immortal

It is a plausible view, a tone which you'll often hear from Christian conferences and preachers. I'm not a fundamentalist or a radicalist, if one say so much about religion why not say this too. The problem is it is being promoted as a anti-religious thing not just a thought on the bad consequences of religions and their followers. This outright over throws the basic tenets of religion, what is left in religion now.

Yes there were few pacifists who had this view mainly Jesus Christ and Mahatma Gandhi. Displaying an act of humility even when being treated very badly by someone. Turning the other cheek What does it mean?

I'm a God fearing person, that's what I believe in and that's how I intend to live the rest of my life. All I see in that original article is a work of Satan with his golden cup feeding humanity with the hope of freeing them from bondage, evil and sins but what is really hidden beneath is just filth. I really don't like to be part of that religion, its my personal opinion. True religions and the words of gods do exist and it is in these times when humanity worship a false deity, fail to abide in the truth and show pride makes him angry on us. This is not anything different from how people got into vile affections and started worshipping a false deity before Moses brought the Ten Commandments from the high mountains.

Its something which some of our politicians promise to give us during the elections but exactly do the opposite after they've won it. If democracy is for the people, by the people and to the people, why give the power to make decisions to only one individual and keep hoping that he or she would bring us fortunes when its never going to change any sooner, instead with the advent of social media and other networks we can have an interactive system with both the public as well as the government interacting with each other and make a poll on every issue of the society and be a part of the decision making process rather than wait for 4 or 5 years bearing all the pain of inflation, price rise and other social factors.

Before you can really start writing pretty good progams in a particular programming language, you should first know some of the basics like, 1. What are the instruction sets and their corresponding functions, operators, headers and data types that are supported. 2. How to declare the variables and the keywords used. 3. How to assign the memory addresses and initialize them. 4. How to prototype the functions. 5. How to define the functions. 6. How to call the functions. If it is a object oriented language how to create objects and constructors. 7. How to compile and execute them. With this much basics you can use logic to implement your problem in which ever programming language you wish to solve the problem in. The same problem can be solved in many different ways and each programmer may have his own choice of the program constructs and methods used to solve the problem. That is why we have patterns or Idioms to understand the code developed by a programmer more easily.

The term "insight" or "intuition" is not very well understood in the neurobiological sciences as to my knowledge of it is concerned. I agree with your representation part that we have internal structures (synaptic plasticity) which maps based on a one-to -one function of what is there in the real world to an internal representation of every factor that is involved. There is no problem here and the brain accomplishes this with the process of learning. This is something what the first person and the second person can easily see. As you said earlier the process of insight is similar in all of us even though different content might originate when we think deeply. But we don't know what this process is, the best attempt to explain of what the hell is happening here was given by Roger Penrose, see his work on Penrose Tilings. A computer can only do what it has been programmed to do, it can not have its own insight, it can not think, therefore they can not answer problems where we have to make decisions of 'yes' or 'no' and no algorithm exists to decide on the answer, but human beings with their insights can solve those problems and hence penrose claims that the thought processes in our minds had to have non-computable essence to it. Since we yet don't know much of this non-computable physics we're not sure as to what this process is. Therefore a third person can come up with a new insight, a new knowledge which the first person and the second person don't see it. Yes this would mean that the third person has to have a knowledge which is logically consistent with the knowledge of the first person and the second person mean to say his persepective of what he takes as literal and figurative must be the same with the persepctive of the first person and second person, only then an increase in knowledge can be possible and this how much of the science works. Note that the third person can go and put himself on the shoes of the first person as well as the second person and understand them (from his internal representation of the brain) and also go on to have a new insight ignoring the first person and the second person and claim increase in knowledge which both the the first person and the second person could easily see the truth of it and we all can agree on it.

The signatures at the bottom of members posts will be pretty wise and authentic themselves.

That would depend on where you would slap me, in public or a private room, also on your gender and other conditions. An egoistic person will obviously urge towards you with the aim of inflicting pain to you since his self-image was scrutinized under a wide public I bet he would really want to kill you but he controls since he knows that the public is watching him and doesn't like to destroy his self-image, if he is humble then he would show you his other cheek so that you can slap him again. It seems people act differently during different situations making a judgement on one's own personal image of how others think of them.

Since it comes with their own modem device which act as a client, it may be possible that the client device by default request for a service to display their homepage after the connection has been established. I use a wireless internet connection and even though I changed the settings (of the modem device) of the options tab and made the URL- as a default page, it continues to display their homepage at start up irrespective of what URL you specify there.

The feeling of pride is a result of the thinking ego continuously making judgements about one's own possessions, achievements, accomplishments and qualities. It is caused by a feeling of individuality, when ego cease pride ceases to exist too.

Ah!, now I see it, so you want to know of a thing that is both figurative as well as literal (a same entity) which we all can agree upon and see the truth of it. So the thing which is there as a model in my brain figuratively also exists in the outside world literally. I'm not sure we can have many examples of it. For example:- Colour only exist inside our minds as a figurative thing it doesn't exist in the physical world, in the physical world it is just electrons jumping back and forth from energy gaps eliminating a photon of a particular wavelength and frequency, so it doesn't exist literally in the outside world. It seems that the mental elements are different from physical elements, the problem is more inherent and not in just our thought processes. It was not my intentions to diverge the topic of this thread, sorry if I had confused you, I just thought of understanding what you meant in your OP by asking it through my own example as to "is this what was there in your mind when you posted your OP". You can take your own time and come back and open this thread again when your thoughts are more rightly placed, we'll always be there to contribute something to it.

No you have mistaken here, only a small population of red marbles gets diverged from the whole of red marbles and turn to blue marbles and whatever happens after that is independent of those two populations. The red marbles and the blue marbles are on their own in the evolutionary race. Whales and cockroaches have not changed much since millions of years, it is because they are under normalizing selection and most species exist in nature under such a constraint where as two competing species competing for the same resources will co-evolve rapidly. Are you claiming that the 'seed' is the DNA or is it something else? Does it have properties that DNA doesn't have? What it is made up of? How can I extract it? We can not have a discussion unless you define it clearly. You claim that the seed is the pivotal force accounting for all the changes that we see in diverse organisms with the environment having no role to play. This contradicts science and our observations, so if we have to accept your claim as correct please provide the data of how the seed transforms itself there by accounting for the changes we see in the organisms. No, an angel appeared to me today morning and told that the 'seed' is a mass luster of light and not DNA or chip and she even showed me the seed inside my body. I even had adopted a method to see it. This is how one would validate a theological claim. It was the angels who revealed the truth of the Gospel to the Apostles and it is only through their revealations one can understand and should interpret their words. As you can see this is not how science operates and my claims are not scientific. Now you keep insisting that you are talking science here, you claim that the 'seed' is literally the DNA in our cells and you assign the functions of the seed to DNA and claim this as scientific. So please kindly show us how and what transcending forces changes the structure of the DNA to develop novel functioning designs and please stop drawing conclusions by defending your claims just by assuming that it is the only possible interpretation available. I have shown you that it can be interpreted as something else. Why should I or the scientific community believe in you? Show us how this works or admit that your claims are not scientific. This would mean that the seed somehow hides in itself all the necessary information to produce a bacteria, a human, a lemur and all the diverse organisms that we see or it is transformed by something else. Again please show us how this is achieved since it doesn't correlate with our observations. If it is established as a scientific fact according to you then how did the universe creator created the universe, science works by testifying the models or by falsifying it not by logical conclusions, how can we testify your claim, how do you show that it falls with in the boundaries of science.

The information carrying capacity of any self-reproducing system is inversely propotional to the rate of copy error. It means over time the information gets lost due to high error rates so to compensate that it uses a startegy called genetic redundancy. Genetic redundancy measures the number of extra redundant bits of information that has to be added in order to ensure that information is efficiently transmitted with out any loss. So a high error rate will increase the selective advantage for genetic redundancy which increases the genomic size. It gives a theoretical maximum possible increment to the genomic size and energy constraints and other factors determine the practical possible increment in genomic size, as you can see this strategy is inadequate in preventing information loss. So a large genome doesn't mean increase in information. The redundant gene duplications can undergo functional divergence due to the force of natural selection and it is this which adds new information and the redundant gene after under going functional divergence no longer provides a buffering from the mutations to its other gene copy.

Astrologers claim that the position of planets will affect events happening in our lives and scientists would obviously deny that view since it has no basis. I, a third person can claim that the gods present inside our bodies stimulate our minds and control everything from our thoughts to things happening in our lives and the position of planets merely give us a prediction as to how these gods might stimulate us from behind since we can not see gods with our normal eyes. The astrologers view is figurative and the view of the scientists is taken as literal. A third person can have a view which is part literal and part figurative and claim that there is something really out there which makes those things happen. I was always a believer that god's knowledge of things is very much different from ours, one has to have god's perception of things (god's eye) to understand his words.

Evolution works by accumulation of small favourable changes and these changes have nothing do with speciation which requires reproductive isolation. Biologists have tools and specific definitions to whether or not to divide the populations of organisms into distinct species or keep them under a single species. Populations can be divided into distinct species even if they are morphologically similar to each other i.e I mean to say morphological differentiation and reproductive isolation develops independently in organisms. There are many examples of such cases. Evolution works by sudden bursts followed by a perios od statis and speciation is well observed in ring species of birds, we have molecular clocks to determine when they got diverged, geology provides the conditions that existed during that time, the numbers show us the patterns and the patterns add up consistent with our observations. Define a 'seed' factor. How do you know that your interpretation of Genesis is valid? How do you say that when Genesis talks about the 'seed' factor it is actually talking about the DNA and genes in our cells? What is the method that we can adopt to know or to observe that the 'seed' factor is somehow being injected to cells and helps it to pass on the data? How do you show that your argument has any basis in science? It is not a premise which evolution claims to defend. The theory claims to explain the origin of diversity among the organisms not the origin of life itself. It is the subject of abiogenesis to explain it. How can you draw such conclusions? It can also be possible that your assumption of a singular, irreducible and indivisible entity can not perform an action is wrong. Why is that theology has to be approved by science, it has its own claims and its own methodologies (very different from science) to falsify them. Therefore just because you have back up scientific evidence for your theological claims doesn't necessarily mean that other theological claims are false or wrong. It is better to keep your theological claims in Religious forums. Have you read the references that were given to you. Reptiles and Aves had the necessary information in them to develop as either males or females, it is the environmental conditions that was present outside the eggs that determined which sex emerged out from the egg. Later on Evolution by Natural Selection assigned this job to the chromosomes themselves (XX-females and XY-males) which determined the development of sexes. You the one who is claiming that it was intiated by something. What initiated it and how does it help us in the increase of knowledge than what we know of?

Oh yes stratified epithelia is an exception, I'm still learning.

It was moved from the Psychiatry and Psychology forums. Oh! Yes, definitely, I find that eastern thought can be better understood with Sanskrit or any other similar languages having good source of sanskrit words, there are specific words which will distinctly distinguish between the entities and helps us to better understand their literature but if you translate the same literature into english then it sounds gibberish, it doesn't have the same efficacy as the former one and therefore it prevents one to have deep insights when thought in that language. I wonder what views did Steven Pinker and Noam Chomsky had about the language as the tool of thought.

Every organism on this earth in one or the other way is trying to reduce entropy and it is self-organizing itself, but in the process there are a few products which are produced that are harmful for the cells and increases the damage as time prolongs. Cells depend on ATP's to do most of the tasks like intercellular communication, cell division, cell motility, action potential transmission etc and the same process which produce ATP's also give up oxygen free radicals which cause much wear and tear in cells and eventually to cell death. This process is called aging. The cells do pocess pre-programmed instructions to terminate themselves but they will not be activated unless there is some selection pressure acting on the genes. For example :- When prions attack the neurons they terminate themselves for small traces of prions in their protoplasm even before the concentration of prions increases there by preventing the spread of the prions to other brain cells. There are other mechanisms as well, like at the end of the chromosomes we have some repeated redundant bits of information called teleomeres which will be chopped off one at a time every time the cell divides and it monitors the number of times a cell can divide, in some cases the teleomere ends of the chromosomes join together to become a fusion which may lead to cancer and other genetic abnormalities. So all these factors which are internal and other external environmental factors cause the organism to die preventing them to proliferate again and again.

The spams have started to look more and more legitimate, thanks to Akismet for filtering them out. I don't know how bad this is.

The problem where I see with your definition of love is that Love happens, its not something which you try to make it happen or can be excluded and included at your will. To me to say that hate is the opposite of true love would mean to completely change the semantics of true love and then making it as its antonym. We can say the opposite of short is tall because the context is same in both, i.e height. When we say the opposite of love is hate the context doesn't match, i.e "TRUE". True love never dies, so the opposite of it must be indifference, a feeling which never began or existed in the first place. exactly

I guess your perception of it is wrong or you're missing something. This picture shows the lining of the alimentary canal and it is very much similar to how the lining is done in stomach and it might give you some insights. The mucous membrane which is the innermost lining of the stomach is where you'll find the different epithelium cell types and it has to be a single layer of cells since it is basically used for absorption and secretion and hence the reason they are used for lining internally and you won't find them on places where there are too much stress, if you find them then they're dead like on your skin. This image shows how the peritoneum which has two layers called the parietal(thick dark lines) and visceral(slightly shaded region) is covering the various internal organs from the side view. In between these two layers a small amount of serous fluid exists. In Anatomy it is always important to understand the terms like posterior, anterior etc Anatomical terminalogy .

I must say Love somehow originates from hatred. If you're truly in love with an entity you would love to see it in your arms not in someone else's arms, you would hate to see that. If you start hating something which you truly loved then it wasn't true in the first place. So if we stress on the word "true love" then hate cannot be the opposite of it, it has to be indifference where you no longer feel the difference between the entity being in your arms and the same entity in someone else's arms.

I didn't realized I had to drag the "Yours yearly contributions" bar to the extreme left hand side which will vanish the payment options and make akismet free. Yeah who likes to spend from their paypal and visa accounts so I just shew away from that site seeing those payment options but my blog kept asking for an API key to activate Akismet. Its fixed now. Thanks for enlightening me.

Now Nasa says that there are no planetary alignments in the next few decades, but I don't know in what context they said that. This is what I found out on the simulation. Is this literally an alignment?. I also clicked on the A.D and the B.C buttons provided there and the planets were mostly aligned in a different way on B.C too, so that means that the grouping of planets is a normal phenomena which occurs frequently and no further teleology has to be attributed to it and the earth has existed for 4.5 billion years, it has seen more things like these than we do. What do you think, does it mean anything scientifically?

Oh sorry, I see that the personal plan is free, though it doesn't have much features of the pro and enterprise plans. I think a free personal plan is more than enough to tackle the spams for our blogs. Apologies for posting misinformation.