 | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was delete. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
False notion of 'scientific'
editThe article per 15.04.2017 states that a proper scientific notion of the concept 'material' excludes the possibility of a material of anything to be itself living. This is a notion that is not scientific, merely a result of a conventional cognition; such habitual ways of thinking are to my understanding pretty exactly what is defined as un-scientific. It might be that one naturally think of the genome, for instant, one organisms genetically inherited material, in total, as a non-living material, because our anchestors are dead perhaps; but quite the contrary, this prime example of the material, is very much alive, and a definitive property of anything living. I will therefor attempt to edit, correct the fallacy. --Xactnorge (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC) hello??????????????????
How many colours we have now for ..
editto drawing "The Pixture of the World !!" ??
No only "Bl","Gr", "Re". Now - 10! Known as "Table of the elementary partys". 3*3 and +1.
How many .. "Жуть!", "Шик!", "Мрак!", "Блеск!" .. ?? 176.59.200.25 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Confusion
editWhat is the difference between matter and material? Buckministerfullerence (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)