19 Dec 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59All that learning - all those Phd,s - all those degrees, ...........and all meaningless if at the end of the day you are dishonest and foolish and don't know what is life
So before science can replicate a natural phenomenon it is magic?
The Vedic authority will inform you the truth - and have been informing mankind for eternity.
I was watching a programme on TV about the Hubble telescope and it said that Hubble told the world that there are more than one universe in our cosmos - and they are applauding this discovery to that telescope.
But the Vedas have been telling mankind for eternity that there are unlimited universes in the cosmos.
Science is dishonest at its core.
19 Dec 11
Originally posted by DasaYes. You are unable to substantiate your "...lightning bolt struck a puddle..." claim about what 'science' says. "The last time I saw this [on TV] was as recently as 3 months ago", is not substantiation. Try some links to some material by scientists where they make the "...lightning bolt struck a puddle..." claim. I think you ought to do this.
Are you trying to communicate something?
19 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFStop playing your mind games please.
Yes. You are unable to substantiate your "...lightning bolt struck a puddle..." claim about what 'science' says. "The last time I saw this [on TV] was as recently as 3 months ago", is not substantiation. Try some links to some material by scientists where they make the "...lightning bolt struck a puddle..." claim. I think you ought to do this.
Ever since I was at school I have been taught by cheating science that life came from a primordial soup after it was struck by lightning........and they are constantly putting on TV science programmes about the Big bang and the primordial soup to this present day.......and using terms like random, accident, chance, time, luck and so on.
Factually behind all things is the intelligence of God - working unseen and operating constantly and perfectly.
Have you ever seen anything created without intelligence involved.....NO.
But cheating science wants us all to accept that chemicals arrange themselves into useful forms/functions without intelligence....just random chance.
Are you agreeing with cheating science? .........or is there intelligence behind all things?
19 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaDasa, your misconception of what 'science' claims, based on you watching TV science programmes when you were a kid, is not evidence. If you know of scientific research pertaining "primordial soup" and "lightning", then cite it.
Ever since I was at school I have been taught by cheating science that life came from a primordial soup after it was struck by lightning........and they are constantly putting on TV science programmes about the Big bang and the primordial soup to this present day.......and using terms like random, accident, chance, time, luck and so on.
You don't seem to realize that the credibility of your spiritual "insights" rests to a large degree on the perceived quality of your thought processes and your interpersonal communication skills. You already know you have a problem with the latter.
As for the former, you saying "Its been described in science programmes on TV for a long time" to back-up your claims about what 'science' says, suggests you may not realise you have a problem with the integrity and credibility of your thought processes as they relate to this issue.
Unless you're just pulling everybody's leg, surely you know that citing "...very colourful computer generated science programs showing us all that their was a Big Bang - and then later a lightning bolt struck the primordial soup creating life" as your understanding of 'science' does not make your criticism of 'science' convincing at all.
Surely you realise you will have to do rather better at advocating your beliefs if anyone here is going to decide to submit to the same religionist "authority" that you have chosen?
Originally posted by KellyJaySo are you saying that when the science establishment spend big money to put scientific programs on TV they are not actually saying anything at all.
I'm sorry I'd like to join you in your attempt to discredit evolution, but your
not giving me much to work with here. I saw a lot of things on TV I do not
bring them up here, unless I can actually quote the program and it carries
some meaningful message.
I've heard so many different stories on how it began it isn't funny, I do not
think you will see you go specific you have lost the debate,
because there isn't anything specific.
Kelly
Are you saying that the science establishment is actually Not the science establishment but something else?
What are you saying.
I see on TV all the time - our Parliament having their active debating sessions and should I believe that they are actually NOT the parliament at all - but something else?
These science programmes are expensive, very informative, very well produced and signed of by the current scientific theories by the science establishment of the current times.
Am I to believe it is all an hallucination?
19 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaIf you want to be a credible critic of modern science, and if you know of scientific research that makes claims about "primordial soup" being hit by "lightning", then cite it and then dismantle it, if that is what the propagation of your spiritual beliefs requires. Saying you 'saw it on TV!' and 'are you saying I didn't really see it on TV?' is not evidence and it is not valid argumentation, Dasa.
These science programmes are expensive, very informative, very well produced and signed of by the current scientific theories by the science establishment of the current times.
19 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFDoing what you do best .......playing mind games.
Dasa, you're misconception of what 'science' claims, based on you watching TV science programmes when you were a kid, is not evidence. If you know of scientific research pertaining "primordial soup" and "lightning", then cite it.
You don't seem to realize that the credibility of your spiritual "insights" rests to a large degree on the perceived quality of you ...[text shortened]... cide to submit to the same religionist "authority" that you have chosen?
It does seem you are defending cheating science after all.
So you are believing chemicals are life as well........ astounding.
19 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFMore mind games and dishonesty.
If you want to be a credible critic of modern science, and if you know of scientific research that makes claims about "primordial soup" being hit by "lightning", then cite it and then dismantle it, if that is what the propagation of your spiritual beliefs requires. Saying you 'saw it on TV!' and 'are you saying I didn't really see it on TV?' is not evidence and it is not valid argumentation, Dasa.
19 Dec 11
Originally posted by DasaThe point is, as long as you insist on using the poisoned-well collocation "cheating science" to refer to science, then make claims about "soup" and "lightning" without evidence, and back it up with "I saw [it] on TV as recently as 3 months ago" and then back that up with "Am I to believe it is all an hallucination?" and then counter criticism of this approach as being "mind games", then your sincere and earnest opinions on science carry no weight. Allowing your opinions on science to carry no weight, sincere and earnest or not, undermines your entire spiritual advocacy on this forum.
Doing what you do best .......playing mind games.
It does seem you are defending cheating science after all.
So you are believing chemicals are life as well........ astounding.
19 Dec 11
Originally posted by DasaDishonesty? How so? Here it is again [apologies to other posters]:
More mind games and dishonesty.
"If you want to be a credible critic of modern science, and if you know of scientific research that makes claims about "primordial soup" being hit by "lightning", then cite it and then dismantle it, if that is what the propagation of your spiritual beliefs requires. Saying you 'saw it on TV!' and 'are you saying I didn't really see it on TV?' is not evidence and it is not valid argumentation, Dasa."
Which part of that post was "dishonest"?
19 Dec 11
Originally posted by DasaWell that is the thing isn't it, who speaks for science? TV people have their own
So are you saying that when the science establishment spend big money to put scientific programs on TV they are not actually saying anything at all.
Are you saying that the science establishment is actually Not the science establishment but something else?
What are you saying.
I see on TV all the time - our Parliament having their active debating sessi ...[text shortened]... y the science establishment of the current times.
Am I to believe it is all an hallucination?
agenda, it does not mean "science" is clearly displayed for its solid truth on any
TV program any more than people of a political group represent all of whatever
party they are supposedly represent either. I think you'd be hard pressed for
anyone to really speak for "science" since so many disagree about the details.
Who is the "science establishment" that would be handy to know! You know of
some block of people who have all the answers? That would be a group worth
knowing about.
I don't know about your Parliament, I imagine if you are watching "Parliament"
that whatever is going on in it represents what is going on in it. What really
represents science, I don't think you will find a group that does that though I
am quite sure there are more than a few who think they do!
I'm not saying your hallucinating I'm saying you are giving to much credit to
people on TV for being more important than they really are!
Kelly