gensteejay:

Yes, apart from evolution there were several advanced entities (called gods in religion) that designed and fashioned ancient men, microbes, plants, animals.

Those entities also designed suns, moons, and I think planets (not sure I remember this correctly). All these are claims from those books I made mention of earlier.

I think there are some truths in the claims and believe science of today will still get to the level of creating man, through DNA sequencing and cloning, 3D organ printing, and in vitro fertilisation. In the near future, scientists will also be able to design suns, moons, planets.

Did you read the news story reported last year about the artificial moon designed by scientists in China? I think some German scientists also designed an artificial sun.

DNA sequencing and cloning and in vitro fertilisation have already witnessed great breakthroughs in the modern era.

Of course, if they can create a man, designing animals and plants can also be achieved. Obviously, such scientists will face backlash from ethicists and religionists. But it's only a matter of time before science will sound the death knell on religions and superstitious beliefs. It's a gradual process.

All the technologies and techniques for creating man, animals, plants, and astrological bodies are not new; they are only lost or hidden.

Anything any scientist or god creates, in my opinion, is still created by The Infinite Intelligence (who some call God) as every living thing, planet, universe, etc. lie within it and are its aspects. That's my own philosophy as of now.

I have created a topic titled the 'Explanation for Existence'

HellVictorinho:


I have created a topic titled the 'Explanation for Existence'

OK, will go through it.

vaxx:
All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend and you say this are not amazing. If i may ask what will you not consider as masterminded nonsense. I mean what will be logically amazing to you?

I have created a topic titled ' The Explanation for Existence' as regards stuff like that.(e.g.creationism).

Nothing/nobody deserves absolute praise when considered logically absolutely.

gensteejay:

Yes, apart from evolution there were several advanced entities (called gods in religion) that designed and fashioned ancient men, microbes, plants, animals.

Those entities also designed suns, moons, and I think planets (not sure I remember this correctly). All these are claims from those books I made mention of earlier.

I think there are some truths in the claims and believe science of today will still get to the level of creating man, through DNA sequencing and cloning, 3D organ printing, and in vitro fertilisation. In the near future, scientists will also be able to design suns, moons, planets.

Did you read the news story reported last year about the artificial moon designed by scientists in China? I think some German scientists also designed an artificial sun.

DNA sequencing and cloning and in vitro fertilisation have already witnessed great breakthroughs in the modern era.

Of course, if they can create a man, designing animals and plants can also be achieved. Obviously, such scientists will face backlash from ethicists and religionists. But it's only a matter of time before science will sound the death knell on religions and superstitious beliefs. It's a gradual process.

All the technologies and techniques for creating man, animals, plants, and astrological bodies are not new; they are only lost or hidden.

Anything any scientist or god creates, in my opinion, is still created by The Infinite Intelligence (who some call God) as every living thing, planet, universe, etc. lie within it and are its aspects. That's my own philosophy as of now.

will any scientist create a living being either plant or animal without using chemical not produce or the remain of that living entity?

HellVictorinho:


I have created a topic titled ' The Explanation for Existence' as regards stuff like that.(e.g.creationism).

Nothing/nobody deserves absolute praise when considered logically absolutely.

i will go check but needs to answer the question asked

You only condemn what You have a better version for, you don't condemn what you can't recreate.

vaxx:
will any scientist create a living being either plant or animal without using chemical not produce or the remain of that living entity?

Sure, they will make use of things from nature.

gensteejay:

Sure, they will make use of things from nature.

Then that is not creature, that is photocopying from original prototyping. Science may eventually copy the version of the model but will never be able to present their own version of the model.

budaatum:

It was for you, and is an answer to your question, an answer you yourself provided.

I wanted to know his(gensteejay) own definition of God

vaxx:
i will go check but needs to answer the question asked

You only condemn what You have a better version for, you don't condemn what you can't recreate.

The same thing applies to you as regards my description of those things.
'The Possibility of Masterminded Nonsense' is just a possibility.

HellVictorinho:


The same thing applies to you as regards my description of those things.
'The Possibility of Masterminded Nonsense' is just a possibility.

Then i ask what is it that will be term not a masterminded nonsense to you? You can't say A is bad when you have not provide what a good A should look like.

vaxx:
Then that is mot creature, that is photocopying from original prototyping. Science may eventually copy the version of the model but will never be able to present their own version of tbe model.

I think you're looking at this issue through the lens of religion. Science will do that and more.

You only need to stay abreast of current progress and research made by scientists in molecular biology, robotics, stem cell transplant, organ transplant, 3D organ replication and printing.

The possibilities of science in the new age are limitless. In the 20th and 21st centuries, surgeons have been able to transplant virtually every organ in the body, including brain, heart, lungs, etc.

And radical scientists have done a lot of research on techniques for head transplant and have conducted tests on dogs. Vladimir Demikhov, a Russian scientist, is one of such doctors who conducted a series of head transplant experiments and created a 2-headed dog in the 1950s.

Dr. Robert White has also done similar experiments with monkeys. And a number of other doctors.

It's only a matter of time before the techniques will become improved so that they can be suitable for man, to give life to a cadaver.

It's only a matter of time before scientists will be able to create man using things from nature.

Religionists may regard these possibilities as atrocious or heretical but I am an advocate of any technology that will improve human lives, reduce mortality rates across the world, and expand the oeuvres of scientists' research on biological concepts.

And when such milestones are finally made, necessary checks will be put on place to curb any abuse... .

vaxx:
Then i ask what is it that will be term not a masterminded nonsense to you? You can't say A is bad when you have not provide what a good A should look like.

"Good"/"Bad" have nothing to do with these.

If you are saying that there is a 'brain' behind the appearance of Man on Earth,you should also accept that all that has been happening,including the questionables ,are elements of the brain's orchestration.
And only a 'cracked' brain would mastermind such nonsense.

HellVictorinho:


"Good"/"Bad" have nothing to do with these.

If you are saying that there is a 'brain' behind the appearance of Man on Earth,you should also accept that all that has been happening,including the questionables ,are elements of the brain's orchestration.
And only a 'cracked' brain would mastermind such nonsense.

You are antropomorphize the universe by saying is a masterminded nonsense. Therefore we need to known which is not a masterminded nonsense. Hence brought the notion of bad and good.

Universe is natural then there can be no nonsense in it. Nature only trys to get back the balance it should have and does so without consulting our morality. Hence, nature only does what is naturally best to sustain existence. One ‘right' in one place might be wrong in another, but that's all in our mind, fashioned by the perspective we decide to view from. Nature made us, we can only learn from nature because it portrays the purest form of what ‘right’ is. So, nature can't be wrong. The further away we adapt from nature, the more we create an imbalance, when nature corrects that, we call it wrong. Oooh! We are the ones who are wrong ‘naturaly' when we tamper with nature.

vaxx:
You are antropomorphize the universe by saying is a masterminded nonsense. Therefore we need to known which is not a masterminded nonsense. Hence brought the notion of bad and good.

Universe is natural then there can be no nonsense in it. Nature only trys to get back the balance it should have and does so without consulting our morality. Hence, nature only does what is naturally best to sustain existence. One ‘right' in one place might be wrong in another, but that's all in our mind, fashioned by the perspective we decide to view from. Nature made us, we can only learn from nature because it portrays the purest form of what ‘right’ is. So, nature can't be wrong. The further away we adapt from nature, the more we create an imbalance, when nature corrects that, we call it wrong. Oooh! We are the ones who are wrong ‘naturaly' when we tamper with nature.

Nature shouldn't be praised!!!!
And you shouldn't blame Man entirely for certain things,considering the fact that he is "An Outburst of Nature".
As a matter of fact,Nature should blame itself for anything that happens naturally-including Human Behavior-and if the event is super-natural,Super-Nature should be 'bleeped'.
We have a lot to learn indeed but whatever we learn must be beneficial/made to be beneficial.

gensteejay:

[quotei ]think you're looking at this issue through the lens of religion. Science will do that and more.

i think i am being honest and rational about the topic.

You only need to stay abreast with current progress and research made by scientists in molecular biology, robotics, stem cell transplant, organ transplant, 3D organ replication and printing.

The possibilities of science in the new age are limitless. In the 20th and 21st centuries, surgeons have been able to transplant virtually every organ in the body, including brain, heart, lungs, etc.

And radical scientists have done a lot of research on techniques for head transplant and have conducted tests on dogs. Vladimir Demikhov, a Russian scientist, is one of such doctors who conducted a series of head transplant experiments and created a 2-headed dog in the 1950s.

Dr. Robert White has also done similar experiments with monkeys. And a number of other doctors.

It's only a matter of time before the techniques will become improved so that they can be suitable for man, to give life to a cadaver.

It's only a matter of time before scientists will be able to create man using things from nature.

so messing about with bits of pre-existing living entities like placing nuclei from one cell inside a membrane of another is creation? Nah, That is not creating life. It's merely genetic engineering, which is a different thing altogether.To create life, scientists must use inert organic chemicles and arrange them, from scratch, into a self-replicating molecule......Impossible! Not even a butterfly will scientist be able to create.

Religionists may regard these possibilities as atrocious or heretical but I am an advocate of any technology that will improve human lives, reduce mortality rates across the world, and expand the oeuvres of scientists' research on biological concepts.

And when such milestones are finally made, necessary checks will be put on place to curb any abuse... .

They cannot throw a few chemicals in a test tube and create the most basic forms of life. (IE) create life from nothing. Not from some cloned whatever, not from genetic engineering, from nothing. They say that life started from a few chemicals wallowing around in a pool of amino acid, add sunlight and just like magic, we created life. If it was so easy why can't they do it now. The more they dig, the more they find how complicated even the most basic life is. It is design folks not chance.

vaxx, I know your antecedents on Nl as a religionist so I didn't expect less from you.

No scientist can create anything without using things from nature, which is an aspect of God.

If everyone were religious and had those self-limiting beliefs typically encouraged in religions, we would still be stuck in the Stone Age by now.

Even the phone you type your posts on Nl with was engineered using things from nature.

HellVictorinho:


Nature shouldn't be praised!!!!
And you shouldn't blame Man entirely for certain things,considering the fact that he is "An Outburst of Nature".
As a matter of fact,Nature should blame itself for anything that happens naturally-including Human Behavior-and if the event is super-natural,Super-Nature should be 'bleeped'.
We have a lot to learn indeed but whatever we learn must be beneficial/made to be beneficial.

Nature doesn't just mean trees and plants. The definition of nature is, the phenomena of the physical world collectively. Humans are a product of nature. So even if we killed everything else. Nature would still live in us. How should nature be bleeped when we are part of what is called nature.

It is clear from observations that the goal of what we called nature is to make creatures that thrive as best as possible. That is the only result of evolution and adaptation, to see which species adapt and thrive. Those that do, grow. Those that don't, die away. It is an eternal competition of survival of the fittest. We are just the "fittest" when it comes to survival. Under the rules of nature, we should actually be killing off all animals that are incapable of surviving. And that is all what we been doing....

vaxx:

Nature doesn't just mean trees and plants. The definition of nature is, the phenomena of the physical world collectively. Humans are a product of nature. So even if we killed everything else. Nature would still live in us. How should nature be bleeped when we are part of what is called nature.

It is clear from observations that the goal of what we called nature is to make creatures that thrive as best as possible. That is the only result of evolution and adaptation, to see which species adapt and thrive. Those that do, grow. Those that don't, die away. It is an eternal competition of survival of the fittest. We are just the "fittest" when it comes to survival. Under the rules of nature, we should actually be killing off all animals that are incapable of surviving. And that is all what we been doing....

Goodness!!!You are only reiterating my points.
I know nature doesn't just mean trees,rivers,etc.
You are the one that first personified nature in the nature of your statements and I followed suit by saying nature should be bleeped.
You also said we have more to learn and I agreed.
Biology is just part of the 'Ultimate Crap'

gensteejay:
If everyone were religious and had those self-limiting beliefs typically encouraged in religions, we would still be stuck in the Stone Age by now.

Even the phone you type your posts on Nl with was engineered using things from nature.

Historically, religion contribute to the development of technology, the architectural works of cathedral and temple are brain work of religionists architect. What fercilitate technology are two basic things. Food production and religious activities. You need to be abreast with history to invalidate my postulation.

Even physical science refers to a naturalistic approach to the study of the world, which is understood as obeying rules or laws of natural origin. How can science go beyound its subject.

HellVictorinho:


Goodness!!!You are only reiterating my points.
I know nature doesn't just mean trees,rivers,etc.
You are the one that first personified nature in the nature of your statements and I followed suit by saying nature should be bleeped.
You also said we have more to learn and I agreed.
Biology is just part of the 'Ultimate Crap'

oh really, you said the universe. Is a masterminded nonsense which i said it is antropomorphize notion you raised. You need to bring forth what is not a masterminded nonsense.

I am only going by your claim. When you produce alternative to what is it. you really called crap. Your postulation will be taken seriously.

vaxx:
historically, religion contribute to the development of technology, the architectural works of cathedral and temple are brain work of religionists architect. Wbat fercilitate technology are two basic things. Food production and religions activities. You need to be abreast with history to invalidate my postulation.

Even if physical science refers to a naturalistic approach to the study of the world, which is understood as obeying rules or laws of natural origin. How can science go beyound its subject.

The Totality of Possibilities, known or unknown, caused or uncaused, imaginary or real,testable or untestable, is Meaningless!!!!

HellVictorinho:


The Totality of Possibilities, known or unknown, caused or uncaused, imaginary or real,testable or untestable, is Meaningless!!!!

This statement as a whole is meaningless when it is not supported by explanation.

vaxx:
oh really, you said is a masterminded nonsense which i said it is antromophized notion you raised. You need to bring forth what is not a masterminded nonsense.

I am only going by your claim. When you produce alternative to what is you really called crap. Your postulation will be taken seriously.

Possibilities are actualized by the Existential Constant and this can happen at anytime because In-Existence is impossible.

If you truly desire a saner PLANE where the 'Forming of Existence' also takes place,you would have to change/reset the 'Settings' for Existence, which are the functional consequences of the 'Possibility of Existence.’

The 'Possibility of the Existential Constant' represents Existence in different forms.
These 'forms' occur/happen simultaneously to exist and I call this activity the 'The Forming of Existence'
This activity is ever-occurring because the Existential Constant is an ever-existing 'drive' that cannot be determined as regards its form,which is inconsequential.
It doesn't require personification and shouldn't be described as anything other than a 'Constant' which is ever- necessary to keep ''The Possibility of Existence" in Actuality.
The functional consequences of possibilities determine the outcome of actualization.
We shouldn't bother to know 'God'.
"God" is just a word.
'Love,Bad,Good' are just words as well.
And 'WORDS' are 'declarifications'.

vaxx:
This statement as a whole is meaningless when it is not supported by explanation.

"Meaningless" here means 'Not satisfying LOGIC absolutely when considered existentially.'

HellVictorinho:

"Meaningless" here means 'Not satisfying LOGIC absolutely when considered existentially.'

i just told you earlier, logic can go in awe, it is not dependable as its usefulness has limitation.

vaxx:
i just told you ealrier, logic can go in awe, it is not dependable as its usefulness has limitation.

In addition to what I have said about Existence,I would like to state that the Existential Constant is not determinable by time.
There is nothing like 'everything' and there will never be.
The Elements of Existence are different from the chemical elements.
They are actually what we call 'Things'
These things 'happen to exist' at ANYTIME.
But we use words like 'beginning'/'end' because of certain limitations.
There is nothing like the 'total number of things' ,there has never been,and there will never be.

vaxx:
i just told you ealrier, logic can go in awe, it is not dependable as its usefulness has limitation.

LOGIC is always applicable.
And I won't describe what you are implying as 'ABSOLUTE' LOGIC,which involves the Most Complex (not the highest)Form of Reasoning.

HellVictorinho:


LOGIC is always applicable.
And I won't describe what you are implying as 'ABSOLUTE' LOGIC,which involves the Most Complex (not the highest)Form of Reasoning.

Logic is always logical (by tautological definition), but logic is not always rational hence can't always be applicable . Logic starts from a set of presuppositions and works its way through to a set of conclusions, but rationality involves evaluations of those initial presuppositions on moral, aesthetic, ideological, or other non-logical grounds. If one start with different presumptions, one can logically work one's way through to different conclusions.

vaxx:
Logic is always logical (by tautological definition), but logic is not always rational hence can't always be applicable . Logic starts from a set of presuppositions and works its way through to a set of conclusions, but rationality involves evaluations of those initial presuppositions on moral, aesthetic, ideological, or other non-logical grounds. If one start with different presumptions, one can logically work one's way through to different conclusions.

Is it illogical to act rationally?

HellVictorinho:


Possibilities are actualized by the Existential Constant and this can happen at anytime because In-Existence is impossible.

If you truly desire a saner PLANE where the 'Forming of Existence' also takes place,you would have to change/reset the 'Settings' for Existence, which are the functional consequences of the 'Possibility of Existence.’

The 'Possibility of the Existential Constant' represents Existence in different forms.
These 'forms' occur/happen simultaneously to exist and I call this activity the 'The Forming of Existence'
This activity is ever-occurring because the Existential Constant is an ever-existing 'drive' that cannot be determined as regards its form,which is inconsequential.
It doesn't require personification and shouldn't be described as anything other than a 'Constant' which is ever- necessary to keep ''The Possibility of Existence" in Actuality.
The functional consequences of possibilities determine the outcome of actualization.
We shouldn't bother to know 'God'.
"God" is just a word.
'Love,Bad,Good' are just words as well.
And 'WORDS' are 'declarifications'.

in all honesty, i am still trying to wrapped my head around this. Maybe someone else in the house can explain further.

HellVictorinho:


Is it illogical to act rationally?

All acting/thinking is to some degree illogical and irrational. Actually, in human terms, there is no pure or purely rational thought. There are just different levels of cognitions, speculations, estimations, evaluations, judgments, etc