Well that's my point. A photon does not have any quantum number properties to invert so there is no such thing as an anti-photon, just photons. One thing and itself do not make a pair.

In this case undergraduate physics is sufficient. What makes an MD qualified in this subject?

Find me a peer reviewed article which estimates the age of the universe at 20 million years.

So long as it works in a dual manner it will satisfy the specified concern.. not unlike hermaphrodite worms..

You seem very hung up on accolades?... I am comfortable where I am and have no need to attempt a defense nor to bring up what I do.. Medicine is one of the most eminent fields in science, as high an education as anyone can acquire, I don't think the medical community's establishment and worth is resting on your approval-- I rather think you should work on your own emotional upsets that require you to constantly highlight your competitive disadvantage on every thread.. dropping count of what you allegedly do neither resolves queries launched nor adds to the topic...

we all studied physics in college, it is mandatory and elemental, not the course of the secrets of life for the chosen few.. it, like many fields requires no restrain on the mind and some abstraction... only those who think they know everything and get hung up on what they do or what others do, take the pedestrian literal approach to life are the losers.

A guess is a guess whether 18 million, or 20 billion.. we have no precise way of strictly measuring age to come up with an absolute number... Him being off on a zero or a B in lieu of an M isn't the focal point of his paper...So perhaps you can quit your whinning and your psychobabble..?!

cheers

Scientists calculate that the universe is about 13 billion years old, not 20 million. How could it be 20 million if the last dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago?

Its not very nice to call somebody's response to you 'whining' and 'psychobabble'. That's not having a civilised discussion, its just name-calling.

Do they have a universe-o-meter for their calculations? I never authenticated the 'fact' that the universe is 20 million yrs.. the author made a guestimate, a judgement error.. your fellow gent, is simply using it to discredit him! Fact of the matter is, you can't come with an absolute number.. one is as good as the next, so long as you are not having the erroneous belief that it started 6000 years ago,!

Indeed, when we descend down to semantics, 'name-calling' comes along.. your atheist friend, is no stranger to poor manners.. perhaps you should browse some of his posts, before jumping to his aid?


on a separate note:
if the exchange doesn't concern you, then I believe it is in equal bad manners to insinuate yourself in that not to subtle manner of yours!

I have Jury duty today, and have no time to amuse or be amused by all of this.. if we are done.. perhaps getting back to the topic at hand, instead of all sorts of tangents is in order!

They have satellites, radiocarbon dating, fossil record etc. If the oldest rocks are 4.5 billion years old, then the universe must be physically older than that. If satellites can see no light coming from distances further than 13 billion light years, then that must have been no stars before 13 billion years ago.


If he was out by 1-3 billion years, then that's just a judgement error, or bad measurements. Scientists don't know the precise date themselves. And there is always the omphalos hypothesis, but I don't know how theologically acceptable it is. But he was out by over 12 billion years, which is not a guesstimate, but is just plain wrong.

I have. I've been watching this thread and Azy hasn't really said anything very-ill mannered. And even if you 'get down to semantics' insults are not necessary. Insulting the person you are arguing with doesn't make you look like the winner, it just makes you look like somebody who is left with no good responses.

If you were writing an article on the other hand, then harsh words all the way, as rhetoric is a very powerful persuasive tool that makes people listen to your arguments. But its not meant to be used in a debate. In a debate its called 'flaming'.

If its posted in a public board there is no reason why I shouldn't. If you want to have exchanges that don't concern other people have them via PM, not the open messaging sections that anybody can see.

Could be a typo too.

Will you two please stop.

Indeed.. but what is your point? .. I am arguing against a statement of absolution!... defining what is relative vs. absolute..-- neither you nor your pal or anyone else can come with an absolute number-- I don't need to cut and paste an insta google article to hammer that in..
-- it is really not that difficult to use google.. question is can you show enough inventiveness, industry and skill to sustain a topic and not run to the web to loan your writing credence?!

Maybe he forgot to add a zero to the other 6? or perhaps that wasn't at all the crux of his argument, which actually it wasn't, if you'd let go of the dial on your telescope you might find a whole constellation instead of a magnified crater!

'winner and loser' concept, are only amusing/popular I suspect in your age group?--
it is of minor concern to me, especially, when I address someone with a significant background of deteriorating every thread into sententious episode!

Your observations of his behavior is inconsequential to me.. I don't value nor trust your judgement from previous impressions concerning palestine/ history/Al-Aqsa etc.. I am almost always accustomed to a brusque reply from your person rather then a facilitation of a good discussion!

Thanks I'll make a mental note of that.. fact of the matter is.. I am not in a debate.. I am answering questions posed by the OP to the best of my knowledge, and that which is outside my sphere, I have opted to ask a scholar on as per request, rather than loan it my own rendition, to which your friend decided to insert himself, divert the topic citing an axillary statement and dropping count of a degree allegedly satisfactorily completed as his course of study...(which I am still wondering how it conforms or adds to the topic?!)

When one speaks of what is apropos for a debate, one should carry that integrity through? I'd think! so he doesn't come across like a hypocrite..

In the very least just keeping with Islamic manners..

The Prophet said: 'Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not trouble his neighbor, and whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should entertain his guest generously, and whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should say what is good, or be silent.' (Sahîh Bukhârî, Sahîh Muslim).

That being said, I get positively no pleasure out of descending to word play with you--- I don't favor at all arguing with Muslims.. there are those on board who express their opinion more emotionally than scientifically in a way that i very much disagree with.. and I still admire them for their resolve, and for fostering a skill, that I hope for them will evolve to that which is better with each encounter-- with you, sometimes I wonder, why it is that you have decided to become a Muslim? You seem to have at it with the Muslims than any other group..

I am trying hard not to be abrasive with you.. I'd rather we simply go on each other's ignore list!

waslaam 3lykoum wara7amt Allah wa'barakatoh!

I don't think it satisfies "of everything we created pairs" at all.
Saying that the behaviour or properties of a thing are such that it doesn't need to be part of a pair isn't the same as it being part of a pair. You're just strengthening the opposition's argument.
I hope you'll forgive me but that is the funniest thing you've ever said. Practically every thread in which you comment and I've also posted, you start making proclamations about who is or isn't qualified to comment on this or that topic, while yourself speaking as an authority on anything that takes your fancy.

From one of your earlier posts:
You are as qualified as the next blogger to make a guesstimate at the age of such or the age of such.. your opinion is also as pedestrian as the next blogger.. Until I see your thesis in a scientific journal that is peer reviewed.. I'd refrain from speaking with such authority on any topic.. it just makes you look so foolish.. Anyone can google and come up with evidence for or against .. as I have just done in the Quote above...

I thought since you like dismissing everyone as 'bloggers' and 'google scholars', it might be pertinent to point out that you don't actually know anything about the people you're talking to and what may qualify then to comment on the topic.
Except in every third post.
You should ponder on this yourself and on your need to start throwing insults and diverting the thread every time you are without a sufficient retort.
that's really insightful and interesting, thanks
As he said, this is a public forum, I responded to the assertions of the third poster which is hardly diverting the topic since it is one example of evidence against the question in the thread title.
The point is that while noone can say the universe came into being on the 3rd August 14,564,304,992 BC, it's fair to say that the previously stated age is out by 3 orders of magnitude, which is more than a slight accounting hiccup in anyone's book.

It is not clear what you are trying to say. Explain it more.

I don't see how I am strengthening the opposite argument? care to eleaborate on that? & you are certainly entitled to your opinion YOUR ( personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty) is worth as much as the next blogger, which is to say exhibiting your native judgment rather than palpable sensical constructs!


I am not seeing anything funny at all.. Do you find conforming to reality funny? I actually stand by my above statement.. in fact here I am a Muslim/ Arabic speaking, and chosen not to give a non-scholarly reply to what I consider an important question, while you deem it fit to offer an exegesis to Quranic text.. I ask by what virtue?

Is this a mere drive by shooting with your BB gun ( I am wounded) I was invited by someone to offer a reply to this thread.. in fact even if I weren't personally invited, a Muslim here asked for another 'Muslim' to help I reference to a couple of pages ago.. Which I tried in part but declined to give a full exegesis to, until I find an article by a scholar on the topic or offered to ask the scholar (link included as an option).. further again declined to translate it, and asked if another Arabic speaking Muslim would give it sometime, as I know my time limit with which I can dedicate to each thread.. Thus I ask how have I diverted or hijacked the thread or even made mention of what qualifies me or another on the matter?

Actually you responded to a negligible side point to a thread I had posted, to make a case for yourself which if anything at all isn't even in keeping with the subject of the thread itself.. I find that you confabulate when you can't come up with anything tangible to write.
Now, do you think you can sit and focus on a topic without tangentially?

You're excusing the need for it to be part of what we would call a pair.

If male and female are a pair, and hermaphrodite worms are accepted as a pair and bacteria are accepted as pairs then you could pretty much argue for anything as part of a pair by twisting the definition.

Out of curiosity, how would you explain parthenogenesis in insects with multiple eggs, or the segmentation of some worms into multiple pieces as a means of reproduction in keeping them with 'pairs'?