Scientist Says Immortality Only 20 Years Away

[faye]

red herring, lol.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

red herring, lol.

no just using your asinine logic against you.

[Afghanistan2010]

Ok and? This doesn't mean that they didn't help Pacha Khan Zadran fight the Taliban in 2001

http://english.sina.com/world/2012/0715/486482.html




So much for Paktiawals loving the Tailban.

Hahahahaha,

In Mirzaka..........lol


Local tribal elder was working for the Americans,two taliban fighters came while all the tribal leaders and tribes were meeting,the two said to the tribal elder (one of them),give up your work,or face consequences,the guy refused,he slandered and insulted,the taliban took his gun shot him at the point,in broad daylight,while all the leaders were sitting and were shocked,one of the sons runned to get weapon from home the taliban ordered him to stop....he refused,the other aimed shot him down to the valley.

After that those who work for the government or with the Americans they know their position.

[faye]

oh, 'asinine'. tut..tut...don't get upset now.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Hahahahaha,

In Mirzaka..........lol


Local tribal elder was working for the Americans,two taliban fighters came while all the tribal leaders and tribes were meeting,the two said to the tribal elder (one of them),give up your work,or face consequences,the guy refused,he slandered and insulted,the taliban took his gun shot him at the point,in broad daylight,while all the leaders were sitting and were shocked,one of the sons run to get weapon from home the taliban ordered him to stop....he refused,the other aimed shot him down to the valley.

After that those who work for the government or with the Americans they know their position.

Always making excuses But no evidence supports it

[Afghanistan2010]

truly red herring

[RevolutionThroughReason]

oh, 'asinine'. tut..tut...don't get upset now.

Why should I be? I basically sabotaged your argument.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

truly red herring

says the guy who makes up excuses for why Paktiawals are fighting the Taliban , red herring indeed.

[faye]

sabotaged my argument...says you, lol. all you've done is make false accusations with no proof
getting irritated because i made a valid criticism of scientists. how is that LOGICAL, mr reason?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

says you, lol. all you've done is make false accusations with no proof
getting irritated because i made a valid criticism of scientists. how is that LOGICAL, mr reason?

well because by that same mode of logic; this would mean the West would be responsible for the problems in the Muslim world since those arose as a consequence of their involvement.

Now if the "inventor" of those are not to blame in this case, it wouldn't be in the case of depleted Uranium, after all Uranium is a naturally occurring element. So wouldn't "God" then be blamed? Why should God be blamed for others choices, then scientists wouldn't be at fault either.

Same line of argument. hence you're sabotaged.

[faye]

scientists created the use of uranium and depleted uranium and all the things that have to be cleaned by that new invention you are putting your faith into. if there wasn't the toxic pollutions from scientific creations there would be no need for the cleanup.
no i am not sabotaged.
where's the proof of all your other fallacious accusations?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You're just recycling (no pun intended) the same argument you already stated without nullifying my counter response. You're stuck in a loop Faye, your argument has been debunked. If there wasn't for scientific ingenuity, there wouldn't be people to care an environment even exists.

[Tjanaparh]

How do you pollute space when space has no ecosystem and there are nuclear reactions happening in stars constantly? are you just pulling anything out your tail end?

The same way the person was askin "how will you harm the nature if you kill some useless species"?
Our knowledge even not even on the planet but even on our own is so limited.
The science tries to go against nature, always with the thought that humankind is able to rebuild itself the world against nature.
That is also the answer to your question on the average of lifespan, I think You should add that long lifesapan in a healthy way did not need the undrstanding of scientists but only the understanding of nature of one single person.

It is quiet amazing that scientists have to research spending so much money and destroying materialy to demonstrate that something that goes against nature is bad for health, even if it is clear only if you see the nature with your own eyes.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

The same way the person was askin "how will you harm the nature if you kill some useless species"?
Our knowledge even not even on the planet but even on our own is so limited.
The science tries to go against nature, always with the thought that humankind is able to rebuild itself the world against nature.
That is also the answer to your question on the average of lifespan, I think You should add that long lifesapan in a healthy way did not need the undrstanding of scientists but only the understanding of nature of one single person.

It is quiet amazing that scientists have to research spending so much money and destroying materialy to demonstrate that something that goes against nature is bad for health, even if it is clear only if you see the nature with your own eyes.

There's a lot of false assumptions here

a.) Where do scientists research destroy nature to find out that things against nature are bad for health

b.) How does science try to "go against" Nature, when it is nature which is what enables science?

c.) If there are limits on what we can know about nature, then how can see just "see" nature with our own eyes, woudn't it mean our own eyes seeing it , would be limited too?

[Tjanaparh]

There's a lot of false assumptions here

a.) Where do scientists research destroy nature to find out that things against nature are bad for health

b.) How does science try to "go against" Nature, when it is nature which is what enables science?

c.) If there are limits on what we can know about nature, then how can see just "see" nature with our own eyes, woudn't it mean our own eyes seeing it , would be limited too?

A) To live a helthy way, as every other living being we are created in the way we can live in the nature and feed on the living organisms.
That is how our body is built and not only our but generally organisms.
We feed today mostly n dead modified products that cause problems of health, live a way of life that makes us self ill.
It is amazing to note that a todays Human thinks to be somehow an imperfect living to become ill of everything and to nead 1000 of scientists to learn how to heal all illnesses keeping an unnatural lifetyle.
This needs Territory for research centres, laboratory animals produced to be killed, food for those lab animals that have to be planted destroying natural biotopes, chemical reagents, that are produced destroying ecology. All to show for example materialy that "fried food is not natural and can create cancer", while understanding it is easy without doing all that.

B) Here you have the perfect example how , they want "eternal life", what is born will die, that is a natural law. Sciece atleast today tries simplto fullfill disires of humankind without asking on the just of those desires.

C)The last question I didn't actually understand, try to ask it in easier form, I am not perfect in English my friend.