Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
Resurrection day
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
I think we now have enough material to draw conclusions on the matter of resurrection, souls and even probably, truth. And given my state of mind - I'm pretty exerted - I think I should start with the easiest problem to the hardest with ample time for rest in between...
The easiest problem is that of @AlphDoti's great grandmother I believe. It's @Alph's contention that though science can come up with his grandfather's clone, the effort would be incomplete because the scientists wouldn't be able to replicate the chromosomes from the great grandmother and great grandfather, and even conceive the grandfather in simulated space-time.
My response is that if it's at least theoretically conceivable that the technologies and methods of science as of today can solve this problem then @AlphDoti's argument will fail. And this indeed is the case.
Starting with possibility of a synthetic protocell, engineered dna and a quantum computer powerful enough and at least through an ingenious use of simultaneous and non-linear mathematical operations it's possible to recreate (resurrect, in fact) both great grandparents, and consequently, recreate(resurrect) the grandfather.
AlphDoti's objection has mainly relied on the incapacity of scientific method, but there's no reason to believe that the methods above are inexistent or can't be used.
Therefore his objections are very likely to be untrue.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
masukuma wrote:AlphDoti wrote:masukuma wrote:tycho wrote:@AlphDoti, I have another question: when Mohammed the prophet was in the cave, was he visited by Jibril? How did he know it was Jibril? The one thing that we need to understand is that he was in a cave ALONE and he said he was visited by that Jibril fellow. @masukuma, being in cave alone or not disproves nothing. @tycho, first, the history and science bears testimony that it was angel Jibril (Gabriel) who visited the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w at the cave. Secondly, the message from this angel from Allah proves it further: " Will they not ponder on the Quran? Had it not come from someone other than God, they would have certainly found therein many contradictions." [Quran 4:82] Thirdly, the magnificent and extremely beautiful wording and style of the Qur'an prove that the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w was not the source of revelation, but rather in direct contact with the Creator of the world through angel Jibril (Gabriel). the interesting thing is that it was written by one man over a period of 23 years? by one guy? hmmm... indeed! secondly... the argument that the veracity of the book is to be proved by a statement in the book itself is what we call a homunculus argument! one that infinitely regresses and is therefore not fit for argument. Anyway this arguement is pointless as it has been had a gazzilion times and i don't want to make it +1 times more better stick to the facts... testable facts going forward. @masukuma, yes the book says if it were from non other than the Creator, you would have certainly found therein many contradictions. Since you cannot find any contradictions, proves that the over a period of 23 years revelation, came from non other Almighty God.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
tycho wrote:I think we now have enough material to draw conclusions on the matter of resurrection, souls and even probably, truth. And given my state of mind - I'm pretty exerted - I think I should start with the easiest problem to the hardest with ample time for rest in between...
The easiest problem is that of @AlphDoti's great grandmother I believe. It's @Alph's contention that though science can come up with his grandfather's clone, the effort would be incomplete because the scientists wouldn't be able to replicate the chromosomes from the great grandmother and great grandfather, and even conceive the grandfather in simulated space-time.
My response is that if it's at least theoretically conceivable that the technologies and methods of science as of today can solve this problem then @AlphDoti's argument will fail. And this indeed is the case.
Starting with possibility of a synthetic protocell, engineered dna and a quantum computer powerful enough and at least through an ingenious use of simultaneous and non-linear mathematical operations it's possible to recreate (resurrect, in fact) both great grandparents, and consequently, recreate(resurrect) the grandfather.
AlphDoti's objection has mainly relied on the incapacity of scientific method, but there's no reason to believe that the methods above are inexistent or can't be used.
Therefore his objections are very likely to be untrue. @tycho, you're making your own flawed conclusion. I said: science is not able to bring back my grandfather, the real him. And will never be able. Yes, they can do cloning, which is just a copy of him, but never the original him. I hope I have made it clear?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/4/2006 Posts: 13,822 Location: Nairobi
|
AlphDoti wrote:
@masukuma, yes the book says if it were from non other than the Creator, you would have certainly found therein many contradictions.
Since you cannot find any contradictions, proves that the over a period of 23 years revelation, came from non other Almighty God.
are you sure there are no contradictions... I haven't a google search but they are there... by the way your pet topic of for knowledge is summarized as Quote:
Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately describes various stages of pre-birth human development, which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?
Is it correct? Mostly. Most of these claims about human development are true.
Is it in the Qur'an? No. Only if one is looking for these meanings can one find them.
Is it unambiguous? No. Contemporary Greek and Indian accounts had similar ideas of human development.
Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? No. The Qur'an only vaguely references various "stages".
Was it outside of contemporary technology? Yes and no. Some of these stages would have required microscopes; some would not.
Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.
everyone praising that foreknowledge has certain names... i.e. their names betray them. Anyway... I AM SURE THAT IF I GOOGLED IT I WOULD FIND CONTRADICTIONS. is it better literature than the Torah or the bible - YES! written by one guy over 23 years will give you a better product (jn coherence) than 40 odd authors from a span of time and many of them not having read the work of the others. All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
masukuma wrote:AlphDoti wrote:
@masukuma, yes the book says if it were from non other than the Creator, you would have certainly found therein many contradictions.
Since you cannot find any contradictions, proves that the over a period of 23 years revelation, came from non other Almighty God.
are you sure there are no contradictions... I haven't a google search but they are there... by the way your pet topic of for knowledge is summarized as Quote:
Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately describes various stages of pre-birth human development, which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?
Is it correct? Mostly. Most of these claims about human development are true.
Is it in the Qur'an? No. Only if one is looking for these meanings can one find them.
Is it unambiguous? No. Contemporary Greek and Indian accounts had similar ideas of human development.
Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? No. The Qur'an only vaguely references various "stages".
Was it outside of contemporary technology? Yes and no. Some of these stages would have required microscopes; some would not.
Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.
everyone praising that foreknowledge has certain names... i.e. their names betray them. Anyway... I AM SURE THAT IF I GOOGLED IT I WOULD FIND CONTRADICTIONS. is it better literature than the Torah or the bible - YES! written by one guy over 23 years will give you a better product (jn coherence) than 40 odd authors from a span of time and many of them not having read the work of the others. I thought you were screaming for facts? Where are your facts, stuff written by professional enemies of Islam are facts to you? You see I give you confirmation from scientists. Take for example Dr. Keith L. Moore research. Professor Keith L. Moore, PhD, DSc, FIAC, FRSM, FAAA, Wikipedia
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/4/2006 Posts: 13,822 Location: Nairobi
|
AlphDoti wrote:masukuma wrote:AlphDoti wrote:
@masukuma, yes the book says if it were from non other than the Creator, you would have certainly found therein many contradictions.
Since you cannot find any contradictions, proves that the over a period of 23 years revelation, came from non other Almighty God.
are you sure there are no contradictions... I haven't a google search but they are there... by the way your pet topic of for knowledge is summarized as Quote:
Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately describes various stages of pre-birth human development, which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?
Is it correct? Mostly. Most of these claims about human development are true.
Is it in the Qur'an? No. Only if one is looking for these meanings can one find them.
Is it unambiguous? No. Contemporary Greek and Indian accounts had similar ideas of human development.
Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? No. The Qur'an only vaguely references various "stages".
Was it outside of contemporary technology? Yes and no. Some of these stages would have required microscopes; some would not.
Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.
everyone praising that foreknowledge has certain names... i.e. their names betray them. Anyway... I AM SURE THAT IF I GOOGLED IT I WOULD FIND CONTRADICTIONS. is it better literature than the Torah or the bible - YES! written by one guy over 23 years will give you a better product (jn coherence) than 40 odd authors from a span of time and many of them not having read the work of the others. I thought you were screaming for facts? Where are your facts, stuff written by professional enemies of Islam are facts to you? You see I give you confirmation from scientists. Take for example Dr. Keith L. Moore research. Professor Keith L. Moore, PhD, DSc, FIAC, FRSM, FAAA, Wikipedia Did you read my post or did you just think that if I didn't agree with you I must have gotten material from "professional enemies of islam"? All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:I think we now have enough material to draw conclusions on the matter of resurrection, souls and even probably, truth. And given my state of mind - I'm pretty exerted - I think I should start with the easiest problem to the hardest with ample time for rest in between...
The easiest problem is that of @AlphDoti's great grandmother I believe. It's @Alph's contention that though science can come up with his grandfather's clone, the effort would be incomplete because the scientists wouldn't be able to replicate the chromosomes from the great grandmother and great grandfather, and even conceive the grandfather in simulated space-time.
My response is that if it's at least theoretically conceivable that the technologies and methods of science as of today can solve this problem then @AlphDoti's argument will fail. And this indeed is the case.
Starting with possibility of a synthetic protocell, engineered dna and a quantum computer powerful enough and at least through an ingenious use of simultaneous and non-linear mathematical operations it's possible to recreate (resurrect, in fact) both great grandparents, and consequently, recreate(resurrect) the grandfather.
AlphDoti's objection has mainly relied on the incapacity of scientific method, but there's no reason to believe that the methods above are inexistent or can't be used.
Therefore his objections are very likely to be untrue. @tycho, you're making your own flawed conclusion. I said: science is not able to bring back my grandfather, the real him. And will never be able. Yes, they can do cloning, which is just a copy of him, but never the original him. I hope I have made it clear? @Alph, if you go to your post you'll see that you've said that the difference between the real grandfather and the clone is based on genetics. And I have only shown that such a difference may not exist. If the difference isn't genetic, and as you've also admitted the clone has a soul, what then is the difference between your real grand father and his perfect clone?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:I think we now have enough material to draw conclusions on the matter of resurrection, souls and even probably, truth. And given my state of mind - I'm pretty exerted - I think I should start with the easiest problem to the hardest with ample time for rest in between...
The easiest problem is that of @AlphDoti's great grandmother I believe. It's @Alph's contention that though science can come up with his grandfather's clone, the effort would be incomplete because the scientists wouldn't be able to replicate the chromosomes from the great grandmother and great grandfather, and even conceive the grandfather in simulated space-time.
My response is that if it's at least theoretically conceivable that the technologies and methods of science as of today can solve this problem then @AlphDoti's argument will fail. And this indeed is the case.
Starting with possibility of a synthetic protocell, engineered dna and a quantum computer powerful enough and at least through an ingenious use of simultaneous and non-linear mathematical operations it's possible to recreate (resurrect, in fact) both great grandparents, and consequently, recreate(resurrect) the grandfather.
AlphDoti's objection has mainly relied on the incapacity of scientific method, but there's no reason to believe that the methods above are inexistent or can't be used.
Therefore his objections are very likely to be untrue. @tycho, you're making your own flawed conclusion. I said: science is not able to bring back my grandfather, the real him. And will never be able. Yes, they can do cloning, which is just a copy of him, but never the original him. I hope I have made it clear? Alph, if you go to your post you'll see that you've said that the difference between the real grandfather and the clone is based on genetics. And I have only shown that such a difference may not exist. If the difference isn't genetic, and as you've also admitted the clone has a soul, what then is the difference between your real grand father and his perfect clone? What I mean is, a clone of myself is not myself original. The difference between real grandfather and the clone is like father and son. One came form the other and not itself.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:I can tell you, it'll not happen. Bringing life is not in the hands of man. Take that to the bank. And that "miracle" was time bound, no more. @Alph, notice that you've made a proposition without backing it up with reasons. On the other hand, genetics, and genetic engineering and a host of other technologies make it at least hypothetically possible for example to re-create even animals long extinct. Besides, the questions of what life is, and what humanity is have never been really settled. Take this opportunity to reconsider them. It depends what you mean by resurrection. From the death? And as for re-creating, the scientists are not creating anything new. They are just aiding the natural phenomena of a cell meeting another cell to make life. Can those scientists create cells from scratch? http://www.telegraph.co....-about-playing-god.html
The point is, he cannot rebuilt my grand-father's 20,000 human genome genes and three billion base pairs. What he can do is a photocopy of my grand-father, which will be a new person all together called "clone". The only difference between my grandfather and a cloned him is in the genes. He had 23 chromosomes from the mother and 23 chromosomes from the father or 23 pairs in every cell of the body (of course except the germ cells or gametes i.e. sperm or ova). The clone copy of him will have 23 pairs of chromosomes of my grandfather. Here is the post, just to remind 'us'.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:I think we now have enough material to draw conclusions on the matter of resurrection, souls and even probably, truth. And given my state of mind - I'm pretty exerted - I think I should start with the easiest problem to the hardest with ample time for rest in between...
The easiest problem is that of @AlphDoti's great grandmother I believe. It's @Alph's contention that though science can come up with his grandfather's clone, the effort would be incomplete because the scientists wouldn't be able to replicate the chromosomes from the great grandmother and great grandfather, and even conceive the grandfather in simulated space-time.
My response is that if it's at least theoretically conceivable that the technologies and methods of science as of today can solve this problem then @AlphDoti's argument will fail. And this indeed is the case.
Starting with possibility of a synthetic protocell, engineered dna and a quantum computer powerful enough and at least through an ingenious use of simultaneous and non-linear mathematical operations it's possible to recreate (resurrect, in fact) both great grandparents, and consequently, recreate(resurrect) the grandfather.
AlphDoti's objection has mainly relied on the incapacity of scientific method, but there's no reason to believe that the methods above are inexistent or can't be used.
Therefore his objections are very likely to be untrue. @tycho, you're making your own flawed conclusion. I said: science is not able to bring back my grandfather, the real him. And will never be able. Yes, they can do cloning, which is just a copy of him, but never the original him. I hope I have made it clear? Alph, if you go to your post you'll see that you've said that the difference between the real grandfather and the clone is based on genetics. And I have only shown that such a difference may not exist. If the difference isn't genetic, and as you've also admitted the clone has a soul, what then is the difference between your real grand father and his perfect clone? What I mean is, a clone of myself is not myself original. The difference between real grandfather and the clone is like father and son. One came form the other and not itself. Like father and son, even when both obviously have different pair of parents each? Or rather are you saying a son is the father's clone?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:AlphDoti wrote:tycho wrote:I think we now have enough material to draw conclusions on the matter of resurrection, souls and even probably, truth. And given my state of mind - I'm pretty exerted - I think I should start with the easiest problem to the hardest with ample time for rest in between...
The easiest problem is that of @AlphDoti's great grandmother I believe. It's @Alph's contention that though science can come up with his grandfather's clone, the effort would be incomplete because the scientists wouldn't be able to replicate the chromosomes from the great grandmother and great grandfather, and even conceive the grandfather in simulated space-time.
My response is that if it's at least theoretically conceivable that the technologies and methods of science as of today can solve this problem then @AlphDoti's argument will fail. And this indeed is the case.
Starting with possibility of a synthetic protocell, engineered dna and a quantum computer powerful enough and at least through an ingenious use of simultaneous and non-linear mathematical operations it's possible to recreate (resurrect, in fact) both great grandparents, and consequently, recreate(resurrect) the grandfather.
AlphDoti's objection has mainly relied on the incapacity of scientific method, but there's no reason to believe that the methods above are inexistent or can't be used.
Therefore his objections are very likely to be untrue. @tycho, you're making your own flawed conclusion. I said: science is not able to bring back my grandfather, the real him. And will never be able. Yes, they can do cloning, which is just a copy of him, but never the original him. I hope I have made it clear? Alph, if you go to your post you'll see that you've said that the difference between the real grandfather and the clone is based on genetics. And I have only shown that such a difference may not exist. If the difference isn't genetic, and as you've also admitted the clone has a soul, what then is the difference between your real grand father and his perfect clone? What I mean is, a clone of myself is not myself original. The difference between real grandfather and the clone is like father and son. One came form the other and not itself. Like father and son, even when both obviously have different pair of parents each? Or rather are you saying a son is the father's clone? No, son is not a clone of the father. But son has half the genes of the father. The son is a different individual from the father. Son = 23 chromosomes from father + 23 chromosomes from mother Clone = 23 chromosomes from original + 23 chromosomes from original Son ≠ father Son ≠ mother Clone ≠ original
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
@AlphDoti, when you explain how the father and son aren't the same I can understand.
The problem arises when you try to differentiate the clone from the original. So I'll ask again, what makes them unequal or different, since as you've conceded, the difference isn't genetic? Certainly the father-son analogy doesn't help!
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 10/8/2008 Posts: 1,575
|
tycho wrote:@AlphDoti, when you explain how the father and son aren't the same I can understand.
The problem arises when you try to differentiate the clone from the original. So I'll ask again, what makes them unequal or different, since as you've conceded, the difference isn't genetic? Certainly the father-son analogy doesn't help! Though not sure, but a human is a product of the genes and social / environmental influences. These influence would make it difficult to 'resurrect' @alph grandpa I care!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/4/2006 Posts: 13,822 Location: Nairobi
|
thuks wrote:tycho wrote:@AlphDoti, when you explain how the father and son aren't the same I can understand.
The problem arises when you try to differentiate the clone from the original. So I'll ask again, what makes them unequal or different, since as you've conceded, the difference isn't genetic? Certainly the father-son analogy doesn't help! Though not sure, but a human is a product of the genes and social / environmental influences. These influence would make it difficult to 'resurrect' @alph grandpa the differences in experiences will define a person - biologically the two would be the same but not as a person. things like what you were fed when you were young, what you saw and experienced. e.t.c. defined 'you'. even if it was possible to clone a grown-up. they would only be similar at the time of cloning and they would be more and more different as time went by - only being 'one' in their experiences. All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
Anti_Burglar wrote:I have been watchingn and now I have to say something. I find it disturbing how Alphdoti is being slippery around our revered thinkers and they cannot pin him down even in one lousy point.
Wakanyugi, like an enzyme, has confessed he is not active on Alphdoti's substrate while Tycho is still 'preparing a response' whatever that means and Maskums is asking about amoebas .... C'mon guys, bana. Is it a slow day or what?
Where is the passion, the fire with which you have scorched believers and they ran back to their gods in tears weeping at the rought treatment you meted to them?
hehehehe. This argument seems to assume that Alphadoti is an intellectual lightweight, he is not. He just happens to like religion very much. As for me, I have a policy not to argue with religion, unless I am practicing my favorite hobby - baiting the cacophonous citizens of the Christian right. Plus I happen to like Mullah Alph since that day he resisted putting a fatwa on me after I had confessed to, uhm....liberating a Koran. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: User Joined: 1/20/2014 Posts: 3,528
|
Was just passing by wasting time as i wait for furahaday time for phombe. Isorite  Formal education will make you a living. Self-education will make you a fortune - Jim Rohn.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
tycho wrote:
My response is that if it's at least theoretically conceivable that the technologies and methods of science as of today can solve this problem then @AlphDoti's argument will fail. And this indeed is the case.
Starting with possibility of a synthetic protocell, engineered dna and a quantum computer powerful enough and at least through an ingenious use of simultaneous and non-linear mathematical operations it's possible to recreate (resurrect, in fact) both great grandparents, and consequently, recreate(resurrect) the grandfather.
I have been following at least two approaches that Science is testing, towards achieving imortality. If we are lucky we might live to see both of them demonstrated convincingly: 1. Interfering with the human body by: slowing aging, cryogenics, cloning... for instance, to make people live longer. The biggest proponent of this approach is of course Ray Kurzweil 2. Isolating consciousness (the essence of what it means to be a human being) so that it can be saved on computer drives or transferred from one vehicle to another. Both of these approaches will have a massive impact on society - starting with a complete recasting of what it means to be a human 'being'- and the entire ethical moral, economic, religious, cultural and social edifice that has been constructed upon this foundation. I am not surprised that people like Alphadoti and his co-religionists are worried, or in denial. I think I would be too if I was invested in the supposed infallibility of a 2000 year old belief system. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
Wakanyugi wrote:Anti_Burglar wrote:I have been watchingn and now I have to say something. I find it disturbing how Alphdoti is being slippery around our revered thinkers and they cannot pin him down even in one lousy point.
Wakanyugi, like an enzyme, has confessed he is not active on Alphdoti's substrate while Tycho is still 'preparing a response' whatever that means and Maskums is asking about amoebas .... C'mon guys, bana. Is it a slow day or what?
Where is the passion, the fire with which you have scorched believers and they ran back to their gods in tears weeping at the rought treatment you meted to them?
hehehehe. This argument seems to assume that Alphadoti is an intellectual lightweight, he is not. He just happens to like religion very much. As for me, I have a policy not to argue with religion, unless I am practicing my favorite hobby - baiting the cacophonous citizens of the Christian right. Plus I happen to like Mullah Alph since that day he resisted putting a fatwa on me after I had confessed to, uhm....liberating a Koran. @Wakanyugi, which one was it
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2008 Posts: 6,275 Location: Kenya
|
masukuma wrote:thuks wrote:tycho wrote:@AlphDoti, when you explain how the father and son aren't the same I can understand.
The problem arises when you try to differentiate the clone from the original. So I'll ask again, what makes them unequal or different, since as you've conceded, the difference isn't genetic? Certainly the father-son analogy doesn't help! Though not sure, but a human is a product of the genes and social / environmental influences. These influence would make it difficult to 'resurrect' @alph grandpa the differences in experiences will define a person - biologically the two would be the same but not as a person. things like what you were fed when you were young, what you saw and experienced. e.t.c. defined 'you'. even if it was possible to clone a grown-up. they would only be similar at the time of cloning and they would be more and more different as time went by - only being 'one' in their experiences. Now this is a good discussion... @masukuma thank you for abandoning hoaxes from sites which are ever bitter with "others" and lack sobriety in all the articles...
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 9/11/2015 Posts: 1,024
|
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
Resurrection day
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|