Helen
Implicitly explicit
Schrödinger's coffee?
Does procreation offer proof;
- Thread starter Bishadi
- Start date
Schrödinger's coffee?
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 23,518
I second this request.
With 2 request, then i must answer.
It is so whacked that the per se experts cannot answer honestly because it contradicts much of their whole education.
ie.... if the life is still alive beyond the death of the immediate body, then 'life' is not following the entropic belief of the complacent. Kind of like what darwin and galileo did to some religious adherants, just presented arguments that cannot be denied, except by them who retain ingorance, by choice.
nescafe
Caffeinated Beverage
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 862
So? What gravity is may be up to debate (exchange of virtual gravitons? spacetime getting bent? things sucking in a very general sense? The FSM pushing down on everything with Invisible Noodly Appendages?), but we can describe what it does to a ridiculous degree of accuracy.
And if you have been "pursuing truth" on your own for the last 30 years without critical review the odds are very good that you have done nothing more then build a monument to your own brilliance that has nothing to do with the real world. Humans are very good at mistaking rationalization for rational thought, that is why critical review is so important.
OK, sure.
Zig? Sol? What is gravity?
That has yet to be seen.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 23,518
Then why didn't you answer?
So you think that the fact that offspring survive after the death of their progenitors proves some violation of thermodynamics?ie.... if the life is still alive beyond the death of the immediate body, then 'life' is not following the entropic belief of the complacent. Kind of like what darwin and galileo did to some religious adherants, just presented arguments that cannot be denied, except by them who retain ingorance, by choice.
nescafe
Caffeinated Beverage
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 862
Or not. The Earth is not a closed system. We are situated between a energy source (the Sun) and an energy sink (interstellar space). As long as the Sun continues to shine, we will have more than enough energy flow to sustain life.With 2 request, then i must answer.
It is so whacked that the per se experts cannot answer honestly because it contradicts much of their whole education.
ie.... if the life is still alive beyond the death of the immediate body, then 'life' is not following the entropic belief of the complacent. Kind of like what darwin and galileo did to some religious adherants, just presented arguments that cannot be denied, except by them who retain ingorance, by choice.
All of my post high school science education has been by reading popular science books (Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Phil Plait, Jared Diamond, etc), a bit of philosophy of science (Karl Popper, Daniel Dennet), and following popular sciency blogs (Bad Astronomy, pharyngula, science daily news, singularity watch, etc). I am far from an expert on cosmology or biology, but I can see that your ideas are either too incoherent to be expressed or hilariously inane (and sometimes both). Comparing yourself go galileo and darwin is just icing on the cake -- I have not read Galileo, but Darwin was able to explain his claims with some truly excellent writing along with backing up his claims with evidence that only the willfully ignorant could deny. You have neither.
SumDood
Muse
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Messages
- 936
With 2 request, then i must answer.
It is so whacked that the per se experts cannot answer honestly because it contradicts much of their whole education.
ie.... if the life is still alive beyond the death of the immediate body, then 'life' is not following the entropic belief of the complacent. Kind of like what darwin and galileo did to some religious adherants, just presented arguments that cannot be denied, except by them who retain ingorance, by choice.
Yeah, okay. Since you said this:
(bolding mine)
I was hoping that you had an example of how 'big boy' math is 'off the crock'.
Everyone else is more generous. The way this reads to me, you're arguing for life after death--the life of INDIVIDUALS after death (the soul, spirit, something like that). If you've got proof that such an entity exists, please present it.
If you're talking about the offspring surviving after the death of the parent....I'm confused as to how anyone can find significance in that. The offspring aren't the parent.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Sure, we can start there.
How does "energy combine" relate to the Phospholipid bilayer?
the first 2 are good inquiries as they reflect reality.
the second 2 are just cute
i dont disagree about that at all. In fact, thanks! To all them contributers.... i believe they are whom to give thanx to as they did it by choice.
i think on that most every day i awaken to consciousness (every morning). ie.... i do not believe 'normal' could not be applied to me. IN fact in a sense, i believe most would have done themselves in.
be certain, i question myself more than you could imagine and i believe it is that very humble point of each day that reminds me "i am alive".
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
Is the OP human or a machine? If only there were some sort of test we could carry out...
i know the 'life' furthers after death but not some spirit with memories clinging to it like religious belief. ie... memories are bound to the mass, just ask any alzheimers patient.
yet darwin, WON! His contributions live within the lives of billions!
ie... some of us are the children of kings, still alive (look up how cell division works, then combine that reality of biology to 'procreation')
ie... they are still alive within us all (in the flesh; raised just by comprehending it) (then apply that utter rule of "honor thy mom and pops" to mean, what you do is doing it to them......... literally (so be responsible for your actions)
did i mention that reality combines a whole bunch of stuff?
i just did and the funny part is, you can know it too (be fair, be honest, seek the comprehension of 'life'
sure they are as the life is still of the previous generation (the light (energy) of the mass) but each 'individual' is just of their own coherance (consciousness of the total mass (body) combines with the memories of previous experience, all capable of knowing itself as being)
yet the previous spark of that single cell (sperm/egg) is alive within
ie.... procreation provides evidence that 'life abuses entropy'
i can't find a way around that
a rehash to be clearereerrer
life does further after our choice is gone.
a) ........darwin.........the example......... what he did, the splash he made, the contribution of his energy to impose the writings of his observations, are still causing action all over this world (like a wave on a pond, the good will combine and live with others, the bad will fade (but still there))
b) ..........the procreation is of the nature of instinct; the life of the mass 'intends' to continue.
and them rules are not just of choice (a consciousness makes) but also of the very nature of energy (resonant upon itself (electromagnetic/light; electric and magnetic fields in perpendicular planes))
so most everything i base my point of view on is based on that very item; light
so there you have it from a nut
This is precisely the kind of insult we're saying you use.
As for the rest, the concept that individual cells die and are replaced is, like the concept that children survive their parents, trivial. It may be a problem for philosophers (the whole "what is identity" thing), but it's not an issue for biologists. They've got miosis and mitosis figured out, more or less.
Learn biology and physics. The sentences that came before this are nonsensical once you learn the basics (high-school or gen ed college level understanding) of those two subjects.
than if a cell divides is it giving a portion of itself to live into the next generation? yes or no
ie... the old died but the life still lives (nothing entropic about that)
the insults come when you discount what you already know but instead of using common sense you insult me.
again............... you insult but know dam well the physiological and scientific application is fact, just not within the frame you comprehend.
you insult yourself with your pride
Last edited:
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
You insult us with your ignorance.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
No. This doesn't even make sense--there is no "life force"; it's chemistry. The two daughter cells each get DNA, organells, chemicals, mitochondria (specifically called out because it's the powerhouse), etc. Like I said, in biology this is a non-issue. It's called miosis and mitosis.
Either I know it, or it's not within "the frame you comprehend" (in other words, my paradigme). It cannot be both.
This has nothing to do with pride. You're questioning miosis and mitosis--I called them out specifically so that you can look them up and learn for yourself what exactly goes on.
At least one thing makes sense. You assume that there is a life-force of some sort (some sort of light, far as I can tell), which is why you bring up physics in a biology thread. However, that idea was discounted over a century ago.