johnie1 said:
@lord nemesis
plants obtain energy from nutrients in the soil.Is not nutrients food?.To grow the plants convert nutrients into energy using sunlight.In this earth all animals/plants need food to live and survive.You take single celled organisms.They too need food.Its just that different animals/plants need different foods as compared to us humans.
some plants/animals will go on hibernation.In this case it is still consuming food but one which is stored in itself.Once that food is finished then the organism/animal/plant has to eat to survive.if not it will die.no exceptions my friend.
you say science is never exact nor accurate.Yes in certain cases it is so.It is evolving.In certain cases It is exact.for ex water is h20.it is exact.It is not going to change ever unless the chemical compositon changes.In some cases with better technology it evolves.Yes yesterdays unreliable/facts are dis proven.But how can science change the fact that an animal/plant/organism needs food to survive?.Agreed the definition of food differs as per the organism/animal/plant but still it is food.you cannot get 2+2=100.
Correction!! Plants and animals need energy to survive. Food as you call it can be either mass (which can be converted to energy) or raw energy. Each plant/organism that evolved from a single cell has evolved its own way of gathering energy (food as you call it), so why is it so surprising that to hear that there is a certain specimen that does not need the same form of energy source as you do.
As I said science is never exact and ever changing. You say Water is H2O, but what is Hydrogen and Oxygen. They are terms coined by people for two atoms whose sub atomic structure is different. Scientists discovered that electrons revolve around a nucleus just like planets revolve around a star. But are all planets identical? On the same lines are all electrons identical? What does an electron comprise of? We have very limited answers. Who knows when we find answers to such questions, the terms Hydrogen and Oxygen may be deprecated and Water ceases to be H2O as you put it and be defined at a more granular level based on similarities and differences at that level?
See, You cannot apply blind belief to science. Just like you doubt that this may be a hoax, scientific temper requires that you also doubt that some thing like this may be actually true provided enough evidence even if you cannot explain it with current science. Doubt is how science moves forward.
johnie1 said:
please how can you still have a suspicion that this might be true.Its because of this teeny weeny doubt that babas exist who take people for a ride in the process of accumulating billions.
You are wrong. Those teeny weeny doubts are what lead to the advancement of science/knowledge.
The reason for existence of false baba's (or what ever their equivalent in other cultures/religions) taking advantage of people is the massive amount of superstition/blind belief among the people. So basically its not doubt, but blind belief that leads to such cases.
I am my born as a Christian and though I have never been in contact with baba's, However I have definitely seen similar specimens among Christians. They pretend to heal people with prayer and blessing and often times they are successful in the most miraculous ways. Some are even attributed with miraculous powers. Do I believe them? No. Do I disbelieve them, again the answer is no. I simply don't have enough data. In fact I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of god for the same reasons and I am least bothered about it because its hard to find proof for either cases and I have more interesting and immediate stuff to take care of.
A lot of people find it easier to blindly believe something rather than doubt facts and find evidence to prove/disprove them. That is why religion exists and why it will probably lead to the downfall of human race.
johnie1 said:
you know humans have one of the greatest gifts in this world.The ability to reason.Why don't you reason with yourself and find the truth.You will be surprised my friend.
Reasoning is great, but the thing about logical reasoning is that it leads to incorrect conclusions if you premises are incomplete/inaccurate. Considering Science is incomplete and inaccurate through out history, How can you pretend to use that for logical reasoning and arrive at a concrete conclusion.
