I am an atheist and I object to your observation that "... "the whole is greater than the parts"is an atheist argument."
We accept nothing without evidence and the statement "the whole is greater than the parts" has no evidence as far as I know. Words like 'The whole' 'greater' etc are relative terms which can be applied only to specified conditions.
I do not understand why biased perverts have to attack atheists at every opportunity.
Atheists deny all the gods. There are billions of gods. But for arguments sake let us assume there are only1000 gods. A Christian believes in one god and rejects all the other 999. So he is a theist as regards the one god he believes in and is and atheist as regards the 999 gods he rejects. A Muslim believes in one god and rejects the other 999 and so he is an atheist as regards the 999 gods he rejects. Thus every theist believes in one god and is atheistic towards the other 999 gods. In contrast, we reject all 1000 gods, just one god more than what the theist rejects. So, whether you like it or not, you are also an atheist as regards all the gods in the world except for the few you believe in.
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 14:41, DevinderSingh Gulati devindersingh.gulati2@gmail.com [TheBecoming] <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
No this needs a different response.He is saying "the whole is greater than the parts"It is an atheist argument."Nature is everything"."Wholeness emerges from nature"."Nature is intelligent".Well, he is entitled to his understanding.We will leave it at that.He has no business then to find fault with another understanding.On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:57 PM Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Dear Bodhi Dhanapala,
It seems that you have lost the ability to have even commonsense because of the power of hypnotism of Darwinism. I have told you before also that Bodhi Dhanapala is not an outcome of mechanical and chemical accumulation of many organs. You can't expect Bodhi Dhanapala to appear by mechanically or chemically joining the separated organs (like, nose, eye, kidney and so on) of Bodhi Dhanapala nor you are an outcome of just a random accumulation of your cells. Even by that type of process you can't expect to see an airplane manifest. You cannot convince any rational person about your irrational argument that airplane is an emergent property of random accumulation of materials like iron, plastic and so on.Further more, biological wholes are completely different than the simple mechanical/chemical wholes like airplane/water. Biological wholes are self producing in nature: Life comes from Life — biogenesis.Has your science degree and theories like Darwinism made you so dull headed that you have lost even the common sense? First convince yourself about the emergence concept to justify how a simple whole like airplane can appear from that, then you should think about appearance of more complex entity — living cell (the simplest life form) from that process.
Humanity at present is suffering due to the brainwashing of the masses on the name of advance science with such illogical concepts about life and reality as a whole. A world wide movement is needed to release the suffering humanity from this conditioning of 'hypnotism of science'.
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:55, Bodhi Dhanapala bodhi_dhana@yahoo.com [TheBecoming]<TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Now you have given up th the "incredulity argument" and come up with a new one.You say "Chemicals don't have a property like personality, you can yourself check the properties of all subatomic particles, atoms, molecules and their combination, if you find anyone of them have a property of personality then let us know with reference".Before I explain about personality, let us take a simpler thing.Have you heard of "wetness"?You may ask, chemicals like H2O do not have "wetness".If you take just one molecule of H2O it does not have wetness.Even a 100 does not.But take 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 water molecules (e.g., Avogadro number of molecules ) at room temperature, now you have a property called "wetness"..
The whole is MORE than the parts.Assemblies of particles have properties NOT found individual building blocks.Such properties are called "emergent properties".A virus is just a bunch of protein molecules. But the molecules, thousands in number, assemble together at the right conditions of temperature and pH to join up as a "virus", just as water molecules assemble together to make liquid water when cooled.Chemists can synthesize simple viruses. They are NOT living organisms.But put them into a living being, and they will make you SICK.
So, individual protein molecules don't have infectiousness, or personality, but a collections of them put together in a certain way have infectiousness, and that is their personality!Such properties are called "emergent properties".On Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 1:32:12 AM GMT-5, Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:{{{{According to me, science consists of all things proved so far}}}}
Does it has the proof for1. Life coming from Matter – Abiogenesis?(Science is already teaching about it for more than 100 years and the preachers of science – scientists never care to provide proof for the same!)2. Fish coming from bacterium?(Those in science who are preaching that we came from apes, have they ever provided the proof for the same? Such preachers may believe that their forefathers were apes but why they expect whole world should accept it just on the basis of faith?)3. Order coming from explosion – Big bang?(Many gullible people happily accept that by an explosion everything created in our universe but they have problem when it is being told that things are coming by an organic developmental processes [like a miraculous development that we see in embryological development] from first life — God. That is called 'hypnotism of scientists' that our society is suffering at present.){{{{God theorists assert that God is monitoring everything in the universe, and also assert that the fact that the universe is running is itself the proof that He is running it. If He is running, then why is there so much evil in this world and why at all He has taken 3.77 billion years to bring, say, the earth and its inhabitants to this shape and that too an imperfect shape?}}}}It appears that you are unaware of the meaning of term God and thus you are using it in such an ignorant manner. Your question sounds like a criminal is asking why he/she has to suffer in jail when the king of the country is capable of giving facility for good life. First of all the criminal must know why he/she landed in jail (material universe) and then the further inquiry can be made about the reality beyond jail (spiritual world) where the conditioning of jail is not present.
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:38, Srinivasa Rao Kankipati ksrao34g@gmail...com [TheBecoming]<TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:According to me, science consists of all things proved so far, and religion consists of all things not disproved so far. Science will take time to prove that a mysterious force called life will enter a body as soon as it is fit to entertain life. This is an irrefutable fact. But none can throw a challenge to a scientist and ask him to prove it in twenty days or else accept the God Theory, that God is "manifesting" himself in all beings or that he is "running" the universe from his far-off throne. My belief is that God, if he exists, may or may not have created Nature and its rules, by which it gradually evolves and is still evolving. And the glaring fact is that, He wont interfere in Nature's working, no matter how we pray. If He tries to intervene in favour of any favoured person, Nature will say, "Sorry, Sir, Please keep off. I cannot deviate from my rules even if You sponsor". God theorists assert that God is monitoring everything in the universe, and also assert that the fact that the universe is running is itself the proof that He is running it. If He is running, then why is there so much evil in this world and why at all He has taken 3.77 billion years to bring, say, the earth and its inhabitants to this shape and that too an imperfect shape?On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 21:09, Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:{{{{When you say "You seems to be either impatient or don't have intelligence to understand things" again you are making ad hominem" remarks and attack at the personal level, instead of staying with the facts.}}}}You have a personality? What are you taking about? It is completely contradicting your own stand. According to your own argument you are nothing more than a bunch of molecules. Chemicals don't have a property like personality, you can yourself check the properties of all subatomic particles, atoms, molecules and their combination, if you find anyone of them have a property of personality then let us know with reference. Laboratory atoms and molecules cannot feel offended and insulated because they have no ability to feel anything. You say that you are being personally attacked by a statement but you are attacking the whole humanity and entire living sphere with your irrational idea that life is nothing but a bunch of chemicals. Please think about that!{{{{So your whole argument is based on the incredibility of believing that such complex systems can arise naturally.Have you looked at the complexity of an eddy of whirling water?Have you looked at the complex Lisajou's figures that come out of the motion of coupled pendula?, and what happens to them if you add chaotic trajectories. Have you tried the well known "game of life" where you easily create life-like complexity on your computer screen starting from simple building blocks?Then you will realize that given enough time, ANY DIGREE OF COMPLEXITY can be achieved.}}}}Forget about living cell, please do a brain yoga and try to inquire 'can the unguided forces in nature produce the building that you are living from readily available building blocks?' The computer simulation "game of life" is nothing more than a cartoon show which will make children happy with their achievement only in imagination as they often seek happiness from video games. The plain fact is this 'all the scientists in the world working together and using all their science cannot produce a blade of grass.'{{{{No one has told you that a plane manifested like that. We KNOW how the plane manifested.The question is how living cells came into being. That is being answered by Synthetic Biology.}}}}Just by using a term synthetic biology you can deceive the gullible public but not to those who understand the fact that scientists always started with chemicals and end up with chemicals, they have no way to produce biology from chemistry. So it is always 'Life comes from Life' - biogenesis and synthetic biology is a term used only to deceive the gullible public and synthetic biologists cannot show by their experiment the process of abiogenesis.{{{{In 2010, the Venter lab announced that it had created the first bacterium with an entirely synthetic genome with no intervention from "God".}}}}With proper brain yoga you have to try to understand what Venter actually did and then you will realize that Venter has only achieved a massive genetic engineering in a already existing living cell and it has nothing to do with abiogenesis. You may watch: https://youtu.be/9a6bWllKfmMIt is not surprising for us to see that you are being completely brainwashed by Darwin's warm little pond concept. You need proper brain yoga to come out of this hallucination: Why Darwin's View of Life is Unscientific?
On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 6:37, Bodhi Dhanapala bodhi_dhana@yahoo.com [TheBecoming]<TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:When you say "You seems to be either impatient or don't have intelligence to understand things" again you are making ad hominem" remarks and attack at the personal level, instead of staying with the facts.....Now you are saying "If someone tells you that iron, plastic and other materials became complex by the process of evolution over time and thus airplane manifested, then will you believe it? A living cell is even much more exceptionally complex system than an artifact like airplane".So your whole argument is based on the incredibility of believing that such complex systems can arise naturally.Have you looked at the complexity of an eddy of whirling water?Have you looked at the complex Lisajou's figures that come out of the motion of coupled pendula?, and what happens to them if you add chaotic trajectories. Have you tried the well known "game of life" where you easily create life-like complexity on your computer screen starting from simple building blocks?Then you will realize that given enough time, ANY DIGREE OF COMPLEXITY can be achieved.
Conway's Game of Life
The Game of Life, also known simply as Life, is a cellular automaton devised by the British mathematician John H...
No one has told you that a plane manifested like that. We KNOW how the plane manifested.The question is how living cells came into being. That is being answered by Synthetic Biology.That question is being answered already in many labs.Pollack A.. "U.S. Bioethics Commission Gives Green Light to Synthetic Biology.." The New York Times. 16 December 2010In 2010, the Venter lab announced that it had created the first bacterium with an entirely synthetic genome with no intervention from "God".Annaluru N, Muller H, Mitchel LA, et al. "Total Synthesis of a Functional Designer Eukaryotic Chromosome." Science 344, 55–8 (2014).Hutchison CA, Chuang R, Noskov VN, et al. "Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome." Science 351, 1414 (2016)On Sunday, May 24, 2020, 12:10:20 AM GMT-5, Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Thank you Devender ji.
This is all common sense and we don't need fertile brains of scientists to understand this. At present it seems scientists and their blind followers don't have even this common sense.
On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 10:23, DevinderSingh Gulati devindersingh.....gulati2@gmail.com [TheBecoming]<TheBecoming@yahoogroups..com> wrote:Bravo Surashji. Most cogent reply.On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:06 AM Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:You seems to be either impatient or don't have intelligence to understand things.... Our video presentation has given the recent reference about how scientists are perplexed about place of life's origin and thus they are fighting with each other about it. They are far from explaining the mechanism for origin of life.
You have correctly told "The chemical evolution hypothesis in the present context is hypothesis that molecules that can copy themselves (reproduced) evolved from even smaller molecules like methane, carbon dioxide , inorganic phosphates etc.., as these are/were abundantly found in the early earth when life appeared some 3.77 billion years ago." but have you ever thought about the stupidity of this proposal by scientists?If someone tells you that iron, plastic and other materials became complex by the process of evolution over time and thus airplane manifested, then will you believe it? A living cell is even much more exceptionally complex system than an artifact like airplane. It is only those who have no rationality, such dull headed people accept these sort of foolish proposals by scientists and do not protest the miss utilisation of public funds in such wasteful acts of childishness on the name of scientific research.You are only talking about production of parts (molecules) but those parts are already available in a living cell.. Can scientists produce a cell by joining those parts (by taking needed molecules from a living cell)? Can scientists produce Bodhi Dhanapala by joining the separated parts (say, eyes, nose, kidney, brain and so on) of the body of Bodhi Dhanapala? Think about it! Life (organisms) doesn't come by mechanical assembly or chemical accumulation of parts. Organisms manifest by a miraculous (unknown and unknowable for present mechanistic science) organic developmental process. Even a child can understand this..
On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 4:27, Bodhi Dhanapala bodhi_dhana@yahoo.com [TheBecoming]<TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:The chemical evolution hypothesis in the present context is hypothesis that molecules that can copy themselves (reproduced) evolved from even smaller molecules like methane, carbon dioxide , inorganic phosphates etc., as these are/were abundantly found in the early earth when life appeared some 3.77 billion years ago.I don't make ad hominem remarks. I am not ignorant, and neither are you..
What ever Darwin said about it in the 19th century is not relevant now, because we have more detailed knowledge about all this, and it is such science that should be discussed.Here are some research papers of most recent relevant research:Research
09 March 2020 | Open Access
Hydrodynamic accumulation of small molecules and ions into cell-sized liposomes against a concentration gradient
How small molecules could have accumulated within hypothetical protocells on the early Earth .…
Hironori Sugiyama, Toshihisa Osaki[…]Taro Toyota
Communications Chemistry 3, 32 (2020)
Research
06 May 2020
Genomic competition for noise reduction shaped evolutionary landscape of mir-4673
Ramin M. Farahani, Saba Rezaei-Lotfi & Neil Hunter
Systems Biology and Applications 6, 12
Research
04 May 2020 | Open Access
Turbulent coherent structures and early life below the Kolmogorov scale
Madison S. Krieger, Sam Sinai & Martin A. Nowak
Nature Communications 11, 2192
30 April 2020 | Open Access
NMR analysis of nucleotide π-stacking in prebiotically relevant crowded environmentMolecular crowding such as that which may occur in model protocells is known to reduce the rate and fidelity of…Communications Chemistry 3, 51
Niraja V. Bapat, Harshad Paithankar[…]Sudha Rajamani
Research
03 April 2020 | Open Access
Intercellular communication between artificial cells by allosteric amplification of a molecular signal
Bastiaan C. Buddingh', Janneke Elzinga & Jan C. M..... van Hest
Nature Communications 11, 1652
Research
11 March 2020 | Open Access
Compositional heterogeneity confers selective advantage to model protocellular membranes during the origins of cellular life
Susovan Sarkar, Shikha Dagar[…]Sudha Rajamani
Scientific Reports 10, 4483On Thursday, May 14, 2020, 11:13:47 AM GMT-5, Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Namaste Bodhi Dhanapala ji.You seems to be completely ignorant about "chemical evolution" hypothesis. Please spend sometime to learn these subjects and then comment.We have not yet discussed anything about the problems with the steps after chemical evolution (about biological evolution). However, that will also come in our future parts.Thank you.Sincerely,Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.On Thursday, 14 May, 2020, 09:37:17 pm IST, Bodhi Dhanapala <bodhi_dhana@yahoo.com> wrote:As I already mentioned, "Darwin's warm little pond", or even the fossile record are NOT needed for the theory of evolution which claims that humans descended from apes, and from earlier forms of life, and traces this lineage right down to unicellular living beings (eucaryotes, archea) etc.We now have evidence from genetics, molecular biology to prove this step by stem. Also, such single cells have now been produced artificially in Vitro.Unfortunately the U tube speaker does not deal with any of this, but merely claiming that "public money" is being spent for this.Merely denying some thing is enough.On Thu May 14 2020 09:19:11 GMT-0500 (EST), Bhakti Niskama Shanta suresh_bbsr2000@yahoo.com [TheBecoming] <thebecoming@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
--
"All new ideas good or bad, great or small start with a one-man minority" - anonymous
A man without god is a man. A God without man is nothing!!
__._,_.___
Posted by: Xavier William <varekatx@gmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
KERALITES - A moderated eGroup exclusively for Keralites...
To subscribe send a mail to Keralites-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Send your posts to Keralites@yahoogroups.com.
Send your suggestions to Keralites-owner@yahoogroups.com.
To unsubscribe send a mail to Keralites-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Homepage: http://www.keralites.net
To subscribe send a mail to Keralites-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Send your posts to Keralites@yahoogroups.com.
Send your suggestions to Keralites-owner@yahoogroups.com.
To unsubscribe send a mail to Keralites-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Homepage: http://www.keralites.net
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment