*** Science Or God? ***

[iinfi]

 

[mediator]

No, one does not become a creationist by questioning materialists. One becomes a creationist, by subscribing to a creationist point of view, and thats what u have done, not once, but twice. But i understand ur problem. There is no proper scientific criticism against EVOLUTION, per se. So ur frantic googling is always landing u on creationist sites. And since u have never ever read on evolution, u can't differentiate a true scientific criticism from a creationist one. Hence all the bungling. But keep trying. Don't give up so easy. I am having too much fun.

Its a real pity that the questions that I ask 'of my own' cannot be answered by materialists & some questions from even the creationist sites are left ignored. I understand ur rant bt 'no proper scientific criticism' since it needs a proper processing from brain in the first place to understand that criticism which unfortunately the funny materialist lacks! Just like a color blind cannot see many colors, deaf cannot hear what others say, the science fanbois blinded by the loss of rationality cannot reason what skeptics say bt their favourite beliefs regarding science theories. A subject "accepted by most" (add the term scientist "who accepted"), is all that they desire for proper spoon feeding. Forget about the loss of rationality, they clinch to the mere faith that science can explain everything!! For them anything that science cannot explain is "crap/pink unicorn" and every thing else is an unquestionable fact be it BIG BANG or evolution theory!!

I can see how much phun u r having, since u can't even sing ur fave 'the yabadabadoo song' which I guess was a tragic result of evolution in ur former stages, or evolve this thread properly! Its a smirk people usually develop when emotionally charged with loss of words leading towards a continous use of terminology like "pink unicorn/yawn/diaper/moron etc". And so u "answered all", eh?

Its either u r fooling urself or the people in this forum who u think do not read abt their favourite subject n then saying, "I already ANSWERED EVERYTHING", thinking that they will look upon to u! Take ur pick. Its a gambit thats used in politics buddy, but a good try!

That, my dear friend, is a clincher. First take lessons in evolution, then turn a few pages of "Your Inner Fish". (There u go, recommended a book). No matter how much u choose NOT to learn, there is still a chance in a trillion that u may just learn something worthwhile.

Ah, the inner fish now. It was becoz of survival right? U still didn't tell that even after all the threats, why the humans n animals can't or evolved to fly? Seems like u r landing more on evolutionist sites than using ur own....., I forgot its hollow! M extremely sorry.

By your own admission, you do not understand homeopathy. So i guess, its you who needs to take a lesson first. When u r done come back to papa. Papa's got candy for u

Spoken like a true materialist!


Thats all for today I guess, as I'm clinching to the faith that someday some materialist who thinks science can explain everything, will indeed answer all those questions I asked instead of pretending that he started a discussion, and then fooling around like the funny materialist here!!

 

[keshavasiva]

@keshav- Theres a little thing called extrapolation. Hundreds of years ago, people had no idea why sailors would get bleeding gums, exhaustion and would suddenly drop dead. Now we know it was because of scurvy.Extrapolating from the fact that science usually finds out why stuff happens, I think it's pretty safe to say that we will reach a point when we know a lot of stuff that we don't know today.

Even ignoring your thinly veiled attempt to question my literacy, there are quite a few things wrong with this post.
Firstly, have you even read the bible? Both, the Old Testament and the New Testament, have very little about what Jesus said. The Old Testament, has very little to do about Jesus(If at all) and is more about Judaism. The New Testament, which is a collection of stories not only about Jesus's life and teachings but the molding of sectarianism inside Judaism. Incidentally, both books have been written by people. Infact since the Da-Vinci Code, Pretty much everyone knows about Constantine and how he decided to re-write the rough draft of the New Testament to make Jesus "God's Son".
The Bhagavad Gita is not "the message of Bhagvan", but a transcription of the speech that Krishna gave Arjun, justifying the war against the Kauravas, at Kurukshetra.
Infact, if you read the Vedas, which pre-date the Bhagavad Gita, it strictly says that there are no omnipotent, omnipresent beings called Gods. Images like Krishna,Vishnu and a whole host of others, are exactly that-images. They were meant to make the idea of your subconscious being God, easier to understand.
So frankly speaking, I would recommend that you do your research and actually read, before accusing others of being unable to.

Dood! Bhagavad Gita does mean the song of God or message of God.
Its an opportunity taken by Krishna to speak knowledge and is not just limited to kurukshetra or arjuna. It is for all of us. Why don't you substantiate your claims of gods??? I can prove to you that gita. You better read Gita first.
Man... u tell me about research here... so lame... I have done too much of it...but don't pose... did u read vedas??? Atleast BG is alrite but vedas reading is not a joke and reading a point here and there and putting it here is nonsense...
I have a source and its BG which is awesomely perfectly written .. u will have to admit all your wrong ways and wits when you read it . After all its a song of God. If you don't want to read it atleast know its vastness of knowledge by knowing who reads it in this world.



Carnivore....in the next post why don't you just restrict your talk to evolution or homeopathy or any substance than talking **** like in your previous posts jus making your goal as better criticism!!??Or defamy or wateva....Karanmaya is lot better in this regard as he is atleast putting on some point which he feels is not right or I don't know or wateva. But he does speak substance.

Now lemme see ..

Even if evolution is true , then....Why are apes and monkeys not extinct??
Where are the intermediate forms between ape and Man??(Missing Links)

[FONT=&quot]“There is no evidence which would show man developing step by step from lower forms of life... …there is no such things as missing links.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Dr. Austin H. Clark
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Biologist, Smithsonian Institute[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Darwin confesses[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]towards the end of his life[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]“Not one change of species into another is on record...we cannot prove that a single species has changed.”



Now try to be to this topic and don't again start your kaki gola saying u r like this u don't know.... etcetc... which just proves ur mental instability. I hope u would rather answer it.!
[/FONT]​

@rhit,
I can now see what u saw a lot earlier. I was thinking, that everybody has a right to speak his mind, even if it means nonsense. Now, I am not sure, I feel that way.

@keshavasiva
Although it will fall on deaf ears, lets give it a last shot.

Faith in science : Science has proved itself a bazillion times. Otherwise, Instead of debating like this,in the cozy comfort of our homes or office, we would have been roaming in the wild, in a wee bit lioncloth and clubbing each other to death for food and women. This whole civilization is a gift of science. From the knowledge of how to grow crops, to blasting off rockets into the space, and everything in between, is a result of relentless quest for knowledge, by man. That quest is what science is all about. Having faith in science means having faith in this method of learning. Considering the gulf of difference between our knowledge, 2000 years ago and today, it is safe to bet, as @karmanya has quite rightly done, that whatever is unknown today, will be known tomorrow, whatever is speculation today, will be theory tomorrow, whatever is theory today, will be fact tomorrow. This faith, is based on the history of science and the evolution of our knowledge.

Faith in people/things : It is again based on personal or cumulative experience, interaction and understanding of persons or things. When I am typing a letter, I know, that if I hit the key "A" on my key board, it is more than likely that the shape "A" will appear on screen. That faith is based on experience. It has happened before and so it will happen again, untill of course, the key or my computer, is damaged. Similarly when u have faith in people, u have it on the basis of ur past experience with that person and of course with interaction. Your knowledge of the persons ability to do certain things, will also help u to have faith in that person. For example, if your plumbing is broken, u would go to a plumber not an ironsmith. Because, u would expect a plumber to know a lot more about plumbing than an ironsmith.

Faith in writers : It is usually based on their professional qualifications, their achievements and how much they are considered worthy of their words by their peers. Your own understanding of the subject and logic would go a long way as well. Stephen Hawkins made many predictions in the 'Brief History of Times', many of which would probably never come true. Does that mean he can't be trusted anymore. Einstein had spent the last 30 or so years on gibberish research. Does that mean Einstein is a kook. NO. Because, they got more things right, than they got wrong. So when these scientists, with proven track record say something, odds in their favour are automatically high.

Faith in doG/ supernatural etc : Well thats just about it. I believe it. Hence it is. That faith is a belief without a basis. And most of us here are against this faith. It is this faith that is blind, because it refuses to see that there is no basis that is logically tenable.

People like u make mockery of science. Fine. No problem. But do take your time out and think, if science is only about gigantic fantastical theories like Big Bang or it is also about teeny tiny things that surround us and make our lives comfortable. From that innocuous pen in your pocket, that ticking watch on your hand, that ipod plugged in your ears to that electricity that is running your AC, your PC, your microwave, your refrigerator, to that car that you drive or that plane you have to catch today - all science. The fact that we live in a civilized society, is proof, that we got at least something right.


IGNORING...? *sigh* no wonder.

Dood i missed this.....!
Hmm yes... i just want you to speak out these things... So if you see one with track record.. you start believing.... What the f888 you know about Religion and i told you its along with science. Read BhagavadGita or any other scripture which says lot of things which are true in this modern age and so you have to start putting faith in it
Its not blind.... Its very logical... why d hell do you think professors start reading this gr8 knowledge just blindly?? Its for real.. and you have a blind faith that god is a blind faith... come out of it... open your mind and try reading BG and then think of it.
First let us complete the science part and then full fledgely come to god part.. Its more logical i feel.



>
>
Just a point to add....
[FONT=&quot]Once thought to be a simple bag of chemicals, the cell is now understood to be an elaborate system of molecular machinery that surpasses a modern city in complexity.

Do u think that such a complex thing which are there in trillions of number just came by chance or an explosion.... if yes then a county like manhattan should have come into existence when a big bomb explodes(instead of getting destructed).

[/FONT]

Can anyone tell me how GOD was born????

Why man... Please know the defition of GOD... he is unborn.! And its out of world for your small brain

You just don't understand the importance of this experiment. Understanding the Universe is important for the survival of the Human Race. The Earth won't last forever. You think 'God' is going to save us all? We have to save ourselves and such experiments are absolutely necessary for the Understanding of the world.

So what do you suggest to understand the Universe without spending money..?
Sit under a tree and meditate?

Thats the complexity of the subject.

Good way to escape and so you accept that its so complex that humans can't perfect .. and thats wat it is!

First understand what is saving for you?
I know that Earth won't last forever and it need not. Ok let us see what the experiment understands about the 'world'.

doG's dad got drunk and took a <you know who> to a hotel. 9 months later doG was born.

You stupid ass hole... will ya stop abusing god or i will have to kick your ass.
Persons deranged and unable to make their point become unstable and talk like a ass blown. .u know.... and u r the one... I should have to make use of more ugly ****... if you continue making up stories like this and likcing ur dogs ass..

 

[rhitwick]

You stupid ass hole... will ya stop abusing god or i will have to kick your ass.
Persons deranged and unable to make their point become unstable and talk like a ass blown. .u know.... and u r the one... I should have to make use of more ugly ****... if you continue making up stories like this and likcing ur dogs ass..

is the language used above to express someone's view is seemed to be offending only to me or this is the right way to express urself??*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/3.png

 

[keshavasiva]

is the language used above to express someone's view is seemed to be offending only to me or this is the right way to express urself??

Is it ... u thoroughly try to support him... are u his **.??
Yo middle man.. don't gimme a damn... The post clearly offends GOD! and that is the treatment to that coward cuz he can't go on wid his stupid offenses against GOD... u think offending your admired won't offend u?? tell me dude!*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/3.png

 

[rhitwick]

I don't talk to n00bs.........thats why I stopped responding ur post........

u use that kind of language any further............I'm going to report u........
then let MODs(GODs) save u...........

 

[karnivore]

Its a real pity that the questions that I ask 'of my own' cannot be answered by materialists & some questions from even the creationist sites are left ignored. I understand ur rant bt 'no proper scientific criticism' since it needs a proper processing from brain in the first place to understand that criticism which unfortunately the funny materialist lacks! Just like a color blind cannot see many colors, deaf cannot hear what others say, the science fanbois blinded by the loss of rationality cannot reason what skeptics say bt their favourite beliefs regarding science theories. A subject "accepted by most" (add the term scientist "who accepted"), is all that they desire for proper spoon feeding. Forget about the loss of rationality, they clinch to the mere faith that science can explain everything!! For them anything that science cannot explain is "crap/pink unicorn" and every thing else is an unquestionable fact be it BIG BANG or evolution theory!!

I can see how much phun u r having, since u can't even sing ur fave 'the yabadabadoo song' which I guess was a tragic result of evolution in ur former stages, or evolve this thread properly! Its a smirk people usually develop when emotionally charged with loss of words leading towards a continous use of terminology like "pink unicorn/yawn/diaper/moron etc". And so u "answered all", eh?

So this is your latest strategy. When things get hot, lie low for few weeks then come back on one pretext or the other and start repeating same ol' same ol' expecting everybody would forget everything and you can continue with your merry way of BSing. Nice strategy. Doesn't work though. U have been given plenty of links to sites that discuss just these issues. U may not like them, as we don't like yours, but to say ur queries have not been answered, would be lying through your teeth. And you are pretty good at that.

I guess my pink unicorns have done just what they were supposed to do. Good job boys...extra candy today.

Its either u r fooling urself or the people in this forum who u think do not read abt their favourite subject n then saying, "I already ANSWERED EVERYTHING", thinking that they will look upon to u! Take ur pick. Its a gambit thats used in politics buddy, but a good try!

If that gives u a good night's sleep...I am cool

Ah, the inner fish now. It was becoz of survival right? U still didn't tell that even after all the threats, why the humans n animals can't or evolved to fly? Seems like u r landing more on evolutionist sites than using ur own....., I forgot its hollow! M extremely sorry.

Flight was necessiated from the need to either flee from predators or to reach higher branches of trees or normally unaccessible areas, like hills etc, for food or for both. Flight gave added advantage, because that enabled the animals with flight, to access food, which can't normally be accessed by bipeds or quadrupeds without flight.

Human evolution went through a phase when a large part of its habitat was steppe like region, with little or no trees and certainly almost no high lands which can't be accessed on foot. Being a quadruped was a disadvantage here, because it will severely limit sight, which was needed both for protection and for hunting. Early humans did not need wings to counter the problem. They needed to stand on two feet so they could scan the horizon (Case in point - Prairie dogs). And thats exactly what they did. The fist batch of early humans stood up and took the first bipedal steps. Standing upright was the easiest next step that to develop the complicated process of flight.

Evolution then took a different turn to make human body suitable for upright posture, which was quite contrary to what it was originally desinged for - quadrupedal life.

Also, the evolutionary path that humans followed gave them a physic which was also unsuitable for flight. Remember evolution is not about future or it is not about what is best. It is about NOW and what is needed to survive. (To this day human body carries signs of flawed design of spinal chord.) This is also the reason why flight originated only among handful of animals and not all. Flight requires special flight feathers. It is however not known, if these type feathers came into being before flight (read glide) or after animals took to air. What is however known, is that some of the first animals, rather species, did have feathers on them well before they took to flight.

First the need to fly, second being fit to fly. Combined u got flight in birds and not in every animal. Remember flight did not come one fine day. It came gradually and started with gliding (there is a difference of opinion here, if it was bottom-up or not. Meaning if flight originated from ground or from trees - majority though subscribes to the fligh from trees theory.) and gradually moved to true flight. There is evidence of nature's failed experiments with flight. Line of species which stopped evolving or could not evolve as rapidly as it should or used a very different method of flight and became extint.

There is one more point I would like to make here. Wings are TOOLS of survival. Humans have the best tool of survival that was ever developed. BRAINS. Prey-predator relationship also plays a huge role in deciding survival strategies. Thus a gazzale learned to run faster and for longer distance than its predator, etc. Early humans learned to develop weapons to ward off predators and hunt.

This is futile attempt to compress hundreds of pgs in few lines, and having to drill into the skull of someone who thinks he has so much brain that he does not need to read any book, isn't making it easier.

If u REALLY REALLY want to learn make an effort to do so, instead of making dumba$$ comments from ignorance.

Spoken like a true materialist!


Thats all for today I guess, as I'm clinching to the faith that someday some materialist who thinks science can explain everything, will indeed answer all those questions I asked instead of pretending that he started a discussion, and then fooling around like the funny materialist here!!

You would'nt know it even if it hits you in the face...

Well I have tried to answer. But since we are all wrong and u have oodles of brains, please tell us, why can't humans fly. I am sure, a cognoscente like u will have some theory. Would luv to hear that, with popcorn of course.

Even if evolution is true , then....Why are apes and monkeys not extinct??
Where are the intermediate forms between ape and Man??(Missing Links)

Are you suggesting that since we evolved from apes and monkeys, there should not be any hopping around. They all became humans...oh sweet.

Correction: We did not evolve from apes and/or monkeys. We ARE the apes, and our closest cousins are Chimpanzees, Bonobos and Gorillas, all of whom are apes. The entire ape family evolved from a common proto-ape, a few million years ago and has since gone extinct. It is this proto-ape that is called the missing link.

“There is no evidence which would show man developing step by step from lower forms of life... …there is no such things as missing links.”
Dr. Austin H. Clark
Biologist, Smithsonian Institute

You are turning out to be a fine clone of @mediator. Quoting people, you know jack about. Clarke had his own theory of EVOLUTION, which of course ran counter to Darwin's, but he did not reject EVOLUTION per se. It was an alternative theory, but EVOLUTION all right. And one more thing. That was 1930 and this is 2008. Thousands of new fossils have since been discovered. Before blindly copy/pasting, just like @mediator, make an effort to actually learn.

What the f888 you know about Religion...

Know enough to know not to know it...

Do u think that such a complex thing which are there in trillions of number just came by chance or an explosion.... if yes then a county like manhattan should have come into existence when a big bomb explodes(instead of getting destructed).

People can either be right or they can be wrong. You are not even wrong. Try Dawkin's Great Boeing 747 gambit. It tastes good.

You stupid ass hole... will ya stop abusing god or i will have to kick your ass.
Persons deranged and unable to make their point become unstable and talk like a ass blown. .u know.... and u r the one... I should have to make use of more ugly ****... if you continue making up stories like this and likcing ur dogs ass..

I luv it when kids loose their heads The question is, did u have it in the first place.

BTW, doG's mom is really good in bed . Guess how I know it.

 

[mediator]

So this is your latest strategy. When things get hot, lie low for few weeks then come back on one pretext or the other and start repeating same ol' same ol' expecting everybody would forget everything and you can continue with your merry way of BSing. Nice strategy. Doesn't work though. U have been given plenty of links to sites that discuss just these issues. U may not like them, as we don't like yours, but to say ur queries have not been answered, would be lying through your teeth. And you are pretty good at that

Oh, so u r not answering coz I was absent for few weeks? To be precise around 12 days. But neways, since when did that become an excuse for not answering? Even when @sen_sunetra answered after a week, I aint get angry or stopped answering to him or is that your new excuse to shy away from answering the questions? You act so feminine.

C'Mon I bet $1 million. Its like luring a 'yabadabadooo evolved materialist', who displays his laughing pic reflecting himself, with a bone!

$1 million or a bone. Take ur pic, but please answer!

Flight was necessiated from the need to either flee from predators or to reach higher branches of trees or normally unaccessible areas, like hills etc, for food or for both. Flight gave added advantage, because that enabled the animals with flight, to access food, which can't normally be accessed by bipeds or quadrupeds without flight.

Human evolution went through a phase when a large part of its habitat was steppe like region, with little or no trees and certainly almost no high lands which can't be accessed on foot. Being a quadruped was a disadvantage here, because it will severely limit sight, which was needed both for protection and for hunting. Early humans did not need wings to counter the problem. They needed to stand on two feet so they could scan the horizon (Case in point - Prairie dogs). And thats exactly what they did. The fist batch of early humans stood up and took the first bipedal steps. Standing upright was the easiest next step that to develop the complicated process of flight.

Evolution then took a different turn to make human body suitable for upright posture, which was quite contrary to what it was originally desinged for - quadrupedal life.

Also, the evolutionary path that humans followed gave them a physic which was also unsuitable for flight. Remember evolution is not about future or it is not about what is best. It is about NOW and what is needed to survive. (To this day human body carries signs of flawed design of spinal chord.) This is also the reason why flight originated only among handful of animals and not all. Flight requires special flight feathers. It is however not known, if these type feathers came into being before flight (read glide) or after animals took to air. What is however known, is that some of the first animals, rather species, did have feathers on them well before they took to flight.

First the need to fly, second being fit to fly. Combined u got flight in birds and not in every animal. Remember flight did not come one fine day. It came gradually and started with gliding (there is a difference of opinion here, if it was bottom-up or not. Meaning if flight originated from ground or from trees - majority though subscribes to the fligh from trees theory.) and gradually moved to true flight. There is evidence of nature's failed experiments with flight. Line of species which stopped evolving or could not evolve as rapidly as it should or used a very different method of flight and became extint.

There is one more point I would like to make here. Wings are TOOLS of survival. Humans have the best tool of survival that was ever developed. BRAINS. Prey-predator relationship also plays a huge role in deciding survival strategies. Thus a gazzale learned to run faster and for longer distance than its predator, etc. Early humans learned to develop weapons to ward off predators and hunt.

This is futile attempt to compress hundreds of pgs in few lines, and having to drill into the skull of someone who thinks he has so much brain that he does not need to read any book, isn't making it easier.

Is that what another book spoon fed u with? Nice theory. But then again u r not using ur upper.....m sorry again! Its hollow
1. Humans too are endangered by epidemnics, deadly virii, pollution, terrrorism, natural disasters like in Bihar, hurricanes, tsunami etc. It seems u r forgetting how many natural distasters INDIA faces alone n loses lives more than that in terroism. Food shortage is there in many parts of the world specially in developing economies, let alone suffering from diseases in these part of world. Many don't even get fresh water to drink.

2. If its necessary for survival then why didn't land creatures still retain the ability(give a thought) to survive in water? I'm waiting for another theoretical essay on this. Good Boy.

3. If the evolution lead to big dinos, then why did we get short animals afterwards? You may leave this, as I guess there is no scientific spoon feeding or conjecturing upon this for u.

4. Philosphically thinking, we don't do much aggression against our parents, grandparents, great-great-great.... grandparents a hierarchy that follows the same philosophy mostly. Thats a true case even in the animals & birds. So why do you think unicellular organisms or even the mutlicellular organism "evolved" to some species that endangered them??
Comparing that to humans we remain a threat to ourselves where people with diff. philosophies kill each other in the name of religion or incompatibility. So then, the threat seems to be much greater for humans! I guess idealism n philosophy is absent in animals which makes them less endangered among themselves than humans.

5. Where are the evidence of centimeter by centimeter (little by little) evolution? U understand evolution was a slow process don't u? Or they suddenly got limbs?

6. Also reveal how we got a "hippo" if it's "not like a ladder" that u mentioned?

7. And since u talk of BRAIN, it has developed tools both for survival as well as extinction. A mass of matter that has created religious differences, hatred, intolerance, anger etc as well and a situation where we fear for our survival becoz of global warming which in return is leading to food depletion from both land & sea. A time might come when hills will be the only last resort!

If having a brain means living a happy life, then I guess animals have more brains than us who atleast live in accordance with the nature unlike the humans who are corrupting it everyday for their own selfish needs leading to pollution, terrorism, toxic/nuclear wastes, global warming etc lessening their own "chance for survival".

And one important point that since u mentioned BRAIN, then u must have been the first one to fly!

So then why didn't animals or humans started flying? So now, please write a big essay on such a marvellous theory most of which, I fear, again will be plaguirized.

Well I have tried to answer. But since we are all wrong and u have oodles of brains, please tell us, why can't humans fly. I am sure, a cognoscente like u will have some theory. Would luv to hear that, with popcorn of course.

U r wrong when u answer wrong. But so far u have done nuthing but plaguirizin and giving essays on evolution, let alone the rest of the questions ignored by ur "yawn" n trolls long ago!! Neways its quite surprising to see a materislist science fanboi who vows that science can explain everything bouncing off the same question to me.


Since u forget it everytime here it goes once again...

1. Where did the matter came from? What was before Big Bang? Proof of t=0 is not there! Where is it going to end? is there any boundary? YES OR NO? IF NO, then how can u say UNIVERSE was created? If yes, what beyond the boundary? CAN SCIENCE EVER EXPLAIN IT ?????? Answer me line by line

2. Where did life come from into lifeless particles? A few Scientists say that life might have come from outside earth. What do u say?

3. Can science explain "the placebo effect"?

4. Why can't science explain thoughts, beliefs, intelligence?

5. What do u think will happen if accidental experminet by German students that lead to discovery of speed greater than that of light is confirmed?

6. My quotations on the pdf are still left unanswered!

7. Why do u think modern medicine is ignoring too much? Just an eye opener.... Though there is plenty if u search nad refresh urself on this thread.

It is a sad fact that virtually 100% of ALL medical education (both under-graduate and post-graduate) is paid for either directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical industry. As such, the industry can control the educational agenda and our doctors are now taught little except how to control the symptoms of disease, preferably with long-term drug use. It is not the Doctors themselves that are at fault, but the pharmaceutical marketing system that trains them.

Now lets think about what that means.

EVERY Doctor, regardless of his / her own convictions, is taught that the way to treat disease is to use drugs, often without even considering the underlying causes of the disease.

Examples

* High blood pressure (hypertension). Modern medicine uses various drugs to drop the blood pressure - without considering why the body had elevated it in the first place.
* Angina - Modern medicine uses drugs to "cover-up" the symptoms of angina and other forms of heart diease, without telling you you can actually reverse the damage that is causing it!
* High Cholesterol - modern medicine uses drugs to artifically force lower cholesterol levels, without thinking about WHY the body raised them in the first place (clue: it is a defensive mechanism!)
* Depression - modern medicine dopes adults and (increasingly) kids with toxic drugs to cover up pyschiatric / psychological issues that are caused by malnutrition, plain and simple. (specifically, a chronic lack of omega-3 fatty acids)

Yet the few who are prepared to speak out against these giant corporations are shunned by their own colleagues, whose blinkered, self-serving attitudes are exactly what their pharmaceutical bosses want to see. Take these examples.

1. Dr Weston A Price, who proved beyond all doubt that the chronic diseases we have seen emerge in the 20th century are largely caused by our increasingly poor nutrition, and that in 26 separate "primitive" societies, these diseases DO NOT EXIST - until you give them a Western diet! He was IGNORED by modern medicine.
2. Dr Linus Pauling, one of the few people EVER to win TWO Nobel prizes, who showed not only that ischaemic heart disease is nothing more than chronic scurvy (Vitamin C deficiency), but that ALL CHRONIC DISEASE is caused by mineral deficiencies. Modern medicine ridiculed his results without even studying them, but has no answer to his success in treating patients.
3. Dr Mary Enig (author of Know Your Fats : The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils and Cholesterol), one of the pioneer scientists involved in assessing the role of various fats in heart disease and cancer in the 1950s, who proved that saturated fats (in butter, cheese, eggs and meat) PROTECT against these diseases, whilst the unnatural hydrogenated vegetable oils used in margerines (and virtually all prepared foods) CAUSE the very problems they are supposed to prevent. She was shunned by the modern medicine establishment and all research funding was withdrawn, despite the fact that the evidence fully backed her up.

And these are just a few examples from many cases where modern medicine is so entrenched in its pharmaceutical-based "symptom treatment" paradigm that it has totally lost all interest in PRVENTING disease, which is exactly what Natural Medicine is all about.

As if they weren't enough, the pharmaceutical industry, through its pressure group, Codex Alimentarius, is now trying to ban the very minerals and vitamins that can prevent and treat disease - fight it!

So what can you do about it?

The answer is very simple - make sure you are informed about your health problems, and make sure your Doctor, or other health care professional is informed too. If your Doctor doesn't undestand the importance of nutrition, find another Doctor who does.

* Establish a routine of basic nutrition, which in many cases is enough to stop many "chronic diseases" in their tracks.
* If you already suffer from a "chronic disease", don't just accept lifelong treatment, find out which deficiencies are implicated and (if basic nutrition for a few months doesn't do the job) correct them, you will be amazed at the results. Contact us for more information
* Be prepared for the long term - most "diseases" take years to develop, they WILL take time to recover from too.
* Join the Alliance for Natural Health, who are working to undo the illegal Eurpoean Directive on Food Supplements (ESPECIALLY if you are in the USA - the EU law is a prototype intended for the US to follow)

For a science fanboi who believes in fancy n puzzling stuff like dark wateva this shud be a piece of cake to answer!

BTW, u still didn't answer whether u'll get ur friend suffering from AIDS treated with moodern medicine or Ayurveda?? I guess I repeated this like more than 5 times now.


So either scatter n shue away, or answer genuinely or let this thread go peacefully without taunting anyone who disagrees with ur funny utopia. I can predict ur next post won't go without the use terms like "yawn/pink unicorn or similar terminology" in the most typical way like it has been in a way to either digress or ignore the relevant part!!

BTW, doG's mom is really good in bed . Guess how I know it.

I guess u were conniving urself when u asked @rhitwick to let @keshaviya continue with his abuses. Tragic effects of evolution!

 

[Faun]

^^you know he is living without any faith (seems to be a stolid look on face), so guess our explanations are ultrasound vocals for him.

 

[karnivore]

"A fool can ask more questions in one hour, than 7 wise men can answer in 7 years"
- Anonymous
@mediator has obliged us proving the adage right. Nevertheless lets try.

Oh, so u r not answering coz I was absent for few weeks? To be precise around 12 days. But neways, since when did that become an excuse for not answering? Even when @sen_sunetra answered after a week, I aint get angry or stopped answering to him or is that your new excuse to shy away from answering the questions? You act so feminine.

C'Mon I bet $1 million. Its like luring a 'yabadabadooo evolved materialist', who displays his laughing pic reflecting himself, with a bone!

$1 million or a bone. Take ur pic, but please answer!

So u r blind as well...good. And I bet 10 bucks u don't have $ 1 million dollar to bet. In legal sense, thats a FRAUD.

1. Humans too are endangered by epidemnics, deadly virii, pollution, terrrorism, natural disasters like in Bihar, hurricanes, tsunami etc. It seems u r forgetting how many natural distasters INDIA faces alone n loses lives more than that in terroism. Food shortage is there in many parts of the world specially in developing economies, let alone suffering from diseases in these part of world. Many don't even get fresh water to drink.

You obviously do not know why, Europeans have sharp nose, white skin and tall height, while in the tropics it is usually flat nose, dark skin, short height. Adaptation to various conditions. Natural disasters etc. so effect humans, but not as much as it affects those who are solely dependent on nature. Humans know artificial selection. Humans can innovate. If there is lack of water, human can irrigate to bring in water. If there is lack of food, human can provide relief to the hungry. Diseases, epidemics, etc can all be more or less countered with modern medicine. Where it can't be patients can be quarantined to stop epidemincs (case in point CUBA during the pre-AIDS epidemic). Also, evolution is not a matter of decades or few thousand years. It is a matter of few millions of years.

2. If its necessary for survival then why didn't land creatures still retain the ability(give a thought) to survive in water? I'm waiting for another theoretical essay on this. Good Boy.

It was not required on land. It was more important to adapt to terrain conditions than to retain marine abilities. For example, for a gazzale, it is more important to adapt itself, so that it can sustain speed for longer period of time. Hence its lungs can take in more air than a number of animals. It would be uneconomical to retain its underwater breathing ability, for example, on land. Economy. However during the initial stages of migration from water to land, the marine abilities were retained, till it became a burden and animals became complex. Besides u r forgetting hippos, crocks etc.

And here is noansweringenesis for u.

3. If the evolution lead to big dinos, then why did we get short animals afterwards? You may leave this, as I guess there is no scientific spoon feeding or conjecturing upon this for u.

Not that I do not know, but i am not convinced.

4. Philosphically thinking, we don't do much aggression against our parents, grandparents, great-great-great.... grandparents a hierarchy that follows the same philosophy mostly. Thats a true case even in the animals & birds. So why do you think unicellular organisms or even the mutlicellular organism "evolved" to some species that endangered them??
Comparing that to humans we remain a threat to ourselves where people with diff. philosophies kill each other in the name of religion or incompatibility. So then, the threat seems to be much greater for humans! I guess idealism n philosophy is absent in animals which makes them less endangered among themselves than humans.

Not even wrong. Evolution did not endanger them. Evolution actually allowed their genes to survive instead of being totally extinct. True the species went extinct in many cases, but their genes lived on. Thats why "gene" is considered as the unit of evolution and not "species".

5. Where are the evidence of centimeter by centimeter (little by little) evolution? U understand evolution was a slow process don't u? Or they suddenly got limbs?

Scroll back. The images are still there, if u r not blind.

6. Also reveal how we got a "hippo" if it's "not like a ladder" that u mentioned?

Closest cousin of hippos are the whales (genetic analysis confirmed this evolutionary prediction). Not much is known about hippos, because there is a gap of few millions between the current hippos and the earliest fossil, with nothing in between. But hippos and whales do share a common ancestor.

The ladder concept assumes that evolution has a plan and its objective is to become something better than a species already is. Wrong.

7. And since u talk of BRAIN, it has developed tools both for survival as well as extinction. A mass of matter that has created religious differences, hatred, intolerance, anger etc as well and a situation where we fear for our survival becoz of global warming which in return is leading to food depletion from both land & sea. A time might come when hills will be the only last resort!

Your point here ?

If having a brain means living a happy life, then I guess animals have more brains than us who atleast live in accordance with the nature unlike the humans who are corrupting it everyday for their own selfish needs leading to pollution, terrorism, toxic/nuclear wastes, global warming etc lessening their own "chance for survival".

This is exactly what is so wrong with your own brain. Having brain DOES NOT mean living a happy life. It means having an added advantage in survival crisis, when compared to other species. For example, we can think of how to artificially protect us from the different vagaries of nature, eg dams, dykes etc. Animals can't (some animals like beavers do build dams, but for different purpose). Besides, can u define "happy life".

So then why didn't animals or humans started flying?

Thats called myopia. Scroll back u will see the reasoning.

....again will be plaguirized

First learn its meaning. I can smell your frustration right from here.

U r wrong when u answer wrong. But so far u have done nuthing but plaguirizin and giving essays on evolution, let alone the rest of the questions ignored by ur "yawn" n trolls long ago!! Neways its quite surprising to see a materislist science fanboi who vows that science can explain everything bouncing off the same question to me.

Only you know what you are talking about. You ask for answers. Then when it is given you will completely ignore it and ask once again, while accusing of plagiarizing. Ask your parents to take you for CAT scan. Something is leaking.

And why can't u be asked the same questions. If u think science can't answer anything or is flawed, then it becomes your responsibility to provide those answers as well. Or u will continue to be a parasite. This is seer intellectual bankruptcy.

Where did the matter came from?

Don't know

What was before Big Bang?

No data no proof

Proof of t=0 is not there! Where is it going to end?

Why is it that something HAS to come to an end ?

is there any boundary? YES OR NO?

YES

If yes, what beyond the boundary?

No data no proof

CAN SCIENCE EVER EXPLAIN IT ??????

Not in its current avatar.

Answer me line by line

Yes my lord. Your wish is my command.

Where did life come from into lifeless particles? A few Scientists say that life might have come from outside earth. What do u say?

Amino acids + chemical reaction. Life may have come from outer space. Can't completely reject the idea, although chances are slim.

Can science explain "the placebo effect"?
Why can't science explain thoughts, beliefs, intelligence?

No, at least not in the sense that can be replicated. Yes, in terms of correlation.

What do u think will happen if accidental experminet by German students that lead to discovery of speed greater than that of light is confirmed?

Don't get too exited. So far they have not been able to replicate their own experiments or provide data to others so that it can be repeated by others, and current status of their experiments is that of JUNK.

My quotations on the pdf are still left unanswered!

*www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4584
*kasperolsen.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/amazoncom-and-the-final-junk/
*www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2972
*www.physicsforums.com/showthr...p?t=37245.html
*forums.hypography.com/books-m...al-theory.html
*www.bautforum.com/against-mai...al-theory.html
(most of the links, courtesy @sreevirus)

7. Why do u think modern medicine is ignoring too much? Just an eye opener.... Though there is plenty if u search nad refresh urself on this thread.

Half-lies, wifull misstatement, wilfull distortion. Modern medicine does not ignore anything. If u pick up any random Medical journal, u will see, how peers discuss such issues.

BTW, u still didn't answer whether u'll get ur friend suffering from AIDS treated with moodern medicine or Ayurveda??

He is doing fine, thank you modern medicine. Anyway, I don't decide for my colleague. His family does. And they chose Modern medicine over faith.

So either scatter n shue away, or answer genuinely or let this thread go peacefully without taunting anyone who disagrees with ur funny utopia. I can predict ur next post won't go without the use terms like "yawn/pink unicorn or similar terminology" in the most typical way like it has been in a way to either digress or ignore the relevant part!!

Look who's talking, Lord mediator.
Did i miss pink unicorns. There you go. Had to make your predictions come true.

I guess u were conniving urself when u asked @rhitwick to let @keshaviya continue with his abuses. Tragic effects of evolution!

U say that because.....?

A NOTE: Before anyone gets too excited over the answers which are "NO" or "No data no proof" or are in the negative, I need to clarify a thing or two. Where science can't answer definitively, it says it can't. It searches for more data. Scientists would go to extent of spending over 3 billion pounds to build a contraption so they can capture a particle, that has always been theoretical. Thats the spirit of quest. And those who underestimate that spirit, are seriously harming their own crediblity. Science does not put a blue giraffe at the top and start explaining everything and then start shoehorning data or where unavailable, manufacture one. It is relenless in its pursuit.

And what is more important is the niceties that science has provided us with. The comfort that surrounds us, is all because of science. Whether it can explain every single phenomenon, to the full satisfaction of some alternative theorists, is really a minor matter.

Thanks @mediator, for your mental masturbation. I am sure we have thoroughly enjoyed it. Now I can point to this post, everytime u say ur queries were not answered.

And one more thing...I don't think I am answering any of ur queries anymore. Unless, that is, you have provided answers to all the questions that u have thrown at me.

So happy answering.

A little humour for those who understand
*4.bp.blogspot.com/_BtqUSG7RCA0/SLNnMDl2aAI/AAAAAAAAANw/4Pc5svDBHqs/s1600-h/al-evolution-00.jpg*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/al-evolution-00.jpg

^^you know he is living without any faith (seems to be a stolid look on face), so guess our explanations are ultrasound vocals for him.

So the patent for all emotions and sensibilities are with the HAVEs. And HAVE NOTs are machines.

Common, I used to think you r at least better than @mediator.

 

[keshavasiva]

So this is your latest strategy. When things get hot, lie low for few weeks then come back on one pretext or the other and start repeating same ol' same ol' expecting everybody would forget everything and you can continue with your merry way of BSing. Nice strategy. Doesn't work though. U have been given plenty of links to sites that discuss just these issues. U may not like them, as we don't like yours, but to say ur queries have not been answered, would be lying through your teeth. And you are pretty good at that.

I guess my pink unicorns have done just what they were supposed to do. Good job boys...extra candy today.


If that gives u a good night's sleep...I am cool



Flight was necessiated from the need to either flee from predators or to reach higher branches of trees or normally unaccessible areas, like hills etc, for food or for both. Flight gave added advantage, because that enabled the animals with flight, to access food, which can't normally be accessed by bipeds or quadrupeds without flight.

Human evolution went through a phase when a large part of its habitat was steppe like region, with little or no trees and certainly almost no high lands which can't be accessed on foot. Being a quadruped was a disadvantage here, because it will severely limit sight, which was needed both for protection and for hunting. Early humans did not need wings to counter the problem. They needed to stand on two feet so they could scan the horizon (Case in point - Prairie dogs). And thats exactly what they did. The fist batch of early humans stood up and took the first bipedal steps. Standing upright was the easiest next step that to develop the complicated process of flight.

Evolution then took a different turn to make human body suitable for upright posture, which was quite contrary to what it was originally desinged for - quadrupedal life.

Also, the evolutionary path that humans followed gave them a physic which was also unsuitable for flight. Remember evolution is not about future or it is not about what is best. It is about NOW and what is needed to survive. (To this day human body carries signs of flawed design of spinal chord.) This is also the reason why flight originated only among handful of animals and not all. Flight requires special flight feathers. It is however not known, if these type feathers came into being before flight (read glide) or after animals took to air. What is however known, is that some of the first animals, rather species, did have feathers on them well before they took to flight.

First the need to fly, second being fit to fly. Combined u got flight in birds and not in every animal. Remember flight did not come one fine day. It came gradually and started with gliding (there is a difference of opinion here, if it was bottom-up or not. Meaning if flight originated from ground or from trees - majority though subscribes to the fligh from trees theory.) and gradually moved to true flight. There is evidence of nature's failed experiments with flight. Line of species which stopped evolving or could not evolve as rapidly as it should or used a very different method of flight and became extint.

There is one more point I would like to make here. Wings are TOOLS of survival. Humans have the best tool of survival that was ever developed. BRAINS. Prey-predator relationship also plays a huge role in deciding survival strategies. Thus a gazzale learned to run faster and for longer distance than its predator, etc. Early humans learned to develop weapons to ward off predators and hunt.

This is futile attempt to compress hundreds of pgs in few lines, and having to drill into the skull of someone who thinks he has so much brain that he does not need to read any book, isn't making it easier.

If u REALLY REALLY want to learn make an effort to do so, instead of making dumba$$ comments from ignorance.


You would'nt know it even if it hits you in the face...

Well I have tried to answer. But since we are all wrong and u have oodles of brains, please tell us, why can't humans fly. I am sure, a cognoscente like u will have some theory. Would luv to hear that, with popcorn of course.


Are you suggesting that since we evolved from apes and monkeys, there should not be any hopping around. They all became humans...oh sweet.

Correction: We did not evolve from apes and/or monkeys. We ARE the apes, and our closest cousins are Chimpanzees, Bonobos and Gorillas, all of whom are apes. The entire ape family evolved from a common proto-ape, a few million years ago and has since gone extinct. It is this proto-ape that is called the missing link.


You are turning out to be a fine clone of @mediator. Quoting people, you know jack about. Clarke had his own theory of EVOLUTION, which of course ran counter to Darwin's, but he did not reject EVOLUTION per se. It was an alternative theory, but EVOLUTION all right. And one more thing. That was 1930 and this is 2008. Thousands of new fossils have since been discovered. Before blindly copy/pasting, just like @mediator, make an effort to actually learn.


Know enough to know not to know it...


People can either be right or they can be wrong. You are not even wrong. Try Dawkin's Great Boeing 747 gambit. It tastes good.


I luv it when kids loose their heads The question is, did u have it in the first place.

BTW, doG's mom is really good in bed . Guess how I know it.

Oh Dude... Now I get your deeper meaning...!!! U r a dog and u sleep wid she-dogs(hope not he..mayb) ... hmm... good doog.

u think i am gonna type instead of copy paste for a doG like u? No... copy paste of FACTS is enough... its more than enough.! Clarke was ur uncle right? Darwin was your Master. ...Oh the ^^^ pic mite suggest Darwin ur dad but the species won't .
Why don't u ans the qs on chance.... Aha ... the gambit has what size and u know that he was the creator of it rite... so U yourself accept that there is a creator for cells and so the universe.!! Good dooG.

I don't talk to n00bs.........thats why I stopped responding ur post........

u use that kind of language any further............I'm going to report u........
then let MODs(GODs) save u...........

Yes Thats Y u replied me again right and lemme ask u one thin... are u modding around here ... this is after all a fight club.
Don't try to be man in the middle going no where but just modding around..!

"A fool can ask more questions in one hour, than 7 wise men can answer in 7 years"
- Anonymous
@mediator has obliged us proving the adage right. Nevertheless lets try.
So u r blind as well...good. And I bet 10 bucks u don't have $ 1 million dollar to bet. In legal sense, thats a FRAUD.
You obviously do not know why, Europeans have sharp nose, white skin and tall height, while in the tropics it is usually flat nose, dark skin, short height. Adaptation to various conditions. Natural disasters etc. so effect humans, but not as much as it affects those who are solely dependent on nature. Humans know artificial selection. Humans can innovate. If there is lack of water, human can irrigate to bring in water. If there is lack of food, human can provide relief to the hungry. Diseases, epidemics, etc can all be more or less countered with modern medicine. Where it can't be patients can be quarantined to stop epidemincs (case in point CUBA during the pre-AIDS epidemic). Also, evolution is not a matter of decades or few thousand years. It is a matter of few millions of years.
It was not required on land. It was more important to adapt to terrain conditions than to retain marine abilities. For example, for a gazzale, it is more important to adapt itself, so that it can sustain speed for longer period of time. Hence its lungs can take in more air than a number of animals. It would be uneconomical to retain its underwater breathing ability, for example, on land. Economy. However during the initial stages of migration from water to land, the marine abilities were retained, till it became a burden and animals became complex. Besides u r forgetting hippos, crocks etc.

And here is noansweringenesis for u.
Not that I do not know, but i am not convinced.
Not even wrong. Evolution did not endanger them. Evolution actually allowed their genes to survive instead of being totally extinct. True the species went extinct in many cases, but their genes lived on. Thats why "gene" is considered as the unit of evolution and not "species".
Scroll back. The images are still there, if u r not blind.
Closest cousin of hippos are the whales (genetic analysis confirmed this evolutionary prediction). Not much is known about hippos, because there is a gap of few millions between the current hippos and the earliest fossil, with nothing in between. But hippos and whales do share a common ancestor.

The ladder concept assumes that evolution has a plan and its objective is to become something better than a species already is. Wrong.
Your point here ?
This is exactly what is so wrong with your own brain. Having brain DOES NOT mean living a happy life. It means having an added advantage in survival crisis, when compared to other species. For example, we can think of how to artificially protect us from the different vagaries of nature, eg dams, dykes etc. Animals can't (some animals like beavers do build dams, but for different purpose). Besides, can u define "happy life".
Thats called myopia. Scroll back u will see the reasoning.
First learn its meaning. I can smell your frustration right from here.
Only you know what you are talking about. You ask for answers. Then when it is given you will completely ignore it and ask once again, while accusing of plagiarizing. Ask your parents to take you for CAT scan. Something is leaking.

And why can't u be asked the same questions. If u think science can't answer anything or is flawed, then it becomes your responsibility to provide those answers as well. Or u will continue to be a parasite. This is seer intellectual bankruptcy.
Don't know
No data no proof
Why is it that something HAS to come to an end ?
YES
No data no proof
Not in its current avatar.
Yes my lord. Your wish is my command.
Amino acids + chemical reaction. Life may have come from outer space. Can't completely reject the idea, although chances are slim.
No, at least not in the sense that can be replicated. Yes, in terms of correlation.
Don't get too exited. So far they have not been able to replicate their own experiments or provide data to others so that it can be repeated by others, and current status of their experiments is that of JUNK.
*www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4584
*kasperolsen.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/amazoncom-and-the-final-junk/
*www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2972
*www.physicsforums.com/showthr...p?t=37245.html
*forums.hypography.com/books-m...al-theory.html
*www.bautforum.com/against-mai...al-theory.html
(most of the links, courtesy @sreevirus)
Half-lies, wifull misstatement, wilfull distortion. Modern medicine does not ignore anything. If u pick up any random Medical journal, u will see, how peers discuss such issues.
He is doing fine, thank you modern medicine. Anyway, I don't decide for my colleague. His family does. And they chose Modern medicine over faith.
Look who's talking, Lord mediator.
Did i miss pink unicorns. There you go. Had to make your predictions come true.

U say that because.....?

A NOTE: Before anyone gets too excited over the answers which are "NO" or "No data no proof" or are in the negative, I need to clarify a thing or two. Where science can't answer definitively, it says it can't. It searches for more data. Scientists would go to extent of spending over 3 billion pounds to build a contraption so they can capture a particle, that has always been theoretical. Thats the spirit of quest. And those who underestimate that spirit, are seriously harming their own crediblity. Science does not put a blue giraffe at the top and start explaining everything and then start shoehorning data or where unavailable, manufacture one. It is relenless in its pursuit.

And what is more important is the niceties that science has provided us with. The comfort that surrounds us, is all because of science. Whether it can explain every single phenomenon, to the full satisfaction of some alternative theorists, is really a minor matter.

Thanks @mediator, for your mental masturbation. I am sure we have thoroughly enjoyed it. Now I can point to this post, everytime u say ur queries were not answered.

And one more thing...I don't think I am answering any of ur queries anymore. Unless, that is, you have provided answers to all the questions that u have thrown at me.

So happy answering.

A little humour for those who understand
*4.bp.blogspot.com/_BtqUSG7RCA0/SLNnMDl2aAI/AAAAAAAAANw/4Pc5svDBHqs/s1600-h/al-evolution-00.jpg*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/al-evolution-00.jpg


So the patent for all emotions and sensibilities are with the HAVEs. And HAVE NOTs are machines.

Common, I used to think you r at least better than @mediator.

Dood... T159 pointed out correctly .. Its naked in your posts.
Oh... I think mediator has become your basis to judge others/??? Don't even think yourself to be somewhere near to him... he always rightly says... true gross materialists around!

 

[karnivore]

U r a dog and u sleep wid she-dogs(hope not he..mayb)

...and she sends regards to u. But she says, that you need some more practice...

Don't even think yourself to be somewhere near to him...

Not even in any nightmare....

 

[Faun]

So the patent for all emotions and sensibilities are with the HAVEs. And HAVE NOTs are machines.

Lolz...wasn't it you who said it when I asked.

I guess I am not a zombie. Or am I....?

You kind of denies everything that our ancestors wrote. That has been practiced for years.

Its not the question of God and Science now. Its the question of how much one can cling to science and deny everything else which he sees labeled as unknown or anything that is not in modern science book as trash.

You don't even know what 80% brain part do ? And you blabber that telepathy, telekinesis are not possible. Just try to study the complete anatomy and system of our own body, its much more intriguing than any other things.

So we are evolving in a sense that we are more dependable on other things than being independent. There are more medical error deaths caused now. I have seen that medicines all do is to suppress the inflammation and not the actual source or cause. Just a temporary side effect kicked solution...lolz

Placebo effect and will to survive plays an important part in recovering a person than what medicines actually do. I would have lost my pet if I was just gulping down his throat the meds provided by docs (in this case they just said that it will not survive, all they wanted was money - another thing that is a part of flawed design)

If I were to be living on science completely then I would have become nothing more than a mechanical bot.

And some words you spoke were despicable. Nonetheless it will come back to you, there is no one to bear the load of it...lolz

 

[karnivore]

Lolz...wasn't it you who said it when I asked.

Yes. The point I was trying to make is that people who live without faith in an imaginary guy inside or upstairs, can be just as much human as those who live with it, and may be a lot more free, because he does not have to care for shackles that come free with such faith. Hope am clear now.

You kind of denies everything that our ancestors wrote. That has been practiced for years.

Its not the question of God and Science now. Its the question of how much one can cling to science and deny everything else which he sees labeled as unknown or anything that is not in modern science book as trash.

Wrong. I deny the lies that are perpetrated in the name of Vedas etc. I do not deny Vedas. There is a subtle difference.

When I was your age, may be little more younger, I was like you. I would get excited by the fantastic theories and ideas. But age, has taught me, that something which is too good to be true, generally turns out not to be true. Unless there is some proof, some basis, I would give it a pass.

You don't even know what 80% brain part do ? And you blabber that telepathy, telekinesis are not possible. Just try to study the complete anatomy and system of our own body, its much more intriguing than any other things.

First I too had biology in +2, like you, before veering off to a completely different stream. But that was looooong time back. Second, telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc, are more than just brains. Even if you discount brain, i.e. assume that brain is indeed capable of those, the problem lies on a philosophical level as well. Besides, to this date, no one, absolutely no one has been able to show that ability in a controlled environment. Even if you want to do some research on these, I mean scientific, the first step would be to provide some basis. So far no one, not even the believers can provide a paradigm. Problems are many. Its one thing to fantasize and another to actually see the problems.

That 80% thingie, that you have mentioned, is typical of GAP hunters. Since we don't know, just run your imagination. No body can verify it. So say anything...anything goes in the gray area.

Don't want to tell u how to run your life. Nevertheless, stop living in the shades. Come out in the sun. Its fantastic. And, the glass is half filled as well.

So we are evolving in a sense that we are more dependable on other things than being independent. There are more medical error deaths caused now. I have seen that medicines all do is to suppress the inflammation and not the actual source or cause. Just a temporary side effect kicked solution...lolz

Agreed. In many cases, that is the first approach. Side effect is a serious threat, and no one denies that. But tell me what will one do, if one has a cataract in an eye, or a blockade in one of the arteries of heart.

Placebo effect and will to survive plays an important part in recovering a person than what medicines actually do. I would have lost my pet if I was just gulping down his throat the meds provided by docs (in this case they just said that it will not survive, all they wanted was money - another thing that is a part of flawed design)

Sorry can't agree here. In limited cases, it may. But not in all cases. Placebo will not kill the germs or bacteria or the virus, any more than the immune system is capable of.

As with your pets, I am with you. I have the same experience.

If I were to be living on science completely then I would have become nothing more than a mechanical bot.

Wrong idea. But hey....doesn't matter to us.

And some words you spoke were despicable. Nonetheless it will come back to you, there is no one to bear the load of it...lolz

When I say I am an ATHEIST, I mean it, and I don't pretend to be one, as some other members. When you say that "it will come back to you, there is no one to bear the load of it", you bring to forth, the very faith, I am against. And also, remind me of the shackle that I am living without.

 

[karmanya]

Despite its own inadequacies, science has an amazing ability to adapt.
Back when the steady state theory was popular, even greats like Einstein were too stubborn to believe that any other theory could exist(so much so that they even published a few papers believing gravity to be repulsive at large distances). It took a certain Kepler to prove them wrong. So what did they do? Did they fall over themselves crying about a saviour who would come and rid them of this evil- no they did not, They re-worked the numbers and adapted.
Incidentally Mediator, the page you sent about mendel-*www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i4/genetics.asp.
Actually I would like to tell you(as can any class 10 student) that Darwin's theory of evolution has actually been re-worked. Now the current theory is the Neo-Darwinian theory which factors in Mendel's experiments.
Also the claim that Mendel's findings were ignored is quite laudable. Mendel like a lot of scientists was not as good a marketer as Darwin or Einstein were. The idea has to be sold to the people. A monk in Georgia may not have been the best equipped to do that.
T159- I cannot speak for Karnivore, but personally I don't disbelieve that our ancestors had better technology-Look at the ancient weapons-damascus steel, 1 metre long chinese swords with multiple edges, these techniques have been lost for ages, though I doubt that some "holy" being delivered them to us as a gift. I believe that scientists of that age created them and the religious-superstitious mindsets led people into believing them to be gifts from the "Gods".
And Finally, Mediator, You ask these questions and we answer to the best of our ability. You refuse to accept the answers, and then when you run out of arguments that you can re-cycle without being too obvious you revert back to saying"YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS!". So frankly speaking, why not stop acting like a baby, and calmly debate? Arguments don't necessitate insult and (in Keshav's case curse words.)
Also karnivore, please don't play the age card, it irritates me no end when while talking to my grandmother or her Guruji and after a discussion, have him say- "You're too young to understand".

 

[mediator]

You ask these questions and we answer to the best of our ability.

Doesn't that embarrasses u to be saying "we" answer? I asked u something to read and answer n here u r like a true troll to be only judging everyone! Neither u r posting anything of interest or entertaining me like ur funny comrade. WTH

You obviously do not know why, Europeans have sharp nose, white skin and tall height, while in the tropics it is usually flat nose, dark skin, short height. Adaptation to various conditions. Natural disasters etc. so effect humans, but not as much as it affects those who are solely dependent on nature. Humans know artificial selection.

I also know why sherpas or the peole born on mountains have great stamina, people in gym develop great bodies n power, swimmers don't have much straight bodies but cuts becoz of muscles throughout n people adpat so much to spoon feeding that they lose intelligence and ability to comprehend properly. Yes adaption plays great role.......NOW WHAT DOES THAT HAS TO DO WITH DEVELOPING EYES/EARS/LIMBS/FLYING/EVOLUTION FROM LAND TO SEA, SEA TO LAND????

Do u even try to understand what I am asking?

It was not required on land. It was more important to adapt to terrain conditions than to retain marine abilities. Economy. Besides u r forgetting hippos, crocks etc.

Who told u it was not required on land. Another one of ur theories that u putting up as facts??
After all it can help people during the times of tsunamis, floods ....survival sire survival! You r forgetting the very foundation of ur theory! Is the theory of evolution that weak that u randomly pick the animals like hippos, crocks? Why not humans & most of the animals? Even the hippos n crocks hold their breath for long times and resurface to breathe. Even Phelps can do that. And so? may be another digression u may be aiming at from the actual question? Is that how the funny materialists answer a question? Thats quite an imagination that "It was not required on land". Now please tell the book that brainwashed u on this or may be another evolutionist site that u landed on instead of using ur own upper....M sorry. Its hollooo..

3. If the evolution lead to big dinos, then why did we get short animals afterwards? You may leave this, as I guess there is no scientific spoon feeding or conjecturing upon this for u.

Not that I do not know, but i am not convinced.

Reasons for ur not getting convinced? Please do tell what u know.

Flight was necessiated from the need to either flee from predators or to reach higher branches of trees or normally unaccessible areas, like hills etc, for food or for both. Flight gave added advantage, because that enabled the animals with flight, to access food, which can't normally be accessed by bipeds or quadrupeds without flight.

Not even wrong. Evolution did not endanger them. Evolution actually allowed their genes to survive instead of being totally extinct. Thats why "gene" is considered as the unit of evolution and not "species".
Empathy gives evolutionary benefit of survival of gene.

Again a digression or lack of comprehension. How is that related to limbs/wings and flying of the humans that we talked discussing the "survival"?

But even in this deviated P.O.V of urs, why would predators i.e the successors or predecessors in an evolutionary chain harm their own heirarchy i.e the parents as in predecessors and then the evolutionary successors?? "Flee from predators", "Evolution allowed them to survive"? So evolution made them predators to haunt their own successors n predecessors & that some evolved to be able to fly to survive?? But, as I recall predators are there even in the sky in the form of vultures, hawks etc! Seems ur logic is all mixed up yet again with flaws all around. I wonder if some gene has got extinct that humans have lost many qualities that sea creatures possess or is it still there as in in some special case as u said evolution allowed a gene to survive?? But again, its an amazing logic of urs which says, "It was not required to on land"!

So then why didn't humans started flying even after so much danger or retained the ability to survive under water??

Scroll back. The images are still there, if u r not blind.

The "reduced scaling" of creatures which have an original length of like 6 feet in reality to 6 cm in this thread in the form of pictures doesn't mean u hallucinate that they grew cm by cm!
Its like looking at a globe, u think INDIA is 15 cm away from Russia n 30 cm from US! Funny materialist.
Where is the cm by cm evidence of the development of skeletal system, limbs, eyes, brain etc etc??

Closest cousin of hippos are the whales (genetic analysis confirmed this evolutionary prediction). Not much is known about hippos, because there is a gap of few millions between the current hippos and the earliest fossil, with nothing in between. But hippos and whales do share a common ancestor.

Which whale to be precise may I ask, white whale, blue whale? As I recall whales have a rather gigantic size as compared to hippos! Besides, the part in bold itself speaks about the weight of uncertainties. So much for the facts to consider evolutionary theory as a fact.

. And since u talk of BRAIN, it has developed tools both for survival as well as extinction. A mass of matter that has created religious differences, hatred, intolerance, anger etc as well and a situation where we fear for our survival becoz of global warming which in return is leading to food depletion from both land & sea. A time might come when hills will be the only last resort!

Your point here ?

The point is jolly simple. "The survival", the chances of which are getting less as humans 'evolve' in knowledge. The factors are many for humans to fly or why they shud have the ability to 'survive' under water as discussed previously! So the humans can't fly or survive under water? So much for the flawed theory of evolution!

If having a brain means living a happy life, then I guess animals have more brains than us who atleast live in accordance with the nature unlike the humans who are corrupting it everyday for their own selfish needs leading to pollution, terrorism, toxic/nuclear wastes, global warming etc lessening their own "chance for survival".

This is exactly what is so wrong with your own brain. Having brain DOES NOT mean living a happy life. It means having an added advantage in survival crisis, when compared to other species. Besides, can u define "happy life".

Forgetting n not bolding an "if" before the clause "having a brain" & quoting selectively doesn't mean u get another chance to digress! U must read it completely where both advantages and disadvantages of our intelligence have been put forward. U don't leave any chance to digress do u?
An so, read the 2nd line in bold. Terrorism, incompatibilities, hatred, idealism(funny materialist) etc are on the rise, global warming which is a result of century old human practices of burning carbon based fuels cannot be solved in one day or even a decade which is leading to food shortage,ecological disaster etc, nuclear wastes which have no proper disposal solution are all factors enough that lessen our "chances for survival"! Ponder and u may find more.

So why didn't humans fly? Even if floods occur becoz of rising water level, an ability to survive under water would have been rather useful! The atmosphere gets heated up and people will use ACs/fridges/coolers which in turn will lead to greater heat up of the atmosphere. We have already lost much of the ozone that protects us from ultraviolet. So what does the theory of evolution say for ur survival??

Thats called myopia. Scroll back u will see the reasoning.

All I see is heavily flawed and twisted logic which u r unable to backup save plaguirin evolutionst sites and quoting what is already known than using ur own upper....ah well!
That usually happens when u play an apologist for a theory.

Only you know what you are talking about. You ask for answers. Then when it is given you will completely ignore it and ask once again, while accusing of plagerizing. Ask your parents to take you for CAT scan. Something is leaking.

And why can't u be asked the same questions. If u think science can't answer anything or is flawed, then it becomes your responsibility to provide those answers as well. Or u will continue to be a parasite.

Questioning is an integral part of science evolution! If an answer cannot be found, then its only foolishness to force urself to find a theory no matter how absurd n inconsistent it gets. Although thats how science works "by observing & conjecturing" but treating a theory as a fact and playing apologist for it rather defines the threshold of foolishness! May be like universe this foolishness has no boundaries for fanatic fanbois!

So don't be so emotional to be crying, "why don't u take the responsibility"! I'm only questioning genuinely, and not even yawning/ignoring like the funny materialist. Remember thats how science progresses by questioning and not by plaguirizin, blind following or saying thats what "majority have accepted"!
If people like u wud have survived in the flat earth era who don't have much of out of box thinking but only know about the foundations, then I guess that even the conjectures on round earth, revolution etc at that time would have been called pink unicorns even today!

Quote:Where did the matter came from?

Don't know
Quote:What was before Big Bang?

No data no proof
Quote:Proof of t=0 is not there! Where is it going to end?

Why is it that something HAS to come to an end ?

Quote:If yes, what beyond the boundary?

No data no proof
Quote:CAN SCIENCE EVER EXPLAIN IT ??????

Not in its current avatar.
Quote:Answer me line by line

Yes my lord. Your wish is my command.
Quote:Where did life come from into lifeless particles? A few Scientists say that life might have come from outside earth. What do u say?

Amino acids. Life may have come from outer space. Can't completely reject the idea, although chances are slim.
Quote:Can science explain "the placebo effect"?
Why can't science explain thoughts, beliefs, intelligence?

No, at least not in the sense that can be replicated. Yes, in terms of correlation.

Was it ur ego that was preventing u from answering all these simple questions previously? So it seems science cannot explain many things currently or is having trouble in doing so!!

is there any boundary? YES OR NO?

YES

Explain about the boundary then. I hope its not 'observable' or a mere guesswork.

Proof of t=0 is not there! Where is it going to end?

Why is it that something HAS to come to an end ?

If it doesn't has to end, & if universe is expanding even faster than previously predicted bcoz of some fancy n puzzling dark wateva, doesn't that mean the 'boundary' is rather not defined??

Where did life come from into lifeless particles? A few Scientists say that life might have come from outside earth. What do u say?

Amino acids. Life may have come from outer space. Can't completely reject the idea, although chances are slim.

Amino acids? Do u even understand what amino acids are? Have a second try and re-read ur sources again!

Don't get too exited. So far they have not been able to replicate their experiments, provide data to others so that it can be repeated by others, and current status of their experiments is that of JUNK.

Why shud I get excited? I only asked what will happen. So what do u think will happen if it confirms?

My quotations on the pdf are still left unanswered!

*www.scienceforums.net/forum/s...ead.php?t=4584
*kasperolsen.wordpress.com/200...he-final-junk/
*www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2972
*www.physicsforums.com/showthr...p?t=37245.html
*forums.hypography.com/books-m...al-theory.html
*www.bautforum.com/against-mai...al-theory.html
(most of the links, courtesy @sreevirus)
Quote:

Amazing, I quoted the pdf and here u r linking to forums n blogs yet again to back urself up! I guess thats how u get ur spoon feeding done. Answers from physics forums or any person with the term "scientist" prepended to him/her, & aha, end of reasoning!

He is doing fine, thank you modern medicine. Anyway, I don't decide for my colleague. His family does. And they chose Modern medicine over faith.

Again it seems u r either foolin urself or u think people here are gullible enough. You do understand the status of modern medicine on AIDS even after repeated quoting don't u? Atleast read it once.





It seems u missed one question!
7. Why do u think modern medicine is ignoring too much?? Please do refresh urself on the topic reading past replies too.

U say that because.....?

A man(?) of ur age doesn't have to feel proud after abusing someone like that.

And what is more important is the niceties that science has provided us with. Whether it can explain to the full satisfaction of some alternative theorists, every single phenomenon is really a minor matter.

There is no need to be emotional to be writing a small note so that people can remember what science has done or provided us with. After all, its not that I am trying to mock science which u r trying to potray me like. Understand the difference between a being a fan and a fanatic fanboy! I am a science fan (not a fanboi), but that doesn't mean I don't look beyond what has been put forward or see both the sides of the situation. Also u lose the weight of ur posts in the first place when u label creationists or theists as morons or abuse those who differ with ur opinion. Understand how many scientists who lead to a major revolution in science were theists. But I guess that won't make it through ur head since u need spoon feeding all the time. Courtesy some comrade, some site on ur favourite theory or some scientist perhaps??

Thanks @mediator, for this mental masturbation. Now I can point to this post, everytime u say ur queries were not answered.

I can understand the scope of ur limited dictionary. Seems like u fulfilled my predictions about ur terminology!

Besides there is no need to answer again save the unfulfilled questions, since u have shown that u r hanging on to the mere thread that defines ur fervent faith that science "can" answer all of that. Thats called blind faith which leads one to play an apologist for his favourite theory and then hallucinating all sort of possibilities to be uttering sentences like "This was not needed", "This might have happened" n then failing to answer on that very foundation n thus reducing science to religion!
So u see faith does play an important part in human life. !!

 

[karnivore]

WOW...Ignorance is needed bliss.

U have missed a lot of inserts that I had made latter. May be u would want to revise your reply.

Anyway, tell me two simple things:

Just how much have u read on EVOLUTION ? Names of books or sources would be appreciated. I can see u r making mistakes which will be considered basics in the study of evolution.

What do u think will constitute as evidence in favour of EVOLUTION ?

Evolutionary changes will be triggered only if the conflict is regular. Food is a good example. Predator is another (and u need to learn the meaning of predator as well). Floods, or rising water level etc. are mostly irregular. The easiest way to avoid those is by migration. It is not enough reason to spark a evolutionary change, or as u r arguing retaining the marine abilities. However, if the primary habitat and food habit are regularly effected by such disturbances, e.g. swamps, species do tend to retain their marine abilities as well. Platypus.

Yes there are predators in the sky as well. But there was NONE when FIRST flight happened. (You could figure that part, if u had actually thought about it). Gradually competition in the sky triggered natural selection among birds as well. Thus you have eagles and then you have sparrows as well. You are again making the basic error of thinking that evolution has foresight. The process happens only on the basis of what is happening NOW, NOT on what may happen in future. Assuming there were already predators in sky, it still won't matter. Because for the species taking flight, if it is at all due to predator, the predator is on land. Priority of the species will be to survive the predator at hand and not the future one. If it really can't evolve to beat the predator in sky, it will automatically become extinct.

U have accused me of plagiarism. Fine. Can u please back up your accusation. Can u please cite a single site or book or paper from where I have plagiarized. Intellectual bankruptcy does look good on you though.

And it is irony of ironies that a creationist apologist calls me a flat-earther.

I was actually waiting for u to equate evolution with Hitler's brutality, but u came close. Terrorism etc. seem to u to be good counter arguments to brain being the greatest evolutionary weapon of survival. Ability to plant seeds and have food, ability to have weapons to hunt and ward of wild animals, ability to build cities and civilizations, ability to save lives through medicines, ability to mimic nature, all taken together would not tilt the scale even a wee bit in favour of your, really really week argument. Keep trying. The pros far far far outweigh the cons of having a brain.

One more thing about terrorism etc. Terrorists, anarchists etc. use bullets to kill. I guess it is the fault of kinetic energy then, that there are killers around.

And no, you are not asking any "genuine questions". You are just foolishly and adamantly nitpicking, that too, without knowing even the A-B-C of the subject u r nitpicking on.

BTW, Mendel's theory of heredity was well assimilated within Darwin's theory of Evolution, way back in 1940. But you would not know it, would you. Your favourite creationist site did tell u that.

Also karnivore, please don't play the age card...

I did not play the age card in an actual debate, if u carefully notice, cause I will never do that where technicalities are concerned. But something which is a matter of general understanding, age, which is of course a hyperbole for experience, matters a heck of a lot. Trust me on this.

 

[mediator]

U have missed a lot of inserts that I had made latter. May be u would want to revise your reply.

Anyway, tell me two simple things:

Just how much have u read on EVOLUTION ? Names of books or sources would be appreciated. I can see u r making mistakes which will be considered basics in the study of evolution.

What do u think will constitute as evidence in favour of EVOLUTION ?

Thats a convenient way to end it. Fine with me lets have a truce & respect each other's opinions n beliefs.

For ur question, sorry to say, but its a rather lame one actually. For "How much" what shud I answer, a lot? But, its one of my favourite subjects rather I shud say interesting one. If u ask me how much I have read on mathematics, computers, Engg. drawing, science etc etc, it doesn't necessarily means that I will remember the name of the books too, but what important is the content which needs to be pondered properly so as to understand what is available be it from books, library, newspaper, internet etc. So then, u gonna taunt me, "He doesn't remember the name of the book?". Thats fine with me. If u had actually discussed this subject properly then I guess this would have been over much earlier, than putting up extra lines to taunt each other n repeating again n again. Well who likes to read with the taunts anyways? Though, I understand its FIGHT CLUB.

For the second part, it shud be consistent in each n every aspect. Not just bt the animals, but also dinos etc. U have already read my skepticism, there is no need to repeat! So lets learn not to taunt anyone who differs in beliefs or opinions. I hope m not asking too much.

Edit : U added extra part! wth

 

[karnivore]

Thats a convenient way to end it. Fine with me lets have a truce & respect each other's opinions n beliefs.

For ur question, sorry to say, but its a rather lame one actually. For "How much" what shud I answer, a lot? But, its one of my favourite subjects rather I shud say interesting one. If u ask me how much I have read on mathematics, computers, Engg. drawing, science etc etc, it doesn't necessarily means that I will remember the name of the books too, but what important is the content which needs to be pondered properly so as to understand what is available be it from books, library, newspaper, internet etc. So then, u gonna taunt me, "He doesn't remember the name of the book?". Thats fine with me. If u had actually discussed this subject properly then I guess this would have been over much earlier, than putting up extra lines to taunt each other n repeating again n again. Well who likes to read with the taunts anyways? Though, I understand its FIGHT CLUB.

For the second part, it shud be consistent in each n every aspect. Not just bt the animals, but also dinos etc. U have already read my skepticism, there is no need to repeat! So lets learn not to taunt anyone who differs in beliefs or opinions. I hope m not asking too much.

Edit : U added extra part! wth

How much does not mean to what extent. Names of books are very good way to judge the quality.

As with evidence, u still haven't replied. WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE ? It means, how much fossil gap is allowed. If someone takes a snap of u today then 5 yrs later it can be safely said that the person in the picture is u, not considering accidents that may completely change the look. One would not need a second by second snap of yours to conclude that. However if one takes a snap of u when u were 1 month old, then that gap is way too much. So tell me, how much gap is acceptable.

Sorry for those inserts. If u want then I can delete those.

 

[mediator]

Suppose the human race starts developing long wings someday, then how do u think that will happen, immediately like in 10 yrs or gradually like in 10000s yrs. How do u think the human fossils over the gradual period of evolution will look like?? Won't the fossils show a very gradual change in the structure of body and the development of wings? Neways, I'm not an expert to state how much fossil gap shud be allowed but the consistency with what is theorises, that evolution is gradual, shud be there after all in each n every transition. If its a theory then let it be, if its an undeniable truth then it shud be simply consistent, that answers everything!

Neways leave the inserts, it will be a happy memory of a peaceful discussion although I don't hold any grudges with anyone.