Reply to 'Quest for Wisdom'

First of all go here and read: this, this, this and this.

garg.mitanshu says some stuff here

I have a hell lot to tell you.

There you are going on and on about how science has cheated you, and how the widely accepted theories are wrong and incorrect. Your thought process amuses me.

Take for example the below excerpt from your monologue.

• You could hardly expect to drive in your new Honda City through the polluted roads of Delhi and inhale the fresh smoke of vehicles and industry.

Without science I wouldnt really be expecting to drive at all. Oh did I mention we went to the moon?

• You could hardly find hospitals treating AIDS, Cancer and heart problems.

Without science, you could hardly 'find hospitals'. I dont really need to mention Insulin, chemotherapy.. oh there are loads more, I just dont remember.

• You could hardly expect the productive industries to cause rainfall, which could supply all "essential" acids to our high school labs.

Its the same industries that give you the standard of life you are living. I can guess your reply to this, but I'll save it.

• You could hardly expect space shuttles blowing up in mid-air.

Bet you could hardly expect space shuttles at all.

• You could hardly expect 60% marriages ending up in divorce.

Really, what has science got to do with it? I'll reply anyway. Sure they end up with 60% failures, but why dint you mention the % by which rape has been reduced. Why dont you mention how many social evils have been reduced(or is it eliminated). Sati, child marriage, and the kind. Infact does divorce have a major role in 'measuring' happiness. In your style Divorce=>unhappiness.. which => 60% of the people are unhappy.

• You could hardly expect ozone layer getting depleted.

w/o Science, would you know what a 'Ozone layer' is?

• You could hardly expect teenage pregnancy.

Read my reply to the marriage thing.

• You could hardly expect any nuclear radiations

Read my reply to the ozone thing.

Then you rant with:

There are ants in my room. In summers, I enter my room at 7.30pm, switch on the light and fan. What will professor Ant-Newton say: "Whenever there is light, a strong wind blows whose magnitude increases initially and then become constant. When the magnitude starts decreasing, the lights go out and there is darkness." Thus we will have an Ant's Law of Wind motion.

If a blind man wants to see the sunset, he has to first get his eyes treated. His inability to not see the sunset doesn't prove that the sunset doesn’t exist. Rather, it only proves his limitedness.

In the absence of your proof, you accept mine.

"If all our theories and arguments about how universe and life came into being, then you tell the truth."

'Absence of proof'? Hello, you are sitting there, right? At your computer, typing. ever wondered why you aren't flying off. Ever wondered what's keeping you off from flying off into space (which BTW, exists).

Not everything of what you say is crap, Infact you have no idea what YOU are saying:

If a blind man wants to see the sunset, he has to first get his eyes treated. His inability to not see the sunset doesn't prove that the sunset doesn’t exist. Rather, it only proves his limitedness.

Rather, it only proves your limitedness.

More humour follows.

One thing modern science is responsible is in widely propagating the idea that everything can be explained on the basis of the known material laws of physics. Science can solve the problems of man. But it is a different kind of science. It is the science of search for truth. The science that reveals the absolute truth. This is what a layman thinks science is all about. However, it is after that he realizes that science essentially means power, money, fame etc. Sooner or later, the intellectuals of our society are going to have to wake up to this rude shock. But then it might be too late!

The only thing you got there right is 'Science can solve the problems of man'. Here's the irony. Can it solve you? Yeah.. You. Talking about what laymen think. Do you have any idea what laymen would think after reading your soliloquy?

Here he goes on, until finally ending with (err.. panache?)

You know I would have a lot of respect for you if you had replaced 'Inconsistencies' with 'Queries' or similar. Science isnt all-knowing entity. We make best of the resources/information we have. You are going on about this is wrong, as that hasnt been shown/explained. Do you know of a better 'theory'? A least have you come across one that explains these mysteries better. Anything more solid than, "Oh that guy up there with the white beard did it". If you are a proponent of Intelligent Design, well.. that says it all.

It may be possible you were only tring to bring forward the inconsistencies as a matter of fact, but footer gave you away. (And your title :'Quest for Wisdom', ironic, isnt it?)

Here he goes on..

In fact, they hold their stance essentially on faith, in the face of all sorts of scientific objections.

Yes, if 'proof' and 'reason' are faith. You quote, but give no references. Who do I reply to?

Life came from matter
From where is it coming now? Do you want to say that ants are born from dirt? They have no reproduction system.

Really, you got me there? Tell me how did you get to work on that computer? Did it just puff out of thin air right on top of that table(which had a very memorable pff of itself). And by GAWD, how did all those buildings come from, because of what i remember of 300 BC, there weren't any.

We have produced amino acids in labs which are basics of life.
It is the organisms that live and not chemicals. Create human life.

Now, now, why dont you go and play in the corner.

Do you even understand that invention isnt possible without resources. Imagination is the precursor to invention.

We will create life from biochemical in future.
Give me $100000000 today and I will return them back after 1000 years or will you accept a postdated cheque?

I think reason lost with that sort of an example. Really, is there anything of substance that will vouch for your life of 100000000 years? And that you will honour the cheque?

We can produce babies by taking male and female organs in a test tube.
Create living entities in lab by using elements from living entities. Why? Take everything from non-living and create a living.
It is the chemicals inside our body that make us work and live.
Kill me and then inject those chemicals inside me. I should be alive again as all the chemicals are back.

I so want to tell you where I lost you.

Humans have emotions. However, I have never seen chemicals in my laboratory expressing love to each other. Have you?

I simply love quoting Matrix: 'Are not your emotions simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain'.

Dont you think dogs exhibit emotions? Can you really 'see' them expressing it? If watching them sniff is 'seeing' emotions, well, come to the lab anyday.

We can study the composition - chemical, biological, physical etc. of a chicken egg. However, given those chemicals, we cannot produce a chicken egg. Thus, it is high time when noble prize should be awarded to hens for laying eggs.

Will do it the day you win the booker for your stuff.

And now for the dessert

More of your examples:

Example: Let us suppose I find some historical object in India and move to USA to show their. On my way, I am killed and the object is lost in Egypt (say). Now some other historian will find that and claim that the object belongs to an Egyptian civilization. Thus, original place of these objects are not trustworthy.

Now tell me, would your theory hold up if there were 100,000 Indians with historical items, making their way to the US through 100,000 different paths. What, do you think, are the chances of mistaking the items to be egyptian? Isn't trustwortiness increased when quantity comes into play?

Scientists conclude on the basis of 2, 3 observations which are quite insignificant to conclude such a big theory.

Do introduce your mathematics teacher to us. And please look up the definition of 'insignificant'.

According to this theory, evolution makes organisms better. So, humans should have long span of life, stay more healthy, less sickness, more activeness etc. However, this prediction is totally opposite to what is observed. A research becomes a theory only when it predicts something correctly.

Hone up your observation skills.

Anyway, lets compare ourself to the chimpanzee, our closest ancestor. From here

Lifespan

Chimpanzees rarely live past the age of 40 in the wild, but have been known to reach the age of 60 in captivity.

I rememeber this japanese (or was it chinese) chap who lived to 125. Health is shown by lifespan. Sure we aren't as strong as the chimps, but we got brains to beat them heck outta competition. Its called the theory of 'Natural Selection'. Would love to see what you can write about this 'theory'.

Now for the icing (yummy) on the cake:

If evolution is to make things better, then why are those organisms surviving from which others evolved? Darwin’s immediate forefather, monkey is still surviving. Why?

Oh yes, it's highlighted in red. Answer in two words: Evolution Timeframe. You cannot expect an entire species to disappear overnight. Do read this for a detailed overview.

C-dating method to predict age of dead matter is not accurate and trustworthy. Can it calculate the life of a human died a month ago?

Have you even read an introduction to Carbon dating? I recommend the 'Factor's to be considered' section

Giraffe from horse
According to this theory, giraffes were evolved from horses as being horses they weren’t able to get to the leaves at top of tree and lower leaves were going off quickly due to large number of species eating them.

Its official. Natural selection missed out on you. Did you ever consider the enviornment in which the giraffe evolved? Maybe, just maybe, it was in some dense forests that simply had too many tall trees, and not much water.

In conclusion, I would say your site had a little philosophical insights at places, but it was readily, and completely lost in utter defecation. I tried hard not to be acerbic, or sarcastic, but greed got the better of me. Your words show you have an IQ above average, yet their meaning give me reason to doubt. Are you that blinded by the theory you currently follow? Isnt it reason enough to discard it?

Throughout your essays, you bring in seemingly-inncuous references to science.

You fight us with the tools we gave you. But beware, we know our tools better.