Defeated.

Originally posted by Dasa
That is the problem.

Cheating science has told us all that everything that exists has come to us without plan or cause or intelligent process and without conscious will...........so now that we have conscious will and creative thought we should be able to create anew an entirely new and pristine creation which of course would be far better that what we have. ...[text shortened]... minal.

It is criminal because you would then go on a abuse children by teaching them falsity.

I agree with you Dasa. Those teaching the little children should be sent to Hell and I believe Christ said something to that effect. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by JS357

Cheating science has told us all that everything that exists has come to us without plan or cause or intelligent process and without conscious will...

There are people doing science, and there are people cheating science.

People cheat science by saying that it says things that it does not say.

Science is [b]silent on everything com ...[text shortened]... s silent on these things.

You do this. Some of your opponents do this. You should be ashamed.[/b]

By "cheating science" Dasa is obviously referring to those that cheat in their science, the evolutionists, in order to put forth their damnable theories. He has nothing against "real Science" and neither do I. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by sonhouse
We don't teach atheism to children. We think it through ourselves as adults. Where did you get the idea we would do that? I think it must be because YOU would teach, no PROGRAM your children or any you could come in contact with and therefore would naturally think atheists would do the same.

Atheists rise above such abuse, as opposed to you and your ilk ...[text shortened]... ns and Muslims, proselytizing and programming children.

No, you are the abuser of children.

Teaching evolution to children is the abuse and those doing so should be sent to hell when they die unless they repent of this evil practice.

Originally posted by RJHinds
By "cheating science" Dasa is obviously referring to those that cheat in their science, the evolutionists, in order to put forth their damnable theories. He has nothing against "real Science" and neither do I. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Are you saying you agree with Dasa's interpretation of "real Science" , and the vedic foundation from which he gets his (science) info from?

C'mon Ron, surely you dont believe in the Yugas (as an example). I doubt you even have much idea what all those Sanskrit words mean,let alone agree with them.

you are just using Dasa's words as a crutch for your own brand of science.

Neither of you know much about science it seems to me.
Why else do you think that you and Dasa's threads have been kicked out of the Science forum and sent back to here?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
your reasoning faculties have failed you. having conscious will and creative thought does not mean we can create an entirely new creation, never mind one that is far better than what we have.

having conscious will and creative thought only means that we can create to the limit of our knowledge, and guess what? we're doing that. those little buttons you peck on to spread your inane nonsense over the internet is one of those creations.

God created man in His image with the ability to create unlike an other creation of God. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Teaching evolution to children is the abuse and those doing so should be sent to hell when they die unless they repent of this evil practice.

You should teach children the basics (the 3 r's), above and beyond that a little history and science.
From there you teach a child what it wants to know (the questions it asks) from a neutral position, not with a plan to infiltrate their minds later... .

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Are you saying you agree with Dasa's interpretation of "real Science" , and the vedic foundation from which he gets his (science) info from?

C'mon Ron, surely you dont believe in the Yugas (as an example). I doubt you even have much idea what all those Sanskrit words mean,let alone agree with them.

you are just using Dasa's words as a crutch for ...[text shortened]... at you and Dasa's threads have been kicked out of the Science forum and sent back to here?

You know absolutely well that I do not believe in Dasa's religion. I have Christianity. That does not mean He can not be right sometimes. He is right on "cheating Science" not on reincarnation and all that other BS.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You know absolutely well that I do not believe in Dasa's religion. I have Christianity. That does not mean He can not be right sometimes. He is right on "cheating Science" not on reincarnation and all that other BS.

You said "He (Dasa) sees nothing against "real science" and neither do I."

Sorry for getting the inference from this comment that you are on a par with Dasa's view on science.
It seems to imply that you both adhere to "real Science", but in reality there is not much agreement between you on any major scientific points of view.

It seems that only thing you agree on is that "God" is behind reality and not evolution.
And since you have a huge disagreement about what/who "God" actually is, I really dont see the need for this post for it paints a false picture of your and Dasa's view on science.

Just paying lip-service eh?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
And since you have a huge disagreement about what/who "God" actually is, I really dont see the need for this post for it paints a false picture of your and Dasa's view on science.

This is very much hitting a nail on the head, karoly. Dasa believes the world is trillions and trillions and trillions of years old; RJHinds believes the world is around 10,000 years old. For RJHinds to claim they "agree" about "real science" is not serious. What unites them is their self-anointed fundamentalist fervour and vanity, their hatred of the Islamic faith [for example] and their shared desire to attract attention to themselves in cyberspace through bumpkin-esque notoriety.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You said "He (Dasa) sees nothing against "real science" and neither do I."

Sorry for getting the inference from this comment that you are on a par with Dasa's view on science.
It seems to imply that you both adhere to "real Science", but in reality there is not much agreement between you on any major scientific points of view.

It seems that only ...[text shortened]... a false picture of your and Dasa's view on science.

Just paying lip-service eh?

I may not agree exactly with Dasa on what "real science" consist of, because I do not know his complete views about it. My main point here is that I agree with what he said here about "cheating science" or those scientist that cheat to make the information agree with the theory of evolution and therefore, continually put forth false supporting information for it. The false belief that evolution has been proven as a fact has become so commonly taught that many scientist outside of biology adjust and interpret their data based on that being true. So, a snowball effect is created giving more false evidence that the theory of evolution is true.

Originally posted by FMF
This is very much hitting a nail on the head, karoly. Dasa believes the world is trillions and trillions and trillions of years old; RJHinds believes the world is around 10,000 years old. For RJHinds to claim they "agree" about "real science" is not serious. What unites them is their self-anointed fundamentalist fervour and vanity, their hatred of the Islamic fa ...[text shortened]... red desire to attract attention to themselves in cyberspace through bumpkin-esque notoriety.

The approximate dating of the universe to be billions of years old is one of the examples of "cheating science" in my opinion. Dasa may thing that is real science. Few people agree in every detail on matters of this sort.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I may not agree exactly with Dasa on what "real science" consist of, because I do not know his complete views about it. My main point here is that I agree with what he said here about "cheating science" or those scientist that cheat to make the information agree with the theory of evolution and therefore, continually put forth false supporting information ...[text shortened]... snowball effect is created giving more false evidence that the theory of evolution is true.

Oh give it a break , will you!
You are not interested in Dasa's views on science.

And in my experience, out of the three major different types of posters on here (ie, theist, atheist and "other" ) "cheating" would be the adjective to use LEAST on the theist/sciency posters , than the other two.

Get a grip will you, after all who has been labelled a 'cheater' on this forum? Hmmm?

At least they have all that "peer-reviewed" crap with science.
With you theists you just take your interpretation and run with it, thinking you can just take over the Science forum and such.

You commit the most basic fallicies on this site and then just pretend like everything is fine.
You are tolerated, RJ, that is all. No one really agrees with you here- least of all Dasa 😛

Originally posted by RJHinds
The approximate dating of the universe to be billions of years old is one of the examples of "cheating science" in my opinion. Dasa may thing that is real science. Few people agree in every detail on matters of this sort.

You are no more an authority on science than you are on what constitutes "child abuse". Neither of you.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Oh give it a break , will you!
You are not interested in Dasa's views on science.

And in my experience, out of the three major different types of posters on here (ie, theist, atheist and "other" ) "cheating" would be the adjective to use LEAST on the theist/sciency posters , than the other two.

Get a grip will you, after all who has been labell ...[text shortened]... re tolerated, RJ, that is all. No one really agrees with you here- least of all Dasa 😛

This is not the science forum.

Originally posted by FMF
You are no more an authority on science than you are on what constitutes "child abuse". Neither of you.

I do not have to be an authority on science to express my opinion and remember this is the spirituality forum where opinion is king.