Do you believe in Evolution or Creation (God)? [Archive]

davie

1st December 2004, 11:19 AM

Nope GOD DOES NOT EXIST

humans introduced the concept of GOD. still the world is filled with more than 99% of dumb humans who believe in god. Wat a dumb world!!! TRUTH IS WEIRD MOST OF THE TIME. i come up with weird conclusions but they are true.

Scientific phenomenon is a true process. Example, mechanics, natural phenomenon are alll true. Universe formed only because of this natural phenomenon. I mean matter can be formed from nothing.
From nothing we are something today. so we are all nothing at some other day.

Mass or matter is just a accumulation of nothing all governed by scientific phenomenon.

I will accept that this scientific phenomenon is god. Idea but there is no use in worshiping this scientific phenomenon eventhough it governs our dailyactivities and of the universe. Men (even in stone ages) feared for this scientific phenomenon. so he worshipped fire, rain clouds, thunder ( even hinduism does this Very Happy )
if u ignore all these and say atman and blah blah ur fooling urself.
humans are dumb they introduce all concepts like gods, caste, etc.
buddha got enlightened. so he did not say that god existed.
just get enlightened guys.So, no need to worship any god. but we need to understand god( phenomenon) and try to govern or control it. And i need some decent arguments opposing or supporting my posting. Atleast no one is gona fight for this topic like people do in the old forum for some other interesting topics Laughing
and believe me::: i swear to god. If ancient people who was responsible for introducing concept of god were as good in science to the present day standards, then damn sure they would not have introduced the concept of god and worshipped agni or sun or some crazy things. I also bet you in the after 500 years there WILL BE NO HUMAN BEING ON EARTH WHO WILL BELIEVE IN GOD.
Science will be very very very veryvery very very very advanced
Any believers with reasonable answer to all these??
I usually avoid posting all these coz i dont like to convert these forumhubbers to atheist hubbers
@barani ur posting makes sense.
I agree to ur posting and also dat of bernaud shaw,s quote

Querida

1st December 2004, 11:29 AM

i doubt you willl suceed in converting hubbers into atheists just as much as you doubted you would be converted into a believer...anyways does that mean you will join Tom Cruise in Scientology? :? :D

r_kk

1st December 2004, 12:58 PM

nice topic...very interesting... I was little skeptic...but when 80 children burnt to death in Kumbakonam last year, I had lost the little bit interest in God... It is just our creation... Even if it is there, even if god's want to put in endless fire, I want to reject him for the problems religions had created... Ok...I am looking for more scientific discussion.. like orign of life... particle physics... energy-mass changes... existance and non-exitance of particles...The micro level of God... and the practical human kind (with kindness, anger, grace. love etc) GOD...

just_hubber

1st December 2004, 02:31 PM

God Exists yesterday ,today , Tomorrow.

In Nova days (refer Bible, The Book of God) , people use to live in their way , drink ,enjoy and do all kind of evil things.

But Finally God Sent "Universal Flood" (There are scietific proofs for that) and destroyed except Nova 's group.

And same thing If HE DO AGAIN!!! The whole technology and science development all will go off in a day and we will go back to ""stone age "" (if there are survivours!?? )

And i will ask those who support(Aethism, Evolution) where they will be??????

Only one thing will survive if there will be a UNiversal flood -Space station on space with 2 , 3 dead bodies after six months, because food is enough for only 6 months).

Anyone out there to agree with ME??????

davie

1st December 2004, 05:54 PM

do u people know what we guys(christians think)
Everyone is an athiest. If you worship a false God you are athiestic.
:) .

r_kk

1st December 2004, 07:09 PM

Dear Just_hubber,
please read my reply in"Does God exist?". Please read Books written by James Randi, Earl Doherty and Michael Shermer books which provide all answers to your pre-fixed mind. Please note that if at all a God, it should be one. Telling an equivalent guy called Satan is an insult to God. This way atheist are better. They don't create religious problems and they don't equate atleast GOD. Your concept or superior God, inferior God shows you have to understand the world and religion in broader sence.

r_kk

1st December 2004, 08:12 PM

If you are doing good only becaue you want heaven, then you are selfish. If you are honest just because you fear about the fire of hell, you are nothing but a dealer who is merchanting his soul.. If you doesn't harm others even by thought, you don't need relgion... you don't need any GOD even... If God puts you on fire of hell, just because you do not believe him, then Kind selfishess God concept itself had become wrong. I prefer to be a human being rather than religious man and ready to face fire, if at all God exist.....You don't need a religion to be good,,,, You don't need Gurus or mediator to be good... You are the light for yourselves....

Querida

2nd December 2004, 02:07 AM

do u people know what we guys(christians think)
Everyone is an athiest. If you worship a false God you are athiestic.
:) .

this is seriously on wording so what would the word infidel mean? Is that the same? How about pagan?

just_hubber

2nd December 2004, 07:37 AM

I am not promoting christianity ,
i myself was like a atheist for sometimes ,

And now i changed i saw in my own eyes many witness and miracles not a fake one.

Dont tell everywhere they give money to fake

And there more than 10000 people get healed and witnessed by doctors.

especially nowadays because of skeptic people writing bad about "miracle healing"
There is doctor team to witness in every healing festival

And read about the one happened in chennai in 2002(merina) - Pastor Jae rock Lee and Benny Hinn in Bombay , there are million people grouped there in a Hindu country , the majority are not christians.

And dont need to read out the books mentioned about "atheism"
because i already know about the arguments of them.

There is answer for everything in Bible

Shekhar

2nd December 2004, 09:36 AM

arr

6th December 2004, 02:17 PM

GOD is there.
There is no doubt about that

GOD is the one who defined what is wrong and what's right..
If there is no god, then there is nothing like good or bad, right or wrong,
holy or evil .....
Then, you can do what ever you want.
which, will lead to the distruction of our whole society!!!

As we know, stealing, killing, and many such things are accepted as wrong things universally without any doubt.
So,How does all of us are thinking in a same manner...
That's because of GOD.

:idea:

blahblah

6th December 2004, 03:00 PM

God Exists yesterday ,today , Tomorrow.

"In Nova days (refer Bible, The Book of God) , people use to live in their way , drink ,enjoy and do all kind of evil things."

"The Book Of God"?-Do you mean 'Genesis'?

But Finally God Sent "Universal Flood" (There are scietific proofs for that) and destroyed except Nova 's group.

Please let us know about that 'scientific proof'. :?

And same thing If HE DO AGAIN!!! The whole technology and science development all will go off in a day and we will go back to ""stone age "" (if there are survivours!?? )

???????????????????? :?

And i will ask those who support(Aethism, Evolution) where they will be??????

They will be exactly where you find yourself to be. :lol:

Only one thing will survive if there will be a UNiversal flood -Space station on space with 2 , 3 dead bodies after six months, because food is enough for only 6 months).

Now boy!That's what I call scientific! :lol: :lol:

Anyone out there to agree with ME??????

You know the answer by now. :twisted: :twisted:

hehehewalrus

6th December 2004, 03:07 PM

blahblah
there are countless evidences for Noah's flood. Anyone can make out that we are living in an era like never before.

just_hubber

6th December 2004, 04:42 PM

The number of Fossils we agetting nowadays which cannot formed unless a big flood bury creatures and vegetations under the sand.

And also IN ost of the Mountains peak they can find sea creatures fossils

And The satellite picture of inside icy cover of Ararat Mountain , Turkey shows the biggest rectangle structure matches exactly the measurements mentioned about Nova s Ark in Bible.

And Unless there is a huge universal Flood , there wont be that much vegetation and animals buried under land , which forms todays coal , petroleum.

If not flood those wastes will be available as dust in top surface of earth.

So there is a strong evidence for Universal Flood in the time period of Nova as the same time mentioned in Bible as per research.

r_kk

6th December 2004, 05:18 PM

Hi Just_hubber,
You came here from "Does God Exist" discussion... Ok.. let me answer to you...
Fossiles are carbon dated miilions of years not 3000 to 5000 years as mentioned in bible. And if Nova fllod is the reason, then all fossiles should be at same layer... Don't try to give scientific reasoning to the Bible (which is totally unscientific).. Then See National Geographic channel web site to understand what was on Arrat mountain... No Nova's arc there... Please read science book without religious specs... I will write more in detail based on your response...

r_kk

6th December 2004, 05:24 PM

mountain top with sea life...Please read plate tectonice theroy to understand why...If yoo sea world major continents (for example India and Africa), how it was together...Why Himalaya height is increasing... Why earthquakes are occuring at the edges of continental plates... Ooops I have to take 3 years geology course to explain... Please read any geology book

r_kk

6th December 2004, 06:37 PM

just_hubber

7th December 2004, 07:29 AM

I will give a quick answer for this from space satellite search and findings of Noah's Ark.,

This is the link of that page

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ark_hunt_020830.html

As for as SCIENTISTS , THEY WILL ASSUME SOMETHING WRONG FIRST BUT FINALLY THEY CORRECT THEMSELVES AND THATS IS WHAT HAPPENING IN THIS 2 CENTURIES

I HAD RATHER BELIEVE BIBLE , MY WORD OF GOD ALWAYS INSTEAD OF VARYING SCINECE AND SCIENTISTS.

I WILL GIVE MORE ACCURATE REASONS WHY CARBON DATING IS NOT SOO ACCURATE !!! AND

ABOUT DINASOURS AND WHAT IS MENTIONED ABOUT DINASOURS IN BIBLE IN NEXT POST.

Satellite Search Underway For Noah's Ark
By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 07:40 am ET
30 August 2002

A puzzling mountain-side object in Turkey is the target of a hide-and-seek game of biblical proportions.

The high-flying and super-powerful commercial QuickBird satellite has begun snapping imagery of Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey - in a quest to spot the possible remains of what is believed to be Noah's Ark.

Aircraft pictures taken in the late 1940s, as well as more recent secret spy satellite shots of the area do show something odd - a bit of strangeness that has earned the title of the "Ararat Anomaly".

The search is on to identify that peculiar blemish in photographs.

Perhaps it's little more than a natural, albeit eye catching, geological formation. On the other hand, that anomaly could have a classic tale to tell, one that reaches back into biblical times.

On the lookout trail

Most Biblical scholars and Near Eastern archeologists and historians regard the Biblical accounting of Noah's Ark and a world-devastating flood as a story handed down by oral tradition.

Mt. Aratat captured by Ikonos on August 11, 2000. Click-to-Enlarge.

QuickBird 2 satellite will use its super-powerful camera system to image Mt. Ararat in search for remains of Noah's ark. credit: EarthWatch Inc.

DigitalGlobe's powerful QuickBird satellite is cranking out ultra close-up imagery of Earth targets. As example, this picture shows the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France -- taken March 27, 2002-- and demonstrates the quality of pictures churned out by the high-flying satellite. Credit: DigitalGlobe
As told in the Bible, Noah constructed a large boat to house his family and sets of animals, saving them from flood waters due to 40 days and 40 nights of deluge. Once this Great Flood retreated, as depicted in the Book of Genesis, the ark settled down on the mountains of Ararat.

On the lookout trail for the real deal is Porcher Taylor, a senior associate (nonresident) at the prominent think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. He is an expert on satellite intelligence gathering and diplomacy.

Taylor has worked for years to compel the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to declassify satellite images and other information related to the unidentified feature perched on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.

Indeed, the secrecy wraps have come off a partial set of aerial images taken over that location in June 1949. They do show something at the 15,500-foot level on the mountain's Northwestern Plateau.

In later years, Taylor contends, two high-powered intelligence-gathering satellites -- the Keyhole-9 in 1973 and the Keyhole-11 in 1976 -- aimed their cameras at the mountain. What those photo shoots purportedly show created a stir amongst photo interpreters.

The anomaly is more than 600-feet long (183 meters), Taylor said, at least the section visible in aerial and satellite imagery. Photo interpretation specialists, he said, do think they perceive actual boat structure in the pictures.

Yet those images remain classified at the moment. Remaining unclassified, however, is Taylor's passion.

"I want to solve the enduring mystery of the Ararat Anomaly, no matter what it may be," he told SPACE.com

Peeking at the peak

Thanks to the advent of commercial remote sensing satellites, taking a peek at the object on Mt. Ararat for a fee is feasible.

In October 1999 into the summer of 2000, images of the mountain and the object in question were snapped by the IKONOS spacecraft, owned and operated by Space Imaging, based in Thornton, Colorado. Those pictures didn't resolve the issue, one way or the other, however.

Now the lenses of another commercial satellite, QuickBird, operated by DigitalGlobe of Longmont, Colorado is on the prowl. "QuickBird is capable of shedding more light on what the anomaly may or may not be," Taylor said.

QuickBird was lofted in October 2001 and is billed as the world's highest resolution commercial imaging satellite. It can see things 2-feet (61-centimeters) across.

"We have acquired four images of Mt. Ararat and all have been cloud covered to date," said Chuck Herring, Director of Marketing Communications for DigitalGlobe. "We continue to task this event and will get Porcher Taylor an image as soon as we get a good image," he told SPACE.com.

Clear sailing

Taylor is anxiously awaiting clear sailing by QuickBird over Mt. Ararat.

"Because of constant cloud cover it's tough. Where this thing is, whatever it is…it's basically a glacier, a permanent ice cap at 15,000 feet up on the mountain. It is a unique and unexplored site on Mt. Ararat. You're going to have to have ideal weather conditions and a lot of luck when you're flying over to see it," Taylor said.

Meanwhile, Taylor anticipates that when QuickBird does produce the imagery goods, he'll have more leverage to convince U.S. President Bush and his administration to declassify those earlier Keyhole satellite shots.

Taylor may not have to wait too long.

Next month, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency unveils a load of vintage Keyhole-7 and Keyhole-9 pictures, declassifying the images and making them available for public scrutiny. He hopes Mt. Ararat photos are among those being released.

Imagery team

Taylor has at the ready a "world class" imagery team, ready to huddle over any new QuickBird images or older Keyhole photos.

A leader in that team is Farouk El-Baz, research professor and founding director of Boston University's Center for Remote Sensing.

El-Baz first gained world attention for his work on the Apollo program. He served as secretary of the lunar landing site selection committee, chairman of the astronaut training group, and principal investigator for visual observations and photography.

A native of Egypt, El-Baz later served as a science advisor to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and to King Hussein of Jordan.

He has been a pioneer in developing the field of remote sensing and is offering his expertise to what's truly resident on Mt. Ararat.

"There is absolutely enough hearsay…enough discussion about the topic to warrant looking into this, to see whether there is something tangible or not," El-Baz told SPACE.com.

Unveil the truth

El-Baz recounted his conversations with former Apollo 15 moonwalker James Irwin. The astronaut, now deceased, mounted six expeditions to Mt. Ararat in a search for the ark. Those treks were done through his High Flight Foundation, a non-profit evangelical organization based in Colorado Springs.

"Irwin told me he saw something. He felt it was an imprint on the land of the boat that was turned upside down…perhaps with some soil on top. So there was something there in his mind," El-Baz said.

El-Baz himself remains true to his training, waiting for scientific data to become available and help unveil the true nature of the Ararat object.

"There is absolutely nothing in all the pictures that we have seen up to now that is questionable in my mind. I can explain each and everything as a natural snow bank…a shadow. There is nothing," El-Baz said. But given the interest and the historical nature of such a find, the search is worth conducting, he added.

"From all the points of view, there is definitely enough in this to warrant spending time to resolve the issue, one way or the other. So I don't consider it a waste of time," El-Baz said.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ark_hunt_020830.html

just_hubber

7th December 2004, 08:13 AM

Hi R_KK

i dont need any geology course, As we are having Only one "THE BOOK" , Bible which gives what we want.

And i also will give more detailed geological based data and how it maps with our bible in the next post.

esp , when the whole land divided into continents , false data of carbon dating , failure of darwin theory , dinasour desription in Bible,
Failure of Big Bang theory as well as evolution( more funny imagination)
Some people produced fake fossils to prove evolution ? it was later revealed.

We all know what you will ask how we have to answer for those people by the help of word of God verses.

r_kk

7th December 2004, 09:33 AM

Dear Just_hubber,
Why you don't have patience to read even my reply.... Just repeating the same old stories... Till now nothing has been proved as Noah ark... Read the latest christian version of the story.... Don't dump two years back old stroies... The only one book you are quoting is wrong from the beginngg to end.... Many scientifically proven facts explain how it wrong from beginning to end... The day to day physics and all sciences are proving this facts... Please note that Jeordo Prune, Coper nicus and Calilio theories were challanged earlier by your faith people but later who won? Science... Science... Science... Read history too

hehehewalrus

7th December 2004, 09:41 AM

Dear r_kk,
you have missed out Galileo who himself was a Chrsitian but was put to death by the catholic church for his experiments. In fact, Galileo's experiments only attested to biblical facts.
But that is another story!! :D

It is not true that all scientists were atheists, the following at the bottom of this list is revealing!!

http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo6.htm

r_kk

7th December 2004, 09:46 AM

Dear just_hubber,
If I give reference from geological web site you will not believe... So let me give a site maintained by your faith but who are ready to accept the facts... read..
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1994/r&r9405c.htm
More over regarding boat size, possibility of global flood, read the following scientific web site..

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

the most fantastic part of this faith is dinasor was living just 4000 years back along with human...interesting... I love to imagine such world...but to believe?!!! no.....

Please read and reply sincienrly to the questions in the web sites.. Don't just dump old stories which were proven wrong... Be precise and explain what you understtod from your holy book... Don't just dump some body's old stories which have been used in your holy places to brain wash the kids....
I can precise reply to whatever you can write with scientific proof because I had studied bible numerous times and science also... I have studied grology also in two semsters.... So I know what dupious statment you are going to make... Please write specific based on your understanding.... If you copy others version, I can not write a book to justify based on proven science... I don't have that much time...

r_kk

7th December 2004, 09:53 AM

hehehewalrus

7th December 2004, 09:55 AM

Dear rk and others, theists and atheists.

We believe/disbelieve in God due to the beliefs given to us and past our experiences. The man in the street doesnt have the time or inclination(or intelligence) to do scientific research for 2-3 yrs to decide whether to believe or not :) I guess we are all men in the street.

To quote a link and ask one to prove/disprove is not going to take us anywhere. It is not something to be resolved in 1-2 months even, leave alone the 15 minutes that we browse here.

Knowledge is infinite-what we know about this world is barely 1% of what it contains.

Lets use this forum as a friendly place to share our interests, dislikes without antagonising or wounding anyone.

Appreciating the gentleness so far in this controversial topic, keep it up guys :)

hehehewalrus

7th December 2004, 09:57 AM

I know he was a chirstian... what is in it? oops please read development of astronmy.... How Christian world had reacted to early development of astronmy and ahat cruel practice they had adopted to stop the truth.... Calilio's... proved... Biblical... height of ignorance... Sorry I am hitting the wall.... So no meaning in writting any more... I will wait atleast few more people to give reply ...

Dear rk,

Are you aware that the first person to translate the Bible into English(Tyndale) was himself put to death by the Pope??
Galileo was not alone.
If we look at history, we will see that religious exclusivity is not restricted to india alone.

There are tonnes more to it for which I simply dont have the time to write - lot of history / politics /religion involved.

:)

r_kk

7th December 2004, 10:14 AM

Hi,
sorry.. some times discussion takes me emotional...
Yah... as you said... religion is also human creation and humans utilized it deviced it to for their own advantage... There are some science involved in the religious books but it is up to knowledge lever of our ancestors... But if we try to justify that our ancestor knowledge is complete since it is from God and whatever we have studied is bullshit.... This kind approach makes me emotional... any way this kind of dicussions are going on always... and there are some scientists in religious group to justify their own religious faiths... Few years back... I read one article saying that Ravana had used flight to lift Sita... I read it like a story... not as science... getting time to make elaborate reply is difficult task... I don't want to cut and paste practice without even reading or understanding as Just-Hubber is doing

hehehewalrus

7th December 2004, 10:27 AM

thanks for your understanding words and kind spirit r_kk, hope you will post more when you have time :)

just_hubber

7th December 2004, 10:38 AM

You cant even believe satellite pictures before 2 years , This is a good escape.
If you cant even believe satellite technology pictures from space, then there is no use in explaining to you ,
All other things i mentioned still i will give in details those who need it.
I will continue to give all great evidences of bible data in the real world
and the Proofs for the existence of God.

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: "

just_hubber

7th December 2004, 10:51 AM

My article Asteroids and their Impact omitted a discussion of “brimstone”. Bible dictionaries are inconclusive as to what brimstone, i.e. burning stone, is except to suggest it might be sulphur. The Sodom and Gomorrah account associates brimstone with fire and says it came from “heaven” i.e. the sky. (Genesis 19) It’s also something that is “scattered” (Job 18:15) and “rains” down and is associated with a “scorching wind”. (Psalm 11:6; Ezekiel 38:22) These clues fit the description of an asteroid breaking up in the sky.

" :!: A problem with answering skeptical critics is that Bible statements are often so advanced that we must wait for science to catch up before the critics can be proved wrong by science. My method is to remember the many Bible claims already proved accurate and be open-minded enough to speculate whether the trend will continue. :!:
:!:

just_hubber

7th December 2004, 11:03 AM

:!: But does the Bible really contradict the Copernican theory? Not at all!

The contradiction lay between science and an obviously incorrect interpretation of Scripture. That was how Galileo saw the matter. He wrote to a pupil: :Even though Scripture cannot error, its interpreters and expositors can, in various ways. One of these, very serious and very frequent, would be when they always want to stop at the purely literal sense.” Any serious student of the Bible would have to agree.

The Bible is “ a lamp shining in a dark place.” (2Peter 1:19)

Galileo defended it against a misinterpretation.

But the Roman Catholic church , by defending a man-made tradition at the Bible’s expense, did the opposite.

blahblah

7th December 2004, 11:38 AM

:!:
The Bible is “ a lamp shining in a dark place.” (2Peter 1:19)

Peter certainly didn't say that about the Bible.The Bible is a collection of books later adopted by the church.The right verse is "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place,until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts".All texts in the present day Bible didn't exist those days and Peter was clearly pointing to the holy scriptures of the Jews.Even the word 'Bible' was adapted later.

hehehewalrus

7th December 2004, 12:09 PM

[quote=just_hubber]:!:
The Bible is “ a lamp shining in a dark place.” (2Peter 1:19)

Peter certainly didn't say that about the Bible.

blahblah, thats exactly what justhubber means - he didnt put "bible" within the quoted part of the sentence, he put it outside the quotes :)

blahblah

7th December 2004, 12:15 PM

I saw that he3.The fellow adds his own 'Bible' to it.Its highly misleading.And I am sure he intended it given his extremist views in other threads.To stress his point this guy will do anything.

r_kk

7th December 2004, 12:17 PM

Dear Just_hubber,
just read the christian link I had attached.... You are making too many flase statements without even knowing the truth or even the basic feeling to understand what others are saying.... You are just closing your ears and open only the mouth.... How one can discuss with you. read kindly then say whatever you want... I also know what was there in satelite photo... It is very surprise to know that Calilio , Judorno Brune and etc had supported heliocentric/ 1/2 dome flat earth bible theories... You haven't provided single evidence to support this... What circumstance clilio had been forced to write like this.... do you know... please read the history book too...

r_kk

7th December 2004, 12:53 PM

miskakes in my typing... The major problem between Bible and copernicus is whether the our solar sytem is either heliocentric or geocentric. He had rejected Ptolemy's geocentric theroy. Since God believers couldn't digest the God's most importatnt creation earth revolving a supportive creature called sun. These are the following remarks... he got..
"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" "an upstart astrologer" and " a fool." Martin Luther (1483-1546)

Luther's disciple Melanchthon (1497-1560) had this to add, "Now it is in want of honesty to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce to it."

In 1616, Pope Paul V (1552-1621) issued a bull which condemned the Copernican system as heretical. It called the theory "more scandalous, more detestable, and more pernicious to Christianity than any contained in the books of Calvin, Luther and of all other heretics put together." In 1620, the Inquisition banned all publications that taught the Copernican system. [6]

Now Just_hubber is saying some thing totally different ... his own view and taking the great rebellion work of copernicus as theri own.... great cheating.... Please speak truth to be pure christian at least...

just_hubber

7th December 2004, 02:49 PM

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]

A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."

Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]

The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]

The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, "In that day," then in verse 34, "In that night." This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously. [JSM]

"When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate." [DD]

r_kk

7th December 2004, 03:48 PM

I will write with proofs taken from old bible...Not from the modified updated ones... how christian community started interpolating the bible as per their own wish and change their stand very often...Then why you have been switching the subjects... Please reply to Noah's arc question and justfy the christain web site and scientific questions asked in the scientic web site link I had attached..... Then explain why your great preacher Martin Luther and Pope even the entire christianity was against Copernicus, Galileo..and
Then...
Isaiah 40:20 reads as follows: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." This circle has been changed in Tamil Bible as Globe (another cheating)

Isaiah is actually describing the Earth as flat and circular with a dome shaped tent (sky) covering the land.

We all know the Earth is not a circle, but a sphere; and if Isaiah meant sphere, he would have said so, because earlier he states God will "roll you up tightly like a BALL and throw you into another country" (Isaiah 22:18)
"The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky, it was visible to the ends of the Earth" (Daniel 4:11)

-Daniels dream implies that the tree was touching the ceiling and could be seen everywhere on the Earth, the flat Earth.

"He who builds his upper chambers in the heavens and sets its vaulted dome over the Earth" (Amos 9:6)

"The Earth is turned upside down to scatter its inhabitants" (Isaiah 24:1 KJV)

The Bible also advocates the Earth as the center of the Universe...

"He set the Earth on its foundations, it can never be moved" (Psalm 104:5) "The world is firmly established, it can not be moved" (Psalm 93:1)

"O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies" (Joshua 10:12-13)

Joshua commands the sun and moon to stand still over two individual cities...Not likely for objects so far away and a sun that doesn't move

Please reply to my previous questions very specifically

just_hubber

7th December 2004, 04:26 PM

Here is the answer for all questions ,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geocentrism.asp

this is one links with many pages which carries answer for each question.

And also What Daniel wrote is vision of something going to happen [prophecy] ,
It is not a literal meaning ,

Daniel is same like revealation which is full of Prophecy.

r_kk

7th December 2004, 04:39 PM

Just Hubber says (Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:54 am Does God exist”
“you are not great than MLuther King or Spurgeon , i rather had listen to their quotes rather than you !”

Again he said…(Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:33 am )

“But does the Bible really contradict the Copernican theory? Not at all!”

But when I said. Matin Luther was dead against Copernicu theory as follows. Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:23 am

"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" "an upstart astrologer" and " a fool." Martin Luther (1483-1546)
and asked him what is his position…

He doesn’t answer straight…
Please be honest… What Martin Luther meant? Do you believe him… If not why did u say that you believe him rather than others…

You change color very often… How one can discuss with you

You haven’t given straight forward answers… Don’t refer to web site… Give precise answers…
Do you accept the latest Christian web site says about Noah’s arc? If not, can you give answer to the fallacy of world flood theories given in the scientific web site?

revelation / prophesis are another major ceating... I will come to you later... Let us limit to evolution only at present....

Sandeep

7th December 2004, 07:42 PM

Whether you believe in evolution or god i am sure "God is evolving here" :lol:

hehehewalrus

8th December 2004, 12:16 AM

I am seeing some unpleasant and pointless debates going on here.
Even the most learned scientists will take several months to come out with a definite conclusion of a theory. Not sure how half-knowledgeable upstarts can do that faster :lol:

Atheists can deny the historical presence in past events. But how will they deny the everyday Living Presence of God in the hearts of His devotees who welcome him? :)

r_kk

8th December 2004, 02:35 AM

As others are saying...God concept should be felt... not analysed... It is also just like love... Instead of feeling if we start analyzing as emotions due to chemicals, life will be emptyness. Every one feels their love is superior than any one.... It is same for religion too.... It is all individual feeling based on theri expereience... I don't have any objection to individuals sprituality... No need to challlnge science even... The problem starts with religion when it challange the present day science with ancestral knowledge... The discussion between evolution and creation is going on for so many years.... Frankly there is no answer in science as on today to the very basic questions... samething is with religions too....If some one say they can prove, wither one of them... then it is wrong... What we can do through this discussion is noice and loose peace.... I have also created noice...but when h3e3 said it is fruitless, no need to continue. I was waiting for such replies,.. I know "just_hubber" can not be stopped since I was also admant when I was a believer of religion.. Let peace and harmoney remain...and let me get out this discussion and do something usefull... enjoy guys...

hehehewalrus

8th December 2004, 03:50 AM

Dear r_kk
you have been a contributing and valuable participant, plz dont leave.

Also, it is wrong to examine everything based on science. Coz Science is just a small sample of Knowledge which is everything.
For instance, if thermometer was invented only in the 20th century, does it mean that the human body in the 14th century didnt have heat?

I can tell several instances of events for which science has no logical explanation - A friend of mine from Virginia had the ability to tell the future just like that - he doesnt know how it works, it just comes to him in a split second.

One month before he left india, he felt some harm coming to his indian friend and asked him to take care. then he went to US and stayed there for 2 years, having no contact with india. The other friend's mother came to US after 3 years and met him - she mentioned that her son was terribly sick last year and they were happy that he is now alive - My friend told her that he was aware of this 3 yrs back!

Events like these cannot be explained by Science.

mellon

8th December 2004, 04:24 AM

One month before he left india, he felt some harm coming to his indian friend and asked him to take care. then he went to US and stayed there for 2 years, having no contact with india. The other friend's mother came to US after 3 years and met him - she mentioned that her son was terribly sick last year and they were happy that he is now alive - My friend told her that he was aware of this 3 yrs back!

Events like these cannot be explained by Science.

How does religion or GOD, explain such incidents which could not be explained by science?

Well if your friend were WRONG, he or you would not have brought it up here to make a big deal out of a trivial coincidence happened.

Hey Walrus!

People get sick and recover and sometimes it can be felt by some people close to them. They could often be wrong in their prediction too.

:roll: I DONT SEE such incidents have anything to do with criticizing SCIENCE or praising GOD here unless you claim your friend as one of the newest GODs :roll:

What are trying to tell us from this incidence:? :? :?

r_kk

8th December 2004, 04:52 AM

Hi He3...
I will try to be remain this discussion and try to explain without touching anyone's belief (the subject is being direct challange to God concept, some time it is unaviodable to expose the some of the concept)...
Then... about your friend.... Is it posible to write atleast 5 incidences whenever he feel in his mind and put it a sealed cover and give it you. Just wait for few years and then open and see. If all 5 are ok, tell me... I will support you fully .... But if 1 or 2 true... we can assume some thing was there unanswerable... If nothing is true... we have to reject his belief...
It is all called probability... We think hundreads of things in life and if any one of them come in reality we assume that our predicitions are correct and we don't bother about the balance 99%. You know the famous "Yaghava muniver" in Tamil Nadu. He is a real character and he always come with such predictions.... But the way he explain his predictions is so crumbersome, he can always justify it based on his convenience... One of the great joke is once he said he will die on such and such date... but he was alive... when people asked he said " the real yaghava is died mentally... whtever you are seeing is another form of yahava".... Surely science have no anwer to such arguments except hoping that people have common sence...
The basic advantage of being the side of science is you can be flexible... Science is developing and not sticking to the old as final truth... There are mistakes and undeveloped concept is also science.. these are stepping stones..but tries to find the real truth always... The basic question about the how the first dividing life cell was created is the only answerless question in evolution and others can be anwered with much easy... As long as the basic question remain, God concept will remain... and any arqument to prove/reject will make only noice...
I also love to have God concept because it comforts lot... just like that my father will take care of me... but in reality... it is not... Why so many sudan kids are dying without food... why so many kids in Kumbakonam died... Why Noah's period innocent kids and unborn babies were killed? I can't accept if it is God's wish... I try to reject him even if comes in front of me for his inactiveness...Ok... let us come to discussion issue...

hehehewalrus

8th December 2004, 05:22 AM

Hi He3...
Then... about your friend.... Is it posible to write atleast 5 incidences whenever he feel in his mind and put it a sealed cover and give it you. Just wait for few years and then open and see. If all 5 are ok, tell me... I will support you fully .... But if 1 or 2 true... we can assume some thing was there unanswerable... If nothing is true... we have to reject his belief...

You are applying a test for God here. Only God is all-knowing and nowhere did I claim that this individual is God. I merely quoted an event in the life of a human, which cannot be explained by science.

It is all called probability... We think hundreads of things in life and if any one of them come in reality we assume that our predicitions are correct and we don't bother about the balance 99%.

There is a difference between logical deduction and revelation. Deduction happens when a person calculates likelihood of an event based on past history. Revelation is awareness of a future event without any logic.

You know the famous "Yaghava muniver" in Tamil Nadu. He is a real character and he always come with such predictions.... But the way he explain his predictions is so crumbersome, he can always justify it based on his convenience... One of the great joke is once he said he will die on such and such date... but he was alive... when people asked he said " the real yaghava is died mentally... whtever you are seeing is another form of yahava"....

Yes I am aware of him. An article on him appeared in the Hindu on Aug 5 1993(One day after Swami Chidbavananda passed away in Chicago). That time he said the world will end on Nov 11 1993. He is just an example of a person who got it wrong, not necessary that everyone has to be wrong.

I also love to have God concept because it comforts lot... just like that my father will take care of me... but in reality... it is not... Why so many sudan kids are dying without food... why so many kids in Kumbakonam died... Why Noah's period innocent kids and unborn babies were killed?

The explanation for this is long. I will explain later in the week, give me time.

But let me add, it is a wrong thing to imagine that God's believers are free from problems. Difficulties are a fact of life - there are some requests God grants and others which He does not. It is only the mature devotee who can sense God's hand in sorrow - his happiness is not determined by how much wealth he has, whether he has possessions, whether he is a dying patient or healthy - majority of theists see God only in their happiness. It is only the mature person who can say "I thank God for this difficulty I am in because nothing that happens to me takes place without His knowledge." Only the mature devotee will not use the sentence "I wish..." in any circumstance.

hehehewalrus

8th December 2004, 05:31 AM

How does religion or GOD, explain such incidents which could not be explained by science?

I will only say that God can prompt a believer of something happening, since He is interested in our day to day lives. You may probably scoff at my answer but I dont mind.

Well if your friend were WRONG, he or you would not have brought it up here to make a big deal out of a trivial coincidence happened.

Well, you talk like you know my friend dont you? There were dozens of things in my other friend's lives(like the transfer of an uncle he's never seen!) he told correctly. Again, that doesnt mean it has to be right - sometimes when I have a problem, he might contact me on his own and ask whats wrong. Though I know he has this talent, I never asked him even once to tell my future coz I am dead sure God controls my future and I dont have to prepare for it, come what may.

I DONT SEE such incidents have anything to do with criticizing SCIENCE or praising GOD here unless you claim your friend as one of the newest GODs

Why are you putting words in my mouth now??? when did I claim something???? I merely gave an instance of an event which cant be explained by science, thats it(and all my siblings and parents have a masters degree in science :D )

mellon

8th December 2004, 05:52 AM

Well, you talk like you know my friend dont you? There were dozens of things in my other friend's lives(like the transfer of an uncle he's never seen!) he told correctly.

What if I say, this story is not NEW. I have met at least 100 people who all had a friend of the same sort and came up with the similar or even same story to MAKE me BELIEVE the existence of THEIR GOD and to criticize the SCIENCE. You are only 101, walrus.

Dont you think I will get tired of hearing that same story for proving the existence of THEIR GOD when it comes to the 101 th case?

After all I am a human, not one of the Gods, please remember that, walrus. Thank you!

davie

8th December 2004, 06:01 AM

lol
mellon u are considering 101 people. After all they are people they will try to convince you and argue that ur wrong.
AFTER ALL THEY ARE PEOPLE.
its the innate characteristic of people to believe what others believe.
they are just ordinary human beings.
I dont have even ten seconds to read the nice posts by all of u guys.
hope things improve

r_kk

8th December 2004, 06:32 AM

As you said… Science can not accept some thing without test… I told you because of humans interpret based on their own convenience…

I appreciate your maturity in your belief… As on today 99% believers believes in God just because of their selfish goal either immediate gain, relief from pain and disease or heaven in future… For example Just_hubber’s writing on Brazil team winning in world cup…. He felt God’s presence… I haven’t seen such lowering of God even by atheist… God is supporting even food ball team as if like a coach (since that team was believing him more with his particular name)… too much. I am against such faith not the belief which found by selfless people when they find uniqueness in the world and propagate love… I don’t need the God, who could save the ignorant children dying without food... kills hundreds of innocents (Noah incidence) just to punish many crooked people and save few who followed only him (whether they are good or not… God doesn’t bother)… That’s why Noah’s story (!! Yes story) creates so much of bad feeling about God…. Such saving incidences very clearly makes a thought among believers that God will protect you if you believe him otherwise he will put you in pain… I am finding such a low level challenge is the greatest insult to the God, if at all he is sole creator of unviverse…

If you could able to read any interpretation to bible prophesies during early of this century, you will find most of the preachers tried their best to fit the happening of that time (Hitler, world war) etc with bible… I had seen many biblical prophesies books in eighties written against Russia based on Bible prophesies, mentioning Russia as evil bear as mentioned in Bible… If you read present ones, you will find they are trying their best to fit in to present day politics (particularly against the people who have opposite thought to Christian beliefs). These all very clearly explain, it can be easily fit in to any occasion… Similar to Nastamdam’s prophesies. You can find many books with different authors and totally different interpretations… In India also there are so many prophesies are there (Naadi jothidam sort of)… If you ask to them about past they will explain very clearly…. But when it comes to future… they don’t stand… They can not say even single incidences of future accurately…

Then do you know about Bhaki religions… They accept all other religion and they finally says their Bahaiyulla (iran based self proclaimed prophet…)is the last prophet (Kalki, Jesus second coming, expected Bodisatva…etc) and his birth and his life was as expected as per all religious books (They show all astrological evidences, biblicalal, islamical proofs…you will be shocked if you read their books)…
The same is for Ahamadya muslim also (other sunni/siys don’t accept him and burn the holy books of Ahamadya even though it is same as their) preoclainm the same and fit all prophesies to their founder…
It has been followed in Hinduisam also (Kalki bahavan, Sai Baba…. Another characters) and they had tried to fit all prophesies of religions as well as Nastradams to their self proclaimed Gurus… An another famous guy of 70’s Paulseer laurie (one of the major founder of evangelical movement , miracle healing business in TN) adopted the same technique… These all you can find in major preachers Rev. Moon (Korea), David Cho (Korea) life and how they had/have been utilizing prophesies and religions on the name of prophesies. Which one you will believe?

So that’s why science asks for proof to believe any thing

r_kk

8th December 2004, 06:36 AM

spelling mistakes due to fast typing...Hands are not as fast as thoughts... Bahai religion not Bahki (you all know the big Lotus temple in Delhi... marvalous piece of engg)

just_hubber

8th December 2004, 12:05 PM

I never said so ....

R_kk wrote ..
For example Just_hubber’s writing on Brazil team winning in world cup…. He felt God’s presence… I haven’t seen such lowering of God even by atheist… God is supporting even food ball team as if like a coach .....

what i said
.....
BIggest Crowd of brazilian people grouped in the biggest football stadium including ministers of that country prayed for revival of that country for many days.
so instead of popular football matches there were prayers for many days ,
samething lot of pubs and theatres in Africa(Nigeria) are converted into church after biggest revival there
.......

r_kk

8th December 2004, 02:02 PM

I accept... I understood your statement wrongly... since when I read your message... the feeling behind your message had made me to understand like this... Sorry...

then why can't you stop writting about all conversion ... larger prayer stories... You can find all these are happening in Africa, brazil..any any poor or underdvloped countries with poor litereacy ratio... Why you are not mentioining waht is happening in Europe? How many churches are converted to other places etc?

When people gets real scientific knowledge and when they can look religion without personal gains...they will understand which is worth believing.... till that time it is easy to brainwash them... Again we are going out of discussion subject....

just_hubber

8th December 2004, 05:41 PM

Ofcourse in Europe there is revival ,

In Russia there was a biggest crowd ever in christian history in Russia on 2003 healing festival in that so many people got healed, those who could not walk got healed and walked and so many small children and old people gave testimonies.

Not only in Russia also in germany so much crowd gathered for healing festival.

And in Dubai pastor Jae rock Lee expecially prayed for the handicalled and so many people got healed with doctors verification.

Now God is changing the Nations including Muslim countries.

But you are not challenging us(believers) but the God , so Let Him , the almighty will deal with you and challege back

So for every unbeliever there will be a time to face the challenge in Life , wait for it.

God Bless

r_kk

8th December 2004, 06:43 PM

oops... again threatening...

Till now, no one has proved scientifically any miracle... Don't say here there that etc... Write specifically.. Then I can make arrangement to verify such incidences...

I am not challanging God but people those who were using God to cheat people... who creates hatred among human beings and religion... who doesn't understand what is science or either what other religion means....

If at all a god, let him make these kind of people straight.... For me... I can accept the hell of fire for not speaking something which my heart says lie...

r_kk

8th December 2004, 06:53 PM

Are you talking about the another charcter...Lee Jae Rock
Read what he says...

The prophets, disciples, apostles, God and Jesus all appeared in photos he took with his camera after he imposed his hands on it in prayer.
(July 17th 1998 at a Friday all night prayer meeting)

Sin resides in the blood of the human. The blood of Jesus shed on the cross had no original sin or committed sin. Jae Rock explained that he himself shed all of his blood in 1992, so the sinful blood from his parents was done away with and he was refilled with new blood that does not have any original or committed sin.
(July 5th 1998 Sunday evening service)

I will come with lot and lots of information about him...His statements wouldn't be accepted by real christian even,,,

He is another Christian S B.... Great.... you are telling him that he made miracle.... oops.... Write more ... I want to see wht else you can write...

r_kk

8th December 2004, 07:02 PM

wow... come on jsut-hubber... finaly you had shown your cult color... I have big list to you... Tell what he did.... I can give good replies to you... How his cult behaves. How they cheat? Do you know he claimed himself as Jesus Christ? His church was expelled from Korea's National Churches? When a TV group airing his corruption scandle, his followers protested and tried to stop the braod cast?
All you know... I can write lots and lot...
If he had cured sombody.... then it is a real cheat.... He is more dangerous than athiest to religious belies? Are you following him?
Oh... God, please save this guy.... Aum, amen Insha allah... I can do only this much.... I can discuss with religious people not with cult members.

r_kk

8th December 2004, 07:05 PM

S B means Sai B...

just_hubber

9th December 2004, 09:28 AM

:shock:
r_kk,
I thought you are much more mature than your postings. Please dont use cheap sites to support your views - there are all kinds of pages on the internet. This is the home page of that site - http://www.geocities.com/incan2tero/index.htm

There is a lot of filthy language and pornography in that site - Do not open unless you really want to!
:shock:

R_Kk level is so down to browse porn sites to points?? i wasted time to respond him.

r_kk
i never beleive in any man as you mentioned, I make it clear i trust only GOD, Jesus , even when the miracles are happening on Jesus Name
It is my beleif and my own faith , i am not forcing you at any place.
i feel wasted my time for responding to you(as i can see your level)

I have so many families praying for me , so you dont have to worry about me.

Finally , if you even come after few years here in the HUb please use the same Nick "r_kk"
Just to see , is there any changes in your life and mind, Thats all so dont comment anything about me as i have nothing do with you and your views , even i post something i will post for others not for you, so i never want any review of my post from you, because i can see you are attacking personally instead of arguing
thats it.

r_kk

9th December 2004, 10:09 AM

I found this website when I was searching for his cult (korean miracle healer)....And I already accepted it is wrong link...

Just making excuses like this to my arguments is the good way to escape.... Nice idea just_hubber... I will give the correct link if you want... Calling others as sinner is the common practice of most of the cult based religious groups!!

Where are the anwers?

What I need is answers... not put the blame and escape.... Any way it is up to you...

Just note... I am argueing against just your concept... not against you... after all it is up to you....

r_kk

9th December 2004, 11:55 AM

The web site I had posted is the one of the page (not the main homepage) from mentioned website which says bible verses...saying how antichrists will come in the name of God and cheat the people. My intention was what bible says about all the new messiahs doing healing miracles... I was not aware its parent site have lot of nonsence matter.... Even though my intention was pure, I had accepted that it was my mistake (since I haven't verify its parent site)... and recalled my posts... and asked sorry....Is it not enough? Are you people will believe only from a persom he himself declaring as holy? Just_hobber very clearly utilising this situation and call others who arque against him as sinners.... As long as Just-Hopper or any one who posts some thing unscientific and supporting cheating practices. I will to try to clarify. I don't make a deal with this kind of persons saying that I will not bother you and you don't bother me...

a.ratchasi

9th December 2004, 02:36 PM

r_kk, your intentions are clear to me and I am sure other hubbers see the point in your posts.

There are honest believers just as good as honest non-believers.
I am not against God and definitely not against believers.
BUT I do despise people who expect God to do everything for them and blame God if the desired does not happen.

Not everything is explainable. At the same time not all that are unexplainable is a miracle. This is where rationality comes in.
Sadly, quite a many fail to rationalise;instead they are happy being ignorant.

There is a greater power at work. I do not deny that.But I am not in position to say what is it, where is it, how it works or how it looks like. For some that is God. For others, that's what life is all about-filled with the good, the bad and ugly. Wonders do happen in life and yes, arent we all grateful for that.

All of us see this power precisely. but how we see it is what differs. For believers, this is God;the ultimate power.To this point, all is well.

What you sow is what you reap. Not, you pray, sing bhajan, you are religious. What is the point of practicing a religion when you have no idea what God means to you.

Some start ignorant, as time goes by they realise what God is to them individually and live life accordingly. The majority of believers fall into this category.

The second scenario:
Bang, you are cured by XX, there you go, you were touched by God!
Werent you touched by HIM when you were of X religion before?Who's fault is it?

Third:
Your heart's desires was not fullfilled= there's a new atheist on the block!

The problem arises when man start to see other things more godly than God himself.

So is this God's fault or your fault as a person?

Roshan

9th December 2004, 03:14 PM

a.ratchasi,

Excellent Post !!!

I liked this specially;

Not everything is explainable. At the same time not all that are unexplainable is a miracle. This is where rationality comes in.
Sadly, quite a many fail to rationalise;instead they are happy being ignorant

Great!!!

r_kk

9th December 2004, 03:42 PM

excellent post ratchsi... real eye opener... simple words...says so much.... No need to be technical... either to prove or disprove.... at last no one knows whats is true... Any way I will try to defend half baked relious superiority complex and cheating the innocent mass for self gain of few cheaters....

Shekhar

9th December 2004, 03:45 PM

a.ratchasi,

I am truly impressed by your post, which shows extraordinary maturity of thought.

The most difficult thing in this life is thinkin... the easiest is belief.

Thinking needs tremendous effort..akin to grabbing rain drops in the air. Only who realises the joy of fruits of thinking puts in the reqired effort to it. The majority of population is lazy by nature..end up in beliefs.

Shekhar

9th December 2004, 06:11 PM

There is a greater power at work. I do not deny that.But I am not in position to say what is it, where is it, how it works or how it looks like. For some that is God. For others, that's what life is all about-filled with the good, the bad and ugly. Wonders do happen in life and yes, arent we all grateful for that.

All of us see this power precisely. but how we see it is what differs. For believers, this is God;the ultimate power.To this point, all is well.

What little I have seen around in my life, all non atheists, belong to some religion or the other which gives a specific conception of God.
God as some power undefinable, as a conception has no place in any religion as it is practiced today.
Personally I feel this conception has no relevence to how I lead my life.
I would rather tread defining, deciding and building up conceptions of rights and wrongs in life, rather than spend time musing on God.

mellon

10th December 2004, 05:41 AM

a.ratchasi,

The most difficult thing in this life is thinkin... the easiest is belief.

I think I beg to disagree with you, Shekhar, if you have really meant the above statement. I think it just depends on an individual. The above statement does not make much sense at all :(

People those who are agnostic or atheistic are in fact finding BELIEFS as the most difficult thing because they find THINKING is easier thing to do when they had a choice of choosing one..

It is theists' STUPIDITY that they think atheists and people those who are agnostics are forcing themselves not to believe the BELiEFS, they could easily believe.

davie

10th December 2004, 09:07 AM

r_kk, your intentions are clear to me and I am sure other hubbers see the point in your posts.
o is this God's fault or your fault as a person?

I agree to most of ur writings.
wel the last line is lil bit contradictory
"Your heart's desires was not fullfilled= there's a new atheist on the block!"
very few non believers just follow that line. But most of the athiests are rationalists. For a rational man, he knows how to get his hearts desires fulfilled.
Anyways, that was one good writing ratchasi

a.ratchasi

10th December 2004, 09:14 AM

The line above was referring to irrational beings.

coolboy

10th December 2004, 02:14 PM

The debate that should go here is whether evolution is right or wrong!
But, arguments about noah's ark is going on...
Fine.
Can some one post a link to a picture which shows the noah's ark on Mt. Ararat?
But, the truth is that God is there.
There is no doubt about that.

Also, unless something is proved to be wrong, it's not necessarily wrong and If something is not proved to be right, it can't be rejected as wrong, since it doesn't have a proof!

r_kk

10th December 2004, 03:41 PM

Yah coolboy, the subject had gone much out of the focus point...
let me come to the subject with a latest news....(just heard in BBC... so don't balme me...if it is proven wrong like recent Bhobal story on UC settlement)..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm

Recent discovery of 7 little (3 ft) human related remains (related) in Indonesian remote island is made lot of news about the human orign/evolution. Till now we had an opinion that human ancestors (both religious and scientist partially accept!) were from Africa and we were the only intelligent people in the universe. But the hobbits were also found to be using tools to kill animals and fire to cook proves that their little brain is on bar with our race at that time) Our forefathers had lived (might have killed them also) along with another race of little gentle human beings who were evolved from different monkey related forefathers or created (I don't want to have a argument start). Our ancestral stories with small sized human (similar to lord of ring character) may be going to proven as a real soon. It may lead to shocking questions on religions too, which doesn’t accept another race of little humans existed along with human 18,000 years. So both scientists and priests have to rewrite their own theories and find explanations. Any one can write how far this reserch is true? What is going on current...

r_kk

10th December 2004, 04:04 PM

Regarding Noah Ark

NG story:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0920_040920_noahs_ark.html

Another site showing the location
http://www.noahsarksearch.com/ronwyatt.htm

One of the scientific view:
http://www.herbertwarmstrong.com/enlyten_noahsfraud.htm

One of the religioustic view:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah%27s_ark.htm

You can make your conclusion after reading all...One the surpise is there are similar stories you can find many parts of world... with different names.

Alisha

15th December 2004, 12:35 PM

sonu gopi

15th December 2004, 01:59 PM

What you sow is what you reap. Not, you pray, sing bhajan, you are religious. What is the point of practicing a religion when you have no idea what God means to you.

Yes, this is very true.....shd practice with the complete faith in HIM :lol: :lol:

*********
SONU GOPI :P

just!hubber

17th December 2004, 09:30 AM

Latest news Flores man is short modern human.

In a recent development, Indonesian scientists have strongly refuted many of the sensational evolutionary claims about Flores man (so called in spite of the fact that the skeleton was claimed to actually be that of a woman). The country’s influential Jakarta Post (JP) ran an article on 8 November 2004 titled “RI scientists refute Flores Man finding.” (RI = Republic of Indonesia.)

The article reports Dr. Teuku Jacob, a paleoanthropology professor from Gadjah Mada University, as saying:

“The skeleton is not a new species as claimed by these scientists, but simply a fossil of a modern human, Homo sapiens, that lived about 1,300 to 1,800 years ago.”

While acknowledging the small brain size (380 cc, less than that of a chimp) and obvious differences with typical modern humans, he apparently stated that the remains were those of a member of the “Australomelanesid race, which had dwelled across almost all of the Indonesian islands.”

Some very short modern people:
According to the Guiness Book of Records website, the shortest-ever actress in a lead role was America’s Tamara de Treaux, who was 77 cm (2 ft 7 in) tall as an adult. Normally proportioned, she played ET in Steven Spielberg’s blockbuster. The Filipino paratrooper and black-belt martial arts exponent Weng Wang, who also starred in films and performs all his own stunts, measures just 83 cm (2 ft 9 in) tall. The shortest married couple were the Brazilian pair Douglas da Silva and Claudia Rocha. When they married in 1998, they were 90 cm (35 in) and 93 cm (36 in) respectively.

NOTE: We are not suggesting that the anatomical features of the Flores woman were simply those of a (miniature) modern type human.

According to a Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time

12 percent, believed that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god.

The most startling thing about these poll numbers is not that so many Americans reject evolution, but that the statistical breakdown hasn't changed much in two decades. Gallup interviewers posed exactly the same choices in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999. The creationist conviction—that God alone, and not evolution, produced humans—has never drawn less than 44 percent. In other words, nearly half the American populace prefers to believe that Charles Darwin was wrong where it mattered most.

just_hubber

6th January 2005, 03:15 PM

Homo florensius stood just one-metre-tall, used hand tools and had a brain smaller than a chimpanzee's.

The discovery was feted around the world, but in recent weeks, several experts have questioned the team's findings, among them Indonesia's most prominent paleontologist, Professor Teuku Jacob.

Jacob, who is currently studying the fossils, says he believed the skull belonged to a human being suffering from a rare brain-shrinking disorder.

"This is all a little hasty," Jacob said. "From what I have seen, this not a new species, or even subspecies. It is just one individual with microcephaly."

r_kk

6th January 2005, 04:07 PM

Professor Teuku Jacob may be correct.
In order to be part of evolution cycle also, the following minimum are required.
1. If it is recent fossils, then adequate numbers over a large area is required.
2. there should be an intermediate fossils from the common ancestor fossils
In this case both are yet to be found. More over, this fossils doesn’t easily fit in to current evolution also.
So there is lot of chance for Professor Teuku Jacob to be correct.

Kelly Vance

11th January 2005, 01:58 AM

I haven't read your full discussions, but I can clear up a few things. Number one, all of those fossils that scientists find and say that they date back to millions of years, well they only date back several thousand years. I'm sure all of you have heard of the story of Noah's Ark? Well the flood that God created (because "...the earth was corrupt....") caused all of those animals and humans that weren't on the ark to die and when they finally sunk to the bottom, then all of the sediments and dirt caused by the great amounts of water covered them up, making it seem like those fossils that the scientists found were a million or so years old (they're not).
Number two is a question, do any of you believe in Jesus? If so, what; if not, why?
Kelly Vance

Kelly Vance

11th January 2005, 02:03 AM

I believe in God, because the fact is that, if you look around you, if you look at us, then (and I am refering to the Big Bang Thery when I say this) WE AREN'T AN ACCIDENT!
As far as evolution goes, I am not a monkey, nor am I decended from one. Do you see monkeys walking around, talking in who knows how many languages?, I don't think so. We are much more complex than they are (those some of us may come close :lol: )
~Kelly Vance

r_kk

11th January 2005, 04:53 AM

Hi, let me explain with few simple things…
Noah’s flood has been discussed in detail before. Please read the previous thread. If all the fossils are of particular incident, the fossils should be in single layer but actual it is at different layers of Geological period. The amount of water remain in the world (even if we assume all ice caps are melted) is constant and not enough to fill the total earth. There are certain types of fishes and animals which live in only fresh water. If the world is covered with rain and mixed sea water, these life forms might have been eradicated. There is theoretical limit of atmospheric moisture and the vaporization. Please read my replies before on this issue.

I hope you might have seen sedimentary rocks and corals. Each layer of sedimentary rock and small growth of corals takes thousands/millions of years to form.

The light from Stars which we are seeing today is emitted so many thousands/millions of years back. So the theory of creation dating few thousand years back is possible if only light speed is not constant. There are theories to prove bending of light under heavy mass but reduction in speed need to be explained.

The above are simple basic questions. Once you provide the answers to above (no links please), I will reply to others.

Please do not mix any particulal God in this topic becuse it force me to reply and my such replies force the moderator to remove the thread or again some of the people who has similar belief argue with me saying that I am attacking their faith. So, please post such type of argument in separate thred.

mellon

11th January 2005, 05:23 AM

I believe in God, because the fact is that, if you look around you, if you look at us, then (and I am refering to the Big Bang Thery when I say this) WE AREN'T AN ACCIDENT!

You are not an accident. So, u believe in God??!!!

We are much more complex than they are

You are much more complex than a monkey. So you believe in God??!!!

I agree, some humans like you are much more complicated than the monkeys. Because if a monkey had visited here, he/she would not have brought up the irrelevant and insensible question that whether one believes in Jesus or not.

BTW, who told you that the fossils are only several thousand years old and not million years. Did you do any 14C dating yourself? or Could you quote the scientific reference here from which you learnt this information. Please dont forget to quote the ref when next time you visit here. Thank you in advance, Mr. Vance!

blahblah

11th January 2005, 10:55 AM

The fact is a majority of people[including myself] like to believe in God but the concept of God leaves more questions unanswered than the Big Bang Theory :? .So should we really believe and live for an omnipresent,invisible God,who has no beginning and End?As science develops the evolution theory is fast overtaking 'God'.

The Big Bang theory successfully explains why distant galaxies are travelling away at Great speeds from us.The discovery of Radiation in 1967 further confirms it.Nasa's Cobe satellite has picked up cosmic microwave background radiation from the outer universe[which is explained as the left over glow from the Big Bang] :) .One who is ready to spend a little time understanding this theory will find it easier to understand than some one who has heard about in a couple of boring sentences from a school book.

While the concept of God was of utmost importance in an unorganised,uneducated old world[mainly to protect the social structure and to avoid lawlessness],we should really ask ourselves whether it is relevent in modern world :) .

just_hubber

11th January 2005, 11:22 AM

The answeres are here for the questions raised

1.Huge water covers the whole earth
=======================================
According to the Scriptures there were two (2), related sources for the rains and waters of Noah's flood. There were "fountains" of water coming up out of the earth and there was water coming down from the "windows" of heaven. We will deal with the matter of the "fountains" first, as they began first and triggered a complex chain reaction from below the Earth's crust that then affected things far into the upper atmosphere.

Two types of water "fountains" occur in nature. One is called an Artesian well/spring. Artesian wells occur when a hole penetrates into the earth to a region where internal pressure causes the water to flow upward like a fountain.

The second type of fountain is called a geyser . Geysers occur when waters in underground chambers are heated by the surrounding host rock until the pressure and temperature causes them to flash to steam and erupt upwards. When the chamber is emptied, replacement water flows back into the chamber, the replacement water is heated, and the cycle repeats. An excellent example of this is seen in Yellowstone National Park's "Old Faithful" geyser.

According to what is written in the Scriptures, the fountains of Noah's flood may have been a similar form of geyser activity on a massive, world-wide scale, concentrated along the mid-oceanic ridge system. A careful reading of verses seems to indicate that the flood waters were already rising for about seven days before the fountains "were broken up"

2.Huge Water receded :
-------------------------

Therefore, we will assume that at the time just before Noah's flood the seas were more shallow than today. And, if this was indeed the case, then explaining how much of the flood waters rapidly receded becomes simple to explain.

Basic law of Physics: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
After the great volume of waters, which were formerly trapped below the earth's oceanic crust, jetted upwards, condensed, and fell into the regions above the oceanic crust, they quickly began to produce an accumulative great reverse pressure on the thin crust of the ocean floor.

In the meantime, because of the sudden release of great pressure in the supersaturated magma below the crust, there would have been a relative cooling effect on the remaining magma body. This cooling, along with the loss of the volatiles (the waters) would reduce the density of the underlying magma causing a reduction in volume. In other words, the volume of the magma would shrink. This would further increase the pressure differential.

And this, combined with the weight of the released waters accumulating above the crust, would then cause the floor of the ocean to bow downwards until pressures reached equilibrium. This means that the ocean basins would deepen and the flood waters would recede from the land as the waters flowed in to fill the enlarged basins.

3.Fresh water fish survival:

We do not know how salty the sea was before the Flood. The Flood was initiated by the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ Whatever the ‘fountains of the great deep’ were, the Flood must have been associated with massive earth movements, because of the weight of the water alone, which would have resulted in great volcanic activity.

Volcanoes emit huge amounts of steam, and underwater lava creates hot water/steam, which dissolves minerals, adding salt to the water. Furthermore, erosion accompanying the movement of water off the continents after the Flood would have added salt to the oceans. In other words, we would expect the pre-Flood ocean waters to be less salty than they were after the Flood.

The problem for fish coping with saltiness is this: fish in fresh water tend to absorb water, because the saltiness of their body fluids draws in the water (by osmosis). Fish in saltwater tend to lose water from their bodies because the surrounding water is saltier than their body fluids.

Many of today’s marine organisms, especially estuarine and tidepool species, are able to survive large changes in salinity. For example, starfish will tolerate as low as 16–18% of the normal concentration of sea salt indefinitely. Barnacles can withstand exposure to less than one-tenth the usual salt concentration of sea-water.

Eels, like many sea creatures, can move between salt and fresh waters.
There are migratory species of fish that travel between salt and fresh water. For example, salmon, striped bass and Atlantic sturgeon spawn in freshwater and mature in saltwater. Eels reproduce in saltwater and grow to maturity in freshwater streams and lakes. So, many of today’s species of fish are able to adjust to both freshwater and saltwater.

There is also evidence of post-Flood specialization within a kind of fish. For example, the Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory salt/freshwater species but the Siberian sturgeon (a different species of the same kind) lives only in freshwater.

There is also a possibility that stable fresh and saltwater layers developed and persisted in some parts of the ocean. Freshwater can sit on top of saltwater for extended periods of time.

Answers for time taken for corals . Stars Light speed issue,
14Carbon Test accuracy are coming soon....

kalnayak

11th January 2005, 11:47 AM

Do you believe in evolution or God ?

Yes -- what does it indicate? - belief in evolution or God or both.

On the contrary, selecting No indicates what? - disbelief in both evolution and God or one among them (In that case which one).

Clarify to poll.

blahblah

11th January 2005, 12:03 PM

Kalnayak,coolboy has indeed clarified it in the very first post in this thread.The question is now 'Do you believe in Evolution?'

just_hubber

11th January 2005, 12:06 PM

4.Light Speed issue

One way to understand this is to consider what is called "the classical aberration of light"-which was discovered by Bradley in 1728. In fact, aberration data became one of the early methods for measuring the speed of light. Light from the sun requires 8.3 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth during which time the sun and the earth have moved as much as 20 arc seconds with respect to each other.

Similarly, light from the stars arrives at an angle which can be as much as 20 arc seconds because the earth is moving with respect to the stars. It is by carefully measuring these aberration angles, and knowing the relative velocities involved, that Bradley made excellent and trustworthy measurements of the velocity of light 250 years ago.

However, during the time interval it takes light to travel from the sun to the earth, the sun and the earth have kept in touch with each other "instantaneously"-or at least very much faster than c! In fact every mass in the universe communicates with all other masses in the universe in a time frame that makes the present speed of light seem like the velocity of molasses on a cold day!

Astronomer Tom Van Flandern has recently detailed all the evidence that shows that gravitational forces, unlike light, operate with no measurable aberration!

actual geometric measurements of star distances are possible only out to about 300 light years. Greater distances are mere "guesstimates" based on a series of assumptions. However, there is no Biblical problem with the concept of an infinite universe created by an omnipotent Creator (Ref Scriptures Not Mentioned Here!!! .), so we have no basic problem with distance estimates involving millions of light years.

To explain this problem further, consider an exploding star (supernova) at, say, an accurately measured 100,000 light-years away. As the astronomer on earth watches this exploding star, he is not just receiving a beam of light. If that were all, then it would be no problem at all to say that God could have created a whole chain of photons (light particles/waves) already on their way.

However, what the astronomer receives is also a particular, very specific pattern of variation within the light, showing him/her the changes that one would expect to accompany such an explosion -- a predictable sequence of events involving neutrinos, visible light, X-rays and gamma-rays. The light carries information recording an apparently real event. The astronomer is perfectly justified in interpreting this "message" as representing an actual reality -- that there really was such an object, which exploded according to the laws of physics, brightened, emitted X-rays, dimmed, and so on, all in accord with those same physical laws.

Everything he sees is consistent with this, including the spectral patterns in the light from the star giving us a "chemical signature" of the elements contained in it. Yet the "light created en route" explanation means that this recorded message of events, transmitted through space, had to be contained within the light beam from the moment of its creation, or planted into the light beam at a later date, without ever having originated from that distant point. (If it had started from the star -- assuming that there really was such a star -- it would still be 90,000 light years away from earth.)

just_hubber

11th January 2005, 12:29 PM

5.Sedimentary Rock and Coral

some Australian scientists have developed a revolutionary new chemical process that transforms loose sediment into rock within days.1,2 The invention does not use strange, synthetic materials, but mimics natural processes. Some may find it hard to believe, but it’s true. Contrary to the general impression, it does not take millions of years to produce sedimentary rock. All it takes are the right conditions.

The global Flood is the key. Floodwaters flowing over the Earth during that cataclysm dumped the huge deposits of sediment. And the same floodwaters contained the dissolved chemicals that quickly cemented the sediment into rock. Australia’s rapid-rock invention powerfully demonstrates how sedimentary rocks could have easily formed well within a few thousand years.

At the time of Global flood , the pressure produced would be enough of all these sediments out of flood to form rock. There would be many layers all formed at the same time. They are differnt layers (not just one layer) because the sediments were stratified while wet, based on their density. Take a jar, fill it with sand, and rock of different sizes. Then fill it with water, and shake it. As it settles the particles will seperate based on their density, and will settle into layers. If the water receded (like in the flood) and a great deal of pressure was added (a million pounds of wet sediments laying on top of eachother) then these would form rock in a very short period of time. We simply don't have the pressure exerted on the sediments today that existed at the flood.

The Creationist interpretation is that the Grand Canyon was formed as a result of the flood.
The Creationist who believes the Bible looks at the same evidence but comes to a different conclusion as to how these layers were formed. The Creationist knows that these layers could not have formed over millions of years. As there is little or no erosion between the layers. This is consistant with all the layers being laid down at the same time (the flood).
The receding flood waters would cut through the soft sediments, leaving the canyon. These soft sediments later hardened into their present form.

The canyon may have formed while it was solidifying, as the waters receded (possibly very quickly) it would cut through these layers like butter. Some people claim that it took a little bit of water (the small river) a lot of time (millions of years) to form the canyon. But it could have been the opposite.
A lot of water (the flood) and a little bit of time.

just_hubber

11th January 2005, 01:09 PM

14C Carbon Dating not Reliable?

Carbon dating may be considered reliable now but there are big error margins. The indicated problems make carbon dating rather unusable for the last 300 years. Also between about 9000 and 11000 years ago there are large margins due to massive CO2 release.

Archaeologist John McRay notes: “Unfortunately, several recent discoveries combine to indicate that carbon 14 is not as valuable as was once hoped: (1) radioactive carbon atoms may not have existed in the earth’s atmosphere before 2000 B.C.; (2) the natural concentration of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has varied in certain periods, and (3) there is a high probability of sample contamination”

When solar radiation strikes the earth's atmospher, it converts the stable carbon-12 (found in CO2) into radioactive Carbon-14. Now, Carbon-14 accumulates on all living organisms (dont worry, it's not enough to harm you, and there's nothing you can do about it anyway). So, when an animal dies, the Carbon-14 loses two subatomic particles and is released back into the atmosphere as normal, regular Carbon-12. The half-life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years, which means that, every 5730 years, half the remaining C-14 in the animal body is left. So, every 5730 years the amount of C-14 reduces from 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8 etc. So, the scientists carbon-date a dead animal carcas by measuring how much C-14 is still in the animal and, therefore, how long it's been dead.
The problem is, the magnetic field is decaying around the earth. The earth is covered in a magnetic field, which is STEADILY losing its strength by 1/2 every 1400 years. There are no magnetic reversals--there are only areas of stronger and weaker magnetism. So, if there are no reversals, then we know that the magnetic field has been shrinking at a measurably-stable rate. So, by the half-life of the magnetic field, the magnetic field would have been 320% stronger around 4500 years ago. But the thing is, the magnetic field filters out a lot of radiation (radiation is needed to make C-14). So, if the magnetic field was 320% stronger 4500 years ago, then it would've reflected most of the radiation, and therefore there would have been less C-14 in the atmosphere in ancient times--thus the C-14 in the atmosphere was at an un-measurable increase. Therefore, we cannot accurately Carbon-date ANYTHING because that would be assuming that the magnetic field was ALWAYS at the same strength it is today. For an example of wacky carbon dating rates:
Living Seals were carbon-dated as having died 1400 years ago! The shell of a living clam was carbon-dated as having died thousands of years ago!

r_kk

11th January 2005, 03:42 PM

Thanks just_hubber for your detail replies. Please inform me whether you believe the above statements mentioned as science 100% before I make any reply. I hope that you will not say that I am attacking your religion. If the above are clearly understood by you, then you can easily answer the following questions.
1, Is Himalaya made up of igneous rock or sedimentary rock?
2. What is the height of Himalaya and how much water column you assume that will be adequate form any loose silt or sand to become rock? You said already it can be formed very fast!!
3. Tell me about the Australian scientist, name and details who told sedimentary rock can be made in natural technique very fast? Please note that Australia is the second after USA in terms of number of creation science belief.
4. You said sedimentary rocks are formed in layers based on density! please confirm once again. Is it means higher density sediments are at lower layer?
5. Do you consider that Newton’s third law is applicable for all incidences mentioned in the book you had mentioned or only selected case?

I will restrain myself in replying and wait for any one who feel evolution is reasonable.

mellon

12th January 2005, 05:25 AM

Therefore, we cannot accurately Carbon-date ANYTHING because that would be assuming that the magnetic field was ALWAYS at the same strength it is today. For an example of wacky carbon dating rates:
Living Seals were carbon-dated as having died 1400 years ago! The shell of a living clam was carbon-dated as having died thousands of years ago!

accurately means what?????

Are you telling me, The difference between 1000 and 1000000 is what the scientist mean by not accurate?

Then he must be a dumb scientist to make such a stupid statement.

We can go on copy and paste several pages from unknown references and say that 14-C-dating is not accurte.

Do you know such a theory is not accurate either????

Also, That does not mean we can go on earaze three zeros and make all the millions to 1000.

Define accurate here first, just-hubber, please?

It is really funny to watch REligious people become SO LOGICAL and care about accuracy when talking ONLY about scientific facts and expts. But, They believe any crap said in a religious book. They can not understand that there can be ONLY ONE God if there is a God. That God does not necesarily the God they think as the God.

just_hubber

12th January 2005, 07:31 AM

hi mellon

you are correct , that scientist may be dumb,
Here many more dumb scientists and science journals also making stupid statements (as per your view )

The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!(Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637)

The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago! ("The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" by Paul Taylor)

What about a freshly killed seal? Well, they dated one of those too, the results stated that the seal had died 1,300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct 1971 pg. 211)

A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, Washington)

Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61)

Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801.
("Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker)

Lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand gave erroneous dates (from K-Ar analyses) ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years old. These rocks were "observed to have cooled from lavas 25-50 years ago".("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

The equiptment was checked and the samples were run again to exclude the possiblity of lab error but similar results were obtained.("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

Because the actual age of these rocks is known to be less than 50 years old, it is clear that these K-Ar ‘ages’ are due to ‘excess’ argon which was inherited from the magma source area deep in the earth.("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

Dr. Robert Lee. In 1981, he wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”

The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years

arr

12th January 2005, 03:28 PM

I have studied about this carbon dating method.

::::Let me explain it::::
Actually carbon exists in various forms, namely isotopes.
In nature, the ratio of one isotope to other isotope is *beleived* to be a constant.
This is the very basic assumption of carbon dating.
As the objects become older and older the ratio changes.

Now, they compare the (assumed) fresh one's ratio to the ratio of some old specimens.From the difference they determine the age of the specimen.

Now you people explain whether this is a good method or not?

mellon

12th January 2005, 08:42 PM

Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801.
("Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker)

Who is this Gary Parker anyway??????????

Some kind of religious leader or God himself or one who lived in 200 years ago and the only living evidence to show us what is what? Or just another "smart scientist"????

I will respond based on your response, JH.

Thanks for agreeing that some scientists are really dumber than logical religious preachers, JH! 8)

mellon

12th January 2005, 08:55 PM

I have studied about this carbon dating method.

::::Let me explain it::::
Actually carbon exists in various forms, namely isotopes.
In nature, the ratio of one isotope to other isotope is *beleived* to be a constant.
This is the very basic assumption of carbon dating.
As the objects become older and older the ratio changes.

Actually archeology itself is not science if you ask me.

The "scientists" make millions of assumptions and make some weak statements to make a paper out of it.

Some "opportunists" are waitng for using "those" according their convenience.

Nobody can be accurate about it.

BTW, Proving earlier science and theories as wrong is part of the science.

mellon

12th January 2005, 10:04 PM

Have a look at the reliability here

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html#c4From

the dating of ancient bristlecone pine trees from the western U.S., a correction curve for the carbon dating over the range back to 5000 BC has been developed. Trees dated at 4000 BC show the maximum deviation of between 600 and 700 years too young by carbon dating.

NOT MILLION YEARS :? :?

These examples are from The Earth Through Time, 2nd Ed. by Harold L. Levin

Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix. Fossil fuels have no carbon-14 content, and the burning of those fuels over the past 100 years has diluted the carbon-14 content. On the other hand, atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s increased the carbon-14 content of the atmosphere. Krane suggests that this might have doubled the concentration compared to the carbon-14 from cosmic ray production.

I suppose the fossils are not the future problem. he says there is no C-14 at all in the fossils !!!! how did they C-date it anyway :? :roll:

r_kk

13th January 2005, 06:27 AM

Even though many scientists have some level of uncertainty with Carbon dating methods, it has been overly exaggerated by creation scientists (as if looks like real science that has been taught in school and colleges) and tried to prove the entire scientific process of dating as wrong.

One of the interesting things I could note in creation believers argument is that they also want to use carbon dating when it comes to the verification of any material less than 6000 years (Do you know why?!!! I will tell you later). One side just_hubber is trying to provide evidence mentioning carbon dating of living creature as so many years old but on the other side he also says it can be applied for recent ones!!!. What is his intention? Apply conventional science theories when and where only suits to his purpose. I have thousands of questions on the various statements he made. I will ask one by one, level by level but I need his confirmation before that saying that he understood very well about what he wrote and he consider that those are 100% true.

There are certain uncertainties like the comparative figure of C14 versus C12. But there are various methods to justify the level of C12 over last 9000 years. One of them is by checking the contents in the rings of trees. I will explain in detail. It has been accepted by scientific community that there can be some level of error in carbon dating based on the available old tree specimens but it is not significant to prove that the earth is very young as just_hubber explains.

There are so many other radiometric methods (more than 40) and some of them are very useful, for example Potassium-Argon dating for volcanic rocks. The scientific community accepts that there is a certain limit and error too in this method but the errors are as small as +/-10,000 years for a three-million-year-old volcanic ash. You may ask how it can be used. The scientific community is lucky enough to get adequate fossils below a volcanic ash or sandwiched between a volcanic ashes. There are such fossils indicating 500,000 years old. I will explain in detail when the argument goes in good direction. I don’t know whether just_hubber rejects only carbon dating or all the radiometric dating.

As I said before, I will place my views and question once he answers to my previous questions. One request to just_hubber, please don’t copy and paste because I can also easily do the same and dump hundreds of pages. It will waste only the hub available free space and takes the discussion as meaningless, endless and waste of time. Please write based on your understanding.

just_hubber

13th January 2005, 07:13 AM

See i am not here to convince mellon or rkk, All i can provide scientific journals publications and research book quotes, and If you reject those there is no use in discussing,

Anyway i will leave the readers of the Hub to conclude what is true and facts,

And it was very clear in my previous post why 14C may be accurate for few thousand years from quotes from the research person "Dr. Robert Lee"

I am not doing copy and paste here , i am giving notes for every relevent question arised ,

Instead you(rkk) made very good copy and paste from Porno sites(this is verfied and commented by some other hubber ) for attacking christianity.
So it is very clear who is doing crappy and unverified ref and dumping garbage
Infact 2 of his thread already removed.
Finally rkk ,i have the answers when i see your questions, But what is the use , because i know what will you ask back and i know what to reply..
So i can quote here the quotes of Prov.1 [7] ...

r_kk

13th January 2005, 07:30 AM

Thank you very much …just hubber. I have noted you as another holy man. Good for mentioning about my posts. Who ever want to verify my postings, they can check all my writing stored in this web. If any one wants know about all my writtings which have been removed, I can provide.

As just_hubber said, it is up to the reader to decide. I hope readers have enough maturity to distinguish...

If you say all yours so called scientific explanations as truth and if you consider that your arguments are fully supported by your belief (I don’t think all people with similar belief has the same opinion), then I accept that I made strong arguments against it.

It is up to you, whether you want to answer or exaggerate a small mistake ( http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=369&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90) of the opponent and not replying. Nice technique.

just_hubber

13th January 2005, 11:11 AM

Who is this Gary Parker anyway??????????

Hi r_kk
I hope you can understand that it is really meaningless to discuss further after seeing this type of questions

i agree it will just fill up the hub

Dr. Gary E. Parker is a Research Associate in Bioscience at the Institute for Creation Research and teaches Genetics and Biosystematics at Christian Heritage College, El Cajon CA. He is the senior author of several programmed instruction textbooks in biology.

Gary E. Parker

Creationist (former Evolutionist professor and textbook author)

Biologist and paleontologist

Ed.D. from Ball State University in biology with a cognate in geology and paleontology

American Society of Zoologists

Former Chairman of the Biology Department of the Institute for Creation Research

Former Chairman of the Natural Science Department at Christian Heritage College

Former head of the Science Department at Clearwater Christian College, Clearwater, Florida

Lecturer for Answers in Genesis

Writings by this author appear in the following books : Dry Bones and Other Fossils, Life Before Birth, and Skeletons in Your Closet

----------------------------------------------------------
And also the readers of the hub should know the high profile of Creationists below....
and they can conclude by their own that how strong is creationist arguments against Evolution

i challenge those who argue against creationism can dare to question any of this person in email and can discuss further ,
In case If the challengers point is wrong with respective of science ,physics while discussing
can they ready to pay $1000 penalty for each wrong point proved?
Then i can arrange a direct challenge with any of the below creationist

Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE
(partial list, in alphabetical order)

Agard, E. Theo
Allan, James
Anderson, Kevin
Armstrong, Harold
Arndt, Alexander
Austin, Steven
Barnes, Thomas
Batten, Don
Baumgardner, John
Bergman, Jerry
Boudreaux, Edward
Catchpoole, David
Chadwick, Arthur
Chaffin, Eugene
Chittick, Donald
Cimbala, John
Clausen, Ben
Cole, Sid
Cook, Melvin
Cumming, Ken
Cuozzo, Jack
Darrall, Nancy
Dewitt, David
DeYoung, Donald
Downes, Geoff
Eckel, Robert
Faulkner, Danny
Ford, Dwain
Frair, Wayne
Gentry, Robert
Giem, Paul
Gillen, Alan
Gish, Duane
Gitt, Werner
Gower, D.B.
Grebe, John
Grocott, Stephen
Harrub, Brad
Hawke, George
Hollowell, Kelly
Holroyd, Edmond
Hosken, Bob
Howe, George
Humphreys, D. Russell
Javor, George
Jones, Arthur
Kaufmann, David
Kennedy, Elaine
Klotz, John
Koop, C. Everett
Korochkin, Leonid
Kramer, John
Lammerts, Walter
Lester, Lane
Livingston, David
Lopez, Raul
Marcus, John
Marsh, Frank
Mastropaolo, Joseph
McCombs, Charles
McIntosh, Andrew
McMullen, Tom
Meyer, Angela
Meyer, John
Mitchell, Colin
Morris, Henry
Morris, John
Mumma, Stanley
Parker, Gary
Peet, J. H. John
Rankin, John
Rosevear, David
Roth, Ariel
Rusch, Wilbert
Sarfati, Jonathan
Snelling, Andrew
Standish, Timothy
Taylor, Stephen
Thaxton, Charles
Thompson, Bert
Thomson, Ker
Vardiman, Larry
Veith, Walter
Walter, Jeremy
Wanser, Keith
Whitcomb, John
White, A.J.(Monty)
Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
Wile, Jay
Williams, Emmett
Wise, Kurt
Wolfrom, Glen
Zuill, Henry

Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)

600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).

150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

r_kk

13th January 2005, 11:58 AM

Thanks Just_hubber again for giving more information.
I already know about ICR and how it functions and what kind of research they do and what is their aim (including scientific and political). There are similar institutes for other religions too and they also produce similar reports about science ( I have read one Buddhist Institute report about re-birth comparing the appearing and diapppearing of Particle in the Cylotron and detail comaprison with Quantm Physics and an Islamic institute lead by an great scientis proving how the astronomy fits in to his belief... lot). Instead of explaining and making the believers angry, I leave it to the readers to find out the conventional scientist's (who believe in univeral applicability of physical/mathematical /natural law without any divine interventions) views about these Institutes you had mentioned.

Do you want me to list down the major challanges kept by conventional scientists against the major creation scientists? For sample,
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

As I already mentioned in this thread, it is still open. Please read it throughly and then tell me who the famous creation scientist is not accepting the challanges.

Another one thing, please tell me whether all the scientist/inventors that you had mentioned believed in your explantions of recent earth theory?!!

There are so many believers in scientists, for example our President Hon. A.B.J. Abdul Kalam also a devoted spritual man. It doesn't mean that he accept recent earth theory and his concept of "GOD" is more attractive than most of the God believers arguing here.

I can accept your book (and others too) as spiritual book belonging of our ancestral knowledge at that time. Without those kinds of knowledge our present day knowledge might not have fully developed, so we have to respect but we need not to believe that those are 100% scientifically true and our present day knowledge which oppose as 100%wrong. Spirituality is some thing can not be commented by others as long as it is considered as a personal experience. But the problem I have with these kinds of so called believer's arguments when believers stubbornly saying his book as a “COMPLETE SCIENTIFIC SOCIAL and HISTORICAL” book. You please read the history of your book and when and how it was compiled etc. You also read the history of Giordano Bruno, Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo from unbiased sources and how they had been treated by religious believers. You will come to know the kind of restriction they had against proving the new against the believer’s belief (Now most surprisingly believers say some of them are part of them!!! Please read Martin Luther’s statements on Copernicus). I feel the so called believers are still same when it comes to reject the new and holding the old by generating new kind of pseudo science , just for false proud.

Raghu

13th January 2005, 06:58 PM

sadly, 99.9% of the world population are too indulged in this material world, which exploit their ignorance from the ULTIMATE TRUTH (GOD), unless one sits done and think, say like
1) Who am I
2) What I am doing here:?:
3) What is happening around me:?:

And try to seek the truth, the truth will never reveal in our clouded minds of material desires (Maya), but for our self fish reasons, like the natural disasters or some thing, then only many people try and explore spirituality! This is bad , but every one does this, though these disasters are a cruel way of preaching to the ignorant humans, it is the REALITY, all materials have a beginning and ending, it is only the PARAMATHMA, which is eternal. It is highly impossible to have the ultimate Knowledge (Raja Veda), when we are indulged in material pleasure,
When one realises, we are not these bodies, but it is the Athma (soul) that lives in these bodies, this world is not real, your Athma should Only indulge with the Paramathama (GOD), one becomes free from material world, all the happiness and sadness of this ‘Kali Yuga’.
Just like Newton’s law,’For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction’, for all your Karma (activities), depending on the nature of karma, you will get good things, if you do good things in life, and bad things if you do bad things, this spreads over all your 7 genmas (life), within these 7 genmas, your next birth or Mukthi (salvation) is decided by the Paramatha, so it is a test for human kinds.
So, there is no point in arguing whether GOD exists or not, the answer is clear ‘GOD DOES EXIST’, remember that, we are only discussing this according to our knowledge and intelligence, but there is something which is far more superior than us, that is GOD!
Pls do reply, so we can clear the black clouds going through our minds

mellon

14th January 2005, 01:54 AM

Mr. Raghuvaran!

Did not you post this yesterday?! :?

eAthum vENduthalaa enna??? everyday same post-ai post paNNanumnu babaji sonnaaraa??? :roll:

-----------------

Justhubber:

I can understand your humiliation and "reaction" for my question. Thanks for the biodata of Gray Parker, A RESEARCH ASSOCIATE. But, I am sorry I dont think I need to know any other people's biodata or the list u cited here. Please clean them up when u find some time as it is filling room.

I apologize if I were rude to u by saying the term "copy and paste" as I found u were giving SO MUCH information for explaining a simple concept.

Anything published in PRINT NEED NOT ALWAYS be CORRECT. Let it be SCIENCE or NATURE or PRL or CELL or BIBLE. The contents can be questioned by anybody. You dont have to get offended if someone attacks your references. And u r not reponsible for the mistakes in those PRINTS if there is any either.

I just tried to get to the "same page" by bringing up some ?s. Your answers did not answer my ? or help me get to the same page unfortunately. :cry:

BTW, I think you should stop accusing of r_kk who seems fine to me. I dont think he deserves your accusasation of *anti-christian* unless you agree yourself as a *fanatic christian*. Thank you. 8)

r_kk:

Honestly I find JH references and argument were very sensible but sadly I miss the bottomline and conclusion. I wish it is described in few sentences in her own words. What is she trying to say as far as C-14 dating is concerned?? I mean the bottomline or conclusion about C-14 dating according to JH's extensive studies of scientific literature is WHAT?? :?

just_hubber

14th January 2005, 09:41 AM

Hope you have read this also...

"" Walt Brown, like Kent Hovind (who offers $250,000 for 'proof of evolution) like to make the claim that nobody will meet their challenge. ""

So reader can decide who have nt taken the challenge

And i went through the website, i can see the web site people standard , the way they are commenting on "Walt Brown" , so He got a choice to choose people when they go beyond the limits to comment about him in website while having the debate.

r_kk

14th January 2005, 10:11 AM

Hi Just_hubber,
You got the point. Both are arguing that the other one is not accepting the challenge. Again the basic question comes… That is the responsibility of proving something is lies with the person who says that he/she had find a new theory or proof to justify, not to the opponents who asks the questions.

And another one thing is whether these challenges will bring an answer?

Not possible in real sense, since we have only two kind of scientists. One is creation scientists who believes the physical or Chemical or Biological or Natural laws can be intertwined by God (for example light has been created before light source, Sun or Earth rotation can be stopped for the sake of few humans to win a war against another sect of human who didn’t praise him with a particular name etc) and very rigid in saying that there is nothing new beyond their belief and the another one is conventional scientist who are flexible enough to change themselves when the previous scientific theories become incorrect. What we need is an UNBIASED JURY who can say which is true. The problem is that the Jury proposed by conventional scientists is generally another conventional scientist which is not acceptable to creation scientists (vise verse).

The first one is heavily supported by religious believers and their organizations and most of them work full time in the preparation of answers but the opponent is a conventional university professor who has to spent most of the time in teaching and on-going conventional research projects. Most of the conventional scientists have to find their own time and money to participate in those arguments. More over many of the famous skeptic movement full time workers are not that highly qualified (Ph.D) from the so called universities and they have been rejected by religious believers as not eligible participants (Creation believers always use this card to stop the arguments).

I feel truth can be easily explained to any one and any where if a researcher feels that he/she has valid answers. I feel this kind of challenges are intended to keep the people away from asking questions!!!

Raghu

14th January 2005, 04:52 PM

Dear Melon,

The post I made for R_KK, not for a Fruit, which has just watery flesh inside, I hope you understand. :D
Who is babaji(Refereing to Rajnikanth in baba) :? , Now don't try be smart, even if you try to be smart, that may only be according to your standards and material worldly standing. I don't want to commit a sin by insulting you in this forum, the reason for the two post, was, I was expecting a Reply from R_KK, who replied to my post before. It is my mistake I did not clearly address the post to R_KK.

We humans can sit and pretend and we are the superior, intelligent, intellectual, we may look dumb in front of aliens if they exist), we are full of ignorance and arrogance, what ever any so called great(only to material world standards) write or have written only apply to us humans, nothing beyond that!, we can sit here discuss the 'Existence of GOD' all our life, but the discussion will be infinite according to human standards. but According to spiritual standards 'GOD DOES EXISTS', a person Spiritual Beliefs are influenced by astronomical aspects, so as the astronomical charts vary from person to person, you points will be different to mine, there is nothing we can do about that.

if you want to discuss for or against the points I have made, please do so, in a polite manner, I hope you are not the same person as Geno!!!
:shock:

r_kk

14th January 2005, 07:45 PM

Hi Raghu,
Please wait. Let me read your post throughly and try to give reply this weekend n "Does God Exists?" thread. This kind of question arises in eveyone's mind some time or another.

You said that you are not going to insult the opponent who made a comment on your posting in the third sentence but you already commented in the first two sentence. Ok, leave it. Give me some more time.

Raghu

14th January 2005, 08:47 PM

Dear R_KK

Yes, I am sorry for that, but I was being provoked by anger :( , naanum oru satharana manushan thane sir :(

thanks, do reply to post by the week end, I will come up with further more aspects :D

mellon

14th January 2005, 08:50 PM

Hi Raghu!

Yaarai paarththaalum ungaLukku "geno" pOla theriyuthu. You have been tricked, raghu. vartaa? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Raghu

14th January 2005, 10:01 PM

Melon Ji

Manichukonga sir :)

blahblah

15th January 2005, 11:12 AM

Hi Just_hubber, I feel this kind of challenges are intended to keep the people away from asking questions!!!

FULLY AGREE. :D

just_hubber

15th January 2005, 09:44 PM

a creature tries to live both in land and water (came out of crealution?) -Hope it survives :lol:

Quote :
Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

hehehewalrus

16th January 2005, 03:47 AM

raghu,
atma = mano, paramatma = SPB
:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

r_kk

16th January 2005, 06:48 AM

Hi Just_hubber,
Again and again you are quoting from one or another scientist or research associate (!) from ICR. Those, who are arguing against recent creation theory generally know about ICR and its motto behind purposeful propaganda.

Do you want the views against Henry Morris? Please read…
http://www.holysmoke.org/morris-cs-review.htm
(To save from accusation, let me say that I am not responsible for the contents of other pages, if you find any of the content is beyond your digestion. Don’t press “back” button)

See a university semester cource confronting creation.
http://www.wooster.edu/geology/geo350mw/geo350mw.html

Do you want the links that lead to many ex-preachers and ex-evangelist writings against your belief?

Do you want the list of conventional scientist those who don’t accept recent creation?

Do you want the list of Ph.D people research associate (!) with other beliefs?

I can give you details or links but I think this will just fill up the space here and provide no answers to any one.

Please write your explanations and understanding about creation and get the answers to the simple questions asked by other people in simple words.

just_hubber

16th January 2005, 12:40 PM

hi rkk
you again started your sheep skinned wolfy works ,

First you have so many wrong assumptions of Bible.

In Bible no where it tells earth is 6000 years old ,

I already told what is the use of doing again and again all things against christianity.Even i posted in very clear message how is creation is supported by well doctrate people,
As just a half boiled you again started against christianity.

If you are truly skeptic can you expose your country religion first
like worshiping Lingam and there are lakhs and lakhs of matter to expose in your conuntry.
Can you clean your own country people If you are really aethist and claiming you are from sucha organization

Better you do that first If you have guts,
Comment briefly about all the vedhas and Why dont you do a research on your own country religion and expose everything and open the eyes of million of your countrymen,

As a christian i already experiencing God everyday, we are a in way of progressing everyday in our spirirutual life one step more.

I have no ill intentions like you to list all the absurdity what you beleived(or may be still believing)

As you are full of hatred towards christianity i have nothing do with you,

If you finished exposing all of your own country religion first

I am here to discuss with people of my frequency,

r_kk

16th January 2005, 01:15 PM

hi rkk
a half boiled you again started against christianity.

Thanks for the kind compliments from person with pure thoughts… Let the reader decides their own… Even half boiled can make this kind of agitation!!! Oops. Sorry…

well Doctorate people...

No comments…

your own country religions…”

Your understanding about not only your religion but also other religion is VERY HIGH… No comment… (My real comment may make you to feel bad… So sorry I have to lie for your happiness) There are some others who believe in that may give reply. But I can tell you that you are throwing stone from a glass house.

I am writing here those who preach new kind of science…. That’s all…

I am here to discuss with people of my frequency…

Please start a separate thread and do what ever you want… This thread is for two different types of arguments and you can put a ban on anyone who discuss about your pure and holy thinking.

just_hubber

17th January 2005, 09:19 AM

I am posting most of the things to support creation in generic ways,
Except i talked only about global flood because the issue was raised.
i am not projecting anything about christianity here , it is upto the indivdual to find the real God.

I hope it is better to focus generic creation Vs Evolution here in this thread.
---------------------------------------------------------
Some of news from creation side to share...

Professor Matti Leisola, a protein engineer at the University of Helsinki, spoke of the origin of protein families. 'Nature is full of intelligent molecules', he explained: the evolutionary view that proteins have originated step-by-step has problems.

There is no evidence that random chemical reactions can produce novel proteins — or even protein building blocks.

There is no effective evolutionary pathway from one folded protein to another in the same family (and it is the folded shape of the protein that makes it work).

The 'jump' required from one folded form to another is enormous, and no 'in between' proteins are likely to be functional. Macroevolution is really at a dead end.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dr Stuart Burgess, Reader in Engineering Design at Bristol University, spoke of the 'beauty of man'. Contrary to the prevailing idea that humans are similar to apes, a whole range of features distinguishes one from the other.

One example is the human's arched foot, which is vital for upright balance. Burgess commented: 'An arched foot cannot have evolved from a flat beam. Just like a bridge design, it must be a complete arch'.

Another example is the inner ear. The vertical semi-circular canals of the human ear are very large (unlike those of apes), to enable upright balance.

Moreover, humans have at least 58 different hand movements, compared with 3 in apes, with a correspondingly larger area in the brain to co-ordinate such movements.

Sophisticated language is possible in humans because of a voice-box with around 100 muscles — enabling about 100 different sounds, compared with about 5 in apes.

Humans also have a unique brain, with up to 100 billion neural connections. Brain growth in a baby ape slows rapidly after birth. But in the human baby, 4 million synapses (nerve connections) are added every second throughout the first two years!

----------------------------------------------------------
Dr Lee Spetner, an American physicist based in Israel, showed how random mutations cannot account for evolution. One of the best experimental evidences for evolutionary change through mutations is the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

But Spetner showed that resistance can be caused by gene transfer from organisms with natural antibiotic resistance, or by mutation damaging the antibiotic drug's attachment site — if a mutation degrades this site, the bacterium becomes resistant by losing its sensitivity to the drug.

In neither case is new information created, as required by a Darwinian mechanism.

r_kk

17th January 2005, 11:01 AM

Hi Just_hubber,
I appreciate your effort to bring the strong supportive views against Darwin’s evolution. I am also happy to note that you had detached from religious cover to your postings here.

I accept the educational level and credibility of Professor Matti Leisola. I can say that he is the best reference among all you had provided and made a real challenge to the opponent. The complexity of gene and its development from a uncomplicated simple form of life is one of very complicated question and I don’t thinks present day science can provide any answer to this.

But the basic question is since science couldn’t answer everything, does it mean that the opponent theory become correct? Even though Darwin’s evolution provides many answers but still it is not the complete theory or scientists are not saying that it as infallible. This complexity of genes made even Anthony Flew, one of the famous atheist, to re-think his life-long views.

It is other way round also. With his theory you can not prove the existence of God also. Since I am not from bio-technical background, I can not act that I know the answers against your arguments. Most of all, the complexity of genes doesn’t support to your concept of God too. More over any God believer of any religion can take the credit as long as science finds the answers.
The basic flaws I find in creation theory, as per my opinion, is that creating inorganic or organic matter by a mental thought or words, which does not follow other proven science theories. It is applicable to his theory also.

The research in genetics is growing in big way and science may find an answer some time. As on today, a woman can make her clone without even depending on man. This itself a major challenge to against our conventional belief and broken the fundamentals of previous beliefs. Similarly the complexity of genes may also be explained one day. If we find God at the end of such research, I will accept. But please note that it may not or need not to be yours.

Roshan

17th January 2005, 02:58 PM

Raghu,

Please stop speculating and concentrate on the subject matter only :wink:

Irrespecitve of your yogas and fitness exercises you still seem to get worked up easily and jump into wrong conclusions :wink: That makes me wonder :roll: :lol:

Raghu

17th January 2005, 04:09 PM

Roshan ji said

.Irrespecitve of your yogas and fitness exercises you still seem to get worked up easily and jump into wrong conclusions That makes me wonder
'

Now, this is VERY relevant to this topic :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sudhaama

18th January 2005, 07:02 AM

Mr. "r_kk"

//.... any God believer of any religion can take the credit as long as science finds the answers.//

Let us remember .... and PONDER over the famous... Quotation....

"RELIGION WITHOUT SCIENCE IS LAME
SCIENCE WITHOUT RELIGION IS BLIND."

So said... NOT... by any Religious Priest or Pholosopher... !!

But by the GREAT SCIENTISt.... Mr. Einsteine.

Both the subjects of Religion and Science are quite imperative and

... are the INDISPENSIBLE and VITAL ASSETS ...

... which Man is yet to learn... and UNDERSTAND...

... as HOW to take the FULL ADVANTAGES OF...

... BOTH THESE TREASURES for the Mankind's ADVANCEMENTS !!!.

r_kk

18th January 2005, 07:41 AM

hi Mr. Srinivasan,
There are so many statements made by Einstein quoting major religions related to creation and existence of universe. Please note that I whole hearltly accepts the views of Einstein, one of the greatest scientists in human history, in this aspect. In fact I had mentioned as follows in “Does God Exists?” thread.

http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=147&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=285
“Science without moral ethics is dangerous than religions”.

What I am trying to say is that we need a broad mind to overcome blind faiths of religions, and at the same time we should be brave enough to look beyond the conventional science also. If a scientist says that evolution is the one way... then it is not science but it is another religion where human free thoughts and reasoning is blocked.

If you read my postings you will understand that I am not writing favor of science but against the thoughts which bring hatred, which utilize the ignorance and which blocks the reasoning of human. Please read my postings on limitation of science too in the above mentioned thread.

just_hubber

18th January 2005, 11:10 AM

Since I am not from bio-technical background, I can not act that I know the answers against your arguments. Most of all, the complexity of genes doesn’t support to your concept of God too.

But please note that it [color=red]may not or need not to be [b]yours.

Yes you are neither a research scholar nor Medical student nor a religion researcher nor a archelogist ,

So dont declare anything final about christianity , When the Final Findings anounced to the whole humankind oneday then everyone will know the Truth , so until then stick to the topic , instead of declaring anything as you know your limited knowledge compared to any other doctorate or scientist,

And for us we have plenty of references from Genesis and the whole Bible to quote , But Anyway i wont discuss or argue with you here..

But you dont declare or comment anything as Final about chritianity here

it is better stick to the subject than unnecessary arguments as you are trying to start with religion again

And just for your info from a medical dictionary...

"Genesis" is derived from the Greek word "genein" (to produce). Thus, in gametogenesis, cells marry ("gamein") and produce ("genein") a new being. The first book of the Bible is called "Genesis" because it provides a figurative account of the beginning of humankind. Other words from Greek and Latin that contain "gen" (indicating production or output) include "generate," "genitals," and "generous." The word "gentry" means "of high or noble birth."

I am wondering when you accept there is God when we get a final clue for the intelligent design

why cant you accept a ultimate God of almighty can create organic and inorganic beings by just a word or thoughts?

r_kk

18th January 2005, 11:40 AM

How did you come to the conclusion that I am not a research scholar or scientist or a religion researcher!!! :?: Please don’t assume on your own. I told that I am not from bio-technical back ground. That’s all. if you consider the education from Universities as the criteria for argument, I also have, that also from the famous Institute. It doesn't mean that either whatever I speak is corrct or incorrect. Every one is having limitations including the researchers you had mentioned.

I hope most of us hera have the basic understanding about universities, grades and their credibility.If some one is speaking some thing unusual, every one has the right to ask questions based on their understanding. Nothing is wrong in it. Unless some thing is proved every one has the right to explain and ask questions.

Your comments about truth, limited knowledge are just your own assumptions … No comments.

Come to the subject. Why you are trying to explain some words? Nearly all the major religious holy books expalin about creation. Some of them very interesting and match even with the latest particle physics and quantum therories. Read Einstein statement about other holy book on creation.

Then, please don’t wonder when other person will think like you. I consider that the evidences for evolution are more impressive and opponent views are more purpose oriented and the theories can not be universally applicable and most of the scientific questions can not be answered or do not have repeatability. Till this one change, I need not to accept.

If we accept the thoughts can create inorganic or organic matter, then some one today (scientist or even so called prophets or miracle man) should able to prove it. Till now nothing has been proved scientifically. And another one thing, if a matter can appear from thought then it can disappear also. Then we have to assume that everything is existing because of thoughts. This kind of origin, existence and end belongs to some other religion. Let them explain in more detail. In this aspect, please read Anthony Flew's, recent statement about your belief. That will give a better answer.

http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=147&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=285

hehehewalrus

18th January 2005, 02:32 PM

hehehewalrus

18th January 2005, 02:34 PM

I have no objection to the content of your posts. But research scholar?? Certainly not! More of an archivist or librarian. Check the nature of my posts(not a single link anywhere) in "The print media in India" thread to see the difference between a librarian and an investigator!!

just_hubber

18th January 2005, 02:38 PM

Flew , He was wrong about his ideas until yesterday , Today he changed his mind to believe something new.
Tomorrow he will change again and tell he was wrong about some assumptions he made

So why i have to take Flew's statement , He must be wrong again also.

There are many experiments already available that speed of Light is not contant ,

GPS experiments that show the speed of light is not constant

A paper written by Ruyong Wang clearly shows that by using GPS you can prove that the velocity of a receiver relative to the Earth Centred Inertial (ECI) frame affects the speed of light, and so special relativity is false.

Wisp theory proposes that the speed of light is constant only with respect to absolute wisp space and not to an ECI frame. It's only the way GPS satellite clocks synchronize that appears to make the Earth a special reference frame, either way, the results predicted will show special relativity to be false.

There are many experiments and space station experiments found why Einstein was wrong

No one would deny that Einstein's special relativity offers explanations for relativistic effects that have resulted in major advances in science, but the fundamental basis on which relativity is built is wrong , and space and time are not joined as it suggests. It is possible to explain all of special relativity using an ether concept (wisp space). Proper scientific evidence that shows special relativity to be false is now
Even though Einstein's special relativity has resulted in great advances in science, it is wrong to continue to teach it.

A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity.

If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe.

"That means giving up the theory of relativity and E-mc squared and all that sort of stuff,"

So when Einstein was proved wrong in his well experimented concept and theories(thesis) after so much decades of believing it

Why i have to bother about Einstein random quotes(thoughts) to media about God and christianity which is 100 years before.

I can simply ignore all of assumptions made by science based on his theories ,

r_kk

18th January 2005, 03:01 PM

Hi Walrus,
I have not said that I am a research scholar of any super natural activities or miracles. My field is different and I already accepted many times my posting here is based on my understanding not based on actual field research. As I already mentioned, I am far from the Bangalore and hence I can’t attend the event you had mentioned. I also said there are professional people who can attend and verify. But you didn’t accept that. Even though you know my reply, you have been repeating here to show as if I am running away. Great.

What I have been asking is the proof to some body, who is providing new kind of science and belief systems beyond the basic conventional science which we had studied in schools. I don’t think much deeper knowledge is required to ask these basic questions. I had seen many time, when the answers are becoming difficult, instead of explaining their belief, start arguing against the person itself (repetitively mentioning about my mentioning of wrong web site and my actual practical field work). Nice approach.

Good. You have done a good job by keeping the people away from asking questions on the core issues whenever the believer find difficult to answer.

hehehewalrus

18th January 2005, 03:20 PM

Hi Walrus,
I have not said that I am a research scholar of any super natural activities or miracles. My field is different and I already accepted many times my posting here is based on my understanding not based on actual field research.

Simple! If a field doesnt belong to you, then why do you character assassinate those who are in that field, when by your own confession, your first hand experience is zero? Your posts would have been ignored if not for the fact you were stooping to Nakkeeran style character assassination without evidence!!

As I already mentioned, I am far from the Bangalore and hence I can’t attend the event you had mentioned.

Just for the record, I travelled over 48 hours for the same event last year. Naturally it is distressing to see someone claiming over 16 years of research and not having intellectual guts or moral courage to do firsthand research.

I had seen many time, when the answers are becoming difficult, instead of explaining their belief, start arguing against the person itself (repetitively mentioning about my mentioning of wrong web site and my actual practical field work). Good. You have done a good job by keeping the people away from asking questions on the core issues whenever the believer find difficult to answer.

Very RUDE and insensitive statement considering the number of hours I spent emailing replies to a google copypaster !!! :shock: It takes you 2 minutes to find a google link and takes me 2 hours to type back BASED ON FIRSTHAND experience, have you ever shown consideration for that?? I have told you I will take days to reply since my work has started and I will reply! If your questions were firsthand and with a motive to know the truth, I definitely would not have kept a honest seeker waiting!! By the by, the only reason you are getting responses here is when you character-assassinate someone, otherwise your posts would have been ignored as usual.

r_kk

18th January 2005, 03:57 PM

Good to see your detail reply.

Nice for saying that I have zero experience and you have lot of first hand experience. :shock:

Nice to know from you that by asking questions, I made character assination but many of your posting on few god men are based on detail research!!! :shock:

Nice to know from you that that I have been doing only cut and paste but all your works are geniune. :shock:

You only first said that my basic understanding about Islam and Christinaity is based on major misunderstanding. But when I asked you to verify, i couldn't find any reply. If you are really interested then you should have verified or atleast you should have said that you will look in to it. You are also doing slective reply where it suits you.

Nice to mention about the term research scholar. Do you think that all the scientist and research associate mentioned in just_hubber big list can be considered as reaserach scholars? :shock: It is very nice to note that ou selectively reject and select based on your own thoughts.

Ok, if you want to continue in finding mistake on person rather than subject, you can continue. By doing this we can keep away the questions.

Then, again you had mentioned that as if I had claimed 16years of research. WRONG. What I said that I was actively seraching God 16 years back and also I said I had left the religious issue for last 10 years. I also told the reasons. It is shocking to know that you are quoting here only partial information. :shock:

Then your personal replies to me, it is up to you. It was just a discussion just to understand each other views and I didn't ask you to show the truth based on your experience or any thing similar. I request you not to waste your precious time in replying to my personal message and thanks for thinking that I am having lot of time to waste

just_hubber

18th January 2005, 04:12 PM

Hi rkk
i agree with walrus you dont have enough verification by yourself before commenting some people ,

Instead you are quickly getting some nameless author websites from geosites.com or similiar (Example you posted ref from the Porno website in very hasty wihtout verifying)

And to attack on DGS you just pasted one forumhub thread posting started by one person as his own comments just to attack christianity

So i already mentioned about your this kind cunning objectives, Because when i asked about your views about other holy book of your country , you went on silent.

Why dont you take walrus challenge , go to the meeting place to observe exactly what is happening.
This is impossible for you because you have only ill intentions just to attack the religion.
For that you can do all copy and paste and all cunning things here

r_kk

18th January 2005, 04:18 PM

Hi just_hubber...

Good, You can continue your holy preachings and pure sciences... Don't mind the useless cunning people. If Anthony Flew and even Einstein are nothing. I am no where else....Even many earlier astronomical scientists were wrong before as far as your belief is concerned... As long as I don't speak your voice, I am wrong... Good conclusions... Any way You got lot of REAL scientists to support you...

If you consider my small questions are as attack, sorry there is something wrong some where. As far as you... let me be wrong.

hehehewalrus

18th January 2005, 05:05 PM

Nice for saying that I have zero experience and you have lot of first hand experience.
ok, lets settle it. Since you DONT have zero experience, why havent u posted your experience all along? My family were Melmaruvathur devotees, I stayed in Amrita for few months and talked to over 100 people(minimum) from DGS group. Since you started a thread on all the above mentioned, please tell us your firsthand experiences with the above people. Why were you not posting YOUR experiences in the thread?

Nice for saying that I have zero experience and you have lot of first hand experience.
I have ONLY RESPONDED to what YOU STARTED. Go check again who started the topic. It was you. I stepped in only when you started to accuse without proof.

Nice to know from you that by asking questions, I made character assination but many of your posting on few god men are based on detail research!!! :shock:

I had absolutely no problems with you asking questions. What is disappointing is your statements "I am suspicious etc"...If you are suspicious, what is preventing you from verifying, instead of spreading canards here?

Nice to know from you that that I have been doing only cut and paste but all your works are geniune.

Show me one place where I used a link to justify. If I didnt have first hand experience, I always KEPT QUIET. Unlike you who drags 100s of links.

You only first said that my basic understanding about Islam and Christinaity is based on major misunderstanding. But when I asked you to verify, i couldn't find any reply.
I told you I will reply and I will. And in your own admission over email, you said you havent read the bible for years and said you dont even have one!

Nice to mention about the term research scholar. Do you think that all the scientist and research associate mentioned in just_hubber big list can be considered as reaserach scholars?
I really dont care what Einstein or Kuppusaamy thinks, thats why I never participated in this thread all of last week. I entered just coz you claimed to be a research scholar!

Then, again you had mentioned that as if I had claimed 16years of research. WRONG.

You quoted an 87-88 article over some fraud. Since you were aware of frauds 17 years back, how many frauds have you tested personally?

See, the whole story is like this:
Ramu meets Somu. Somu tells Ramu that Panju Mama is bad. Ramu runs to his class and keeps shouting "Panju mama is bad" every day. He keeps doing this throughout the month. None of Ramu's classmates know who is this Panju Mama. Finally they ask Ramu. Ramu himself hasnt seen Panju Mama!

Rohit

18th January 2005, 05:08 PM

Hi friends,

I am Rohit, the original Rohit, now registered as "Rohith" for someone, who could not face up to me in the old forum hub in all debates I participated. The looser impostor, out of frustration and repeated washed-up defeats, eventually decided to hijack my ID "Rohit" with an ill intention to prevent me from using my own, original ID "Rohit" in the new hub.

Everyone, who knows me as "Rohit" from the old hub, knows this fact of hijacking of my ID "Rohit" in this new hub.

Now I am back, with the same ID, which when pronounced, pronounces correctly as it really should do "Rohith"

Cheers!

Roshan

18th January 2005, 05:19 PM

Wow Rohith!! A Warm Welcome to you !!!

Great to see your return !! :D

Yes all regular hubbers of the old hub certainly knew it was not you who was posting under the handle Rohit here :) We were well aware of the 'hijacking' of your ID. That alone proves your victory !! :D

r_kk

18th January 2005, 05:37 PM

Hi Walrus…
I told that 16 years (when I was a student) back I read the articles written by Mervin in Tarasu regarding famous miracle healers. I was quoting from that. I never said that I did research on miracle healers personally. I also said, I kept myself away from all religious issues for last 10 years. In that thread I had quoted the existing information and asked only logical questions. I didn’t say that there was some physical evidence I had found. Don’t try to interpolate based on your convenience.

Then I accept that I didn’t read that holy book you had mentioned in the last so many years and I do not keep the copy. It didn't mean that I never read it. I also mentioned to you I read that book sincierly for nearly two years long time back.

Just_hubber was quoting lot of scientist and research associate related with science. If those are considered as research scholar, then I can also easily join the similar list. This subject is not related the fake godmen and here research scholar relates to science. If you interpret the basis of my explanation by referring to another subject, you can easily do as per your wish.

The story explaining the message transfer and its understanding are correct but this kind of things are done religiously by believers to tarnish other religion. Good that you had mentioned. When Just_hubber was mentioning a bad comment about other religious God itself, where were you?

I have a question just as a clarification to know the original representation or meaning of Shivalingam.
What exactly the shape of shivalingam represents or what is the original meaning of Lingam?
because i read it in one website like describing representing something which i cant tell here :?:
What is the theory or concept behind worshiping a shape? I am ignorant in the theory behind this(may be from vedas ?)

hi rkk
If you are truly skeptic can you expose your country religion first
like worshiping Lingam and there are lakhs and lakhs of matter to expose in your conuntry. Can you clean your own country people If you are really aethist and claiming you are from sucha organization

Enjoying the character assignation!!! Great. I understand when you come out and what just_hubber is sincerely doing here!!!

I think this replies are again waste of time and deviating the subject. It is up to you, if you want to continue this kind of messages.

Rohit

18th January 2005, 06:29 PM

Dear friends,

I have been following this and other threads on non-daily but regular basis. I found the current course of the debate, not new, but really interesting.

Aravindhan, Bad Boy, hehehewalrus, just_hubber, kannuma, r_kk, Raghu and all other participants, please accept my hearty greetings.

I will try to post my views on the topic as and when I think it will contribute or enhance the view for which I have strong and valid reasons to believe them to be so.

Till then, I will try to enjoy the debate. :wink:

r_kk

18th January 2005, 06:45 PM

Welcome Rohith...

this thread is presently used to maintain "tug-war"... Let this be the last post from my side on this issue outside of this subject. It is towards Walrus...

This had been been taken from "tales of unexpected.."

While I have never ascribed anything to hallucination, preferring to wait and watch for first hand evidence,…

I am really interested how a nonphysical form can generate physical power and harm anyone...

How did ghosts look like? If they resembled the dracula-types in movies, then most definitely it is a hallucination.
Since the time my faith in God increased and I started feeling Him as a companion whom I talk to, realising by theory and practice that Bible says the greatest danger to a man is the corruptness of his own mind, much more than any external physical danger - my fear of snakes/ghosts/harmful creatures vanished totally,
Walrus

Starting as if looking for first hand evidence…Good way… Just sincerely participate in a thread on superstitious things, ask people to explain theri experience and then nicely say that Ghost may be hallucination (great to understand that believer also use this term whenever it is required) and then teach the greatness of his religious belief.

Then your basic question on “how a nonphysical form can generate physical power…” is fantastic. This is what I was asking here. But just_hubber is saying some thing different. Please explain to him. I can’t understand how you have different views at two different thread. If you are correctthere, then I may be correct here too.

What happened to your search for re-birth evidences… It seems it has more evidences than Ghosts and even proven psychology professors are working on it. I told you long back… Still haven’t started tour first hand research…!!!
(please note that I can also ask like this without considering practical difficulties... As I told you earlier, I didn't raise any question on that thread).

Rohit

18th January 2005, 07:07 PM

Dear r_kk, thanks for the warm welcome.

Please do continue your attempts to make some sense out of the extravagant ability of human minds to hallucinate. :lol:

just_hubber

18th January 2005, 08:31 PM

Rohith , Welcome Here , i dont know you before as i am also new to this thread, anyway i can feel much friendly breeze while you coming ,

One person told he is getting realisation when he imagine "Lingam" , The same time i want to know the theory behind the shape of lingam from vedas , but i dont know whether i got the real reply,

But for a True Aethist why he bother about comments about "Lingam"
If he bothers then he is not true "Aethist"

That means he has to take out all his feeling blood out and pumped with 100% pure "Aethist" blood :D

This is the ugly thing i hate hiding oneself under a fake "face"

mellon

18th January 2005, 08:34 PM

Flew , He was wrong about his ideas until yesterday , Today he changed his mind to believe something new.
Tomorrow he will change again and tell he was wrong about some assumptions he made

Flew sounds like a normal human being who learns and fixes himself over the time. Unlike some creatures who born stupid, live stupid and die stupid.

These creature never learn anything and they are living with the stupid assumption that any answer for any question can be found in ONE BOOK. Let it be the cause of tsunami or cause of AIDS or cancer or the cause for september 11 attack, these stupid creatures can find the answer in that ONE BOOK.

It is funny to watch such creatures dancing around by doing copy and paste without having any basic understanding of scientific concepts and it is hilarious to see they often give some long copy and paste lectures. They expect everybody to follow the ONE BOOK whether one is looking for learning about a virus or a bacteria or valency of an element or the reason for the tsunami.

These creatures can ONLY find the ANSWERS in ONE HOLY BOOK but we cant becaue we have not become stupid yet. Never forget, one has to be STUPID to find the answer in that BOOK. So, get stupid if not today at least tomorrow so that you can find the answers. The earlier you become stupid the easier you can find the answers from that BOOK.

just_hubber

18th January 2005, 09:04 PM

Here comes again , i hope he better understand what is going on here ..
here no one is interpreting sep 11 incident with the scriptures or anything here ,

It is some people they interpret hidden hebrew code with the incidents

For your understanding.
It is nothing to do with current discussion ,
hope the 14C expert will understand..

mellon

18th January 2005, 09:25 PM

What is the current discussion besides the LINGAM you brought up anyway????

YOU grow up first. We will see the discussion later!

---------

Junior Hubber

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 58

Posted: Dec 01, 2004 7:07 pm Post subject:

There is answer for everything in Bible

WHO IS THIS CREATURE who found the ANSWER for EVERYTHING in one book???

DO ANYBODY KNOW or SEEN this CREATURE around here ????

Rohit

18th January 2005, 09:33 PM

Dear just_hubber

Thank you for your welcoming expression.

You might be right in saying that we don’t know each other, but your writing style and the contents of your argument sound very similar to that of a gentle-hubber who used to identify himself as RW in the old forum hub. It may be just a coincidence that you both sound similar as if one is reading the posts by the same person all over again.

I hope, we might have a good chance to know each other, as we talk on the subject impartially. Please don’t hate me if I fail to agree with your views.

Please do try to understand that people do hold different views and/or beliefs despite them lacking valid proofs and/or rational reasoning or explanations. :wink:

mellon

19th January 2005, 02:25 AM

If you are truly skeptic can you expose your country religion first like worshiping Lingam??

What exactly the shape of shivalingam represents or what is the original meaning of Lingam? because i read it in one website like describing representing something which i cant tell here

There is answer for everything in Bible

HEY! Just a filthy hubber !!!!

WHY does not THE HOLY BOOK tell ANYTHING about the SIVALINGAM and its SHAPE which you seriously want to know???

I thought you said that that HOLY BOOK answers EVERYTHING. I guess you did not mean it did selectively exclude the shape of SHIVALINGAM

and there are lakhs and lakhs of matter to expose in your conuntry.

Are you MAKING fun of INDIA????

Tell me about the HOLY COUNTRY you BELONG to, so that I can share my high opinions about your country too. Thank you!

r_kk

19th January 2005, 04:40 AM

Hi Just_hubber,
Did I say my blood was boiling when you make some comments on other religions. Don’t draw your own opinion. You have been attacking other religions here for very long. That’s what I wanted to show here. When it comes to your belief you expect other to be gentle but when it comes to others, you are behaving different. My quotation of your "GREAT questions" are just to show the way you behave and kind of accusation you make against other beliefs. If any one read all my postings here, they find my consistency in writing and decide I am wearing any masks or not. It is up to the reader to understand. Your opinion is immaterial. For you, all the opponent are sinners… wearing masks…. or acting. That why I always prefer to call as a “HOLLY MAN” with pure thoughts… Can you throw some more pure thoughts and new kind of REAL sciences towards the ignorant and mask wearing my(!!!) country people.

r_kk

19th January 2005, 05:12 AM

Hi Walrus,
I have been thinking quite a lot about your claims on first hand experience.

Please let me ask frank, did you get any validation of your research tools from any major credible psychological Institute?

Did you get any approval on research work from any credible Institute? If you feel that your work is on sound balance, can you please sent to CSICOP (if you feel as credible) or any other credible Institutes?

What you are calling as first hand research. Is it means thousands of kilometers travel and spending two days with a famous preacher and claiming that 70% of his work is true? Do you know that he had already submitted few of his claim fro research? Do you know the outcome of such verification? Please read before claiming anything in your work as legitimate.

I understand even after the 20 years of research work (each case was traced in years for verification) from a famous credible psychology professor was questioned by skeptics and proved his work as inconclusive. It is really surprise to note that verifying hundreds of people in few months. What kind of research it is?

I raised some question on whom who were claiming that they
- had seen and discussed with God and God asked him to start colleges etc
- explain the experience of heavenly world with characters similars to hallucination
- do some miracles beyond present conventional scientific theory
- make prophesies (either biased or unfulfilled)

How do you find the above question as accusations? It is very surprising to note such comments from unbiased person(my previous assumption) like you.

Then can you please say did you talk to Saibaba or any of his associate before placing your thread of “Saibaba videos”? What kind of first hand research you performed in this case? Do you know there are many videos are available against many evangelists also? (Just_huuber, don’t assume yourself that I am a supporter of Sai Baba!!!!).

I had seen many samiyattam in my village and know them personally. Does it make enough credibility to claim myself as psychological research scholar? I think “NO”

Have you ever read “Faith healers” by James Randi which provide more evidences on such miracle healers? Do you consider that as first hand work?

I can now clearly understand the aim behind of mentioning yours so called first hand experiences here. I will appreciate if you can validate it and come with proofs not a self claimed research.

hehehewalrus

19th January 2005, 05:21 AM

While I have never ........

How did ghosts look like? If they resembled the dracula-types in movies, then most definitely it is a hallucination.
Since the time my faith in God increased and I started feeling Him as a companion whom I talk to, realising by theory and practice that Bible says the greatest danger to a man is the corruptness of his own mind, much more than any external physical danger - my fear of snakes/ghosts/harmful creatures vanished totally,
Walrus

Thank you for taking pains to search out all my past posts. It is very interesting to see you using bold on all the origin of sources rather than the sources themselves.

What happened to your search for re-birth evidences… It seems it has more evidences than Ghosts and even proven psychology professors are working on it. I told you long back… Still haven’t started your first hand research…!!!
(please note that I can also ask like this without considering practical difficulties... As I told you earlier, I didn't raise any question on that thread).

Yes I have already started my firsthand research. Thank you for your kind reminder. What do you know about my emails to sonu gopi??? If you know someone who has seen ghosts please send them to me( Unlike you, I will not duck out when asked to go and investigate :) ) I will happily give you my name and address and am willing to meet you in person for a discussion. I am not scared or paranoid like you to send an email - since my location will be discovered via IP address.

r_kk

19th January 2005, 05:38 AM

:lol: Paranoid!!
Great....

You only first said that you were trying to find my location through IP address. Wow... Now you can change the entire story too.

There are so many reason for not to identify myself in this kind of web forum....

I had quite lot of personal discussions with many people like you before!!! I identify myself where and when it is required.

hehehewalrus

19th January 2005, 05:40 AM

Hi Walrus,
I have been thinking quite a lot about your claims on first hand experience. Please let me ask frank, did you get any validation of your research tools from any major credible psychological Institute?

I asked you frankly ATLEAST THREE FOUR TIMES whether you have meet the gurus you accuse in person. Since the obvious answer is zero, you didnt bother to answer. Correct me if I am wrong.
However I wont be like that.

I have no need to goto some research institute to validate since I found not a single person to refute the claims. Since nobody refuted the claims, I dont have to reject them. I am maintaining a neutral position without going around and shouting that these claims are true. Do you understand my statement?????? I am maintaining a neutral position without going around and shouting that these claims are true. What I dislike is a guy who has seen nothing googling and maha-boring on something he has not seen.

Ok let us settle this once and for all. I AM READY TO MEET YOU IN PERSON ANYWHERE ANYPLACE IN INDIA WITH ENOUGH WITNESSES WHOM YOU CAN INTERVIEW AS LONG AS YOU LIKE. WILL YOU DARE ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE? INSTEAD OF HIDING BEHIND COMPUTERS AND MAKING ALLEGATIONS?

I raised some question on whom who were claiming that they
- had seen and discussed with God and God asked him to start colleges etc
- explain the experience of heavenly world with characters similars to hallucination
- do some miracles beyond present conventional scientific theory
- make prophesies (either biased or unfulfilled)
How do you find the above question as accusations? It is very surprising to note such comments from unbiased person(my previous assumption) like you.

Your statements will always remain accusations unless YOU talk to the witnesses insteadly of googling for them. How many links have you produced of Bangaru adigal instead of that one link??
If you think sitting behind a computer makes you a "Research scholar" may you live a thousand lives and continue your "research". You are free to call yourself "Master of Librarians", "Librarian of Librarians" but plzzz dont call yourself "research scholar", it is such a glorification to the Nakeeran style of journalism.

Then can you please say did you talk to Saibaba or any of his associate before placing your thread of “Saibaba videos”?

I did not talk to anyone.The videos were there loud and clear. Did you put any videos of Adigalar, Sankara, DGS etc?? What is stopping you from putting them? Go ahead, put them.

Do you know there are many videos are available against many evangelists also?

Yes I know. I know dozens and dozens more than you. I told you dozen times I dont care what are benny hinn's beliefs and it has nothing to do with me.

I had seen many samiyattam in my village and know them personally.

Good. Explain the phenomenon in detail, we can discuss it.

r_kk

19th January 2005, 05:50 AM

Hi Walrus,
Please send your Challenges to CSICOP or Indian Skeptic Association.

As I said already many times to you, I have enough reasons for to not to identify myself here. You are very cleverly using this.

If you consider the basic reasoning as accusation, then no one can ask any questions…

hehehewalrus

19th January 2005, 05:58 AM

Hi Walrus,
Please send your Challenges to CSICOP or Indian Skeptic Association.

Why should I ? Since I am not claiming anything, why in the world should I? :)

But if you as a representative of Indian Skeptic wants to come, I can surely direct you. I have been offering help from the very beginning, dont understand why you are refusing it.

Since you are the one who introduced such type of allegations to the forum, you should have the moral integrity to present coherent facts to back up your words? If google is the lab in your worldview, then please show me who was your M.Tech/Ph.D advisor - i would love to cut paste a dozen articles and get a dozen doctorates from him!

If you consider the basic reasoning as accusation, then no one can ask any questions…
A guy who unwilling to investigate for real, even when someone offers to provide him a lab, is only an accuser. No other definition for that. More like Nayan Mongia's style of getting wickets - appeal five deliveries every over, umpire will ultimately give you an lbw :)

r_kk

19th January 2005, 06:11 AM

You are very cleverly using my present situations which force me to keep away from doing the so called “first hand research”.

When I saw, you “Saibaba” thread, I was writing in your thread about a miracle healer. Only the Moderator said it can be in different thread. Now you are saying that I started this kind of accusation in this forum.

If you consider my questions are accusation, then I can’t help. I have not said I am doing research on miracle healers through validated tools. Instead you were claiming…

Ok, let us stop and concentrate on the subject...

hehehewalrus

19th January 2005, 06:27 AM

You are very cleverly using my present situations which force me to keep away from doing the so called “first hand research”.

How hard you are trying to show your unavailability/moral timidity as my fault! :lol2: Am I your boss to stop you from doing what you want?

r_kk

19th January 2005, 06:46 AM

hehehewalrus

19th January 2005, 06:51 AM

It is not your fault... Who said so...

I told a persoanl reason already to you but even after that you have been using my current limitation to show that I am running away from accepting your challange...

Then simple. Till you come into a position to come out bravely, desist from slanderous attacks. Deal? I can wait as long as you wish, and can meet you anytime you like.

hehehewalrus

19th January 2005, 07:08 AM

Dear friends,

Aravindhan, Bad Boy, hehehewalrus, just_hubber, kannuma, r_kk, Raghu and all other participants, please accept my hearty greetings.

Rohith,
welcome to the forum.

As someone who has occasionally burnt his fingers on usenet and other such fora and more often in silent-mode with a popcorn bowl, I am disappointed with the current quality of discussions here. :)

My good pal geno told me great stuff about you, so hope you will hop in more often :) Never really went into the old hub since its hard to step with so much mess in it, but this one is moderated, so we can hope for some good things here.

r_kk

19th January 2005, 07:13 AM

Good. I accept that I will not accuse the present day holy man by asking logical question without showing a valid proof.

I will come to you one day and we can discuss things very clearly and hope to work with you on many psychological claims without bias (I whole heartily want to do this). I will show you the proof of my integrity from my college days and give reference to all the major spiritual organizations which I had involved before. I can provide you many references from my friends of various religious beliefs and the type of work which I am currently involved.

hehehewalrus

19th January 2005, 07:18 AM

Rohit

19th January 2005, 02:53 PM

Dear Hehehewalrus,

Thanks!

Unfortunately, I don’t have the hopping skill that you mentioned. Nonetheless, I do know that many are endowed with such skills. My skills and abilities are far more limited; so please do not disappoint yourself if you don’t find my posts to your standard.
:)

Roshan

19th January 2005, 03:41 PM

r_kk,

Please ignore all those accusations and continue with your good work :)

You have a better knowledge and understanding of 'certain' religious beliefs, compared to the ones who 'really' belong to such religious groups :wink: So please dont waste your valuable time on responding un realistic and impractical questions :wink: :lol:. Instead, continue with the topic and enlighten us with your valuable inputs :thumbsup: :)

Rohit

19th January 2005, 09:29 PM

Why should I ? Since I am not claiming anything, why in the world should I? :)

Well, if hehehewalrus admits, he is not claiming anything, the question of him throwing any challenge to anyone, to prove or disprove anything associated with the paranormal, renders itself devoid of any significance. Hence, I don’t see any reason why r_kk should be obliged, in any way, to pursue this matter any further. In fact, it is also a non-issue as far as the topic at hand is concerned, for it not having sufficient body of details in favour or against evolution or God and therefore should be dropped by both of them.

Rohit

19th January 2005, 09:34 PM

So far in the discussion, I have noticed extensive use of fallacies whereby fallacious propositions are made even if they violate objectivity. Like,

I believe/want to believe “something” to be true therefore that “something” is true.

Or

Because a person or an organisation said “something” therefore “it” must be true, where the person or organisation quoted is believed to be competent and/or authoritative but whose credibility conditions are not satisfied in the area of the issue.

Or

Because the negation of “something” is not proved therefore that “something” must be true.

In my opinion, the persistence of such empty arguments rarely grows productive in advancing or enhancing the debater’s viewpoints. So, I would suggest all to conduct their arguments in the debates of this kind with pragmatic honesty and acceptability, when there are no definitive, rational answers and/or proofs available to either of the opponents.

mellon

19th January 2005, 11:35 PM

I will happily give you my name and address and am willing to meet you in person for a discussion. I am not scared or paranoid like you to send an email - since my location will be discovered via IP address.

Well, let me make few things clear here. I WILL NOT give any details about myself and my e-mail id. And it is not WARRANTED or required to provide to any hubber according to the forum rules and regulations.

So, if someone challeges me to come meet him in person , or want my e-mail id, or invites me to visit a place where he claims that he can SHOW

* me a diamond which is made of only of the element nitrogen and not carbon

*or ghost which often visits their home for dinner

*or a God who is living in their home or of that sort.

My response to such a proposition WILL be,

* I WILL have to let him DOWN and

* I WILL NOT face such a challenge.

* And IT WILL NEVER neither MAKE me a COWARD in the FORUM or in my real life

* nor it will MAKE the person who came up with such a proposition as the WINNER as I did not face the challenge.

Men or women have got their OWN limitations depending on their personal life and situaions, which can not be disclosed in the public forum.

And I dont see any reason to trust anybody and provide my e-mail id to discuss anything in e-mail.

I thought PM is meant for such a discussion not for the present use which is of course GOSSIPING about other hubbers.

Finally, my humble opinion about such a challege- e.g. come to this place I will show you etc- is nothing BUT A TACTIC to put down your opponent in the public forum by a hubber who is pretending to be a great one around here. I am sorry if it hurts anybody here. THANK YOU!

hehehewalrus

20th January 2005, 01:26 AM

* And IT WILL NEVER neither MAKE me a COWARD in the FORUM or in my real life

All that is fine. But what to say when someone comes to a forum frequented by timepassing software engineers, housewives, schoolkids and keeps shouting foul and acknowledges that he has never once contacted the RELEVANT groups, how different is he from all those Nakkeeran/Tharaasu/Junior Vikadan and all those screaming-headline journos?(Atleast they take pains to go to the events they cover, the coating they give is a different issue) :)
It is like a wannabe Einstein spending all his life in a creche/nursery school and whining later when some university prof gets a Nobel.

Rohit

20th January 2005, 01:26 AM

Finally r_kk and mellon seem to merge. That’s really good mellon! :wink:

mellon

20th January 2005, 02:21 AM

But what to say when someone comes to a forum frequented by timepassing software engineers, housewives, schoolkids and keeps shouting foul and acknowledges that he has never once contacted the RELEVANT groups, school and whining later when some university prof gets a Nobel.

Well, as you see, if you ask questions about 14C-dating, the response from that just_hubber is:

It is nothing to do with current discussion ,
hope the 14C expert will understand..

The above is a "compliment" for me as "14C EXPERT" from the real expert who also SHOWED all his expertise in the LINGAM RESEARCH in order to offend other religions.

Well, I dont know the person who compliments me knows the difference between a mass # and atomic # or the valency of carbon. But he acts as though he is the JACS chief editor himself.

I get the REAL ANSWER from the hubber's response and move on. Of course I can ask him to come down and give a talk in my school. But He can always turn down my offer. *I cant make an offer which he cant refuse* as I am not the *Veto Corleone* after all.

Learn about the people and move on if they are not worthy of your valuable time. That is how I "live" here.

---------------------

Hi Rohit! :) :)

hehehewalrus

20th January 2005, 04:06 AM

I have never bothered to even look at threads where it's a battle of google-dumping. If you look at the old forumhub, gladiators like Karuvayan would have dumped 1500+ links. If putting links is the name of the game, I would prefer to write a LoadRunner script that would grab all relevant search queries, get them from google and dump it in this forum :D

If I find a link that interests me, I would READ thru the whole item, talk to people in the real world about it and find real people who are interested in that field.

whats the difference between the new hub and the old one then if we are to blindly accept whatever Munsaamy or Kansaamy says in some website? :lol2: :lol2:

mellon

20th January 2005, 04:09 AM

whats the difference between the new hub and the old one then if we are to blindly accept whatever Munsaamy or Kansaamy says in some website?

Well, that is OBVIOUS I thought. I could post COLORFUL posts now but I could not in the older hub :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol:

Rohit

20th January 2005, 04:26 AM

Hi mellon,

Just a curious observation!

Why do you have to bring just-hubber’s yesterday’s comments on 14C, though addressed to you but not directed towards you, to hehehewalrus’s attention? Why raise it now when you have posted several posts after that comment?

I sense a delicate, but strange re-alignment in your mode of expression, after surrogating r_kk. If I am, in any way, causing the displacement, please tell me so. Otherwise, please continue with your discussion. :)

mellon

20th January 2005, 04:32 AM

Hi mellon,

Why do you have to bring just-hubber’s yesterday’s comments on 14C, though addressed to you but not directed towards you, to hehehewalrus’s attention? :)

Well, something BOTHERED me, which did not BOTHER HHHWalrus so far.

I wanted to see whhether it bothers him at least now when I highlight it and that is why I brought that up. However, r_KK easily getting on into Walrus nerve for some reason. But not the "lingam bullsiht" brought up by the just_hubber, which does not bother walrus. I wondered why. I wanted to make sure that that does not bother Walrus one more time.

Anyway, Unfortunately both "copy paste" crap about 14C dating of just_hubber and his unwarranted vulgar attack on Hindu's worship of Lingam do not seem to bother Walrus.

May be because this is a Christian Walrus. :roll:

Rohit

20th January 2005, 05:06 AM

Mellon,

Yes, any unwarranted vulgar attack on any religion or their worship should be condemned. I am bit surprised that you should wait for so long after reading such attacks. When and where did it happen?

mellon

20th January 2005, 05:16 AM

What is the relevance in bringing up LINGAM??

Do you find that genuine in the discussion of evolution vs God?

MY POINT IS: He is in the GOD side. Why does he argue against another God believer? They all should stand together, right?. Argue against the atheists. Why does he isolate another God-believer of your own? The answer is JESUS is the ONLY GOD and bible is the ONLY holybook. That is what just-hubber is trying to communicate here.

Anyway, Who the hell is this just_hubber to attack ONLY on Indians' superstition? I would not care much if he is an Indian too but I am not sure.

Here is somethng for him to work on too:

Let him work on having GATE 13 in the ohare airport of chicago and remove "we trust in GOd in the coins and bills of US- a secular nation- where buddists live too.

Rohit

20th January 2005, 05:30 AM

Dear mellon,

Agreed, if it has nothing to do with God then yes, there is no relevance in bringing that up in the discussion of evolution vs God. But, you are not telling, when and where did such attack happen in the last, few days’ posts?

mellon

20th January 2005, 05:41 AM

Posted: Jan 16, 2005 12:10 am Post subject: BY JUST-HUBBER

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hi rkk

*you again started your sheep skinned wolfy works ,

* First you have so many wrong assumptions of Bible.

* In Bible no where it tells earth is 6000 years old ,

*I already told what is the use of doing again and again all things against christianity.Even i posted in very clear message how is creation is supported by well doctrate people,

*As just a half boiled you again started against christianity.

_______________________________

* If you are truly skeptic can you expose your country religion first
like worshiping Lingam and there are lakhs and lakhs of matter to expose in your conuntry.

* Can you clean your own country people If you are really aethist and claiming you are from sucha organization

* Better you do that first If you have guts,
Comment briefly about all the vedhas and Why dont you do a research on your own country religion and expose everything and open the eyes of million of your countrymen,

__________________________________________________ ______

As a christian i already experiencing God everyday, we are a in way of progressing everyday in our spirirutual life one step more.

I have no ill intentions like you to list all the absurdity what you beleived(or may be still believing)

As you are full of hatred towards christianity i have nothing do with you,

If you finished exposing all of your own country religion first

I am here to discuss with people of my frequency,

_________________________________________

Rohit!

Dont misunderstand me as a HINDU. No religion means anything to me.
And we DO not MEET just now. We know each other for years. :)

hehehewalrus

20th January 2005, 05:53 AM

I wanted to see whhether it bothers him at least now when I highlight it and that is why I brought that up...But not the "lingam bullsiht" brought up by the just_hubber, which does not bother walrus.

I am not a policeman on this site and when I see posts lacking substance I merely giggle at the postor's inability to find profitable usage of his time and click the "next" button at the bottom of the screen :) I dont do whistle-blowing jobs here. You dislike something and got abundant time to react? Leave it or lynch the postor. But why write a thesis on my silence?

Thanks for giving me the netcop offer though :)

However, r_KK easily getting on into Walrus nerve for some reason. I wondered why.

r_kk is not my injection syringe and nor do I have a problem with the content of any of his posts. But it is only his claim to be an objective researcher which amused me. I didnt step into the thread till I read that claim. I took up only that issue and backed out after that. Am in no way interested in the evolution-devolution-dissolution stuff, other than sit back and have a few laughs.
Proliferation of electronic fora like this will naturally produce a lot of chaff which needs to be sifted. Anybody and everyone can call himself a journalist. Which is why I started the print media thread - and showed the way what constitutes report and analysis and the appreciation. To its credit, the thread has been free of muck or slanted opinions(so far, that is).

May be because this is a Christian Walrus. :roll:
[/quote]
Wait till you see my diatribe against Christian practices, which will take a few hours to post. But then, if you have joundeece, whatevor u sea is yellow
:wink:

BTW, i never or rarely posted in "evolution" thread or "god exist thread" except for the past 2 days.

mellon

20th January 2005, 05:59 AM

Well, I thought I SAID, MAY BE. At least I was not +ve. Dont waste your time in convincing me of anything. I just dont care! Thank you! 8)

Rohit

20th January 2005, 06:09 AM

And we DO not MEET just now. We know each other for years. :)

I have already figured that out, but until you disclose yourself who you are, I am not going to say anything about you. :)

I got the rest! Please carry on.

r_kk

20th January 2005, 06:26 AM

hehehewalrus

20th January 2005, 07:07 AM

Dear Walrus,
For your information, I had studied Geology for 3 semester and I had also studied plate tectonics and Hydrology in great detail and currently working on related area. My claiming of research scholar is based on this. If you see my questions, you can easily note that I have started with the questions based on my area of interests. That’s why I had said that how the opponent can assume that others as unqualified. I have not claimed that I had done field research on miracle healers. Please don’t mix two subjects and interpolate.

My labelling you unqualified was in the godmen issue. I thought this was evident from my posts and atleast 2 analogies which I gave(Ramu/Somu analogy, Slandering in your neighborhood analogy).

Nothing to do with the evolution thread(which i dont bother to read).

r_kk

20th January 2005, 07:15 AM

Walrus,
Thanks for telling it more clearly.

If you had mentioned this in that thread, then I might have accepted. Even I had accepted to you long before that my first hand experiences in the mentioned Godman are nill and my questions are logical ones and based on the available sources. Even you had accepted one of my reference "Paulseer" may be correct. I clearly accept that subject need lot of field study. No argument in it.

But, the way you had projected me in this thread, particulary at
this time made me to suspect your intentions.

Then another one interesting thing. Yesterday Discovery channel was broadcasting the pschological research on after life stories which I had mentioned before. Did you see?

kannuma

20th January 2005, 12:35 PM

hehehewalrus

21st January 2005, 05:16 AM

r_kk,
i havent seen tv for nearly 2 years now.

r_kk

22nd January 2005, 03:34 AM

to me evolution and god go hand in hand. i believe that evolution si correct, but that religion supports it fully(my dad and i would spend days talking about this). i dont really see them being an 'either/or' situation.

Hi kannuma,
can you please explain in detail of the discussion between you and your father in brief about how evolution and creation go hand in hand?

Hi Roshan,
Thanks. I will write more in detail. For time being instead of concentrating on individuals, I will concentrate on core belief, its foundations and how it contratict with conventional science. Any way this argument taught me few more things and forced me to collect more evidences. I will try to write with more evidences and proofs

Roshan

31st January 2005, 10:46 AM

r_kk,

Have you ever had the opportunity of reading the works of the Indian born South African theologian Ahmed Deedat -especially his books titled "Choice" ?

r_kk

31st January 2005, 11:29 AM

Roshan

31st January 2005, 12:55 PM

Roshan,
My interest towards Islam was very short time (till I read the book by Ram Swarup on Hadis), that was also long time back. Most of my comparative studies between Islam with other religions are based on Ahmadiya society books. It seems Ahmed Deedat also wrote similar but exhaustive books on comparative study. I will try to read when I get some time. If you had read already, can you please sent a personal message providing brief summary about his work.

Yes!! when it comes to comparative studies, Deedat's works are far more exhaustive than Ahmadiya Society books. I have read his 'Choice' - both part one and two. You have asked for a brief summary and I should say that these books cover almost the entire aspects of Christianity and Prophet Jesus - from his birth to ascension -paying attention to the nitty-gritties of each aspect. I'm sure you'd find them interesting and informative.

The title 'Choice' itself has an indepth meaning - and I realized it when I recently read Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code'.

Shakthiprabha.

1st February 2005, 11:03 PM

///Poll
Do you believe in evolution or God ?
yes [ 11 ]
no [ 2 ]

//

Again, no place for AGNOSTICS....

Should not there be a polling for 'not too sure' types?

geno

2nd February 2005, 05:11 AM

hey i agree with Shakthi on this one! :)

NOV

2nd February 2005, 06:50 AM

Since the author of this thread is no longer around, I took the liberty to modify the title and the poll.

Is this ok now?

arr

2nd February 2005, 09:43 AM

Since the author of this thread is no longer around, I took the liberty to modify the title and the poll.

Is this ok now?

Hi NOV can you restart the polls?
The previous one was a bit confusing?

coolboy

2nd February 2005, 09:45 AM

Since the author of this thread is no longer around, I took the liberty to modify the title and the poll.

Is this ok now?

That's fine.

NOV

2nd February 2005, 09:58 AM

That's fine.
Oh, you are still around? 8)

ARR, Why restart the polls? Anyway, let's see what the author and other say.

just_hubber

4th February 2005, 09:04 AM

Evolutionists have tried to get around this problem by invoking long periods of time in the hope that, given enough time, virtually anything is possible -- except, of course, special creation.

Now even some evolutionists fear that time and chance may not be the answer. The Nobel laureate Dr. Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA), in his book Life Itself, insists that the probability of life's chance origin simply defies calculation. Crick, an atheist, says:

"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."

Incredibly, Crick concludes that the first living organisms on earth may have been "seeded" by intelligent beings from another planet!

Sir Fred Hoyle, the man who named the "Big Bang" theory, has recently concluded that the origin of life by chance is an absurd idea. In his book Evolution From Space, Hoyle insists that it is obvious that the complexity of life demands an intelligent designer, possibly even (heaven forbid!) God. According to Hoyle:

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. ... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect... higher intelligences... even to the limit of God... such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident."

Rohit

5th February 2005, 12:34 AM

Dear Just_hubber,

Thank you for the convoluted information on “intelligent design”

First, let me make this clear that Michael Behe admitted, in his book “Darwin's Black Box” that “on a small scale, Darwin’s theory has triumphed”. In other words, overwhelming evidences of evolution forced Behe to acknowledge that things do evolve, very reluctantly though.

When a molecule is proposed, which creationists believe to be irreducibly complex, there are plenty of evidences of the occurrences of molecular evolution by gene duplication, which drastically dilutes the creationists’ arguments of irreducible complexity. Creationists forget the fundamentals of the evolution theory, which boldly and very rightly proclaims that once you accepts microevolution, macroevolution comes free, and then, there is no escape, pushing the “intelligent design” concept right back to the very beginning.

Such states of affairs leave creationists with little armoury for backing their delusional claims. Moreover, the creationists’ claim for “intelligent design” using paraphrases such as, complexity of life, irreducibly complex systems, minuscule probability of life by chance, unlikely sequence of events etc. completely collapses by its own criteria, as proved below.

Let us normalise what is called as complexity - used by creationists to back their claim of “intelligent design” - with reference to the complexity of the supposed “intelligent designer”; then the resulting complexity for the supposed “intelligent designer” would equate to 1. Now this would allow one to map the entire complexity range between 0 and 1, starting with no complexity whatsoever to which all irreducibly complex objects must reduce to for evolution to remain valid; to the ultimate complexity of the supposed “intelligent designer” against which all other complexities are normalised.

Now let us evaluate how much water does the “intelligent design” claim hold.

According to “intelligent design” criteria, as the complexity “C” increases from 0 to 1, the probability P of something as complex coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution would decrease from 1 to 0 by default, otherwise the whole argument for the “intelligent design” collapses.

Now what these creationist oafs do is, they apply the product of these two quantities and derive the improbability IP of something as complex as life, coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution and then treat life as having an ultimate complexity.

In other words; they use IP = C * P as an argument to back “intelligent design”

Now let us carefully considers two boundary conditions: One at [C = 0, P = 1] and the other at [C = 1, P = 0]

At [C = 0, P = 1]

Putting these two values in IP = C * P, we get IP = 0 * 1 = 0

Which means, the improbability IP of something with “0” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is "0". That is to say, the probability P of something with “0” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is “1”, which is exactly the same as specified for the first boundary condition i.e. [C = 0, P = 1]

At [C = 1, P = 0]

Again, putting these two values in IP = C * P, we get IP = 1 * 0 = 0

Which means, the improbability IP of something with “1” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is "0". That is to say, the probability P of something with “1” complexity coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution is “1”, but the result is in total contradiction with the originally specified condition for the second boundary i.e. [C = 1, P = 0]

So, one could clearly figure it out and see how creationists cheat and produce fallacious claims based on probabilistic fallacies. I have clearly demonstrated how creationists falsely derive “1” probability when the actual/original probability is “0”.

Even an ordinary teenage kid, when equipped with some basic knowledge on probability, could figure out the fallacies used by creationists in order to entertain their delusional claims used as wish fulfilment and support their beliefs in religious texts, when confronted with puzzles and complexities that create insecurity. :)

Rohit

5th February 2005, 01:15 AM

I have clearly proved above that the probability for the existence of an “intelligent designer” is zero “0”:)

geno

5th February 2005, 04:40 AM

Just_hubber,

Probes to other planets in the solar system may in future - prove that rudimentary forms of organisms do thrive in other planets and/or their moons.

The recent european space probe to "titan" one of the most intriguing moons of Saturn is a good case in point.

The shuttle probe which landed on the titan's surface had recorded pictures and sounds of the Titan's atmosphere of methane back to earth.

It was played out on TV channels too..there was this one distinct sound like a thunderclap or a whirlwind blasting past near the probes' descent path.

Later - the probe recorded that Titan experiences "Methane rain" and "rivers of liquid methane" - "run through" the "desert like gruel" surface of Titan which has a soft upper crust which "may" stand on fluid - as the scientists put it.

We just can't shut out the possibility of "organisms" which do not depend upon Oxygen like our own planets' beings.

There may be different kinds of organism which "may" have evolved/ may evolve in future - in those "exotic" environs.

Our scientists think that clues to the existence of organisms/ species in other "exotic" worlds - may lie within our deepest reaches of our oceans.

Already extensive efforts are made to study the kind of organisms and creatures which live in th deepest parts of our ocean beds - where sunlight or warmth from the sun light SELDOM reaches.

James cameroon is making a "Docu-movie" called - "Aliens in the deep" - on this subject of "exotic" creatures which live in pitch dark, and freezing temps - all thru their "life cycle", right at the very bottom of our oceans.

So, all that is required to decisively dismantle the "Special creation" theory once and for all is that - proving that - "different" kinds of organisms may evolve / may have evolved in other locations of our own solar system, in environs which we may consider "exotic".

This is very much a theoretical possibility now.

Would the creationists "hang up their boots" if such a possibility is shown to be true, and that other "Kinds of creatures/organisms" live in other "exotic" worlds??

Thanx :)

Rohit

5th February 2005, 05:18 AM

Geno, that really was a cracker. :lol:

geno

5th February 2005, 05:51 AM

Rohit! :)

hehehewalrus

6th February 2005, 06:40 AM

Evolution Theory : The beginning of the end?

http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1011787.cms

The US Supreme Court may have declared the intermingling of church and state unconstitutional in 1988. But 17 years down, attitudes in that country — as indeed in many others — have changed significantly. Even hardcore science teachers are discovering that an increasing number of students are wanting a link to divine origin by giving "creation teaching" at least equal airtime along with evolution. In any case what's so wrong in expecting schools to make the teaching of evolution more rigorous by bringing up its drawbacks and examining areas of controversy it shares with the people who are promoting an alternative theory called intelligent design, or ID? These are people who say there's simply too much pattern in everything, from the microcosm of subatomic particles to the macrosphere of galactic superclusters, to insist that only blind chance could have played a part in all their structural make-up. If anything,if Darwin's theory is taught along with ID it might even plug the several loopholes that still exist in it.

Already in the past such patchwork has led to major reforms that are today known as neo-Darwinism and the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution. Also, ever since some 350 biologists signed a declaration challenging evolution, many scientists and science teachers have come round to believe there is place for valid criticism — especially in areas dealing with the origin and complex designs of living systems. However, mainstream scientists and philosophers who accept Darwinian evolution and reject any godlike intervention have routinely nixed the idea, upholding that science is inherently committed to naturalistic premises. At the same time though, more and more people are beginning to believe in ID. This can be gauged from the fact that only recently one of the world's best known philosophers and a passionate proponent of atheism for over half a century, Professor Antony Flew, changed his mind at the age of 81. The reason according to him was because researchers' investigation of DNA has shown the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved. Or as Prof Flew put it, "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism". Like a lot of intelligent people, he accepts Darwinian evolution as the most compelling process by which speciation and the variety of life could have come about, but doubts that it alone could explain the ultimate origins of life. Proponents of ID think intelligent design could. Problem is, who created ID?

Caveat emptor: The above post is a copy paste of a newspaper article. The postor is not responsible for the contents of the theory. He is posting it as part of data fed to guinea pigs in this forum.(The word guinea is important here :D )

aravindhan

6th February 2005, 06:48 AM

Problem is, who created ID?
Must have been my former employers. You couldn't even go to the loo in that office unless you had ID.

hehehewalrus

6th February 2005, 07:06 AM

Their intentions were right. In India, often you should have iron control over nature's calls.

aravindhan

6th February 2005, 07:09 AM

Their intentions were right. In India, often you should have iron control over nature's calls.
Unfortunately, you also needed ID to go to the ironing room.

Rohit

6th February 2005, 07:35 AM

Problem is, who created ID?

If fact, there is no problem at all. There is a much simpler answer to that question. People, it is the people who created "Intelligent Designer" or ID who then was requested to create complex life forms. Wouldn’t that make a perfect sense?

just_hubber

7th February 2005, 09:05 AM

Dear Just_hubber,
According to “intelligent design” criteria, as the complexity “C” increases from 0 to 1, the probability P of something as complex coming into existence by chance, self-creation or self-design/evolution would decrease from 1 to 0 by default, otherwise the whole argument for the “intelligent design” collapses.
)
Hi Rohit,
Why you are posting your failing theory so many times , regardless of how many times you post the same thing , it still fails ,
you should know the probability theory has limitation and fails when it is used wrongly(assumed wrongly)

Probability theory came to science as a way to avoid fearful implication of second law of thermodynamics. The second law implied that the whole universe is tending to Heat death. To day it also form the foundation on which quantum mechanics is constructed

The probability theory is a system theory. It speaks of a system that encloses millions of systems existing in an apparently random manner but predictable in probabilistic manner. The theory tells that the whole system exists between two states “0” and “1”. These limits are the least probable state. For a system that contains few millions of subsystem this is assumed as infinitely distant possibility. Probability Theory however does not exclude these limits.

The probability theory and its limits are best explained by a box having an imaginary partition that allows free movement of matter, but divides the box into left and right. The box is visualized to contain millions of tiny black and white balls in equal proportion in random motion. Now the

1] The limit “ 0 ” means when all the black and white balls finds it self on the left or the right. Here the concept of left and right breaks down. In other words the system is in total danger.

2] The limit “1” is the situation where all the white balls come to lie in the right and black in the left or vice versa. This invariably means a complete differentiation occurs and the whole gets initialized. The balance is restored back to the initial state or the time gets initialized for the time cycle to begin again.

I PROVED the weekness of Probabilty theory you used .

If God exists outside of time and space, and if He is the Creator of time and space, He obviously was not created! God began the beginning! This is why He says, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”
God is the uncaused cause. God is the timeless eternal One. Since we are created beings and exist in a world limited by time, it is impossible for us to understand how God can always have existed.

It was the famous French scientist and Creationist, Pasteur, who provided the first scientific evidence that living things are not produced from non-living matter

Because oxygen in the atmosphere would destroy all possibility of life arising by natural processes, materialists wrongly assumed the atmosphere had no oxygen. [120] They also assumed it contained certain necessary ingredients, including ammonia, nitrogen, hydrogen, water vapor and methane. [121] However, it is well known that mixing these ingredients does not create life.

Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. [139] No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA.

The notion that... the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. [140]
(Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle)

Dr. Wilder-Smith was an honored scientist with three earned doctorate degrees. He was well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What, in his considered opinion, was the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal?

"... an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA... is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information." [150]

jaiganes

7th February 2005, 09:38 AM

Science talks about 'Singularity' that existed before the big bang. Religion talks about chaos that existed before GOD spoke the magic words. So till the time, that singularity or chaos can be observed and analyzed (probably in some remote corners of the universe), science cannot rule out an intelligent design or "Self organizing Chaos" and religion cannot explain how GOD existed in chaos. So this debate is bound to go on. But to think of how many sets of related probabilities aligned together right from Big Bang, to cooling of universe in the right manner to galaxy formation with right proportion of suns with the correct mass to planetary formation, to satellites formation to the first molecular formation that started to "LIVE"!!!. Thats an amazing group of correlations!! We definitely are very lucky guys. This is something both the groups must agree upon and wonder!

Rohit

8th February 2005, 02:55 AM

Dear Just_Hubber/RW

For a complete refutation of your posts, please click the link and read it carefully in full. :)

http://forumhub.lunarpages.com/hub/viewtopic.php?p=63985#63985

:wave:

mandangi

16th February 2005, 07:20 AM

We should not say that god do not exist. Religion is also main role in human development.

Rohit

16th February 2005, 01:05 PM

In the meditation thread:
Thank you and i will cast my vote for time being.

Then I take it, the increase of votes from 6 to 7 for "Creation" must be due to your vote. Good!. It demonstrates, your thoughts too are evolving and did not stay as "created" :D

pradheep

16th February 2005, 05:32 PM

Dear Rohit
If you can recollect my old postings, I never argued about a |"creationist|" creating the creation. There is no "God" (as a guy sitting in heaven and creating things for fun|". Living beings |"evolve|" , which is not an accident or a coincidence but a conscious process. This is what I used to write in the forum and still saying the same. Let me repeat, there is no God as a person.....God is the consciousness in us, that is the basis for everything in this world. This consciousness is called as "Brahman" by advaitas. Atma is Sat-chit-ananda, which is consciousness-awareness-eternal. This means that the consciousness with awareness is eternal.

There is difference between consciousness and awareness. The problem arises when people mistake consicousness for awareness. Awareness is experienced when there it assumes matter (energy|).

This concept being very hard to grasp by layman, ancient rishi's (scientist|) gave them in the form of puranas. |Consciousness is passive,( sleeping) and representedin form of vishnu in eternity |(ananta snake|) in the cosmic ocean.

Awareness is dynamic and so represented as dancing shiva. This shiva dances with sakthi,his wife (matter|). When he stops the dance everything stops. Without awarenss a dead body is called shava. |If there is awareness then the body has shiva and if not it is just shava.

Brahma |(not Brahman) arises from the navel of vishnu and creates everything. He is the god of creation. |This is the mind. Without the mind there is no creation. This whole universe is perceived through the mind. When the mind |"sleeps" the whole universe disappears |( we all expereince this every night|) and creates new universes which are dreams, based on the experiences of the mind's impressions.

|How to "know" consciousness?. The mind has to transcend to awareness.....by meditation, which is represented by the dancing shiva sitting in meditative posture with half eye closed. I will write the details of this in meditation thread.

|"Aham Brahman|", means that one's true nature is cosnciosuness, which is the matrix of all creation. The illuion |(maya) is the identity to the body and the sense objects instead of the consciousness , that illuminates the body.

To put it simple, the problem arises when we think that the white screen in a movie hall projects all the action instead of giving credit to the light |(consciousness|). When the light goes off, the movie is gone through the white screen isstill there. The same way, a body has life only when it has the |"sat|" and |"chit|" (cosnciousness and awareness|). When that is gone there is no life.

|This is why adi-shankara says,Brahma sathyam ,jagan mithya..which means that consciosuness is the only truth |(like the projector light|) and the jagath the world depends on it and so it is called mithya. Shankara does not say that jagath is |"A-bhava|", which means "no forms|" (illusion|)He is clear to say that these forms that we see is perceived only because of Brahman the consciosuness. |So he declares |" oh ,men understand that you are not the forms in the movie screen bythe light projector (brahman|) itself.

How convincing and direct the|"Truth" is.

Unfortunately people mis understand every thing and adds only confusion.

Rohit

17th February 2005, 01:28 AM

Let me repeat, there is no God as a person.....God is the consciousness in us, that is the basis for everything in this world.
Exactly from here, my dear Pradheep, you unwarily start your long discourse of, not only completely confusing yourself but then ending up yourself in making a series of contradicting and fallacious propositions.

Let us see how!

This consciousness is called as "Brahman" by advaitas.

Consciousness is passive, (sleeping) and represented form of Vishnu in eternity (ananta snake) in the cosmic ocean.

Awareness is dynamic and so represented as dancing Shiva.

He (adi-shankara) is clear to say that these forms that we see is perceived only because of Brahman the consciousness.
By creating the fallacy of layman’s inability to grasp concepts, you, yourself have failed to grasp them and ended up in creating a trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, personifying your own ideas of “God”. Not only that, by differentiating between the body, consciousness and then awareness, you have just broken the unity of Advaitic “monism” by mixing up Adi-Shankara’s Advaita with Ramanuja’s Qualified Advaita. Ramanuja was a furious opponent of Adi-shankara’s illusionist Advaita, which in fact was Buddhism in disguise, he proposed his Qualified Advaita, allowing some "temporary" physical/personal attributes to "Brahman" and identifying him as Vishnu and his consort as Laxmi.

Anyway, you seem to have made significant progress in visualising, first form Advaita to Dvaita/duality i.e. body and consciousness and now form Davaita/duality to Trivaita/trinity i.e. body, consciousness and awareness. There are few more stages for you to cross; and the most important one being the vitality of life itself, which is the root of both consciousness and awareness, but whose own root traces only to physical matter and energy.

There is difference between consciousness and awareness. The problem arises when people mistake consciousness for awareness.

I don’t know whether you have ever known the fact that neither the consciousness nor the awareness is experienced by the person who is in coma, or under the influence of general anaesthesia during an operation, or when fainted due to temporary lack of blood (i.e. oxygen) supply to the brain or knocked down by sever physical blow on the head? I guess not; you don’t sound aware at all of such facts of human body. And yet, the person is alive but remains totally unconscious and unaware of the events around him. There are reported cases where people have suffered Brain Deaths due to Brain Stem damage and the person becomes totally unresponsive to external stimuli and becomes totally unaware (oblivious) of his surroundings; but he is neither unconcious nor dead.

Such cases, and there are plenty of them, provide total refutation of your beliefs about consciousness and awareness.

An undeniable fact is; without the vitality of life, neither the consciousness nor awareness is possible; however, life is possible without being conscious and/or aware, as explained above. Thus completely refuting everything that you have said about the consciousness and awareness; while 100% supporting the claim that only objective energy (material energy) provides the source for supporting life. You may call it whatever you want but the energy that we spoke of is indifferent and insentient, generated and provided to support life only through natural resources.

Brahma (not Brahman) arises from the navel of Vishnu and creates everything. He is the god of creation. This is the mind.

This whole universe is perceived through the mind. When the mind "sleeps" the whole universe disappears (we all experience this every night)..
Again, you seem to remain totally predisposed with the fallacious ideas that when you go to sleep, the whole world goes to sleep, which is not at all the case. There are billions of people who would be still awake and perceiving the universe as it exists even at night or in daylight, completely breaking and refuting the concept of Advaitic “monism".

The inconsistency doesn't end there, but it gets even worse when Raghu clearly contradicts your perception of Trinity in “Meditation” thread when he writes:

Pradheep, Shiva is a Combination of Vishnu & Brahma

And finally, just one request; please don’t write anything from any religious scriptures, as more than 90% of believers would reject them. It is advisable if you could post something from your own understanding and thoughts, which can be discussed openly by all without resorting to post contradicting material from the scriptures of other religious beliefs.

Thank you. :)

pradheep

17th February 2005, 05:02 AM

Dear Rohit
Hope you are aware of your own contradictions. I will high light just a couple of them to brush your memory.

last year in the thread you wrote about religion being the primary cause for India being under developed. Then you wrote Buddishm being the best religion. To which I responded asking you how is that a king you abonded all riches and wandered as a beggar and taught everyone in india to follow him be your ideal which contradicts your own statement. You stealthily escaped and even recently you made the following statement.

" Buddhism is a highly spiritual religion"

2. Now look at the two statement which are contradicting........

you, yourself have failed to grasp them and ended up in creating a trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, personifying your own ideas of “God”.

Now look at the end

It is advisable if you could post something from your own understanding and thoughts, which can be discussed openly by all without resorting to post contradicting material from the scriptures of other religious beliefs.

Rohit , my friend please make yourself clear what you like to convey to me. Either you want to express what ever you feel is correct and everyone accept it or you restrict others in every possible way. You demand everyone analyze whatever you write but at the same time you never even consider analyzing whatever others express.

From the begining , your trend is the same. But I am glad that you did not use a word that I am schizophrenic. I am expecting remark soon from you when you cannot digest what I write.

I will explain the difference between consciousness and awareness and what is lost in coma. I dont see any contradiction in the truth when Raghu wrote shiva is a combination of vishnu and brahma. You would not understand that if you do not understand the symbolic behind vishnu and brahma. You might be taking vishnu , shiva , brahma literally sitting in heavens and dancing as general religious poeple do. Then you are no different from them.

I will explain only if you (or other members) are willing to give a thought.