Everything Created in pairs?

[Nerd]

I used google to translate the page you gave Skye (not sure how valid these translations are though) but here : translated page

 

[crayon]

I can attempt a translation, just tell me which part, because I read it all but I'm not sure where the answer is...

 

[جوري]

let's keep the verse standing on its own accord for now, until I find the most scholarly reply in English.. I don't like some of exegesis to text of this importance..

I most certainly wouldn't use a google translator those are hilarious(ly bad)

 

[جوري]

I can attempt a translation, just tell me which part, because I read it all but I'm not sure where the answer is...

aslaam 3lykoum wr wb

I found this, which is written by a Dr. Naszhmi musa...
It is probably one of the best I have read on the matter, if you are interested in translating? Or I can pose a question to ask the scholar at http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...Online-English-Ask_Scholar/Page/FatwaCounselE

معجزة علمية



صور لنباتات متنوعة

كتبت منذ (1987م) في كتاب إعجاز النبات في القرآن الكريم و (1996م) في كتاب آيات معجزات من القرآن الكريم وعالم النبات عن أزواج النبات لقوله تعالى ( سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ الْأَزْوَاجَ كُلَّهَا مِمَّا تُنبِتُ الْأَرْضُ وَمِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَمِمَّا لَا يَعْلَمُونَ{36})[يس: 36] وقوله تعالى: ( أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْا إِلَى الْأَرْضِ كَمْ أَنبَتْنَا فِيهَا مِن كُلِّ زَوْجٍ كَرِيمٍ{7})[الشعراء: 7] .

وقد رأيت أن بعض غير المسلمين يعترضون على قوله تعالى: ( وَمِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقْنَا زَوْجَيْنِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ{49}) [الذاريات: 49]، فقد رأيت أن أعيد الكتابة في الموضوع في ضوء ما أثير من شبهات، فالزوج في هذه الآية يشمل الذكر والأنثى، والصنفين، والتركيبين:

أولاً: معنى الزوج في القرآن الكريم:

قال الأصفهاني رحمه الله في مفردات ألفاظ القرآن عند بيان معنى الزوج قال:

يقال لكل واحد من القرينين من الذكر والأنثى في الحيوانات المتزاوجة زوج , ولكل قرينين فيها وفي غيرها زوج، كالخف والنعل ولكل ما يقترن بآخر مماثلاً له أو مضادًا: زوج، قال تعالى: (فَجَعَلَ مِنْهُ الزَّوْجَيْنِ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى{39})[القيامة 39]، وقال {وَقُلْنَا يَا آدَمُ اسْكُنْ أَنتَ وَزَوْجُكَ الْجَنَّةَ} البقرة 35، وجمع الزوج أزواج . وقوله تعالى ( هُمْ وَأَزْوَاجُهُمْ فِي ظِلَالٍ عَلَى الْأَرَائِكِ مُتَّكِؤُونَ{56})[يس: 56]، ( احْشُرُوا الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا وَأَزْوَاجَهُمْ وَمَا كَانُوا يَعْبُدُونَ{22})[الصافات: 22] أي أقرانهم المقتدين بهم في أفعالهم، ( لاَ تَمُدَّنَّ عَيْنَيْكَ إِلَى مَا مَتَّعْنَا بِهِ أَزْوَاجاً مِّنْهُمْ )[الحجر: 88] أي أشباهًا وأقرانًا، وقوله: ( سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ الْأَزْوَاجَ كُلَّهَا مِمَّا تُنبِتُ الْأَرْضُ وَمِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَمِمَّا لَا يَعْلَمُونَ{36}) [يس: 36]، ( وَمِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقْنَا زَوْجَيْنِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ{49})[الذاريات: 49]، فتنبيه أن الأشياء كلها مركبة من جوهر وعَرَض، ومادة وصورة، وأن لا شيء يتعرى من تركيب يقتضي كونه مصنوعًا، وأنه لابد من صانع تنبيهًا إلى أنه تعالى هو الفرد وقوله تعالى: (وَمِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقْنَا زَوْجَيْنِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ{49})[الذاريات: 49] فبين أن كل ما في العالم زوج من حيث أن له ضد، أو مثلاً ما، أو تركيب ما، بل لا ينفك بوجه من تركيب، وإنما ذكر ههنا زوجين تنبيهًا أن الشيء – وإن لم يكن له ضد ولا مثل – فإنه لا ينفك من تركيب جوهر وعرض، وذلك زوجان، وقوله (الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمُ الْأَرْضَ مَهْداً وَسَلَكَ لَكُمْ فِيهَا سُبُلاً وَأَنزَلَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَأَخْرَجْنَا بِهِ أَزْوَاجاً مِّن نَّبَاتٍ شَتَّى{53})[طه: 53]، أي أنواعًا متشابهة، وكذلك (خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ بِغَيْرِ عَمَدٍ تَرَوْنَهَا وَأَلْقَى فِي الْأَرْضِ رَوَاسِيَ أَن تَمِيدَ بِكُمْ وَبَثَّ فِيهَا مِن كُلِّ دَابَّةٍ وَأَنزَلْنَا مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَأَنبَتْنَا فِيهَا مِن كُلِّ زَوْجٍ كَرِيمٍ{10})[لقمان: 10]، (ثَمَانِيَةَ أَزْوَاجٍ مِّنَ الضَّأْنِ اثْنَيْنِ وَمِنَ الْمَعْزِ اثْنَيْنِ قُلْ آلذَّكَرَيْنِ حَرَّمَ أَمِ الأُنثَيَيْنِ أَمَّا اشْتَمَلَتْ عَلَيْهِ أَرْحَامُ الأُنثَيَيْنِ نَبِّؤُونِي بِعِلْمٍ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ{143})[الأنعام: 143] أي أصناف وقوله تعالى: (وكنتم أزواج ثلاثة{7})[الواقعة: 7] أي قرناء، ثلاثًا، وهم الذين فسرهم بما بعد أي في قوله تعالى: (فَأَصْحَابُ الْمَيْمَنَةِ مَا أَصْحَابُ الْمَيْمَنَةِ{8} وَأَصْحَابُ الْمَشْأَمَةِ مَا أَصْحَابُ الْمَشْأَمَةِ{9} وَالسَّابِقُونَ السَّابِقُونَ{10} أُوْلَئِكَ الْمُقَرَّبُونَ{11})[الواقعة: 8-11] وقوله تعالى: (وَإِذَا النُّفُوسُ زُوِّجَتْ{7})[التكوير: 7] .فقد قيل: قرن كل شيعة بمن شايعهم في الجنة والنار . انتهى .

مما سبق نستنتج أن معنى الزوج في القرآن الكريم يشمل:

1- الذكر والأنثى في الكائنات الحية .

2- القرينين كالخف والنعال والجوارب .

3- لكل من يقترن بآخر مماثلاً له أو مضادًا .

4- الأشياء مكونة من جوهر وعرض ومادة وصورة وكل شيء مركب فهو مصنوع .

5- كل شيء مخلوق ومصنوع .

6- الضد، المثل، والتركيب .

7- أنواعًا متشابهة .

8- أصنافًا متعددة .

9- قرناء في المكان والزمان .

إذا قصر الزوجين على الذكر والأنثى فقط هو قصور في فهم الآية وتفسير غير حقيقي أي أن الحقيقة التفسيرية لا تقتصر على أن الأزواج الذكر والأنثى والزوج والزوجة فقط .

ثانياً: الزوجية في عالم النبات والكائنات الحية الدقيقة:

وبالنسبة لعالم النبات، فالنبات أزواج ذكر وأنثى، وأصناف، وأنواع، وقرناء في المكان الوحد، وبها المضادات وبخصوص الذكر والأنثى النبات أزواج والكائنات الحية أزواج .

فالبكتريا ثبت أن فيها خلايا موجبة وخلايا سالبة، خلايا مذكرة وخلايا مؤنثة ويحدث التزاوج الجنسي بين الخليتين بخروج أنبوب تزاوج، خيطي طويل يوصل بين الخليتين وتقوم الخلية الموجبة بإفراغ محتواها في الخلية السالبة عبر الأنبوب.


صورة لنوع من أنواع البكتريا

والفطريات: تنقسم إلى أقسام حسب نوع التكاثر الجنسي فهناك الفطريات البيضية التي تتكاثر تزاجيًا بالأؤوجونة (Oogonium) المؤنثة والأنثريدة (ِAntheridia) المذكرة، وقسم الفطريات التزاوجية تتكاثر فطرياته بالتزاوج بين خيط موجب وخيط سالب، وقسم الفطريات الزقية الذي يتكاثر جنسيًا ليعطي الجراثيم الزقية وقسم الفطريات البازيدية الذي يتكاثر جنسيًا ثم يعطي الجراثيم البازيدية، وهناك قسم الفطريات الناقصة الذي لم نكتشف بعد نوع التكاثر فيه، وكل فطر نكتشف تكاثره الجنسي من هذا القسم , ننقله إلى القسم الموافق له في التركيب الخيطي وغيره , فيجب أن لا يخدعنا أحد بهذا القسم أنه لا يتكاثر جنسيًا , إنه يتكاثر جنسياً , ولكن للآن لم نتعرف نوع التكاثر الجنسي فيه ولا يوجد دليل علمي يثبت أنه لا يتكاثر جنسياً , فقط علمنا لم يصل بعد إلى اكتشاف التكاثر الجنسي في هذا القسم وكل يوم تتناقص أعداد أجناس هذا القسم باكتشافنا للتكاثر الجنسي فيها ..


صورة لطحلب أحمر يعيش في جزر هاوي

والطحالب جميعها تتكاثر بالتكاثر الجنسي وهذا معلوم لجميع طلاب كليات العلوم والزراعة الدراسين للطحالب، فالإسبيروجيرا يتكاثر جنسيًا، والكلاميدوموناس، والباندوراينا والفولفوكس والكلوريللا وكل الطحالب تتكاثر جنسياً , ومن يجهل ذلك عليه البحث فيه والإتيان بخلاف ذلك بالدليل العلمي الموثق وليس بالكتب القديمة التي لم تحدث معلوماتها إلى الآن, فالبينة على من يدعي .

والنباتات الخزازية، والنباتات التريدية ومعراة البذور ومغطاة البذور تتكاثر جنسيًا، وهناك أزهار مذكرة وأزهار مؤنثة، وأزهار تحتوي أعضاء التذكير وأعضاء التأنيث وهما عضوان مقترنان في مكان وحد متضادان ومختلفان في الذكورة والأنوثة حيث ينتج العضو الذكري حبوب اللقاح المذكرة، والعضو الأنثوي البويضات المؤنثة فهما قرناء في المكان والزمان وهذه إحدى معاني الزوجية كما قال الأصفهاني في مفردات ألفاظ القرآن .

الخطورة تقع في القصور في فهم المعنى اللغوي لكلمة الأزواج من النبات أصناف متعددة وهذا من معاني الزوجية، وأنواع متشابهة ومختلفة وأجناس متشابهة ومختلفة والحال كذلك في الحيوان .

والكائنات الحية بها جزيئ وهو DNA وهو يتركب من خيطين مترابطين ومتزاوجين بالقواعد النيتروجينية الزوجية .وفي الفيروسات يوجد DNA، RNA , و هو خيط مفرد ولكنه يتكون من قواعد تقوم بنسخ أزواج متشابهة لها عند التكاثر .

ومن المركبات الكيميائية الأزواج المتشابهة والمضادة كالحموضة والقلوية وفي الفيزياء توجد الأزواج المتشابهة والمتباينة .

وكل المخلوقات مكونة من جوهر وعرض ومن مواد ميتة ومن حياة توجد فيها وجميع هذه الكائنات مخلوقة وهذا أحد أنواع الزوجية فانتبهوا حتى لا يؤدي الفهم الخاطئ لقوله تعالى: ( وَمِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقْنَا زَوْجَيْنِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ{49})[الذاريات: 49]، فلا تقصروها على الذكر والأنثى وهذا أحد معاني الزوج والزوجين في القرآن الكريم كما كتب الأصفهاني منذ مئات السنين والحمد لله رب العالمين .

أ.د. نظمي خليل أبو العطا موسى

دكتور الفلسفة في العلوم جامعة عين شمس

www.nazme.net​

http://www.55a.net/firas/arabic/?page=show_det&id=1753&select_page=23

 

[crayon]

Hey, it's 11 pm and I don't feel like going to bed yet!- I'll translate inshallah.

 

[جوري]

Hey, it's 11 pm and I don't feel like going to bed yet!- I'll translate inshallah.

lol ukhty.. you really don't have to..
I am attempting to show how fission/budding/spores etc pretty much included 'pair' but I don't wish to get too esoteric interpreting Quranic verses.. even if I know the science of it, I don't wish to espouse it to religion, lest I commit a grievous mistake.. but I shall go for it anyway.. and say Allah knows best..

 

[crayon]

Well.....I tried..
didn't get too far, lol. it was harder than I thought.

I guess it's out of my league, so i'll just leave it to you sis, jazaki Allah khair..

 

[جوري]

I think we can all agree, that the continuation of any specie lies behind successful reproduction?
The term pairs as I understand it in the Quran and I believe the understanding of many others isn't tethered by the very strenuous meaning of male and female sexual union since nothing in the verses themselves allude just sexual repriduction.. rather even the splitting off, of a unicellular organism renders one into a pair ...
Asexual reproduction only denotes is the production of progeny without the union of cells or nuclear material. Many reproduce asexually by ordinary cell division or by fragmentation, or by spores. etc which yields a pair of two, more of less equal parts.

hence the verse..

"Hallowed is He, Who created pairs in all things, those that grow from the earth and of themselves, and what they know not." (36:36)


And Allah knows best

 

[جوري]

Well.....I tried..
didn't get too far, lol. it was harder than I thought.

I guess it's out of my league, so i'll just leave it to you sis, jazaki Allah khair..

To properly translate a single page to or from Arabic (2nd) most difficult language after chinese, it takes a good 7-8 hours and that is for a skilled translator.. hence I stated, that I'd prefer someone else to do it, I simply can't dedicate that sort of time to it..
I have jury duty again tomorrow :raging:, I postponed it around this time last year and here I am taking off time from all for this sort of crap.. which doubly annoys me..

 

[Chuck]

Here are the three translation of the verse 49 of Surah 51.

YUSUFALI: And of every thing We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction.

PICKTHAL: And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect.

SHAKIR: And of everything We have created pairs that you may be mindful.

Does "everything" here, also include biological organisms?

Because there are a number of organisms that can reproduce asexually such as bacterial cells.

At first glance, some may consider it a blunder in the Holy Quran. How does one counter such arguments and explain this verse?

First, it is a generic statement it is speaking about God's system as it is serving to ponder for the next world -- this world has a pair, which would be the next world. Not to mention, having two types of reproduction will automatically cause asexual as a subset.

Second, asexual creatures have 2 issues:
1. they pair and they have sexual reproduction.
eg1: http://www.news-medical.net/?id=7508
eg2: worms who can produce asexually, pair and take gender role, but I don't have the link to that article at the moment.

2. Second there is some problem explaining why most creatures only produce sexually, but this factor is rather speculative.

 

[Azy]

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath246.htm

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.

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..

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.

 

[جوري]

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.

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

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.

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

 

[Fishman]

we all studied physics in college, it isn't a luxury course.. and that is just it.. a guess is a guess whether 18 million, 20 or 6.3 billion.. we have no precise way of strictly measuring it.

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?

So quit your whinning and your psychobabble!

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.

 

[جوري]

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?

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,!

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.

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!

 

[Fishman]

Do they have a universe-o-meter for their calculations?

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.

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,!

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.

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?

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'.

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!

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.

 

[Chuck]

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,!

Could be a typo too.

 

[Chuck]

Will you two please stop.

 

[جوري]

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.

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?!

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.

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!

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.

'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!

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'.

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?!)

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.

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!

 

[Azy]

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

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.

You seem very hung up on accolades?...

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.

I am comfortable where I am and have no need to attempt a defense nor to bring up what I do..

Except in every third post.

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...

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.

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.

that's really insightful and interesting, thanks :rollseyes

to which your friend decided to insert himself, divert the topic citing an axillary statement

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.

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

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.

 

[Chuck]

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.

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