Debates about the Economy, Politics, Religion, and everything under the sun

[Raaabo]

I gave you instances of missing links when you asked for them. There is evidence all around us in everything we see. Is evolution an established fact, no, it's just the most plausible theory based on the evidence at hand. Is Darwin's original idea the way it was written right? Of course not, but again evidence proves thus far that he was more right than wrong. It's really so simple to see, and yet you seem to not care to see the evidence at all, and point to the 3 or 4 flaws in the theory.

If you saw a man raping, murdering, abusing, spitting, slapping everyone, stabbing people at random and then giving a beggar 10 bucks, would you make a huge deal about how good he really is? We don't understand evolution fully, but until some better theory comes along based on evidence and logic instead of pure belief, then science will shift to that theory instead, as the "accepted theory" and not as fact because in science it's a fact after being proven, demonstrated and with physical evidence. It's how science works. Why do you insist on expecting it to be perfect and explain everything? It doesn't claim to but aims to, how hard is that to understand?

Please put forward your theory of where people came from, what happened to the dinosaurs and we'll debate that instead. Everyone wants you to outline the theories you believe in, it's better than you just rubbishing every theory that thousands of researchers and great minds have come up with. You don't believe evolution is possible. Great. So I and others asked you to explain things in your way. Or the way that you have read and now believe. What is it?

Also I wasn't trolling, I just made it clear that I haven't read enough of the vedas, nor is my sanskrit any good, and I certainly don't read old books out of anything except curiosity and never believe anything unless it can be proven. There's no need to be snide all the time and call me names or make tongue in cheek remarks. All I've ever asked for you to do is to use the same logic you use to debunk known flaws in science, and view everything that way.

So waiting to hear explanations of the world in your words and from your understanding of what you've read.

And thank you for the wishes

 

[skeletor]

Reading a few posts on this page, this quote comes to my consciousness:

The moment a person starts personalising and discusses the people in the discussion rather the subject or the essence of the debate, it leads to the demise of a fruitful discussion.

hmm. lol. No need of getting personal.

 

[Anorion]

@Sarath had a good point, it actually proves a bit of what @mediator suspects. There is more resistance to mosquitoes among all animals including humans wherever mosquitoes are more prevalent.

1. 2. and 3.
Fossil record, connect the dots in any way you please, it will make sense in only one way despite prior expectations. It's pretty difficult to form a full picture, but we keep getting a better idea with discoveries and new scientific methods.
This is from The Lost World by Michael Crichton

"Plant life in the Mesozoic must have been severely challenged by the arrival of very large dinosaurs. Herds of giant herbivores, each animal consuming hundreds of pounds of plant matter each day, would have wiped out any plants that don't evolve some defense - a bad taste, or nettles, or thorns, or chemical toxicity. So perhaps cyatheoides evolved its toxicity back then. And it's very effective, because contemporary animals don't eat these ferns anywhere on earth. That's why they're so abundant. You may have noticed"
"Plants have defenses?" Kelly said.
"Of course they do. Plants evolve like every other form of life, and they've come up with their own forms of aggression, defense, and so on. In the nineteenth century, most theories concerned animals - nature red in tooth and claw, all that. But now scientists are thinking about nature green in root and stem. We realize that plants, in their ceaseless struggle to survive, have evolved everything from complex symbiosis with other animals, to signaling mechanisms to warn other plants, to out-right chemical warfare."
Kelly frowned. "Signaling? Like what?"
"Oh, there are many examples," Levine said. "In Africa, acacia trees evolved very long, sharp thorns - three inches or so - but that only provoked some animals like giraffes and antelope to evolve long tongues to get past the thorns. Thorns alone didn't work. So in the evolutionary arms race, the acacia trees next evolved toxicity. They started to produce large quantities of tannin in their leaves, which sets off a lethal metabolic reaction in the animals that eat them. Literally kills them. At the same time, the acacias also evolved a kind of chemical warning system among themselves. IF an antelope begins to eat one tree in a grove, that tree releases the chemical ethylene into the air, which causes other trees in the grove to step up the production of leaf tannin. Within five or ten minutes, the other trees are producing more tannin, making themselves poisonous."
"And what happens to the antelope? It dies?"
"Well, not any more," Levine said, "because the evolutionary arms race continued. Eventually, antelopes learned that they could only browse for a short time. Once the trees started producing more tannin, they had to stop eating it. And the browsers developed new strategies. For example, when a giraffe eats an acacia tree, it then avoids all the trees downwind. Instead, it moves to another tree that is some distance away. So the animals have adapted to this dense too."
"In evolutionary theory, this is called the Red Queen phenomenon," Malcolm said. "Because in Alice in Wonderland, the Red Queen tells Alice she has to run as fast as she can just to stay where she is. That's the way evolution spirals seem. All the organisms are evolving at a furious pace just to stay in the same balance. To stay where they are."

So in the pursuit/evolution of the eye, what was formed first: The eye, the nerves behind, iris, pupil, the sensors?
Can we for 100% certainty say that this is "observable, measurable, verifible, proven"?

Read in some medical book long ago, dont remember details, but basically the nerves, behind and the sensors extend from the brain, at the same time the outer skin turns into iris and pupil, with muscles developing in tandem. so it all develops together, not one by one.

point 4. I just quoted the geeta verses to show how these can easily be twisted. Have Aurobindo's essays on Gita, and Prabhupada's bigoted interpretation as well. Bindu is right there in the middle of every mandala, and religious people's foreheads, it is a symbol for creation. Dont claim to be an expert, but read a little bit, and have no problems accepting all the scriptures in context of the time and place they were written, as Rhitwick said. Bhuddhist texts are full blast, want to read Sikh as heard it is most sane, modern and secular. Additionally, none of this in any way conflicts with science at all - they are entirely different domains, and it is perfectly possible to be both religious and scientific. If all this stuff is easy to believe, science is even easier - science provides real wonders, not just visions of imaginary ones. Nothing wrong with imagination or hypothetical examples here, they are of equal value. Further, in science, proof is enough, there is no need for belief or knowledge.

now about meditation and learning from personal experience. I can meditate, and hear voices in my head - which I totally believe - and they tell me to go around clobbering baby animals. For me it is the real and absolute truth, but I am sure I will have a hard time convincing anyone else, and people would be totally right to call me crazy.

5. yep. it's self-contained. it has to be. einstein's equations would have been false in an infinite universe. the exact structure may be under contention, but torus shaped is the simplest shape where this is possible. The backbone of theory is background radiation. The dimensions have a range but too many zeroes to fit into human experience.

 

[mediator]

"Plant life in the Mesozoic must have been severely challenged by the arrival of very large dinosaurs. Herds of giant herbivores, each animal consuming hundreds of pounds of plant matter each day, would have wiped out any plants that don't evolve some defense - a bad taste, or nettles, or thorns, or chemical toxicity. So perhaps cyatheoides evolved its toxicity back then. And it's very effective, because contemporary animals don't eat these ferns anywhere on earth. That's why they're so abundant. You may have noticed"
"Plants have defenses?" Kelly said.
"Of course they do. Plants evolve like every other form of life, and they've come up with their own forms of aggression, defense, and so on. In the nineteenth century, most theories concerned animals - nature red in tooth and claw, all that. But now scientists are thinking about nature green in root and stem. We realize that plants, in their ceaseless struggle to survive, have evolved everything from complex symbiosis with other animals, to signaling mechanisms to warn other plants, to out-right chemical warfare."
Kelly frowned. "Signaling? Like what?"
"Oh, there are many examples," Levine said. "In Africa, acacia trees evolved very long, sharp thorns - three inches or so - but that only provoked some animals like giraffes and antelope to evolve long tongues to get past the thorns. Thorns alone didn't work. So in the evolutionary arms race, the acacia trees next evolved toxicity. They started to produce large quantities of tannin in their leaves, which sets off a lethal metabolic reaction in the animals that eat them. Literally kills them. At the same time, the acacias also evolved a kind of chemical warning system among themselves. IF an antelope begins to eat one tree in a grove, that tree releases the chemical ethylene into the air, which causes other trees in the grove to step up the production of leaf tannin. Within five or ten minutes, the other trees are producing more tannin, making themselves poisonous."
"And what happens to the antelope? It dies?"
"Well, not any more," Levine said, "because the evolutionary arms race continued. Eventually, antelopes learned that they could only browse for a short time. Once the trees started producing more tannin, they had to stop eating it. And the browsers developed new strategies. For example, when a giraffe eats an acacia tree, it then avoids all the trees downwind. Instead, it moves to another tree that is some distance away. So the animals have adapted to this dense too."
"In evolutionary theory, this is called the Red Queen phenomenon," Malcolm said. "Because in Alice in Wonderland, the Red Queen tells Alice she has to run as fast as she can just to stay where she is. That's the way evolution spirals seem. All the organisms are evolving at a furious pace just to stay in the same balance. To stay where they are."

And we call that "measurable, verifiable and proven"?

@Anorion - You have no idea as to how this all is sounding like Nirmal Baba's pravachans! Its perhaps an attachment to evolution that you might not be finding an overdose of assumptions, generalization, conclusions based on observations of temporary scenario and a mix of all these. Just like I questioned earlier, the "mysterious" dark energy was "coined" to "explain" the faster expanding universe which was earlier "assumed" to contract under its own gravity. Here we see assumptions and conclusions based on observations (i.e expansion) and assumptions (i.e contraction under its own gravity). What is the guarantee that the "acceleration" of expansion will continue as it is? What if tomorrow it does not expand as fast as it is observed today? And hence my further question, is prakriti or universe that predictable that you can make assumptions, generalizations and conclusions in the state of momentary analysis (1 day, 1 year, 10 years, 1000 years, 1000000 years etc and so on)?


1,2,3 : You still have not connected to the central question. Fossil records are just evidences of fossils and the missing links are in no way a "connecting point", but simply to an assumption regarding the "big picture we want to see".

You have hardly connected to the rest of the questions this time and 1,2,3 are merely a repeat. I can only request you to re-read both of those replies on 7 points/questions again.

Anyways, a better example than mosquito for serious analysis is the E.Coli experiment that I'm constantly talking of and ignored by the evolutionists.



Ending note - The evolutionists in this forum have humoured me long enough. Watch -> Atheism / Evolution Put Into Action! - Evolution debunked...Again. - 2012 - YouTube

 

[Anorion]

Just like I questioned earlier, the "mysterious" dark energy was "coined" to "explain" the faster expanding universe which was earlier "assumed" to contract under its own gravity. Here we see assumptions and conclusions based on observations (i.e expansion) and assumptions (i.e contraction under its own gravity). What is the guarantee that the "acceleration" of expansion will continue as it is? What if tomorrow it does not expand as fast as it is observed today? And hence my further question, is prakriti or universe that predictable that you can make assumptions, generalizations and conclusions in the state of momentary analysis (1 day, 1 year, 10 years, 1000 years, 1000000 years etc and so on)?

Dark matter is just one answer to a question. That question is we can measure more mass than we can see. Dark matter simply means mass we cannot see, it does not have to be some exotic material.
Considerable doubt on ultimate fate of universe. Science dont know yet if it will expand till it rips apart, contract back to a primordial state (time may go in reverse during contraction), or find some kind of stasis. The conditions necessary for all three outcomes are known though.

Last point is great. Voyager will keep going on after the largest number of years you mentioned.

 

[Raaabo]

The point is pretty simple. Science says "We don't know all this for sure, but we're making educated guesses based on what we see and observe."

All I want to know is, has anyone in a higher state of consciousness said "aha, I know it all now!"

Everyone here is aware of a lot of gaps in these scientific theories being discussed. New findings are good, they do not necessarily void theories, they may require the theory itself to evolve to encompass the new information. As I said before, even no data is data in science, and not finding something in an experiment is the equivalent of finding something new.

Thus learning is never ending, and understanding the universe continues. This is what my so far limited reading of Auribindo has also yielded. Thus, what's the debate really about?

Mediator: are you saying you have the answers, or not? If you don't either, then why are you debating, because everyone else also says we don't have all the answers, just plausible theories based on findings. If you do, why not share this with us, and let's see if it's all as enlightened as you seem to be espousing.

As for the Ecoli example you keep bringing up, what is your understanding of the experiment, and how exactly do you think it disproves evolution? Specifics please, because in a debate about science, one really should be scientific. And just in case you're referring to Behe, I should point out his irreducible complexity theory has already been debunked. If you're referring to Lenski, he actually proves evolution in his experiment. So what's the big deal with Ecoli that you keep mentioning.

As for that video, put anyone rational in a situation where he fears death and he will beg for mercy once he realises there's no way out. Are you suggesting that terrorists who don't fear death and are the only ones who truly believe in what they are doing - to the point of not caring if they live or die - are the sane ones? Because in a world full of atheists, everyone would cherish this life they have and not throw it away. Ever met an atheist suicide bomber? Ever met an atheist rioter? Sure there may be atheist murderers and criminals of all orders, but religions have caused many more deaths than atheism ever has. Also just to be clear, atheists are not be definition materialistic. Most rich atheists I know are generous to a fault, and caring about humans and animals. They may love their super cars, but then so do rich religious people. Look at the offerings given to religious institutions - why not give employees raises and bonuses for hard work when running a business... No, that would be stupid, so much better to give to a church, mosque or temple as a bribe to god to hope for even more personal success. This makes sense to you?

 

[mediator]

@Anorion - You are missing the point again. It is not about what Dark Matter/energy is, but "why" it was coined. Tomorrow, if an observation is made that universe has slowed its expansion, then will the promoters of 'dark energy' brush it off from the concerned equation? Next, if again an observation is made that universe is found to expanding faster than thought, will it again make reservations for 'dark energy' in the equation to the mystery of universe? Will the variable of 'dark energy' be like a switch where you can turn it on and off as you like?

It is just an analogy to the unscientific working of many modern scientists and yes many others have already debunked the dark energy which is defined as "mysterious" to explain faster expanding universe which was earlier "assumed" to slow down or contract under its own gravity.

@Raaabo - You don't take the questions which are supposed to be taken seriously and start chanting science and how it works instead, and then start expounding seriously on the links which are supposed to be taken lightly!

I really dunno why you keep bringing the word religion to contrast with atheism/evolution for me. I'm anti-religion, anti-creationism, anti-theism,anti-atheism, anti-evolution (except mutation and adaptation). I hope it clears your pending and sustained dilemma and confusion as to what I'm discussing. Like I said, rise beyond the taggings like "atheism", "religion" etc and understand the essence of what I'm saying.

You cannot say that there is darkness only, for there is light. One cannot say there is good only, for there is bad also. Hence one cannot say, he is a materialist, for spiritual is the other side of the coin. Those who say they are only spiritualist are 'dhongis' for materialism or fulfilling basic needs is other side of the reality. Same for manifest and unmanifest and all the levels of consciousness. The ultimate reality encompasses all these paradoxes. I told you from the start "modern material science" works at the realm of material existence only or physical consciousness which is at the lowest level of awareness. The brahman (ultimate reality) consists of the higher as well as lower. It is not a moral scale or which should be pursued as an option or a form of condescending which you had been debating uselessly from the start but natural rhythm and the flow where all are essential in its working and "knowing". One cannot reach higher until lower has been known and hence I'm not against modern science which you have been trying to analyze from the start. Hence ultimate reality is to be known in its completeness and hence the example of elephant, guitar and gym which I gave you initially. Just like the science of external, there is a science of internal where both have been seen as "one science", a part of one science i.e science of consciousness where external comes at the lowest level, where perception of the external is purified as higher levels are achieved or consciousness reaches higher. Once again "lower" consciousness does not mean bad, but it is a portal to the higher. And hence, for the umpteenth time, your questions and analysis over me would fall uselessly over you as a reply, until you have understood the science of consciousness or its basics to start with. But you don't have an interest only in this subject as you proudly speak of and hence a proof that you have been trolling from the start.

For the sake of discussion : I have seen those who tag themselves as atheists to be rude, crude, shrewd, brute, cruel, immoral, arrogant in real life and start worshipping during exams or when fear/terror strikes them where luck & hope are the words which can be seen constantly in their practical dictionary. Theists although have stand perhaps superstition and blind-belief and terrorism as in doctrine of Islam, but atheism stands for hypocrisy for me where majority can be found to be blindly worshipping science/scientists, as evident from the majority of subjects in this forum alone, explaining how science works most of the time, chanting science and infatuating with it instead of discussing it.

Anyways, the only interesting part in your reply is the popup of the word Aurobindo. Can you please tell which work of Aurobindo are you reading?

 

[Anorion]

Noope. You can sit down and figure out all science on your own, and you will do a better job and much quicker than formulating all possible gameplans for living human life

 

[Faun]

Noope. You can sit down and figure out all science on your own, and you will do a better job and much quicker than formulating all possible gameplans for living human life

lol...

 

[Hrishi]

Has it started once again ?

Noope. You can sit down and figure out all science on your own, and you will do a better job and much quicker than formulating all possible gameplans for living human life

 

[Raaabo]

The secret of the vedas.

Now.

Ecoli.

Please explain how you find that disproving evolution.

Also, evolution is crap, agreed.

Please enlighten us about where all the current animals were millions of years ago, and why we only find fossils of weird looking things that don't exist today. Also, where are all the people? Why are only weird semi-human fossils found?

Also, I don't avoid questions, read the thread again, I've replied to everything, and you haven't given an explanation for anything except talking about higher consciousness in the abstract and rubbishing everything.

I have a huge interest in human psychology and this is what draws me here, not trolling. Look up trolling. Giving explanations isn't trolling.

Also, has anyone noticed how even drug users claim to be getting "high"?

Religion, any beliefs and getting high are all interests for psychologists, and although I am not one, I try to find a logical explanation for it all.

Now waiting to hear the explanations you have come up with for the questions I am repeatedly asking and being ignored.

To recap: why Ecoli, and what's your explanation for what actually happened and why evolution is wrong?

 

[Hrishi]

While I am nowhere in position to judge BaBaji's(_/\_) knowledge of Vedas and his study of "being high" , but I do have to agree that his literature is good.
He writes quite well.

 

[Anorion]

Yep. He should write novel on consequences of a hindutva govt. think it will be bestseller.

 

[Raaabo]

In Sanskrit?

 

[mediator]

"Evolution is crap" that too coming from the champion of evolution. Surely we are in a sarcastic mood aren't we?

I had given you a few links to read like -> Agamas and Science and Art of Temple Construction

If you really think Mahabharat is just 1000 or 5000 yrs old like they portray in NCERT, then naturally your questions are going to be absurd like "Please enlighten us about where all the current animals were millions of years ago,".

What is the average height of men in today's world? Do we really think that men in the past had the same average height? Dinos did exist, perhaps there were inter-planetary communications as well. What makes us think that the fossils that are being found relate to

1. Species from earth only ?
2. "A missing link" in the chain ?

Why are we ignoring the Indian history before asking questions and our so called "research"?

So the modern DNA studies debunk the evolution and there are instances in Puranas of men co-existing with "big creatures". What is the probability that men did not exist when all the land mass was together?

Also, I don't avoid questions, read the thread again, I've replied to everything, and you haven't given an explanation for anything except talking about higher consciousness in the abstract and rubbishing everything.

I have a huge interest in human psychology and this is what draws me here, not trolling. Look up trolling. Giving explanations isn't trolling.

If you call defining evolution, testifying as to how science works, praising evolution and giving wiki link to talk about "missing link" as replying or giving explanations, then sure you did a wonderful job. Hats off!

My questions are still open and have been listed together this time specifically for the worshippers of evolution and those who blindly believe and chant science instead of understanding and questioning it from their own primary frame of reference. Refer #454, #458

Also, has anyone noticed how even drug users claim to be getting "high"?

Exactly my point. The difference between higher consciousness and drug effects has been explained to you more than once. But how can one whose understanding dwells only on the external world relate or know anything outside his scope of interest? But still....

1. Higher consciousness involves -> perfect mind control, drug effects -> loss of mind control
2. Higher consciousness aims or converges to a thoughtless state, whereas drug effects -> thoughts, experiences based on poisoning of mind like hallucinations of ghosts and demons and further getting affected by those!
3. Higher consciousness -> based on detachment, drug effects -> due to attachment
4. Higher consciousness has stages -> 1.Yam, 2.Niyam, 3.Asan, 4.Pranayam, 5. Pratyahar, 6.Dhyan,7.Dharana,8. Samadhi ; Drug Effects -> Loss of mind control leading to crimes, rapes etc
7. Higher consciousness -> formation of more brain cells, strengthen brains and strengthens a person emotionally ; drug effect -> destruction of brain cells, reduces a person to a loser!


But I'm optimistic you'll keep repeating this "high experience" during drug effects again in the future.

Anyways, I have talked about E.Coli experiment for the evolution believers and thiests to update themselves on the advancement of the experiment and observe upon it and not to draw any conclusion whether evolution is right or wrong and just to present the understanding of what adaptation and mutation means for many blind-believers who don't even understand the basic meaning. It is similar to the way I have inserted a link on evolutionfaqs for the blind-believers where they don't even understand the "non-random process of Natural Selection".

Anyways, for a person like you who is not apt with Indian sciences, thinks dowry, killing, animal worship etc is related to Indian science, conditioned from birth into believing that the Indian science is some religion and acknolwedges proudly that he doesn't have any interest in the subject alone, you might find it hard to understand "Secret of Vedas" by Aurobindo. But still do tell when you finish it. Now, I'm more interested to see how a live case, without a background and mindset further based on lack of interest, interprets Secret of Vedas.

 

[Anorion]

Pandavas went to forest on 4th sept 5575 bc, any fringe links that say otherwise?

 

[Gollum]

I opened this thread only to find that I have no clue what this thread is about.
This is like a random discussion thread.

 

[Hrishi]

I opened this thread only to find that I have no clue what this thread is about.
This is like a random discussion thread.

The Thread is about "Being High!!".

 

[Gollum]

The Thread is about "Being High!!".

lol, I'm at the 5th floor right now. how about you?

 

[Hrishi]

lol, I'm at the 5th floor right now. how about you?

Yeah I was quite high too , somewhere around the 7th , but then When I fell and woke up , I realised the F***ng world still runs on rules of nature explained by Science.
No matter whether it cab bent or broken or even everything is just a state of mind , it still runs on the very pricnciples explained by science.
**** that , infact even the very thing I am using to post this with you is a product made from understanding of science.
If I knew the very answer , I would simply go out of it and not live inside it.