Debunking Evolution
Part XI

Dialogue 1
Back to contents

Reply to Herakles (Texas) - November 27, 2003
Duck! It's a drive-by....
If only I'd known that 150 years of science could be de-bunked by three paragraphs of drivel on a Geocities site, I could have saved myself so much time...

  • Vj ~ Are you that old to have wasted 150 years of your life? Such an injustice though, that so many before 150 years were deprived of the science you have now come to know, isn't it?

    Reply to Herakles - November 27, 2003
    What law are you talking about?

  • Vj ~ If you do not know the functions or operations of the immutable laws of nature, how can you argue the case of evolution effectively?

    It is not progressive. It is simply the change in a gene pool of the population in response to its environment.

  • Vj ~ If our lifestyle (modern way of thinking) is no longer primitive, then it is progress, isn't it?

    The advancement of science, culture, and technology in humans is not evolution. That is what you're are talking about, right?

  • Vj ~ Had you study the link I gave you earlier, you would know what I am talking about? We must focus on natural laws and its functions to conform truth from untruth.

    All things finite (created) decay, it is a law - a car, a house, even us as human beings, etc. And whatever comes into being is always pure, innocent (child), new or fully functional (car, etc.) before it begins to decay. Likewise, a man had to experience through learning, the highest of all knowledge and science (contentment) and perpetual happiness in the beginning rather than the primitive (illiterate) state of constant fear and discontentment.

    Reply to Contracycle (London) - November 27, 2003
    If the law was of a constant and permanent nature, ever working itself out, how was it that for thousands of years past, no lower creature had evolved into a human being?
    Because that is too short a period. NEXT!

  • Vj ~ If time is the factor, then it is most likely that humans can expect to witness a lower creature evolving into the human species in some distant future, right?

    Reply to Herakles (UK) - November 27, 2003
    Humans are not the ultimate goal or pinnacle of evolution, any more than beetles and bacteria are.

  • Vj ~Really, I didn't know "beetles and bacteria" could debunk creationism?

    Even if they were, how and why would "lower" organisms evolve into humans.

  • Vj ~ How they evolve will be your problem, since that is what you propagate. Since it is a law which requires it to be steady, it should be one good reason why they must continue to evolve into humans.

    Similarly, the cause of the physical body, which must be of its own distinct origin, is the reproductive element, so far as we know, it to be in the past, as it is now and so it will be to the end, and if the law is without breach then, it had to be so from the very first human. Therefore, the theory of human evolving out of a lower species does not hold good, as it breaches the law.
    I have written extensively on this subject in dialogue if you care to have a look.

    Dialogue 2
    Back to contents

    Reply to HRG (Austria) - November 27, 2003
    You apparently confuse natural laws with those of Hammurabi or Solon. A natural law is our description - mostly approximate - of a regularity, pattern, mechanism which we have observed in nature.
  • Vj ~ And is the cause of the physical body from the reproductive element not a regular (steady) observation of nature?

    Let me introduce you to reality, as we have known it for about 100 years. Most basic things - electrons, protons etc. - do not decay; what you anthropomorphically call "decay" is just a rearrangement.

  • Vj ~ If reality is only 100 years old, how then can you support evolution which took billions of years?
    If you must speak of "electrons, protons, etc." then I am assuming you must know their source. If they do not decay then it simply means that they have existed and will existed for all eternity. How can your science prove anything to be eternal?
    If there is no decay in a 100 years that does not mean there is no decay. Is it not possible that their life span could be, thousands or millions of years and old ones being replaced by new ones less powerful as creation ages?
    Again we know that the sun is loosing its power, but who in your belief can say when it will finally dissolve?

    Reply to NZAmoeba (NZ) - November 28, 2003
    Once again, there IS NO GOAL TO EVOLUTION.

  • Vj ~ For everything that exists there is a "GOAL" (purpose) and if evolution has none then the theory is baseless.

    Not everything is heading towards human.

  • Vj ~ It could, since you don't know what specifically became human.

    In fact, humans happen to be quite unremarkable creatures, who cheated by communicating advanced ideas.

  • Vj ~ And who did the first human cheated when there were no one advanced to communicate with?

    Sharks are a pinacle of their current underwater environment, this will change when the water environment changes.

  • Vj ~ The only changes that will occur is that they will become extinct and not evolve into something else.

    Are you seeing the point here? humans are not a pinacle, just another work in progress, everything else is heading in very different, but still unguided, direction.

  • Vj ~ If you see a creation of law, order, design and purpose as misguided then it is obvious who is missing the point here.

    If you have to be told this again, no one is going to bother debating with you untill you learn about what it is you're trying to debunk

  • Vj ~ As if you know anything of the treatise that debunks your theory of evolution. It is obvious if you know nothing of the philosophy that debunks your theory, you cannot render yourself to be an impartial opponent in this dialogue.

    Reply to Rlogan - November 28, 2003
    I adopt your methodology in response: According to creationist theory Jesus Christ is the devil and created the universe for the purpose of defiling the lesser "God the Father".
    Thus, Creationists worship demons and kill infants, sucking their blood dry in accord with the Holy Scriptures.

  • Vj ~ How about if we deal with my creationist theory since it is I and not a Christian who is debunking the evolution of man theory?

    Singhvj - Who are you to tell us what evolutionary theory is? Have you ever thought of actually reading from bona-fide evolutionary publications and quoting from them instead of just making stuff up?

  • Vj ~ Have you ever thought of actually reading from a bonafide philosophical treatise to truly validate your claims instead of entertaining irrational denial?

    Show me just one single evolutionary publication that bears any resemblence to the fiction you set up in your debunking attempt. Quote from it directly to demonstrate.

  • Vj ~ How about a creation publication (the link above) perfectly in harmony with reasoning, science and in conformity with natural laws, which you and no other evolutionists can contradict?

    Dialogue 3
    Back to contents

    Reply to coragyps - November 28, 2003
    And "we" know this how, exactly?
  • Vj ~ Just as we know that what has neither beginning nor ending cannot die, we definitely know that what has a beginning is finite and must die or dissolve, a law.

    Sure, it's burning its hydrogen, but "losing its power?" What are you getting at? And what "law" would that be? The Law of Crap That Must Rock Steady? What are you getting at?

  • Vj ~ I guess it is time for you to sink your thoughts into some thing completely different from what you have been stagnantly buried in for such a long long time.

    Reply to Zouprime - November 28, 2003
    Is this simply another way of presenting the good old 2nd Law of Thermodynamic argument? Because it certainly looks like you're going right in that direction and I don't see the point in going through all the usual scripted discussion that its debunking involve.

  • Vj ~ Why don't you first try to understand what natural laws are all about, perhaps like me you will find that there are no 2nd, 3rd or 4th laws.

    Reply to Jaydoc - November 28, 2003
    What horrible logic and reasoning! Yes, rain did not come from the clouds once, and evolution did not happen once. Both are constantly happening.

  • Vj ~ Wrong! True, rain constantly continue to come from the clouds, but evolution of a human from a lower creature has ceased.

    It rained last week where I live, but it will never rain like that again. The rain drops will never, ever fall in the exact same pattern as they did seven days ago.

  • Vj ~ The pattern may differ, but rainfall is still a regular occurrence, a law unchangeable.

    Why should evolution occur in the exact same pattern as it did over the past 4 billion years? No one expects it to, and the fact that it won�t happen in the exact same way is meaningless. Nothing will ever happen the same exact way twice.

  • Vj ~ We may be different in stature, color and intelligence because of environmental conditions but the cause of our physical body is always the reproductive element, it is happening all the time. Like the evolution of man from a lower creature, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and his resurrection is also a breach to natural laws, you cannot accept the first as a fact and not the latter, keeping in mind that both theories (scientific or theological) must conform to these laws.

    Reply to DavidM - November 28, 2003
    Thanks for the link to your Web site, Singhvj. It was impressive stuff. One can only hope that the people in this forum, both the contributors and the lurkers, will learn from it.

  • Vj ~ Thank you David for your comments. I will also like to add that true men of rational ideas cherish very much the courageous thought of freedom of speech but when a forum is moderated it certainly displays the opposite.

    Reply to Donnmathan - November 28, 2003
    Pardon, but I followed your link, and found absolutely nothing but the main web page for a religion that seems as determined to work off of revealed knowledge as any Christian one. Please, if you are going to post a link, post one that goes to the exact page relevant to the discussion, rather than making us hunt for it.

    I read the 'Creation' section of that web site, and found absolutely nothing pertaining to evolution, except another scientifically unprovable creation myth. I did not see a link to anything that actually debunks evolution - could you provide a more specific link, rather than continue to belittle people for not finding it buried in your site?

  • Vj~ It shows that truth is not so easy to find. The search for truth has elementary stages also like everything else. It would be insane to strive for a college degree before mastering the alphabet. If you do not have the patience and time to peruse my site as it is laid out, then you are definitely not interested to know what you believe in is really true, much less the truth I expound.

    Reply to CoffeeFiend - November 28, 2003
    You are correct. But that doesn't mean that there is no potential for evolution in the humans.

  • Vj ~ The subject is not about "evolution in the humans" but evolution of a human from a lower creature.

    Reply to ZouPrime - November 28, 2003
    No, human are still evolving, like every living species on earth. There is no reasons why we should stop evolving.

  • Vj ~They maybe evolving in many other ways but defintely not from a lower creature.

    Well, if it's eternal... how can anything be created?

  • Vj ~ Isn't it because a tree exist that we can make a house of it? It is the reason why all things, animate and inanimate, keeping manifesting themselves out of it, creation after creation. Matter, the material cause of the universe, is also an eternal entity, but out of it brings out the manifestations of all things in nature as we know it to be.

    Dialogue 4
    Back to contents

    Reply to wdog - November 28, 2003
    well there mr singh,
    what we have learned over the centuries, if you wish to really combine science and religion, is that laws of nature are empirical in their expression.

  • Vj ~ Well, if you have learnt it from another dunce like yourself, you really haven't learned much, have you?
    Don't take it too hard, truth cannot be ascertained without free speech.

    oh I pursued your site all right, enough to know that it is pure goat droppings. As for me being a dunce and learned from dunces, i guess I'm happy to be in the company of dunces like einstein and feyman whose works I have studied.

  • Vj ~ It is a good start my friend, but it must not end there, since there were wiser men before them. By the way, you are the first to make my buddy list.

    You see we have made great technological advances via the knowledge of these dunces which has benefitted humanity greatly, as compared to your religious crap that has led to nothing.

  • Vj ~
    "Philosophy and reasoning will be the most beautiful sanctuary they have always been for the selected few." Einstein.
    At the very least, my "religious crap", which is compatible to that of Einstein views, stands for something.

    If you want to claim that your dipshit goat droppings rival or eclipse the science of einstein and feyman, then give some results that can be empirically tested.

  • Vj ~ I am in support of science for what it has done to enhance the lives of mankind, but I am critical of those who have used it to distort the truth of our origin. Science should lead to truth, not away from truth. Every event of nature is a testimony of how natural laws function, so it is not test that is desirable, but the correct knowledge to make us understand the functions of these laws. For example, the sense of hearing is by the ears, a law, and if ever it was told that some early human use their nose to do so, it creates doubt and by applying the law we come to the finality that it is false.

    If you can't understand why scientific claims need to be empirically tested then you are a simpleton (mods: I know I know, delete my ad hominem after he retracts his).

  • Vj ~ The treatise I expound is the source of all sciences, what more need to be tested.
    "We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." Albert Einstein.
    Also I do value "ad hominem" to be constructive to good reasoning why else would those early primates of yours invented it?

    Reply to phineast - November 28, 2003
    By the way VJ, these are a few things that Einstein DID say

  • Vj ~ I too do not believe in a "personal God" who inflict suffering on humankind. Much of what Einstein wrote is in harmony with true religion, it is the reason I quote him over and over.

    I did read through your site, which claims to be a search for the ONE TRUE religion, but I'm NOT finding it, AS WELL. What is your message, VJ? Religion is consistent with science? Man didn't evolve from "lower" forms of animal?

  • Vj~ I was an atheist too, but it took me almost 15 years of relentless effort in research to find the one true religion, how you are going to find it in just a day leaves me much perplexed.

    My message is that true religion must be in harmony with reasoning and science and in conformity with natural laws. I am in dire need of someone to contradict it, but none in my years of dialogue has ever dared to do it. I am beginning to wonder, if there are truly people of pure reasoning, except for myself, left in this world.

    BTW, here is my own personal quote: "Wisdom demands both intelligence shaped by experience, and information softened by understanding. ~ Stephen Jones, aka Phineas Flapdoodle at IIDB forums

  • Vj ~ It is not enough my friend! What is "intelligence", "experience" and "understanding" in the absence of the correct knowledge? The answer is Stephen Jones.

    Dialogue 5
    Back to contents

    Reply to rlogan - November 28, 2003
    Had enough yet?
    *Crackling sound*
    Earth to Singhvj...
    Earth to Singhvj...Come in Singhvj
    Earth here yer tin foil hat on?...over...

  • Vj ~ All that you and others have written, positive or negative, I find them very helpful. Humor is just shelf medicine, offending one for one's own good is prescriptive medicine. It would be nice if all could see the benefit of both for the good of the human soul.

    Reply to wdog - November 28, 2003
    total ignorance their singh. scientific tests are not only desireable but necessary.

  • Vj ~ It became necessary because we have failed at prevention. Isn't prevention better than cure? We have to go back to the ancient sages of yore for the superior science of prevention rather than following your inferior science of cure and curiosity.
    Progression is always downwards, a law.

    only a fool thinks that they can unlock the laws of nature via their senses and their own intellect.

  • Vj ~ Even worst, it is fool who would speak of natural laws without knowing what really they are.

    tell me just what your senses tell us about the 3K background radiation? what do your senses tell us about atomic physics? the composition of air? can your senses detect the pull of an apple on the earth?

  • Vj ~ My senses know more than that, they know the source of matter and its composition into the five elements, in the right order, that brought about "radiation", "atomic physics", "air", "apple" and finally "the earth". Do you know them?

    have you any idea of how sceintific 'laws' are formulated?

  • Vj ~ Try to be sensible even if it is for a split second, I am sure you will enjoy it. What good is it that you know how they "are formulated" when they all lack a goal or purpose?

    guess what? it isn't how you did it, and you haven't discovered any laws.

  • Vj ~ Very true, if you don't know what these laws are, I haven't really discovered them. However, I am still ahead, I have certainly discovered purpose.

    Reply to rlogan - December 1, 2003
    Now I get it. You're a prophet. You don't need to have everything layed out for us. You get to speak in riddles. Subsequent centuries will witness disciples hashing all that out for us. Ecumenical conventions making edicts on your behalf. The works.

  • Vj ~ It is laid out my friend, even if it is in riddles, it is in your interest to question it or contradict it.

    The five elements? Cool. So what are they in your book

  • Vj ~ Matter (space), air/gas, heat/electricity, liquid and solid.

    Have you a name for your religion?

  • Vj ~ Why is it necessary when your primate ancestors brought you fellas out to this modern age without names?

    Did you have an "annointing" event, or did you just gradually come to understand you were God's prophet?

  • Vj ~ Both

    I'm surprised we've gotten away with this thread as long as we have.

  • Vj ~ If you think that is a surprise, wait till you find out that your theory leads to nothing else but pain and misery.

    Dialogue 6
    Back to contents

    Reply to wdog - December 1, 2003
    pure goat droppings again, I don't want to know them. anyway my religion says that the purpose of the laws of nature is to give foolish illusions to people like you, sorry you have simply been a victim.
  • Vj ~ Show some gratitude for the law my friend, it is the reason you haven't suffered the discomfort of occasionally excreting via your mouth instead of the backside.

    Reply to DMB - December 1, 2003
    I nominate this thread for ~ ~ Elsewhere ~ ~ .

  • Vj ~ I second your motion, there must be some one sensible "elsewhere".

    Reply to Doubting Didymus - December 1, 2003
    I do not appreciate overt and deliberate attempts to sway moderator decisions. We will send this to elsewhere IF and WHEN we choose. In the meantime this is still E/C, and this thread still has a topic of sorts.

  • Vj ~ This is what I call impartial! Thank you DD!

    Reply to Herakles - December 1, 2003
    Thats funny, the periodic table says there are 112. All of your "elements" are simply some form of the first one, matter.

  • Vj ~ Finally someone is taking this topic seriously. Well if we dig deeper into matter we can consider even molecules, atoms, protons, electrons, etc. as elements that bring about other details but whatever is manifested or created, the origin is matter and to that state they all return or dissolve, a law.

    Air is made up of matter, heat is the vibration of matter, electricity is a force that acts upon matter, liquid is a stage of matter, and solid is a another stage of matter.

  • Vj ~ All have their source from matter (space), but heat/electricity cannot come before air/gas, liquid before the heat/electricity, nor solid before liquid.

    Did you use the scientific method to find this out, or did you just dream it up?

  • Vj ~ Your science is not capable of determining the source of matter, how can I rely on it to give me such important information?

    Vj ~ If you think that is a surprise, wait till you find out that your theory leads to nothing else but pain and misery.
    And this detracts from the evolution theory how? Next, you'll be saying gravity isn't a law because of how many people have died because of it.

  • Vj ~ Why must purpose be a detraction when it is the reason, we, as humans, have used it to create so many things to enhance our lives?

    Dialogue 7
    Back to contents

    Reply to phineasf - December 1, 2003
    Uh Vj - so this is the one true religion? Yes, it's very old, but how can anyone claim that the religion of the 'Vedas' or Vedic religion, is the one true religion?
  • Vj ~ Very simple, it all boils down to the four subsidiary means of reasoning while reading or listening to the "Light of Truth". Secondly, truth cannot be contradicted, if it could someone would have long contradicted true religion.

    By the way, forum folks, VJ certainly put a lot of work in to these 2 web projects:
    The Vedic Religion
    Swami Dayanand Saraswati�s LIGHT OF TRUTH

  • Vj ~ Thanks Phineasf, it shows that only with "lot of work" (individual effort) aided by the right teacher (altruistic) and the correct knowledge truth can be ascertained.

    BTW, Vj - I saw some news today about a city in Iowa (?) renaming their city to "Vedas" - or something along those lines - curious enough, eh?

  • Vj ~ Naming a country "God" is not a guarantee of freedom from pain and misery.

    Well VJ - it's been a lot of work for you, and maybe it's been worth it, but maybe not. If I were you, I'd keep my options open, at this point in time. I am still waiting to see the beginning of that human evolution debunking you're talking about - where is it?

  • Vj ~ You too have made a lot of effort to come to such a conclusion and I appreciate that. As for my options, they are always open, it is the reason I have no reservations of contradicting whatever false comes my way. Past dialogue have more than evolution debunked.

    Reply to Herakles - December 2, 2003
    Vj ~ but whatever is manifested or created, the origin is matter and to that state they all return or dissolve, a law.
    Not true. On the quantum scale, particles can pop in and out of existence. They did not come from matter and they don't return to matter.

  • Vj ~ Out of nothing, nothing can come, anyone who believes in the opposite is living in ignorance

    Vj ~ All have their source from matter (space), but heat/electricity cannot come before air/gas, liquid before the heat/electricity, nor solid before liquid.
    So, what exactly is your point and how does that make them elements?

  • Vj ~ My point is, if you do not know the source of matter, you are not an authority on causes and effects.

    Vj ~ Why must purpose be a detraction when it is the reason, we, as humans, have used it to create so many things to enhance our lives?
    Purpose is absolutelty irrelevent to this discussion. Why do things have to have a purpose to be true? Does gravity have a purpose? Does the Andromeda galaxy have a purpose? Purpose in no way reflects the validity of something.

  • Vj ~ So what is the purpose of your discussion? Exchanges of ideas lead to enlightenment, I see a purpose.

    I thought this was gone over quite thouroughly in your previous thread. Evolution is not progressive.

  • Vj ~ You are missing the point! Non-intelligence to intelligence is progress.

    Natural Selection does not work off of intelligence.

  • Vj ~ Perhaps, but the result of natural selection is intelligence and we do not know where it could lead yet. Who knows, 'superman' could be a reality at sometime in the future.

    Dialogue 8
    Back to contents

    Reply to Rhaedas - December 2, 2003
    The notion of forms being lower and higher on an evolution ladder is a misunderstanding of how evolution works.
  • Vj ~ How about the notion of intelligence, has it not been higher?

    A bacterium is just as "high" a form as fact, they haven't changed much in a billion years. So they must have reached "perfection" long before us lowly humans, right?

  • Vj ~ Were these "bacterium" of "perfection" your teachers?

    And that webpage didn't load for me...must not like Mozilla..

  • Vj ~ Try again, it loaded for me.

    Reply to Jet Black - December 2, 2003
    Evolution does not purposely progress towards intelligence.

  • Vj ~ But it did, and because it is progress it is a breach to the law. Ignorance alone cannot lead to intelligence, but from intelligence (truth) the human race can fall into ignorance (untruth).

    Reply to Paul2 - December 2, 2003
    Wow, a theory that has been formed by thousands of scientists over the course of a hundred years has been debunked by some random person who spent 5 mins on a website! NOBEL PRIZE WORTHY!

  • Vj ~ I am quite sure evolutionists are also in the minority when it comes to contradicting 2 billion Christians. Perhaps I could be right too!

    Reply to Duvenoy - December 2, 2003
    I stayed out of the last one and I probably should shine this one on as well. But......

  • Vj ~ It is never too late to be brave!

    Please explain exactly how this is progress.

  • Vj ~ We first dwell in bushes, move to caves, then to mud huts, wooden houses, brick houses, mansions, palaces. Again we were a bunch of illiterates without language, then a few words, and more and now we have scientists out of it all.

    Also, in light of the brief period that we've been 'intelligent' and how happily we destroy our own works and kill each other off, please demonstrate that 'intelligence' has any long-term, species survival value.

  • Vj ~ We experience more of a peaceful co-existence because of being more civilized, as savages the human race would have long been extinct.

    Reply to MrDarwin - December 2, 2003
    Because that's how long it took for humans to evolve.

  • Vj ~ It is even longer now since a human evolved, why not any more as natural laws call for steady occurrences.

    Reply to paul30 - December 2, 2003
    It would be nice to have a definition of "intelligent" here.

  • Vj ~ Good job Paul! This is the most excellent question ever asked. Intelligent is one whose intellect is guided by the correct knowledge which is in harmony with reasoning, science and in conformity with natural laws.

    So far I have seen not much evidence of it in this thread.

  • Vj ~ You would have to become one to know who is.

    Dialogue 9
    Back to contents

    Reply to Herakles - December 3, 2003
    Only in the case of humans was increased intelligence the result of natural selection.
  • Vj ~ One case is good enough to prove the law has been breached.

    Intelligence is not the goal of anything.

  • Vj ~ It is what you use to propagate the evolution theory, so it must be a goal, if not, why continue to argue for it?

    Natural selection is a completely blind process that only weeds out the less fit.

  • Vj ~ Then it is still progress when it leaves us with the fittest.

    Please explain to me how our genes are any different than humans of a couple hundred years ago. You are confusing evolutionary progress with cultural progress.

  • Vj ~ Progression is progression even in culture since it's source is your evolutionary theory also.

    First of all, modern humans have only been around for like 200,000 years. This is far too short of a time to observe anything else evolve into a human.

  • Vj ~ Even if they have been around for that period of time, literacy could not have had its origin from illiteracy. Why not at the same time try to learn of my theory also where the wisest of all humans have been around for over 3 million years.

    Second of all, there is no reason to believe that the orther primates would evolve into a humans. A specific set of occurences enabled homo sapiens to emerge as a seperate species. This was mainly the disapperance of trees on the african savannah. With the trees gone other apes would no longer have the survival benifit of living high in the trees. On the ground bipediality and higher intelligence would carry extra survival benifit, so they were selected for. This whole process took something like 5 million years. Now tell me Vj, what are the chances of that happening again.

  • Vj ~ The fact is, we could not have evolved from any creature, but specially created (the cause is the reproductive element) and were given instructions. Man had to be taught, it is the reason why we have always had institutions of learning. Use your head a little, if we have grown so much in intelligence because of language and schools are a necessity now, how could we have made any advancement in learning from illiteracy. Progression is downwards which meant that people of the highest learning had to exist in the very beginning and not the opposite. The fallen state of mankind began 5,000 years ago and what we are now experiencing is some retrogression from being completely decadent. The reason why so many are caged in ignorance (theories that do not conform to natural laws) follows the law of progression downwards. Let's try to be sensible here, the evolutionist cannot successfully defend their theory, if they know nothing of mine.

    Dialogue 10
    Back to contents

    Reply to Roland98 - December 3, 2003
    You think? Considering our intelligence has allowed us to develop weapons which could wipe out a large fraction of humanity with very little effort whatsoever, I think we may have done better remaining "savages." Actually, I'm not convinced that we still aren't.
  • Vj ~ Progress (intelligence) is measured by contentment. It is not what we possess in developed weapons that makes us savages, it is the disontentment, among people and nations in the absence of true knowledge. Some acquired it (developed weapons) for self-defense, and yes, due to our fallen state, it is a requirement.

    Reply to ZouPrime - December 3, 2003
    Singhvj, you seem to always attack the same strawman, over and over again, even when other posters explain to you why they are strawman, over and over again, again and again and again, even when a moderator close your threat and you actually have to create a NEW one, name it "part II" and proceed to repeat the same little game.

  • Vj ~ You too are guilty of doubting the functions of natural laws also, even though I continue to stress on it "over and over, again, again and again and again". Truth is truth from the beginning to the end and whoever changes that is a fool. The cause of our physical body is the reproductive element, it is the truth now, will be to the truth to the end and therefore it had to be the truth from the beginning.

    If you want to critic evolutionary theory, why not try to understand it first? I don't know where I read about this fascinating concept, trying to learn about something before actually commenting about it... maybe somewhere like high-school.

  • Vj ~ You are right of what must be known first, it is the reason I am presenting the first knowledge known to man. We know the origin of matter.

    Evolution does not purposely progress toward intelligence. Evolution is not about "progress". Evolution is not about "progress". EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT "PROGRESS". How many time will we need to say it before you understand?

  • Vj ~ Whether it purposely did or not, it led to progress and therefore a breach to the law.

    Your total inability to accept the fact that evolutionist may have (what a surprise) a better understanding of their own theory would be similar to an atheist telling Christians that they are a bunch of discusting cannibals because they keep eating their Lord's "corpse". Do you think that such atheist would be very succesful in debating Christianity if he couldn't even grasp such a basic concept of their beliefs?

  • Vj ~ You are as just as bad as the Christians since they too hold on to a belief without the courage of impartially investigating what the others hold.

    Dialogue 11
    Back to contents

    Reply to Roland98 - December 3, 2003
    And how, pray tell, does one measure "contentment?"
  • Vj ~ Contentment is perpetual happiness brought about the practice of true knowledge. Get to know me well I could be a good example of what it is.

    Do you really think humanity, as a group, is all that "content?"

  • Vj ~ They were for some time in the beginning, but gradual rejection of true knowledge has brought us to an age of complete discontentment, the cause of all pain and suffering.

    Reply to NottyImp - December 3, 2003
    Yes, it's a load of mystical rhetoric that could have been written by any Eastern pseudo-philosopher in the last two millenia. So what?

  • Vj ~ If it is "mystical rhetoric" then it should be easy for you to contradict, isn't it?

    Reply to Herakles - December 3, 2003
    Oh, really? Care to provide any evidence of that, or is this just another one of your silly laws?

  • Vj ~ Do you know of anything that has come into being that is not subjected to decay from the state of purity, perfection or brand new, etc.? If you can't find any, why was perfection missing from only early creation.

    Reply to Herakles - December 3, 2003
    "The theory of natural selection is indicative of nature's imperfections[...]"

    Ok, let's say that it is true, given that you probably mean "imperfect = can still change"

  • Vj ~ Not that it "can still change", it has already made changes.

    "According to it Nature is still improving."
    No, Nature is not "improving". Nature is changing to adapt to a new environment. If you had a racing car and you changed the tires to "wet" ones because it is raining during the race, would you say that your car has "improved"? Maybe in the sense that it is now more adapted to the environment. But if the rain stops 15 minutes after, you couldn't assume that your car has "improved" anymore. It justs changed.

  • Vj ~ Man what is in your head, if the changes brought about an intelligent species from a non-intelligent species isn't it improvement? The intelligent specy can now argue its origin, while the non-intelligent specy could care less.

    "This theory points out the absence in Nature at present of the best forms that it will produce in the future."
    Given that the "best form" is the one best adaptated to the environmment (the "fitter form"), and given that the environment is ever changing, then yes your statement is pretty obvious. An organism cannot adapt itself to a environment that doesn't exist yet.

  • Vj ~ So if the best is yet to come isn't that progression, even though you call it "adaptation"?

    "We, on the other hand, believe in the pre-existence of all things in Nature, and in their later manifestation, not as an originality, but as a manifestation of a pre-existing substance, lying latent in its bosom."
    So you're saying that everything exist from the very start. Does "all things in nature" only involve matter+energy? If yes, than I may agree. If "all things" really really mean everything, than you are obviously wrong. The very post I'm writting right now did not exist prior its creation.

  • Vj ~How could I be wrong when without the material cause (matter) no form can manifest? There were creation before this creation, so how do you know that what is taking place here did not take place before? Souls, like matter, are also eternal, it meant that you and I were here before also.

    "Our doctrine is, that out of nothing, nothing can come. Therefore, whatever comes into existence, must have had a pre-existence in Nature."
    Again, it depends on the scope of what you call "nothing" and "whatever comes into existence". For some definition of "existence", it is obviously false.

  • Vj ~ Nothing is nothing! What else could it mean? Existence is not magic that it comes out of nothing.

    Dialogue 12
    Back to contents

    Reply to Herakles - December 3, 2003
    What about human embryos? They go from simple two cell organisms to complex multi-trillion cell organisms. Why don't they violate your law?
  • Vj ~ What law did it violate? A dough is dough, it can spoil or decay before it becomes bread. The same applies to an embryo, but there is no breach to the law here.

    Reply to phineasf - December 3, 2003
    Hello VJ,
    How would you, or do you, account for all the evidence for evolution? Scientists from almost all disciplines, have evidence that evolution has occured, and much of this evidence has been confirmed repeatedly, and independently.

  • Vj ~ Hello phineasf,
    How can they be called evidence in the first place when they keep changing as time goes on? Can you say for certain that what evidences they have now will be the same in 50 or 100 years time as they have so drastically changed within the past 100 years? At one time man came from water creatures, then it was monkeys and now it is not specific of which creature at all. All these scientists are not unanimous in their findings either and secondly, how can these evidences be authentic when those providing it don't know the origin of matter and life?

    Reply to Roland98 - December 3, 2003
    Vj ~ They were for some time in the beginning, but gradual rejection of true knowledge has brought us to an age of complete discontentment, the cause of all pain and suffering.
    This seems to contradict what you said earlier, which was that "progress is measured by contentment," suggesting we were progressing.

  • Vj ~ Or I could mean that contentment(progress) was the norm of the first age.

    Now you tell me that we were're actually going backwards, as we're now discontent (and therefore less progressive) than our ancestors.

  • Vj ~ Very true, and it is called progression downwards. It is like a new car loosing its value and perfection.

    Care to make up your mind which it is--are we progressing, or not?

  • Vj ~ Yes, we are progressing downwards. Spiritually we are completely brain-dead.

    Are we savages, or not?

  • Vj ~ One who is not in complete control of one's mind at all times, is a savage.

    Can humans have evolved, or not?

  • Vj ~ Not in the opinion of one who knows the true functions of natural laws. Note there is such a thing as wisdom and only revealed knowledge in conformity with natural laws is the cause of wisdom.

    Certainly we continue to find more extinct hominid ancestors, but that doesn't change the evidence--it just adds to it.

  • Vj ~ There are fallouts too!
    Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace - co-originator of the Physical Evolution Theory wrote in "Social Environment and Moral Progress" strongly refuting the social and moral evolution theory '
    "In the earliest records which have come down to us from the past, we find ample indications that accepted standard of morality and the conduct resulting from these were in no degree inferior to those which prevail to-day, though in some respects, they were different from ours.
    The wonderful collection of hymns known as the Vedas is a vast system of religious teachings as pure and lofty as those of the finest portion is of the Hebrew Scriptures.
    Its authors were fully our equals in their conception of the universe and the Deity expressed in the finest poetic language."

    "In it (Veda) we find many of the essential teachings of the most advanced religious thinkers." P. 1. "We must admit that the mind which conceived and expressed inappropriate language, such ideas as are everywhere present in those Vedic hymns, could not have been inferior to those of the best of our religious teachers and poets - to our Milton, Shakespeare, and Tennyson." (Social Environment and Moral Progress By Alfred Russel Wallace P. 14)

    The Social Evolution Theory falls to the ground when as rightly asserted by Dr. Russell - one of the originators of the Physical Evolution Theory. Vedas admittedly 'the oldest book in the library of mankind contains the "essential teachings of the most advanced religious thinker and is a vast system of religious teachings which are pure and lofty." This is in fact, the best testimony to the Vedic Revelation Theory.

    This tradition attributes to the vast reservoir of the Wisdom that somewhere took shape simultaneously with the origin of man - to more spiritual entities, to beings less entangled in matter." Swedish Nobel Prize Winner Materlink, in his book The Great Secret

    Dialogue 13
    Back to contents

    Reply to rlogan - December 3, 2003
    I see VJ that you are incapable of defending against my proof. All human races came from different animals. Like you say, some came from water creatures. Some from monkeys. Say, I want to do some reading on evolution. Can you give me a reference to something you've read on evolution?
  • Vj ~ You have done enough reading on evolution, any more might return you to your early ancestors, it is the reason your intellect hardly function. What you should be reading is the treatise I can anytime use to destroy the evolution of man's theory.

    Reply to nessa20x - December 3, 2003

  • Vj ~ I am only one, but look how many of you are sounding "COMPLETELY IDIOTIC". Let me put it this way, a man had to be taught, it is the sole reason why we have schools. Do you have any evidence yet on the first language known to man and the illiterate that invented it.

    You are being deluded my friend.

  • Vj ~ According to evolution if we are both deluded, it wouldn't matter since there is no purpose at all for our being here, isn't it?

    Sure vj...don't you get it language evolved just like people did...though through different means.

  • Vj ~ Tell me something, an illiterate is one who cannot read or write and therefore before language was born cannot be termed intelligent in any which way. If we became intelligent it is because of language and if we were illiterate before language how could we have possibly invented it, even if it took billions of years to do so? Keep in mind that humans were not exposed to any other sound but that of lower creatures.

    If Africa is the home of our human ancestors, can you explain to me how the tribesmen of the Kalahari and many other tribes in Africa are yet still so backward? Do you really think that had foreigners not found Africa they would have abandoned cannibalism all by themselves? Shouldn't they have excelled before us? Where did they go wrong, that the Caucasoids did so well?

    Human speech did not occur overnight either. It too evolved as the capacity for our bodies to create new and better sounds evolved. It evolved because through speech humans could communicate ideas about hunting, plants gathering, technology, etc...the advancement in communication led to greater reproductive success and therefore to the prevalence of the traits leading to full speech to be selected for.

  • Vj ~ Then it is progression upwards, a breach to natural laws.

    VJ are you trying to say that you can't learn anything because you start unlearned...

  • Vj ~ If there is learning it will begin from what is already existing and not what is yet to come.. It is obvious that if human language did not exist, there could have been no higher learning. What else would my parents be capable of teaching me if the only way of life (sound and actions) they knew was that of a chimp?

    Human civilization began in Tibet, it is the reason why India and China are the two most populous country in the world and Asia the most populous continent.
    Knowledge, the cause of law and order and medical science, had to be the norm from the very inception of human civilization for the human race to have survived. Indicative of our own history, wherever there are diseases and a break down of law and order the results are famine, atrocities, and lawlessness of immense proportion. Meaning that at any time in human existence if we were without knowledge, the human race would have been long extinct.
    And don't measure our survival with that of other lower creatures, we cannot survive on instinct alone as they do.
    And finally, we are not emerging out of a totally primitive state, but only from a fallen one.
    How is it, that modern science can't figure out how the pyramids of Egypt were built?

    Dialogue 14
    Back to contents

    Reply to Rhaedas - December 4, 2003
    Interesting spin on using the old creationist fallacy against evolution, that information can only be lost, not gained...only applied to civilization and linguists as a whole. Man can't improve himself, we're on a downward spiral. Nevermind the progress we know about in recent history, that's all a fluke.
  • Vj ~ When information is lost we have no one else to blame for our downfall but ourselves. It will be an injustice to deprive early man of "the progress we know about in recent history" when it is no fault of their own. Furthermore, you cannot deny that truth does not enhance our lives, then, I will rather make the effort to know it now, than to wait for evolution to figure it out somewhere in the end.

    Too bad the evidence we have of past civilizations and how they lived conflicts with the idea.

  • Vj ~ It conflicts with the idea, because you have failed to impartially investigate other treatises that can prove otherwise. Perhaps, the fear of a purpose existing might be too difficult a burden for you to bear, since you can be made answerable for rejecting what is true, knowingly or unknowingly.

    The fantasy of a past golden age, with a man using crystals and mind power to build fabulous cities, all lost and wiped away, usually attributed to their pride and/or sinfulness, is just that.

  • Vj ~ The golden age is not about material wealth but the most abstruse science of the supernatural. It is also the law of nature that wealth, in excess of our needs, leads to greed and lust, the reason for our downfall.

    Fantasy. I'm actually open to the possibility of there being some truth behind the Atlantis myth, but so far the evidence is lacking on that as well. Without something verifiable to base it on, it's hard to say it actually happened. But it makes a nice, nostalgic story.

  • Vj ~ Had Columbus awaited evidence before sailing, he would not have made any kind of discovery. But in spite of the uncertain conditions, with courage and effort and the little known to him he embarked on the unknown and perilous journey to the New World. Similarly, I am not here to provide evidence, I am only here to show you the way aided with the correct knowledge guided by reasoning, and hopefully, with your own effort and courage you will be able to ascertain truth from untruth.

    Reply to DMB - December 4, 2003
    VJ: This forum is usually concerned with scientific questions relating to evolution.

  • Vj ~ I wonder what Einstein meant by "science is lame without religion"?

    You don't seem to know anything about science, in the normally accepted meaning of the term.

  • Vj ~ Perhaps, but I do know the origin of science, matter, and life altogether, which is the ultimate goal of "scientific questions relating to evolution" in the first place.

    Your ideas about so-called "natural law" are essentially religious. You might have a more fruitful outcome if you posted something about this in General Religious Discussions.

  • Vj ~ It pertains to both science and theology, it is the reason I know which dogmas and theories of science are false. Why not try to bend a little to understand these laws, instead of discounting them altogether. Isn't this the first time you have encountered it?

    The point is that no-one here recognises "natural law" as having anything to do with science.

  • Vj ~ You must remember that "no-one" in your evolutionary world recognized language or even mathematics before it came into being, as anything do with intelligence, much less science, but they still moved forward in spite of the hardship. Are you saying that you have become weak and spineless and don't have the courage as your ancestors to explore something 'new'?

    It is, however, an important theological concept, and Catholics in particular have strong views on the subject, although theirs may not concur with yours.

  • Vj ~ Their views cannot be any stronger than yours, since their religion, as your evolution of man theory, is a breach of natural laws also.

    Dialogue 15
    Back to contents

    Reply to MrDarwin - December 4, 2003
    I see that Singhvj didn't make even a half-hearted attempt to address the issues I raised.
  • Vj ~ I might not be able to respond to everyone, but in general all my responses have a bearing on your issues as well, which does not altogether vary from any evolution theory put forward so far.

    It's clear that he prefers to remain woefully (and willfully) ignorant of evolutionary theory, folks. I see this discussion rapidly going the same way as the previous one.

  • Vj ~ It will definitely end up like the previous one, if you prefer "to remain woefully (and willfully) ignorant of" the treatise (or natural laws) that contradicts your "evolution theory".

    Reply to davidm - December 3, 2003
    Your site - Argument from tacky turning globes and sand clock. Pretty persuasive.

  • Vj ~ How about raising the dead and splitting the Red Sea, have they been too "persuasive"?

    Reply to - December 3, 2003
    Incorrect. He had a lot of knowledge to base his journey on. Yes, there were unknowns, as in any new exploration, but he was hardly going into it blind.

  • Vj ~ And how much more do you need to begin the exploration of the One true efficient cause of the universe.

    Reply to davidm - December 4, 2003
    Singh, it would be helpful if yoiu could learn to use the quote tags, so people could use the quote reply button on your posts.

  • Vj ~ What can I say, I am such slow learner, like your primate ancestors, it will take time.

    Your page isn't loading for me right now, but I think somewhere in there you say that God created the world in Tibet, and gave four dudes some holy books called Vedas, I believe. Apparently there are four vedas. And that's how the whole ball got rolling.

  • Vj ~ Very true, and I am proud to say that my source of learning is from an all-intelligent force, rather than a monkey-brain primate. Perhaps, your brains haven't evolved enough from the monkey state to grasp what truly makes sense, so give it some time, it may still come yet.

    That's your claim, I believe. This claim is being put against the claims of evolutionary theory, for which there is 150 years of steadily accumulating evidence from multiple lines of inquiry.

  • Vj ~ What kind of "accumulating evidence" is that when you don't know the source of science? I guess Einstein & Twain must be bang heads too!
    "We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." Albert Einstein.

    "India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace; human speech, the mother of history, grandmother of legend, and great grandmother of tradition. Our most valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only." Mark Twain

    Known evidence for your creation claim: Zero.
  • Vj ~ Why would it matter to you if there is any? When there is no purpose there can be no accountability.

    Therefore, why should anyone take your creation claim seriously

  • Vj ~ Because no one desires pain and suffering.

    And please don't spout this stuff about evolution being a breach of natural law, etc. That's already been refuted.

    But even if it weren't refuted, that doesn't make your religious claim accurate. What is the EVIDENCE to support your specific claim?

  • Vj ~ My evidence is that you were taught, and those in your generations past were, and so will it continue into the future, so we can infer that it had to be so for the first human.

    Reply to Herakles - December 5, 2003
    Humans are part of the primates.

  • Vj ~ Wrong! Evolutionists are, they all have one thing in common - no purpose.

    I thought I explained this earlier. Evolution does not equal atheism. It does not deal with whether we have a purpose or not. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious or philosophical one.

  • Vj ~ If evolution doesn't have a purpose, why have you people been so busy digging up the earth and still is? Why is the madness to know our origin going on, if there is no purpose? Even if the purpose is to prove creationists wrong, is it still not a purpose?

    Since when do desires translate into facts. You can wish as much as you like, but it won't do you anything. Facts are facts, whether you like them or not.

  • Vj ~ Since pain and suffering are facts!

    Either way, evolution does not automatically mean pain, competition and suffering. There are many examples of animal altruism or symbiosis.

  • Vj ~ I don't know what world you are living in, but it is a reality, pain is here, competition is here and so is suffering and the source is evolution.

    P.S. Please find a new way to quote. Your posts are difficult to read and even harder to quote from.

  • Vj ~ Can you imagine how much more difficult it was for those who couldn't read and write to invent language muchless to "quote from".

    Dialogue 16
    Back to contents

    Reply to davidm - December 5, 2003
    Here's the creation story, from his Web site: That's it. So man didn't evolve or gradually acquire knowledge; God laid the vedas on four guys that he created and then the word gradually spread from there, apparently.
  • Vj ~ Fact - for everything that is made there is a maker - God (the Maker) is eternal, matter (material cause) is eternal and souls (purpose of creation) are eternal. The Vedas contain no historical references and thus it is passed on from creation to creation.

    I'm glad we've cleared that up. We can throw all those bones and fossils in the junkpile, now.

  • Vj ~ That's the idea! I mean, how would it be of benefit to Darwin to keep digging when in the end, you could find there is a Creator afterall.

    Singh, if I were you, I'd lose the searchlight, the spinning globes, the water faucet, the hourglass and the moving text from your Web site. Why not just go with straight text and perhaps a small, tasteful logo in the upper left hand corner?

  • Vj ~ They all serve a purpose, it means that anyone who is easily distracted by them, will find it more difficult to comprehend this true religion of the ancient.

    Reply to BruceWane - December 5, 2003
    Your inference is that all knowledge must be taught; that there can be no new discoveries.

  • Vj ~ Well isn't that the way we have been doing all along? First, we were taught and then went on to make new discoveries. Whom do you know, that has made new discoveries before being taught?

    If this were so, man would have had cellular phones with cameras in them when jeebus rose from the dead, and we could all just check our archived call notes if our faith was in doubt.

  • Vj ~ And yet evolutionists deny these (new discoveries, cellular phones, cameras) to be progress. As I said before, science is inferior when it is for the purpose of cure and curiosity. Early humans were superior in science since they used it for prevention and when they had all the answers, what would have been the use for cellular phones

    Reply to davidm - December 5, 2003
    Can't you look up how to use the Quote function in one of the Vedas?

  • Vj ~ So that's where the idea came from?

    So all scientific theories are false, and the massive evidence for them is false because scientists don't believe in your hocus-pocus? Prove it.

  • Vj ~ The ultimate goal of science is to make known to us our origin and destination and many scientific achievements have been in harmony with Vedic philosophy. Science going it alone cannot bring us the truth, since we have natural laws to contend with and neither can theology do it without science. My "hocus-pocus" is not just a belief like all others, it is in harmony with reasoning, science and conforms with natural laws.

    "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- Albert Einstein

  • Vj ~ He was defending himself from those who propagated an anthropomorphic God who personally intervene into man's affairs. I too have contradicted those dogmas. And the way he saw the world through science is also in harmony with my faith. So I see nothing wrong in his quote. As a matter of fact, had it opposed my views I would not have had such great admiration for him.

    "I do not believe He has ever sent a message to man by anybody, or delivered one to him by word of mouth, or made Himself visible to mortal eyes at any time in any place." -- Mark Twain, on God.

  • Vj ~ Very true, the Vedic revelation never took place by any of those methods.

    Human intellect, and the brain power and anatomy to communicate by language, evolved gradually in incremental steps over a long period of time.

  • Vj ~ The "human intellect, and the brainpower" can never become functional without language. So if we must speak of intellectual growth, language must come first and not the opposite. We are deemed to be an intelligent species and it is so because of language.

    Then humans gradually and painstakingly figured out how to do things, and passed this knowledge along to succeeding generations. Over time, more and more knowledge accumulated and was passed along. We are doing this very thing right now.

  • Vj ~ Sure we are doing it right now, but not without being taught (schools). We have indeed passed knowledge along alright, but when there was none to pass how could we have advanced?

    Or do you think that the recently invented Internet was a revelation contained in one of the Vedas? If so, could you post the relevant passages?

  • Vj ~ All sciences have their origin from the Vedas, Sanskrit the language of the Vedas, (grammar of Panini) is still in full use by science today to resolve formulas and theories which would have been tedious and cumbersome by any other language.

    Also, note that your "evidence," even if true, provides not a whit of support for your specific religious claim. Your religious claim is worthless as science. What makes it worthwhile as religion? Why should it be preferred over, say, Christianity

  • Vj ~ It should be preferred over the evolution theory also since both hold the universe to come out of nothing.

    Dialogue 17
    Back to contents

    Reply to name`here - December 5, 2003
    Someone brought up a point that you seemed to have dodged why don't embryos obey your laws? I am still confused as to what your 'laws' state.
  • Vj ~ If you are "still confused" to what the laws are, how do you know whether embryos obey them or not?

    Reply to Herakles - December 5, 2003
    Singhvj, this is the fourth time since you opened this thread that I have had to ask you to explain your law.

  • Vj ~ Why not tell me what you do not understand about these laws so that I can help you along?

    Can you please tell us what evidence your law has, why it applies in certain cases, but not in others, and how it has anything at all to do with evolution. Until you can do that, this discussion is pretty much pointless

  • Vj ~ The law applies to all cases and if there are cases you feel it does not apply, then it is your duty to bring it to my attention.

    You make the claim, it's up to you to back it up, not for us to try and figure out why you're right.

  • Vj ~ If there were easier ways than "try and figure out" this truth, I would have used instead. Frankly speaking, it does not belong to anyone who is not prepared to make the effort required, reasoning guided by the correct knowledge. I made the claim alright, but I also have nothing to lose.

    Reply to DMB - December 5, 2003
    Sorry, VJ. You keep banging on about "natural laws" without one shred of evidence.

  • Vj ~ Tell me what do you not understand by the law, which is permanent and dictates that the cause of our physical body is the result of the reproductive element, it is so as far back as we know in the past, it is so now as it will be in the future, so it must have been for the very first human?
    Secondly, every event that takes place within these laws is steady or repeated occurrences and if a human evolved out of a lower creature, then this event must show to be steady or repeated also. The latter could not have taken place because at no time would the law, being permanent, have permitted it.

    Reply to nessa20x - December 5, 2003
    On vj's website their is a confused version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that is where his mistaken views come from. Vj does not know the real definition of the 2nd law any better than he knows the definition of evolution.

  • Vj ~ If there is a 2nd law it was invented by man and not by nature.

    Reply to Herakles - December 6, 2003
    The only thing I'm not understanding is where the evidence for the laws are.

  • Vj ~ The evidence is everywhere if I tell you that rain comes from nowhere else but the clouds, it is a law, steady and permanent. What kind of evidence do you need to understand this particular function of the law?

    I did. The human embryo starts out as a simple organisms with only a few cells, but it grows up to a self conscious being with trillions of cells.

  • Vj ~ The fact of how many or how fewer cells it grows into has nothing to do with the law, but the cause of the human embryo does.

    I see no difference between that and evolution. Can you explain to me why evolution violates your law, but the human embryo does not?

  • Vj ~ It violates the law if the human embryo is a product of a lower creature.

    Reply to Duvenoy - December 6, 2003
    I must admit that I've never seen anything quite like it. Unfortunatly, I saw nothing pertinant, one way or another, to the ToE in it. P'raps it's there and I missed it.

  • Vj~ Men have become great thinkers by pondering over and over the same subject for as long as it takes to understand what it is all about. It is the only way to develop healthy reasoning habits.

    Ah well; no matter. I'm still wondering how our species, with it's very brief time of existance upon the earth, is more 'advanced' than the coelacanth, a creature that has enjoyed success since well before mammals even existed. I might ask the same about the cockroach; that powerful arthropod that has adopted us as it's very own, and there's not a single, damned thing that we can do about it.

  • Vj ~ Any creature below that of human intelligence are stupor in nature and can never enjoy more success than man. We have the ability to be inquisitive in seeking our origin and our final destination, while they can't.

    And, I must further ask: what exactly do the "degenerate Red Indians" of the new world have to do with biological evolution, whatever society they had developed?

  • Vj ~ It is meant to prove that progression is downwards and not upwards as evolution made out to be. The They (Mayans, Incas, et.) were not coming out of a primitive state but falling from a civilized state

    Dialogue 18
    Back to contents

    Reply to davidm - December 6, 2003
    Singh, you've mastered quotes! I guess the idea must have come from the Vedas after all; care to quote mine them for supporting passages?
  • Vj ~ If quotes were the answer to the truth we would have all been scholars today, the sad reality is, the truth comes to only those who go looking for it. Make time and effort, peruse my site with patience and impartiality it is all there. It was the way I found it as an atheist and it will be no different for anyone else who seeks it.

    Science may never discover the precise origin of life, but it has already made known human origin: we descended from apes. All of us, even you.

  • Vj ~ Well science is still at work and you cannot discount the fact that it may never discover the origin of life, and when it does, in my favor, what benefit will that be to those already dead?

    Nor is science concerned with our ultimate destination. Science isn't in the business of prophecy.

  • Vj ~ In our daily pursuit of life, we all think of our future. As a matter of fact, what else do we think of when we put so much effort into our present activities, whether it be sports, business, politics or social welfare. If science weren't concern about the future why are they planning missions to Mars or seeking out other solar systems like ours? I don't know why you are still thinking like an "ape" when you are supposed to have evolved into an intelligent being.

    You still haven't explained these natural laws, so I won't comment on that.

  • Vj ~ Ok, one more try, excretion is by the anus, a law, if you were ever told that it happens by the gustatory with one of your early ancestors, you would have doubts because you know what the law is specific about. If it happens once before, it is supposed to happen again and again, but such is not the case. The law works one way, steady and permanent from the beginning of creation to the end of it. Humans could not have evolved from any lower creature but had their own distinct origin from their own reproductive element as it occurs over and over now.

    As for your "hocus pocus" not being a belief, prove it

  • Vj ~ As I said before, whoever needs the proof must make his/her own effort, I am only showing you the way. Darwin showed you the way and you went in search of the proof, the same here.

    I thought God gave a holy book to four dudes, in your myth.

  • Vj ~ I try not to waste even one thought, the trait of learned men. If you must know what God can do, then you will have to make the effort to know Him. How can I tell what Barry Bonds is capable of, if I never followed baseball?

    Language and intellect co-evolved. See my earlier comments. We evolved intelligence and language and painstakingly figured out how to do things.

  • Vj ~ Ideas grew out of intelligence and intelligence grew out of language. So how could the idea of language evolved, before or with intelligence? If a sentence is not complete, it won't make any sense. In the same way if a language is not complete, it cannot make us intelligent.

    Other animals do this as well. Are you not aware that other animals make and use tools? Ever read up on the intelligence of dolphins? Is there a chimp Veda and a dolphin Veda, too?.

  • Vj ~ Can I buy any of their tools at Canadian Tyre? And shouldn't they be in our classrooms now?

    First I've heard of that. Got any evidence? Links

  • Vj ~ Darwin had no evidence or links either, but yet many persist relentlessly in pursuit of his theory. The same here, if you must come to know my theory.

    Evolutionary theory says nothing about the origin of the universe.

  • Vj ~ Then, you will have to agree that there are even disagreements among evolutionist themselves. As far as I am concern, if you don't where it came from, then it is still nothing.

    Christian mythology says it was created, just like your myth does. Why should your myth be preferred over the Christian myth

  • Vj ~ Very simple, they say it was created out of nothing and we say, out of nothing, nothing can come. They say it was created 6,000 years ago, we hold that it is almost 2 billion years old. They say is the first and only creation, but we hold that creations and dissolutions are an ongoing phenomena - it is eternal.

    Reply to elektra - December 6, 2003
    Oh I had a look. If you think the formatting is bad, the words are worse:

  • Vj ~ And can you imagine I had some schooling. Your early ancestors had to be 'geniuses' to do it without messing up as bad as I did, while completely illiterate and yet you have, nothing but praises for them.

    Reply to Demigawd - December 6, 2003
    I'm guessing that he is using a variation on the YEC "cats don't give birth to dogs" argument against evolution.

  • Vj ~ More like apes giving birth or becoming humans.

    Singhvj, think of evolution in these terms: no animal is a 100% exact replication of one of its parents. Multiply this variation by hundreds of thousands of generations, and it should be obvious that radical change can and does happen. It just happens over a time scale that greatly dwarfs human civilization and its record-keeping.

  • Vj ~ That I know, but a dog is a dog, and a cat. A dog cannot bring forth a cat, likewise, a cat a dog, and likewise an ape cannot bring forth a human even in a trillion years.

    That's why what's written in rocks (fossils) has more validity than what written in ancient scrolls and books.

  • Vj ~ Have you read all ancient scrolls and book2 to come to such a conclusion?

    Reply to RufusAtticus - December 6, 2003
    I know. Your comment was that science uses Sanskrit to resolve "resolve formulas and theories." You said this to justify your assertion that "sciences have their origin from the Vedas."

    I pointed out that Latin and Greek are far more popular than Sanskrit for resolving formula and theories, so using your logic that means that sciences owe more of their origin to the Epics than they do to the Vedas.

  • Vj ~ That would depend on where we started and where we are in science today. Sanskrit, is the mother of all languages and as the oldest language in the world even Latin and greek have their origin from it.

    Dialogue 19
    Back to contents

    Reply to Herakles - December 6, 2003
    If the evidence is everywhere, than why not show it to us.
  • Vj ~ Here is your evidence, has there been any other human who recently evolved?

    The difference between your "laws" and rain is that rain only coming from clouds is an observable occurrence that has not had any evidence that runs counter to it.

  • Vj ~ Well, it is the reason why it conforms with natural laws because there is no evidence to counter it, and if you have evidence that can counter it let me know.

    Your laws on the other hand, have no supporting proof and have observations that contradict it.

  • Vj ~ And what observations have contradicted it?

    There is no such thing as a "lower creature." All species alive today are equally evolved. Some may be more advanced in terms of intelligence, but another may be able to reproduce faster. Neither is any better than the other.

  • Vj ~ So why don't you take up residence in a zoo if you are no better than them? And is it not intelligence that makes us superior? After all, I am quite positive, you have never seen a horse riding a human.

    You are born with genes that do not change. Since the gene pool is what evolves, once you have your genes it is impossible for you to evolve.

  • Vj ~ So you are saying that whatever evolve into a human was not born? It wouldn't matter how much you argue your case, it is still a failure since you don't know the origin of life.

    Reply to Herakles - December 7, 2003
    Just because we don't understand something completely now, doesn't mean that we won't eventually.

  • Vj ~ Exactly my point, isn't understanding "something completely" now more beneficial than "eventually" where you might not be around?

    Reply to enter`name`here - December 7, 2003
    Just because we don't know where something came from doesn't mean we can't understand it. I don't know where gravity came from but I do know that if I jump up I will come back down. I don't know where my pencil came from but I still know how to use it. I don't know where life came from but I do know it evolves.

  • Vj ~ What is the point striving to understand anything at all, if there is no purpose? It seems to me, the trait of an idiot.

    I will say it again, you do realize that evolution is simply reproduction over and over again right? no offspring are the exact same as their parents.

  • Vj ~ That would seem to be the case since the offspring (human) is not the exact same as the parents (apes).

    Reply to Duvenoy - December 7, 2003
    Want a natural law? Here's one you can take to the bank: All species evolve, and evolution cares not at all as to how they look or act as long as they can effectivly reproduce.

  • Vj ~ So why does it even care that "they can effectively produce"?

    Reply to Jet Black - December 7, 2003
    There is no point wasting ones time on such a jejunical offering.

  • VJ ~ That is exactly what the rest of the world said when Darwin first founded the evolution theory and look how many are now wasting their time on what was then considered "a jejunical offering".

    Reply to rlogan - December 7, 2003
    The question is whether this engine can be harnessed. I suggest more difficult questions for the prophet: Singhvj - why do trees bend with the wind

  • Vj ~ When they do it conforms to nature, but when men bend with the disease (fear), know that they breach the law somewhere.

    whereas life must come to an end for all?

  • Vj ~ Excellent! You are beginning to apply the law usefully. All that is finite must come to an end. So now, who can argue with you for a life form that will never end?

    In the afterlife, does true knowledge exist in silence, or do natural laws decay?

  • Vj ~ Afterlife offers two conditions one is emancipation if you earned it, true knowledge continue to sustain your blissful state. The second condition is failing salvation, YOU the return to try again and again. And lastly, natural laws never decay, they are just not active during the period of dissolution and creation.

    Reply to davidm - December 7, 2003
    All your hard work will not pay off.

  • Vj ~ It has already paid off. I retired 6 years ago at 51 and I am overflowing with contentment. The idea is not to save the world but to save me first.

    Reply to Herakles - December 7, 2003
    Yesterday, leading scientist, Singhvj, announced that he had disproved evolution. When asked by reporters how he had overthrown 150 years of well established science, Signhvj replied, "thats easy, everyone knows that poop always comes out of the anus and rain always comes out of clouds."

  • Vj ~ I also said the cause of the physical body has, is, and will always be the reproductive element, a law, but because it is a sore in your evolution theory, you refrain from mentioning it. Talk about prejudicial dialogue!

    Puzzled, the reporters asked how this related to evolution, and Signhvj answered, "well duh, if poop can't not come out of the anus, then we couldn't have evolved." Signhvj has also scheduled a public appearance in which he will speak about metaphysical nonsense. Scientists are strictly forbidden from attending and questions will not be answered.

  • Vj ~ Another prejudice, if the latter is true, then why are my messageboards not moderated?

    Today, the US government also announced that it will cut off all funding for astronomy, geology, biology, and cosmology, as these sciences are in obvious conflict with Singhvj's natural laws. Bewildered, several scientists in these fields commented how if they had only known that the law of poopy anus disproved all of their theories, they wouldn't have wasted their entire lives studying them.

  • Vj ~ It would make good sense to cut off funding since they have now come to realize, because of the evolutionist, that there is really no purpose at all.

    Reply to Porky Pine - December 7, 2003
    Do you mean that it took you people 7 pages to figure out that you can't get through to him? Damn! I figured it out in a couple of pages when he was at Evolution vs Creationism.

  • Vj ~ That could be worst, since "a couple of pages" could mean 8 or 9 pages.

    Reply to Herakles - December 7, 2003
    Apes is not a different species; it is simply a higher level of heirarchy of classfication than humans. So, please stop spouting off the same non-sense until you actually do some research.

  • Vj ~ So why such ingratitude for the "higher level of hierachy" in leaving them to fend for themselves in the wild jungle while you are enjoying the protection of law and order?

    Dialogue 20
    Back to contents

    Reply to enter`name`here - December 7, 2003
    we argue them because we believe it is the truth,
  • Vj ~ So you are saying that there is purpose now - to establish truth? Do you have a defintion for "truth"?

    Reply to Wynand - December 8 2003
    For somebody overflowing with contentment, you're sure wasting a lot of your time filling this board with bad sound-byte arguments and bitching about things you don't understand.

  • Vj ~ Time is not essential for me, how can I be wasting it? My presence here is disseminating the truth, I am compelled to do so, wherever I am, as it is the nature of wisdom that demands it.

    Reply to rlogan - December 8, 2003
    VJ, you said the laws are dormant during creation. But on your website you say that nature is most active during creation and that "when she comes alive" the natural laws dictate things. So I'm confused.

  • Vj ~ If I did it is a mistake, it is dormant in the period during dissolution and creation.

    I have some other vexing questions that I should see if you can solve: Does purpose have a soul?

  • Vj ~ No, but the soul, a purpose and that purpose gives birth to creation.

    Is the higher purpose embedded within the law, or is it exterior to it?

  • Vj ~ It is embedded within the law.

    Here is the "riddle of the rivers". It has never been solved: A man was walking down a path. The rivers flow to the sea. Yet knowledge produced no boundary. Can you solve the riddle of the rivers?

  • Vj ~ Maybe it is never meant to be solved.

    Reply to rlogan - December 8, 2003
    So does the law have to prepare for hibernation? Seems to be a cycle like the seasons.

  • Vj ~ Creation and dissolution are cycles, even your science is beginning to prove it so.

    If the higher purpose is embedded within the laws then we find the higher purpose by uncovering the laws.

  • Vj ~ Naturally!

    So it seems vital that you provide the laws. Thus far we have rain from clouds and excretion from the anus. Are there more?

  • Vj ~ I give only a few examples but with further contemplation on the subject you will be able to grasp them all.

    Are the laws printed somewhere?

  • Vj ~ It is better, with the aid of a few examples, to exercise reasoning in order to know them all . It is good practice for the functional intellect.

    Reply to enter`name`here - December 8, 2003
    meh I stand corrected(I have yet to take any formal physics classes). However, my point was that his law has no coherence it just arbitrarily decides when and when not to apply.

  • Vj ~ They apply to all the animate and inanimate things of the world and wherever you think they do not apply, just let me know.

    His laws are not scientific and thus cannot be used in a scientific debate.

  • Vj ~ All theories scientific and theological must conform with natural laws. It refutes the virgin birth of Christ and his resurrection as a one-time event, in the same manner, it refutes the evolution of man from a lower creature a one-time occurrence. The law requires those events to be steady occurrences or repeated.

    Reply to Herakles - December 8, 2003
    Darwin, however, provided mountains of evidence for evolution.

  • Vj ~ The same occurred with religious dogmas, but because of ignorance they took hold and blossomed. But if natural laws were known to man, as it were in ancient times, both religious dogmas and the evolution theory would have died before they were born.

    You, however, keep talking about non-existent laws and metaphysical junk that has nothing to do with evolution.

  • Vj ~ There are those who have already made up their minds in what they must accept, ins pite of whatever comes up to contradict it. Do you think there is a chance that Billy Graham, Benny Hinn or Jack Van Impe can be swayed by these laws?

    I have yet to see one proof confirming your creation myth as opposed to evolution. Care to show us some?

  • Vj ~ They are all compatible:
    "Nothing in this world can be produced without the proper applications." Mimansa.
    �Nothing can be done or made without the expenditure of time.� Vaisheshika.
    �Nothing in this world can be produced without the material cause.�Niyaya.
    �Nothing can be made without the requisite skill, knowledge, and thought.� Yoga.
    �Nothing can be made without the definite combination of atoms." Sankhaya.
    "Nothing can be made without a maker." Vedanta.
    Which one of the above you disagree with?

    Reply to wildlifer - December 9, 2003
    How so??

  • Vj ~ All things created (finite) or came into being must die, decay or dissolved, a law.

    This is a rediculous assertion. While I agree there was not a virgin birth or *a* Jesus, to assume that evolution is a law is beyond the pale.

  • Vj ~ Why do you disagree on the virgin birth theory?

    While it may very well be, if conditions ABC exist, XYZ will always occur, your law(s) assume that if conditions DEF exist, XYZ will also continue to occur.

  • Vj ~ These laws apply to whatever conditions exist as long as there is creation.

    Reply to Jet Black - December 9, 2003
    you see this is crap. The extinction of the wooly mammoth happened once, it only happened once because the environment changed once and killed them.

  • Vj ~ It is not a breach to the law, they existed and then died but had they continued to exist it would have had to come into being the same way the first ones evolved.

    Humans evolved once, they will only evolve once because the environment has changed to something far different to what it used to be.

  • Vj ~ The conditions whatever they are do affect natural laws. If they evolved once and all died like "wooly mammoth" it would have been ok, but they continue to reproduce. It simply means, that the cause (the reproductive element) for further reproduction, had to be the same for the first humans.

    If the environment is completely different, then the same things will never ever happen again. this seems to be the fundamental point that you are missing: the environment has changed totally.

  • Vj ~ No, I have not missed anything, it is just that you don't understand the functions of natural laws yet. What I propagate is not for ready belief, but for rational people to consider with time, patience and impartiality. Atheists are people with a functional intellect as oppose to the credulous with a static intellect. I expect them to know better.

    Reply to CoffeeFiend - December 9, 2003
    If an apple falls to the ground from a tree, does it always happen in EXACTLY the same way ? No, it doesn't, because the conditions are slightly different for each apple. So, why on earth should evolution always produce EXACTLY the same results, given different conditions ?

  • Vj ~ No, it may not happen the same way or even the same time, but the fact remains that when it falls, it is in conformity to the law of gravity. Similarly, whenever the human species come into being, from the very first one, the cause (reproductive element) must be the same as it is now.

    Reply to Herakles - December 9, 2003
    The virgin birth of Christ is refuted by the lack of evidence and the complete impossibility of it happening, not by the unrepeatability of it. That is like saying that you could not have been born because otherwise there would be many Singhvj's around.

  • Vj ~ And what evidence do you have in mind that could have changed the fact, when conception could not have taken place without a sexual union (reproductive element) and when you know a virgin is one who never had sexual intercourse? If the act of virgin birth was a steady event, then it would have been simple to acknowledge it as a fact. Similarly, had man continue to evolve from a lower species, it would have been a fact also, but both were claimed to have happened once.

    A specific set of occurrences enabled humans to emerge as a separate species. In Africa several million years ago, the forests began to give way to the savannahs. The evolutionary pressure exerted by this change favored those hominids with increased bipediality, brain power, and opposable thumbs. Had the environment been any different, humans would not have evolved.

  • Vj ~ Again, progression is downwards, a law, we would have had to fall from intelligence (ethics and morals, etc.) and not the other way around. For example, a child is pure and innocent, but as the child enters adolescence the loss of purity and innocence becomes obvious. As I said before, the conditions whatever they are, and wherever they occurred cannot have any negative effect on the law.

    Reply to Jet Black - December 10, 2003
    You are letting the theory (the natural law) dictate the data (the virgin birth) and you can't do that.

  • Vj ~ Natural law is not a theory yet to be worked out or be finalized by research, it is a fact already in place. "But there is another prejudice which is cherished by many scholars evidently under the impression of its being a well-recognized scientific doctrine. It is that in the ruder stages of civilization, when laws of nature are little known and but little understood, when mankind has not enough of the experience of the world, strict methods of correct reasoning are very seldom observed." Dayanand Saraswati.

    Christians claim that the virgin birth was a supernatural event, and hence cannot be touched by "natural law"

  • Vj ~ It is only claim made by the ignorant. As the most powerful man (President of USA) is not above the law neither is "supernatural" is above the laws of nature. It is an ignorant man who is mostly likely to breach the law and not a learned man.

    The problem is, you are picking arbitrary attributes and saying they are progressing downward.

  • Vj ~ It may seem so since you do not understand how these laws work. Yes, science is considered to advance which can be easily attributed to progress. But consider this, we are still savages in nature, had there not been laws in place to deter us we would have experienced exploitation at its worst. Look at a simple hockey game, where players are ever ready to butcher one another, and it is only a game. Anger is the trait of a savage, and it is within all of us and this is one example where science, if it is not geared to cure us of anger, then it is not progress.

    One could equally pick knowledge and intelligence and these clearly "progress upwards" as can be seen by the fact that the total sum of human knowledge doubles every few years. Life spans are progressing upwards since life expectancy is also increasing, and so on. Everything continues to progress up its fitness peak, or it dies.

  • Vj ~ It may seem so, but all 'progress' upwards have achieved for us is material gains which lead to greed, lust for power, etc. As I said before we are born pure and innocent, free of ill-will, lust, etc., and the use of true knowledge or science (yoga) is to help us maintain that purity and innocence if we and our world must enjoy peace and harmony, through out life and to the end. Fire, like water, is a necessity of life, but they both can inflict atrocious damages, in the same manner, science is also a necessity, but can also create havoc in the absence of true religion.

    Reply to wildlifer - December 10, 2003
    Your/a law of longevity, or whatever you're calling it, and effects of cellular death, are far from being a "law" of evolution.

  • Vj ~ Try to understand, what these laws are before discounting them as frivolous.

    Virgin births, ghosts in the sky, gods, goddesses, are all evolved pagan myths and superstitions. Explanations from ignorance.

  • Vj ~ I agree, they are all trends of how low man has fallen by the gradual rejection of true religion (natural laws). Since decay is imminent, the worst is still to come until the end. True religion is not about saving the world in the end, as it were in the beginning, but the individual who has the right inclination to make a strenuous effort.

    Your law may exist, but it doesn't explain the same results in a reaction to variable circumstances. That's like saying all matter reacts the same in the different circumstances no matter whether it's solid, fluid, or gas.

  • Vj ~ Matter reacts to different state or condition as warranted by nature, but whatever manifestations take place because of it, they must return (decay) to the original state of matter. Many creatures have now become extinct because the condition for the existence has changed, but the law is the law for past, present and all future conditions, unchangeable.

    Reply to CoffeeFiend - December 10, 2003
    But if you were to submerge an apple in mercury, the apple will actually float to the surface. That is also due to gravity. So, the fact remains that the apple will not even always fall due to gravity.

  • Vj ~ In the same way, a man who has undergone a vasectomy can not reproduce, but it is still not a breach to the law.

    You are simply trying to make laws out of complex processes that are not reducible to simple laws by themselves, however, they can be broken down into simpler sub-processes which can be explained using the laws of physics (in the case of evolution, from a population of life-forms down to the subatomic level where interaction between individual atoms can be explained.)

  • Vj ~ That would depend on who is doing the explaining. There are no shortages in scholars to explain the 'truth' of the Bible, but are there really any truth in it. There must be one definition for truth since we all have own opposing views on what truth is.

    Reply to contracycle - December 10, 2003
    The presence or absence of religion, true or otherwise, is irrelevant.

  • Vj ~ The idea to contradict evolution as the source of intelligence must offer something else as the source, so true religion is relevant to the discussion.

    Reply to Jet Black - December 10, 2003
    take some Anhydrous copper sulphate. drop it in a beaker and add water. it goes blue and the beaker heats up. keep adding water and this does not continue happening. why? because the environment has changed. the environment changes, and the same thing will not happen in two identical ways in two completely different environments. This is applicable to life much as it is applicable to Anhydrous copper sulphate.

  • Vj ~ Natural laws are not affected or breached by changing environment. They are immutable in all circumstances whether the environment changes or not. Different conditions may bring about different life forms but the law of their own distinct origin will still follow.

    Reply to CoffeeFiend - December 11, 2003
    And given that... ... you have an awnser to the question you asked. There is a theory of evolution, but there is no specific "theory of human evulution" or "law of human evolution" that insists that humans are the ultimate end product of evolution, no matter what the conditions.

  • Vj ~ I could care less of the conditions and what could have come out of them. My arguement concerns the evolution of man from a lower species (not a steady event) and intelligence out of non-intelligence (progression upwards).

    Reply to Herakles - December 11, 2003
    Why must something always decay?

  • Vj ~ Simply because "something" with a beginning must have an end as opposed to "something" termed eternal, with no beginning and no end. It is quite clear here, that what is eternal cannot decay or die and whatever is not eternal must perish, decay or dissolved. In principle, this law also proves the religions that propagated the soul to be a finite entity, are false. If the soul is created it has a beginning and so it must finally die, how then can it enjoy eternality in heaven or suffer the same in hell. Science can never by formula or test figure out what things are eternal, they can only be confirmed by revealed knowledge. And you cannot deny that there aren't things that exist eternally, otherwise, we will have to question the fact of why the word do exist.

    While it is true that the universe taken as a whole is decaying, this does not apply in all local cases.

  • Vj ~ Local or non-local, if they had a beginning they all must die.

    First off, there is no inherent drive for things to decay.

  • Vj ~ It is, out of necessity one thing has to decay to bring about another. A field of wheat, a herd of cattle, vegetation (trees), minerals, etc. are all being destroyed, but out of the destruction comes, bread, meat, furniture, machines, etc. respectively.

    Two things can alter this decay however. One is energy from an outside source and the other is a chance. Obviously the planet earth receives energy from an outside source, namely, the sun. Therefore, we neither expect nor observe life on earth to be decaying.

  • Vj ~ The source of energy is matter also, so it will decay. Earth has its source from the invisible matter also and to that state, it will return. As I said whatever has a beginning must come to an end.

    It is important to note, however, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which I am referring to) applies only to physical phenomenon. It has nothing to do with culture, religion or history. You appear to be applying a law that has to do with the total energy and organization of a closed system to the decline of human culture. It is like comparing apples and oranges, it can not be done since they have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

  • Vj ~ The law applies to everything because nothing is excluded from nature. True religion is the cause of harmony and therefore culture is that which distinguishes man's behavior from that of beasts.
    "There is no turpitude in drinking alcohol, eating meat, committing adultery, it is the natural way of created beings, but abstinence brings great reward." Manu
    Evil is inherent in matter, which is the cause of our physical body, it is the reason we were given intelligence to follow instructions (revealed knowledge), otherwise the human race, as savages, would have long been extinct.

    Putting your complete misapplication of the SLofT aside, there is absolutely no evidence of your claim. Show me the evidence of the present human decline and how humans in the past were somehow superior. Until you do that, however, it is nothing but an empty claim.

  • Vj ~ I have given you many, that progression is downwards, man had to be taught, prevention (superior science) is better than cure (inferior science). And as you earlier agree, the universe is decaying, then it must have reached perfection before doing so. All things finite (created) or has a beginning cars, trains, planes, houses, boats, boots, shirts, pants, toys, et. decay. Tell me of one that you know of that doesn't.

    This is not true at all. Matter is not required to return to its previous state. Take neutrons for example. If taken out of the nucleus they will decay* on average once every 11 minutes into a proton and an electron. Nothing requires them to return to a neutron. In fact it is very likely that they will never come together to form a neutron.

  • Vj ~ As I explained earlier, a tree dies, but its material continues to bring something out of it, house furniture, etc. but eventually they will all finally dissolve. In the same way out of matter comes molecules, atoms, neutrons, electrons, etc. , not necessarily in that order, but they all return to the source, after death.

    Many species have indeed become extinct. I believe it is somewhere around 95%. You forgot to mention. however, that many new species are also coming into existence.

  • Vj ~ Manifestations will continue as conditions change, I have no disagreement with that, but no new species will bring about a human now or in the future nor did it happen in the past.

    Reply to Herakles - December 11, 2003
    Religion is irrelevent to this discussion. Evolution is not accepted only by atheists, but by a broad range of theists, from Christians, to Muslims, to Hindus.

  • Vj ~ The "Christians, Muslims, Hindus and those of other false dogmas are in the worst possible condition intellectually than any other group I know, not only they are ignorant of the functions of natural laws, they are totally void of any reasoning, and to have them endorse your theory, is a travesty to science, much less your intelligence.

    Evolution is a scientific theory. It can not be used as a guide for morals, philosophies, or religions, any more than the theory of gravity can. To deny the fact of evolution based on religious ideas or our desires harms both religion and science.

  • Vj ~ True religion is the source of ethics, morals and all sciences, and as far it is laid out in confirmation to natural laws, it stands firm against the evolution of man theory as well as against all false dogmas.

    Religious mythologies are not meant, IMO, to be accepted at face value as "scientific" alternatives. They were meant to explain the purpose or meaning of the universe, but not to scientifically describe its workings. It harms science by claiming that writings contained in a book written thousands of years ago by people with practically no knowledge of science, or let alone how it works, could accurately describe nature and its complexities. Some people have yet to face up to this fact and continue to insist that it is their religion versus evolution.

  • Vj ~ Since evolution (chance), as you claim, is the source of all that have occurred in creation, then religion, like science, must also be accepted to some level, as something to do with it.

    Reply to Herakles - December 11, 2003
    Humans did not evolve from a "lower" species. In evolutionary terms, the wordsare meaningless.

  • Vj ~ If "lower and higher" is meaningless, why aren't humans easy prey for cattle as they are for humans? Or why don't you settle for a less stressful life in the forest as animals do?

    The evolution of man does not have to be a steady event.

  • Vj ~ What other events do you know that are not steady?

    There was a specific set of events that allowed humans to become a separate species. If these had not occured then there would be no humans.

  • Vj ~ Perhaps, it is time you look into something else if even it is to prove yourself right.

    We do not see these events occurring today, and therefore we do not observe new hominid like species evolving. Your argument is equivalent to saying that WWII did not happen because if WWII occurred once, it should be happening again and again.

  • Vj ~ Wars, though man-made, are inherent in decadence (ignorance), progression downwards, they have been, are and will be happening. Neither rainfalls have two origins (causes) nor man.

    But we know that this is a ridiculous argument. Why? Because there was a specific set of events that led up to the war and if these events aren't repeating themselves, then there is no reason to expect the war too.

  • Vj ~ As I said before, the world void of true religion still leaves a man in a savage state, therefore wars are imminent. It conforms with progression downwards.

    Intelligence out of non-intelligence does not equal progression, it equals survival. In the present environment intelligence is a good thing.

  • Vj ~ How is it a good thing, when you earlier denied purpose? And what prevented us from extinction, after we lost our instinct for survival?

    In another environment large intelligence may hinder a population's chances of survival.

  • Vj ~It would have been the opposite, non-intelligence would have diminished the human "population's chances of survival".

    Natural selection does not care if something is intelligent or not, it's whatever works best that will survive.

  • Vj ~ Perhaps, it might not care, but the fact remains that it did progress into intelligence. And I am quite sure your preference to be a human, rather than a rodent, is not in doubt.

  • <<< Prev
    Next >>>

    Part I

    Part II

    Part III

    Part IV

    Part V

    Part VI

    Part VII

    Part VIII

    Part IX

    Part X

    Part XII

    "Just as color cannot be perceived by ears, nor sound by eyes; in like manner, the Eternal Supreme Spirit is not perceptible to the senses. He can only be seen by a pure soul through the purity of heart, acquisition of knowledge and the practice of yoga. Just as one cannot reap the advantages of knowledge without acquiring it, likewise the Supreme Spirit cannot be seen without the practice of yoga and gaining the highest knowledge." The Light of Truth
    Back to top of page