Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Scale Of Universe Revealed In New Ultraprecise Galaxy Map

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   

GargIndia
reply to post by paradox
 


"Death is a biological metabolic function"

What the hell this means???

Help! help! If somebody can figure this out for me. This is a new one.


It's "a new one" to someone who doesn't know how to keep up with modern science. Cells are biological. Every cell has a metabolism which are the chemical processes that occur within them to maintain life of the cell. Your body is constantly killing off old cells that no longer function as needed. As you age, cellular metabolic functions slow. this is why the body degrades. Eventually the body reaches a point where it is killing off old cells faster than it can produce new ones needed for survival. Organs fail, and this causes natural death.



And don't you run away. Prove what you say.
Intellectual dishonesty is running from an argument.


I asked you if the hypothesis of a "soul" is supported by science and logic. You said it is, yet you are trying to turn it around and somehow question me and say that I made a claim. You can no longer back up your argument, yet you will continue to sit here and reply with meaningless drivel because you can not be a man and admit your wrongs. the ignorance is too much. What you have is an unfounded belief. It would be best for you to come to terms with that before starting a debate with someone who is keen on facts.
edit on 1-23-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


"Your body is constantly killing off old cells that no longer function as needed."

What is this "body". I thought body is made of cells.

Your argument-1: "Every cell has a metabolism which are the chemical processes that occur within them to maintain life of the cell."

Your argument-2:"Your body is constantly killing off old cells that no longer function as needed. As you age, cellular metabolic functions slow. this is why the body degrades."

Is your argument-1 in agreement with argument-2?

On one hand, you say that each cell is independent having a metabolism and dying when metabolism stops.
On the other hand there is a "body" that forces cells to die.

And why "age" coming into picture. What is your argument-1 and argument-2 have to do with age?

You think through what you are trying to say.

The existence of soul is proven everyday in events called birth and death. Which "science" does not know that? Which "logic" does not know that. Tell me.

You simply do not have the courage to accept the facts. You are a hand-me-down guy repeating and rehashing what you have been told.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   

GargIndia
reply to post by paradox
 


"Your body is constantly killing off old cells that no longer function as needed."

What is this "body". I thought body is made of cells.


the body is made of cells, I am using layman's terms because you are obviously extremely ignorant on the subject for no reason other than your own lack of will to do any research. What do you think cells contain? DNA. I hope you know what DNA is, or will I have to explain that as well? Cells have been found to divide only a certain amount of times. With each new cell division, telomeres on chromosomes (made of DNA) progressively become shorter. telomeres are parts on the ends of chromosomes that protect the chromosome from deteriorating. As those become shorter, the chromosomes will deteriorate, metabolic function will cease, and cell division will stop. the failure of cells to continue dividing is referred to as "cellular senescence," and the process by which this happens is called "apoptosis."



Your argument-1: "Every cell has a metabolism which are the chemical processes that occur within them to maintain life of the cell."

Your argument-2:"Your body is constantly killing off old cells that no longer function as needed. As you age, cellular metabolic functions slow. this is why the body degrades."

Is your argument-1 in agreement with argument-2?


I hope now you can understand that it most certainly is!



On one hand, you say that each cell is independent having a metabolism and dying when metabolism stops.
On the other hand there is a "body" that forces cells to die.


Read above!



And why "age" coming into picture. What is your argument-1 and argument-2 have to do with age?

You think through what you are trying to say.


those are the reasons FOR age, deterioration, and death of the body. Your initial statement was that "we don't know why we die," well, there you go! It is a direct response to your fallacious statement.



The existence of soul is proven everyday in events called birth and death. Which "science" does not know that? Which "logic" does not know that. Tell me.


I don't think you know what the word "proven" means.



You simply do not have the courage to accept the facts.


"Facts" either, for that matter!


You are a hand-me-down guy repeating and rehashing what you have been told.


You're not? At least science backs me up, lol. I am not saying a soul does not exist, I am saying the hypothesis of a soul is backed neither by logic nor science like you have claimed repeatedly now.
edit on 1-24-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   

neo96
What is with this 'finite' crap ?

A. The universe is constantly expanding.

B. With black holes and super massive black holes would mean a constant state of 'contraction'.

Just stating an opinion here nothing says anyone has to agree.

But it is BOTH expanding and contracting.

A constant state of motion.

Maybe a more apt word to be using is 'universal ebbs' like tides.



i can see the tides as a description of the universe. sounds reasonable.
i see in my mind that black holes are not holes at all. i think they are extremely dense solids with a tremendous amount of gravity. i read and hear lots of different explanations of what a black hole is but this idea i have makes sense to me.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   
If the Universe is infinite then does that not collide with the idea of a Multiverse or more than one Universe?

Neo96 seems to come close to my ignorant belief of the Universe. I've always had problems with the Big Bang theory. My lowly idea is a Universe that is infinite and that all was not created from one singularity. I've always thought of the Universe as not unlike an ocean with ebbs and flows. Why couldn't an event like a Big Bang occur WITHIN the Universe that was already there instead of all that we see being created from a singularity? Could it be just a simple matter of perspective?

As for expansion. I have a bit of a problem trying to wrap my mind around that as well. If the Universe is expanding and galaxies are being expanded away from us in all directions then why is Andromeda getting ready to slam into the Milky Way? Also if the observable Universe and everything in it is expanding then how in the world would an observer notice? I just can't take a tape measure and measure it being the tape measure itself is expanding at the same rate as everything else. Wouldn't that be zero-sum?



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


"I am using layman's terms because you are obviously extremely ignorant on the subject"

You are a fool to assume that. Use scientific language.

Your first paragraph says "Cells divide only a certain number of time"

What is this 'certain number'.

"I hope now you can understand that it most certainly is! "

No it is not. You fail to see your own arguments. One one hand, you say that cell is dying on its own due to its own structure and ageing. One the other, you argue that there is a 'body' - another entity, which is "constantly killing old cells". What is this body? What is this "body" made of and how it is making cells die?

"those are the reasons FOR age, deterioration, and death of the body. Your initial statement was that "we don't know why we die," well, there you go! It is a direct response to your fallacious statement."

You quote my exact words. I am not interested in your opinion of my words.

You are explaining 'death'. Do not make your logic circular by saying "those are reasons for age, deterioration and death of the body". Explain your position clearly.

"You're not? At least science backs me up, lol. I am not saying a soul does not exist, I am saying the hypothesis of a soul is backed neither by logic nor science like you have claimed repeatedly now."

What kind of a "science person" are you? One that takes what is told as truth without applying logic.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Terminal1
 


It is hard to prove "universe is infinite" this way or that. So we must leave this question unanswered.

"Universe is expanding" is a question which can be attempted. The issue is "red-shift" of light that comes from distant galaxies. Red-shift means increase in wavelength that indicates increasing distance. However red-shift can also be due to other factors which may be unknown at this point in time. For example regions of intense energy which exist within galaxies and between galaxies.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   

GargIndia
reply to post by paradox
 


"I am using layman's terms because you are obviously extremely ignorant on the subject"

You are a fool to assume that. Use scientific language.


that is obviously failing as I provided specific terms and yet here you are arguing instead of researching.



Your first paragraph says "Cells divide only a certain number of time"

What is this 'certain number'.


In vitro, it has been found to be around 50 divisions. It's referred to as the Hayflick limit.



"I hope now you can understand that it most certainly is! "

No it is not. You fail to see your own arguments. One one hand, you say that cell is dying on its own due to its own structure and ageing. One the other, you argue that there is a 'body' - another entity, which is "constantly killing old cells". What is this body? What is this "body" made of and how it is making cells die?


My last post clearly stated I was referring to DNA, which is why cells even exist in the first place. the body regulates itself through DNA. "the body" is indeed made up of collections of different cells, but these different cell types all perform different functions....governed by DNA. "Why cells die" was already addressed previously. Read.



"those are the reasons FOR age, deterioration, and death of the body. Your initial statement was that "we don't know why we die," well, there you go! It is a direct response to your fallacious statement."

You quote my exact words. I am not interested in your opinion of my words.



Okay here!
"scientists till date have not explained why death occurs."

that still takes absolutely nothing away from the point I made. Another strawman.



You are explaining 'death'. Do not make your logic circular by saying "those are reasons for age, deterioration and death of the body". Explain your position clearly.


How is stating the process by which death occurs "circular?" the question is directly addressed. You simply do not like being schooled.



"You're not? At least science backs me up, lol. I am not saying a soul does not exist, I am saying the hypothesis of a soul is backed neither by logic nor science like you have claimed repeatedly now."

What kind of a "science person" are you? One that takes what is told as truth without applying logic.


One that takes facts and doesn't make up my own definition of what "logic" means.

"Science must be based on direct or indirect observations that can be proved. " - You

Yet you do not accept this proof because it doesn't mesh with your belief system!

In case you haven't noticed, I have been giving you a lot of valuable information, yet you have not once presented a counter argument. Instead, you choose to nitpick and banter with strawman arguments that do nothing to add productivity to this conversation. If you can't come up with anything mentally stimulating in your next reply, I honestly don't see any point in this continuing further.
edit on 1-26-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


My belief system is "truth". This is the only belief system that I adhere to.

You are coming from a certain belief system that works more on obfuscation and violence. So it will take time.

"In vitro, it has been found to be around 50 divisions. It's referred to as the Hayflick limit."

In which situations, the cells fail to divide and die? (This question is very important and must be answered clearly.)

"the body regulates itself through DNA."

And where is this "DNA". If DNA is within cells, than any logic applied to 'cell' automatically applies to 'body' as 'body' is made of cells. So when you introduce a new term 'body', you must explain is it having the same characteristics as a cell or different? For example, your car is made of metal and each part of your car bears the properties of metal for example it is subject to fatigue due to stress and corrosion due to oxidation.

"How is stating the process by which death occurs "circular?" the question is directly addressed. You simply do not like being schooled. "

What I am seeing so far from your arguments that you are explaining the "process of ageing". You fail to see that process of ageing is not the process of death. For example many young ones die. Many infants die of various reasons, apart from ageing.

Important point: Not able to see something does not mean its does not exist.

The soul is always explained by indirect evidence. The reason is simple. You need a certain degree of spiritual advancement to see your soul, as well as soul of another person. You cannot see a soul by your eyes or "material" instruments. You always see your soul by faculties that are beyond the material. We make a difference between "material" and "spiritual" for a reason.
edit on 27-1-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-1-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   

GargIndia
reply to post by paradox
 



You are coming from a certain belief system that works more on obfuscation and violence. So it will take time.


What? trust me man, I have had plenty of experiences to know where you're coming from. I just like to play devil's advocate sometimes and take things from a more logical standpoint since emotions are more prone to misinterpretation.



"In vitro, it has been found to be around 50 divisions. It's referred to as the Hayflick limit."

In which situations, the cells fail to divide and die? (This question is very important and must be answered clearly.)


Could you clarify what you mean by which situations? In vitro means they are simply observed acting as they act. they do this automatically. As before, with each division telomeres on chromosomes get shorter eventually causing deterioration of the cell itself.



"the body regulates itself through DNA."

And where is this "DNA". If DNA is within cells, than any logic applied to 'cell' automatically applies to 'body' as 'body' is made of cells. So when you introduce a new term 'body', you must explain is it having the same characteristics as a cell or different? For example, your car is made of metal and each part of your car bears the properties of metal for example it is subject to fatigue due to stress and corrosion due to oxidation.


the body (defined as the collection of all cells) is the sum of its parts (individual cells). this is why changes at the cellular and molecular level show through your features. think of genetics. You may have your mother's nose and father's smile, or a birthmark your grandma has, and it's all determined in the molecular structure of your DNA. this is why genetic engineering is so amazing because you can literally change the physical structure of something.



"How is stating the process by which death occurs "circular?" the question is directly addressed. You simply do not like being schooled. "

What I am seeing so far from your arguments that you are explaining the "process of ageing". You fail to see that process of ageing is not the process of death. For example many young ones die. Many infants die of various reasons, apart from ageing.


Here is where the confusion was. I had assumed you were referring to 'natural' death (age). All death happens due to vital organs not being able to perform the proper functions necessary to sustain life, but the way this happens can vary. With age, it's due to a naturally gradual breakdown of cells over time. this could lead to liver failure, heart failure, etc. With anything else, it could be due to an injury sustained, or disease, but the fact remains that death occurs when vital organs cease to function properly. I know you're looking for an answer like "the soul is ready to move on," and that's not out of the question per say, but that is the physical explanation for why death occurs.



Important point: Not able to see something does not mean its does not exist.


I agree.



The soul is always explained by indirect evidence. The reason is simple. You need a certain degree of spiritual advancement to see your soul, as well as soul of another person. You cannot see a soul by your eyes or "material" instruments. You always see your soul by faculties that are beyond the material. We make a difference between "material" and "spiritual" for a reason.
edit on 27-1-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-1-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)


As I said before, I am not denying any existence of a soul.
edit on 1-27-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


Paradox,

Our discussion on "death" has the potential of becoming a very long one (perhaps 100s of pages), so it is best that a new thread is created for it.

I need to question both your lab methods as well as your conclusions. This may result in a lot of arguments.

Your science does not understand death. However it will take much discussion to establish that.

Truth can come out only when we strive for it. It is not a question of belief systems - I am not here to say that my belief system is better than yours. Science can be a very good means to understand God - as 'Veda' says God is 'sat'. 'Sat' means truth. Nobody can get closer to God without knowing truth. However the truth cannot be seen without being honest.

The western science fails many times because scientists are working for a motive of profit rather than a quest for truth. There is huge pressure to fit into existing system. When you question the system, you have to fight the system, which is not profitable. This is the reason science has developed into a cult, rather than a method of liberation or getting to the truth.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


Sorry don't come on here too often anymore ..if I want close-minded regurgitation I can turn on the television.

In response...the ocean IS measurable.

Infinity that which is immeasurable..not can WE measure it. It IS immeasurable meaning it has NO divisions in which to count. It is not LIKE anything. They use that for the feeble so that they can have some kind of feeble understanding of infinity.
The other definitions given are people with closed minds that cannot absorb such a concept .."like something very big" "Dick and Jane saw an infinite circus" LOL

You have no clue what you are talking about...but you keep pretending that you do.

Think be fore you speak.

Peace.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join