in order to make a complete living thing. Scientists and researchers around the world have been trying to simulate humans for years, a subject that has many pros and cons and consequences.
A group of scientists have presented these simulations in the form of robots and have used everything they have in mind in designing humanoid robots. Scientists have created the first fragmentary living thing.
This strange, fragmented creature has a brain, lungs, hands, heart and kidneys.
And it is able to move, in fact this multi-piece creature crawls instead of moving.
If you look closely at the Oscar movement video, you can see that the creature's brain is electronic.
And living organs are created by cloning (manipulating the natural growth process of a living thing). OScar scans also show that the limbs are artificial.

 

[heydarian saeed]

Was this bit addressed to me?


Correct. So you admit you did indeed make a mistake in the post I quoted.


No, an embryo is formed. Another mistake.


Yes.


This bit is not science, it is religious mumbo jumbo.


The religious mumbo jumbo bit is all the Qu'ran says, yes. There's no science in the Qu'ran, just religious mumbo jumbo.

Hello. I saw all the typos. It's all because of Google Translate because my article is the same as what you wrote. I wonder why Google Translator leaves out some words or another or similar word when the phrase is long? !!! In any case, thank you very much for your remark. And I wish you health and success.
I do not understand what you mean by jumbo. Can you explain to me what it is ?!

 

[heydarian saeed]

There's no accounting for taste.
Solo tic-tac-toe (3 x 3) would do too.

O, What beautiful and enjoyable cat do you have?

 

[heydarian saeed]

You're just restating your assertion and claiming it is true. That's not persuasive.

Provide evidence for a soul. Any evidence at all.

I think there is no soul because there is no evidence for one.

Also I note that you are again ignoring my previous posts. Deal with the responses you have received please, don't just constantly restate your beliefs as if that were evidence of them being true.

Hi dear friend. The problem with you and me is that you only know experimental science. And you have left other ways or you do not accept. In my article, I have given scientific examples and brief explanations of its up-to-dateness. And then I have proved my claim with logic and philosophy. Logic and philosophy are accepted by science and scientists. I recommend reading a little logic and philosophy.
We regularly use logical and philosophical arguments in science and even in our daily lives. It is surprising that you do not know and do not understand logical and philosophical methods. And he only understood the experimental sciences. It is not possible to understand some things through experimental sciences. And in other ways such as; Logic - Philosophy and mysticism must be examined, proved and understood.
Excellency; You keep saying that I repeat my claim. Well, because you do not understand logic and philosophy. And I keep explaining to you, but you keep saying it.
Dear Friends; Read and understand logic and philosophy so that we can understand each other. Is it clear? !!
Please do not repeat your words so that I do not explain again and repeat my words. sincerely.

 

[Susheel]

Hi dear friend. The problem with you and me is that you only know experimental science. And you have left other ways or you do not accept. ...

What utter rot. Even from a theological, anthropological, and philosophical approach your entire "treatise" (I am being generous in using that description), right from the OP, has been a series of rambling, directionless, nonsensical and often self-contradictory attempts at proselityzing.

 

[heydarian saeed]

Dear and noble friends; Some topics are not in the field of experimental science. And there is no evidence to prove it empirically. Therefore, these issues must be studied and understood through logical and acceptable ways such as logical-philosophical arguments and mysticism. I hope you understand what I mean. The supernatural - God - the soul - the resurrection are among these subjects that can not be proven by experimental science. Of course, there is evidence in nature that shows this.
For example, the complete physical order and laws that exist in the universe and have been proven by science show that the universe was not created by chance. And it must have a builder. So far, all human beings agree. And if someone does not accept, he has no intellect. Now, in order to understand who is the creator of the universe, we must examine all aspects of the issue. Some aspects of this issue can be studied, proven and understood by experimental sciences. And some of these dimensions are outside the realm of experimental science and can not be realized.
And here the method of logical reasoning - philosophy and mysticism can help us to understand the said issues (understanding of the supernatural).
In the Qur'an, it is also said in the ways of experimental sciences. Illusion through logic - philosophy and mysticism. Do not read the Qur'an with the meaning and understanding of 14 centuries ago because it has nothing for you. Rather, read with the knowledge of the day. be up to date. If you do not agree, do not read it at all and put it aside. I apologize to you for telling me about the Quran. Forgive me. Just be logical and read and understand the ways of logic and philosophy to understand the supernatural. This.
Wishing good health and success to all dear friends.

 

[Pixel42]

For example, the complete physical order and laws that exist in the universe and have been proven by science show that the universe was not created by chance. And it must have a builder. So far, all human beings agree.

Not so. The arguments for why many do not agree have been explained to you, and you have completely ignored them.

And if someone does not accept, he has no intellect.

Many of humanity's greatest intellects, including philosophers like Bertrand Russell and scientists like Stephen Hawking were atheists, so this is manifestly untrue. The great majority of scientists are atheists.

 

[wea]

... And if someone does not accept, he has no intellect...

you're one to talk

 

[heydarian saeed]

I think you misunderstood my point. I wished you to imagine two worlds - one in which supernatural things are real and one in which they are not real; they are only imaginary yet some people believe them to be real.

If you could prove whether supernatural things are real then you could prove to us whether we live in the first kind of world or the second kind. But your attempts to persuade us so far seem to require us to believe in things like a soul, which is a supernatural concept, so it cannot be assumed to exist as part of a supposed proof of whether the supernatural exists or not.

I apologise if my use of the word "magic" was distasteful or offensive. It may sound worse in translation. I shall use "supernatural" instead if that is better.

Hello dear and noble friend. Thank you very much for your kindness. We live in the universe in the world of nature and matter. And everything is in matter and nature. But there are other worlds in parallel with this world. The supernatural world is one of them. The world of reason - the world of images and other worlds that I do not know.
I have a question for you dear friend; Can other worlds that are not of matter and nature be proved by material evidence? How can we prove immaterial things by matter? I do not know the answer to this question. And I think that question is irrational. Because immaterial things cannot be proved by matter.
Immaterial things can be proved by the logical methods of logic and philosophy. I think this answer seems more logical. Isn't that so dear friend?

 

[Lothian]

For example, the complete physical order and laws that exist in the universe and have been proven by science show that the universe was not created by chance. And it must have a builder. So far, all human beings agree. And if someone does not accept, he has no intellect. .

Science has not proved that the universe laws were not created by chance.
Millions of humans do not agree that the universe has a builder.
The tendency to be atheist increases with education and intellect.

To be fair what you wrote in the quote above, whilst laughably wrong, a child would see the logical flaws, it is in keeping with the rest of your paper. 10/10 for consistency. 0/10 for accuracy.

 

[heydarian saeed]

Not so. The arguments for why many do not agree have been explained to you, and you have completely ignored them.



Many of humanity's greatest intellects, including philosophers like Bertrand Russell and scientists like Stephen Hawking were atheists, so this is manifestly untrue. The great majority of scientists are atheists.

Hello dear friend and tactfully. Glad to talk to you. I quoted Mr. Stephen Hawking as an example: The universe works according to the laws of physics. What is your argument for this? This is how I understand that the universe has a precise constructor. It does not matter what the name of this manufacturer is. Only the universe has a creator. I have read many examples of scientists talking and I have left some examples for you in my posts.
Scientists who, even as you say or claim to be atheists and infidels, when we read their speeches and books, we see that they have said from evidence that the world did not come into being by chance and is constructive. The important thing is that we all certainly agree on having a constructive universe. In my previous post, I said that anyone who does not have this opinion is not logical and has no intellect. This is the truth. Anyone who claims that the universe is not constructive and that it is a coincidence, let me tell you the answer.
In your opinion, you gave the best answer to this question: no one knows how the universe came into being. In fact, the "no one knows" position is the best answer to this important question. The same answer in deductive and inductive reasoning means "it has a maker but no one knows what or who?"
Please let; Let's logically examine and answer this extremely important question.
Thank you very much

 

[heydarian saeed]

Science has not proved that the universe laws were not created by chance.
Millions of humans do not agree that the universe has a builder.
The tendency to be atheist increases with education and intellect.

To be fair what you wrote in the quote above, whilst laughably wrong, a child would see the logical flaws, it is in keeping with the rest of your paper. 10/10 for consistency. 0/10 for accuracy.

Hi dear friend. No, it is not. The more one knows and increases one's knowledge and understanding, the more rational one thinks and the better one understands and accepts logical opinions. We have a proverb in Iran that says: The more fruit a tree grows, the heavier its branches become and its head falls down. That is, he becomes wiser and more knowledgeable, his pride decreases and he accepts logical words better and faster.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Hi dear friend. The problem with you and me is that you only know experimental science. And you have left other ways or you do not accept. In my article, I have given scientific examples and brief explanations of its up-to-dateness.

No you haven't. You've just mentioned scientific advances or knowledge then attempted to hamfistedly ram parts of the Quran to fit them. Despite many of your examples needing a misunderstanding of what the science actually says, like the big bang = explosion with smoke garbage.

All you're doing is stating your belief over and over again. That isn't persuasive. It certainly isn't logical or scientific.

And then I have proved my claim with logic and philosophy.

Absolute rot. You have proved nothing. No one is convinced by your arguments heydarian. Provide evidence for a soul. Provide evidence for god. Anything at all.

You know that Allah is logically self refuting, right?

Logic and philosophy are accepted by science and scientists. I recommend reading a little logic and philosophy.

How patronising. I've read quite a lot of philosophy. None of what you are doing is proof or evidence of anything. You're just constantly restating your claim over and over again and expecting everyone to accept it as true. That isn't going to happen.

We regularly use logical and philosophical arguments in science and even in our daily lives. It is surprising that you do not know and do not understand logical and philosophical methods.

Hilarious. Of course I understand them, but you are very much NOT using logic and philosophy isn't a very good method of determining objective truth. That's what science is for.

Didn't you say you could prove the supernatural using science though? Didn't you also say you had done so in a lab? Walking back that claim are we?

And he only understood the experimental sciences. It is not possible to understand some things through experimental sciences. And in other ways such as; Logic - Philosophy and mysticism must be examined, proved and understood.

Mysticism is garbage. Logic only works in certain ways and you're not using it.

Excellency; You keep saying that I repeat my claim. Well, because you do not understand logic and philosophy.

Again, patronising garbage. I understand what you are saying, I just think it's nonsense. Do you get that yet?

Let's take a hypothetical. I come to you and I say that flowers are opened by faeries as it says in the great book of flower faeries. Do you accept my claim?

What if I said that this book was written by god. Do you accept it now?

And I keep explaining to you, but you keep saying it.
Dear Friends; Read and understand logic and philosophy so that we can understand each other. Is it clear? !!
Please do not repeat your words so that I do not explain again and repeat my words. sincerely.

All you do is repeat yourself. Over and over again. You never answer questions. You never provide evidence. You just restate your nonsense claims and act like it's some great revelation. It isn't. You're simply incapable of defending your arguments.

 

[heydarian saeed]

... Continue the article:
In this regard, experts in Islam say:
"In fact, a living being is made up of the body plus the soul. If you assemble the dead elements together like a living thing, it will never come to life because it has no soul and empirical science has no way of understanding the soul." "The creation of a virus (the simplest living thing) in 2009 showed how the idea of making a living thing by man has failed."
Continuing their research, scientists created the first ever-programmable living thing, a creature that is neither a robot nor an animal; A creature called Zenobat. Technological foresight, a remarkable combination of artificial intelligence (AI) and biology, has produced the world's first "living robots".
Recently a research group consisting of Robotic engineers and biologists have published instructions for creating a new form of life called xenobots from stem cells.
The term xeno is derived from the frog cells used to make this product. (Xenopus laevis)
"This 'creature' is not a traditional robot or a known species of animal, but a new discipline called a 'programmable living thing,'" says one researcher.
Honeycombs are less than 1 mm long and consist of 500 to 1000 living cells. They come in a variety of simple shapes, for example, some of them have "folded legs". Beads can move in linear or circular directions and move small objects together for group work. They can live up to 10 days using their cellular energy. Although these "adjustable biomasses" can greatly improve human, animal and environmental health, they have also raised legal and ethical concerns.
To make the honeycombs, the research teams used a supercomputer to test thousands of random designs of simple living things that could perform specific tasks. These computers were programmed with an evolutionary artificial intelligence algorithm to predict which organisms would perform as well as move toward a specific goal. After selecting the most promising designs, the scientists attempted to reproduce virtual models with frog skin or heart cells that had been manually grafted using microscopic instruments.

In these models, the heart cells contract and expand, causing movement
They were alive. The makers of honeycombs are well aware of the need for a moral debate about the making of these creatures. The 2018 scandal using CRISPR (which allows genes to be modified in a living organ) is an instructive lesson for bee makers. Although the purpose of the experiment was to reduce the risk of HIV infection in female twins, the dangers posed moral concerns and the scientist who conducted the experiment was arrested. When CRISPR became widely available, Differing views on the achievement, with some experts calling for an end to inheritance genome editing, while others said the benefits outweighed the risks.
Although any new technology should be considered impartially and based on its capabilities, the creation of honeycombs raises important questions:
1. Will the bees become the key to bio-killing without proper control?
2. Who is the decision maker? Who can access and control them?
3. What happens if it is possible to make household items? Should there be a legal deadline until regulatory frameworks are in place? How much regulation is necessary?
By reviewing advances in other areas of science, one can also help manage future risks while taking advantage of potential benefits. ...

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Hello dear friend and tactfully. Glad to talk to you. I quoted Mr. Stephen Hawking as an example: The universe works according to the laws of physics. What is your argument for this? This is how I understand that the universe has a precise constructor. It does not matter what the name of this manufacturer is. Only the universe has a creator. I have read many examples of scientists talking and I have left some examples for you in my posts.
Scientists who, even as you say or claim to be atheists and infidels, when we read their speeches and books, we see that they have said from evidence that the world did not come into being by chance and is constructive. The important thing is that we all certainly agree on having a constructive universe. In my previous post, I said that anyone who does not have this opinion is not logical and has no intellect. This is the truth. Anyone who claims that the universe is not constructive and that it is a coincidence, let me tell you the answer.
In your opinion, you gave the best answer to this question: no one knows how the universe came into being. In fact, the "no one knows" position is the best answer to this important question. The same answer in deductive and inductive reasoning means "it has a maker but no one knows what or who?"
Please let; Let's logically examine and answer this extremely important question.
Thank you very much

You've completely ignored the argument and gone right into preaching again. In fact not only have you ignored the argument you've simply refused to accept that it is true and carried on regardless.

Stephen Hawking stated that the universe runs according to physical laws, yes. He also said that there was no design, there was no god, and there was no direction to the universe outside of those physical laws. He thought it was effectively chance.

 

[heydarian saeed]

... Robotic engineering is also booming. For example, with the help of robotic engineering, nanobots can control people's blood sugar levels and open blocked arteries. With the efforts of robotic engineers and biologists, robots can be combined with living things, such as when a lunar table robot works with optically active cells.
Surely in the years to come we will see more innovations such as honeysuckle, creatures that are surprisingly disturbing. At that time, what matters is that we remain creative and critical.
Conclusion End of article: ...