Is the theory of evolution a religion?

Post by Jahnu
It is very similar in many ways.
Like religions, evolution is learned. There is no proof for either,
and there is nothing anyone from either group can demonstrate that
conclusively illustrates their chosen point of view.
Champions of evolution point to scientific books, papers, theories,
DNA, fossils etc and declare evolution to be obvious.
Champions of religions point to religious books, papers, philosophy,
design, experiences etc and declare God to be obvious.
Both rely heavily on a willingness to learn the subject for it to be
believed, and both fail to convince if that willingness is absent.
Believing in a religion offers benefits, and believing the theory of
evolution does too.
Without the theory of evolution, atheism falls pretty flat. If the
species didn’t appear by random mutation and natural selection then
how did they appear? There aren’t many options, and none of them fit
well with atheism.
With the theory of evolution, atheism has a foothold. It’s tenuous
because it needs support from abiogenesis (which is not forthcoming),
and it needs a really, really, really imaginative idea of what can
happen by coincidence when matter explodes itself into existence along
with time and precise laws, for no reason. But, if enough trusted
intellectuals with straight faces and genuine sincerity say it’s
possible, then trusting people will go along with it. If that is
accepted then random mutation and natural selection is not such a
hurdle for skeptics.
In short TOE gives an atheist a fig leaf to hide behind from any
higher power who can judge him and affect what happens when this life
is over.
There are a few reasons to believe the theory of evolution is correct
because consciousness does actually move through different species to
arrive at the human form in much the same pathways as the species are
understood to have evolved. If the anomalies are ignored, and it’s
presented authoritatively to children in their formative years, it can
take hold for the rest of their life. The fact that many Christians
like to add the guiding hand of God to the process (while possibly
annoying to some), does give validity to the proper adult version,
which dispenses with the childish ‘God-involved’ theory.
There are also a few reasons to believe that religions are correct.
Beginning from defining the Absolute Truth down to experiences.
The TOE is the best that atheism has and it’s used tirelessly to
promote atheism. Just as religions tend to try and influence all
aspects of life, evolution is now used to influence as many areas of
life as possible. Billions of dollars are spent around it. It is
threaded into entertainment, documentaries, museums, sociology,
psychology and multiple areas of science until it’s accepted as an
obvious irrefutable fact. Just as religions can be.
There is no proof for the theory of evolution; that’s why it’s a
theory, not ‘just’ a theory but a theory none-the-less. It’s right
there in the name. It’s not a scientific fact. It depends on
interpretation at the top level where the research is done and then
believing what you are taught down at the levels of students, science
geeks and the man in the street. If you don’t believe what the
scientists tell you, there is no evidence.
Not you, nor me, nor anyone else, is ever going to observe it for
real. It requires faith in one’s assessment if one is a scientist and
faith in what you are told if you aren’t. Many atheists don’t believe
something until someone they consider an authority tells them that
it’s okay to believe it and then they do. Their authority is called
science. It doesn’t mean it’s true but they believe it is because
someone they trust tells them it is. Most religions work like this.
If TOE falls than it will drag down whole branches of what we accept
as knowledge. Decades of work and study will have been wasted, careers
will end, grants will dry up and huge areas of science will be
irrelevant. This is similar to religions that fail.
Beliefs are cherished because they support how we see the world and
how we want the world to be, seldom how the world is. Many people are
uncomfortable with others who view the world differently to them. For
many of those who believe in the atheistic theory of evolution, then
those who believe in God can be tolerated as long as they stay away
from sensitive areas.
If they are in another country that’s best, but when they are in the
same country and are questioning or worse, attacking, the fundamental
basis of a whole view of life, then those who buy into that view of
life can sometimes turn nasty. They are the counterparts to the nasty
Christians who talk about eternal hellfire and wave their Bible in the
air, except they talk about ignorance and wave scientific papers in
the air with the same conviction, arrogance, and condescension.
But even though the TOE shares many similarities with religions,
ultimately it’s not one because there is always a process to realize
the truth in a religion, but with TOE there is no such process. After
all the questioning, the researching and theorising you are left
simply with the choice to believe or not, because evolution of the
species cannot be experienced.
https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch
https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu
http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das
http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

Just forget the 150+ years of solid evidence and research that
has proven beneficial to manki d and the benefits that have impacted many, many other sciences. All of that is just an elaborate hoax by atheists so we can fuck with your head. Sadly, we were too late, your head was already fucked.

Evolution is an observable fact.
ToE explained how it worked and the discovery of DNA helped science understand it better.

Nobody has demonstrated that ToE is false. Nobody has found a better explanation of how evolution happens.

You have nothing but your incredible ignorance and zero facts to hang your denial on.

IOW you have nothing, just like every other moronic theist who preys here.

2018-12-02 22:33:44 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Just forget the 150+ years of solid evidence and research that
has proven beneficial to manki d and the benefits that have impacted many, many other sciences. All of that is just an elaborate hoax by atheists so we can fuck with your head. Sadly, we were too late, your head was already fucked.
Evolution is an observable fact.
ToE explained how it worked and the discovery of DNA helped science understand it better.
Nobody has demonstrated that ToE is false. Nobody has found a better explanation of how evolution happens.
You have nothing but your incredible ignorance and zero facts to hang your denial on.
IOW you have nothing, just like every other moronic theist who preys here.

yes you do

Jahnu

2018-12-02 23:21:31 UTC

On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 14:28:44 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit

Post by Cloud Hobbit
Just forget the 150+ years of solid evidence and research that
has proven beneficial to manki d and the benefits that have impacted many, many other sciences. All of that is just an elaborate hoax by atheists so we can fuck with your head. Sadly, we were too late, your head was already fucked.
Evolution is an observable fact.
ToE explained how it worked and the discovery of DNA helped science understand it better.

Hehe, listen to this unevolved piece of shit.

You are merely spouting the slogans of the mindless masses. In science
they know better. Only the briad, mindless masses think evolution has
anything to do with science. Here s what science has to say about
ludicrous assertions.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
great con-men, And the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX
EVER." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only
a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
University, in an Oxford University Press text.

"Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a
fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially
clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic
model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in
the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.
None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however,
mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental
biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of
scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones
for tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciences
member Philip Skell

"[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular
half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by
the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of
Sciences member Lynn Margulis

"Mutations have a very limited ?constructive capacity? . No matter how
numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
--Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has
been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of
evolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

"Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal
tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the
various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." --The
father of molecular systematics, Carl Woese

"Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record
first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian . The fossil record is
therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early
diversification of the various animal phyla." --Invertebrate Zoology
Textbook

"It remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined
with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of
new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized
functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated
molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts." --Two
leading biologists inAnnual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

"New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not
connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."
--Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr

Science now know that many of the pillars of the Darwinian theory are
either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them
as factual evidence of Evolution. What does this imply about their
scientific standards? - Jonathan Wells

The bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote:

"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been
shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of
independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation
times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after
eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of
bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has
changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes
between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising
that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic
cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher muliticellular
organisms."

Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan echoed the same
thing in 2002:

"Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages
of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the
paleontologists, still has never been traced."

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself
whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin,
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin)

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

Ernest Major

2018-12-03 00:15:28 UTC

Post by Jahnu
Evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan echoed the same
"Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages
of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the
paleontologists, still has never been traced."

That's an odd statement to read, as speciation has be observed many
times (and is almost routine in agronomy). Does it make more sense in
context?

--
alias Ernest Major

Jahnu

2018-12-03 00:52:22 UTC

On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 00:15:28 +0000, Ernest Major

Post by Ernest Major
That's an odd statement to read, as speciation has be observed many
times (and is almost routine in agronomy). Does it make more sense in
context?

It's not so odd, when seen in connection with all the other statements
of scientists who admit that evolution one big pile of bullshit, that
only the blind masses believe in.

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only
a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
University, in an Oxford University Press text.

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

Jahnu

2018-12-03 07:13:47 UTC

On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 00:15:28 +0000, Ernest Major

Post by Ernest Major
That's an odd statement to read, as speciation has be observed many
times (and is almost routine in agronomy). Does it make more sense in
context?

Speciation has never been observed anywhere at anytime. Either you
are extremely stupid, being an obnoxious, lying little shit on
purpose, just to annoy me, or you just learned a new word that feel
compelled to use like dumb moron, who has no idea what he is talking
about. In anay case, you obviously belong to general population of the
indoctrinated masses.

"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in
the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms
smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with
their presumed ancestors." (Eldredge, N., Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics:
Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company,
New York)

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

Ernest Major

2018-12-05 09:55:06 UTC

Post by Jahnu
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 00:15:28 +0000, Ernest Major

Post by Ernest Major
That's an odd statement to read, as speciation has be observed many
times (and is almost routine in agronomy). Does it make more sense in
context?

If you showed any trace of sincerity I'd present some instances to you.
As it is, are you a Christian pretending to be a Satanist pretending to
be a Christian pretending to be an atheist pretending to be a Hindu, or
are more levels of indirection involved?

Post by Jahnu
"Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in
the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms
smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with
Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company,
New York)

A quote which says nothing about whether speciation has been observed.

Post by Jahnu
https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch
https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu
http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das
http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

--
alias Ernest Major

Christopher A. Lee

2018-12-05 13:46:20 UTC

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 09:55:06 +0000, Ernest Major

Post by Jahnu
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 00:15:28 +0000, Ernest Major

Post by Ernest Major
That's an odd statement to read, as speciation has be observed many
times (and is almost routine in agronomy). Does it make more sense in
context?

A deliberate lie by the lying liar who has been given examples from
the talk.origins FAQ every time he has repeated this lie.

Post by Ernest Major
If you showed any trace of sincerity I'd present some instances to you.
As it is, are you a Christian pretending to be a Satanist pretending to
be a Christian pretending to be an atheist pretending to be a Hindu, or
are more levels of indirection involved?

Hindus regard the Hari Krishna loonies the same way Christians view
the Moonie loonies.

I don't know what made him lose his mind, but he seems to be a genuine
Hari Krishna loonie.

Some time back, he said he lived in Mayapur - which is where the
ISKCON headquarters are. A Dane emigrating to live there would be like
a Parisian emigrating to Salt Lake City.

The deliberately dishonest liar uses an out of context quote by a
palaeontologist who accepts and understands evolution, who was talking
about a geological time scale. His "rather suddenly" was still a long
time in human terms.

The lying liar has had this explained over and over again, with cites
from and a link to the talk.origins quote mine project.

Post by Ernest Major
A quote which says nothing about whether speciation has been observed.

He's also been given links to the talk.origins FAQs on observed
instances of speciation.

Don't ever expect any honesty or intelligence from the thoroughly
brainwashed religious loonie.

Jahnu

2018-12-05 21:43:49 UTC

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 09:55:06 +0000, Ernest Major

Hahaha :) I can see you are trying hard to make sense, you poor
deluded, indoctrinated sucker.

A new religion has evolved in the global culture. It's called
Scientism. Even though modern science has absolutely nothing sensible
to say about the reality we live in, the general population is
convinced that science has explained away the need for God and
religion.

Scientific theories like abiogenesis and evolution, even though they
are pure and unalloyed myths, are being taught in all educational
institutions of the world as scientific facts.

Who has decided that technological expertise is the best way to
measure our ability to understand the reality we live in? Those who
are influential in defining peoples' realities - the producers,
scientists, the media, politicians, etc. -- have made technological
advancement the barometer of human progress. They claim that the
advancement of technology is the most noble pursuit of the human race,
that it has made the world a better place to live in.

As proof, they list all the consumer gadgets we use and are dependent
upon - computers, cell-phones, televisions, DVDs, cars, and so on -
and say that the intelligence to build these things shows that we have
advanced our understanding of nature and how she works far beyond our
ability in the middle ages.

But is this assertion correct? To build a computer, one certainly
requires advanced knowledge of physics and chemistry, but these
disciplines describe only a tiny part of the reality we perceive. A
far greater part of reality is our conscious experience of it --
something most people don't even think about.

Few people ponder the fact that their understanding of the world is
conditioned by the culture they grew up in. They automatically take it
for granted that the way they perceive the world is the correct one,
and that nature is best described in physical and chemical terms.
Modern science is very useful for making technology, in fact, it's the
only thing it is good for, and when we live in a world where the
masses are kept in awe and reverence of technological wonders, science
is, of course, a most important undertaking.

But the jubilation of modern people over the newest technology is no
different from the gaping wonder with which people in the middle ages
regarded sorcerers and magicians firing off sulphur and gun powder.
The magicians did this to dupe their audiences and secure their
comfortable hold on society.

In the middle ages, in the West at least, the regents of society kept
people in ignorance so they were easy to control and manipulate, and
today the exact same means are used to enslave people in ignorance. In
the global culture the slaves have just been upgraded to a
middle-class with their own house and car.

People still slave their lives away in boring jobs and are marred by
the same endless worries and miseries, people have always suffered
from. They are still being ground down by taxation, victims of greedy
politicians, exactly like they've always been.

There is no basis for saying that advanced knowledge of mathematics
and physics enables a person to better understand the world any more
than the cave dweller of some 2000 years ago who worshiped nature and
various gods.

If the modern culture is based on a better understanding of the world,
why is it ruining nature and her inhabitants at an alarming rate? If
modern man is more advanced in his understanding of nature, why is he
sawing the branch he is sitting on?

Despite the so-called advancement of modern society, people are till
not able to transcend their mental conditioning. The proof is that
modern society does not produce people with evolved consciousness.
Rather, we see the exact opposite - in direct proportion to the
advancement of technology, people have become more and more base and
idiotic in the way they treat and relate to each-other.

Some years ago, WHO published a report saying that the biggest health
crisis facing the world in the new millennium is that more and more
people will be born with mental defects. Is that the symptom of an
evolved society?

Society, as it is, is not equipped to facilitate self-realized human
beings. What need does a self-realized person have for the plethora of
useless products being produced by the few conglomerates that control
world consumerism? Such enlightenment would indeed negate the
necessity for the technological advancement upon which the world's
finances now rely.

That is why, in the current global culture, a deliberate campaign
exists to transform people into atheists. In such a culture, religion
is being ridiculed and has been replaced with politics. Instead of
voting for a particular religion, the public now votes for
politicians, who are mostly hired by those multinationals with the
biggest checkbooks -- all in the name of serving the people, of
course.

The modern, global culture has already made the whole world into one
big marketplace - a worldwide altar where technology is worshiped as
the new opium of the masses.

Being fed endless propaganda from Hollywood where technology saves the
day, we quickly forget that technology, despite assurances to the
contrary, cannot save us from the onslaughts of nature. Time and time
again, technology comes up short in the fight against nature.
The new high-priests of society, now clad in white frocks instead of
black, fail to comprehend how the mechanisms of nature work. And how
could they? They also suffer from the misunderstanding that everything
is dead matter, and are restricted by the assumption that their
knowledge of physical laws alone can explain the world.

Yet more important than understanding how physical matter works is the
understanding how consciousness, false ego, intelligence and mind
work. These make up a much greater part of the reality we perceive. As
long as we fail to understand the difference between matter and
consciousness, we cannot even be said to have evolved beyond animal
consciousness.

That's why atheism is dangerous - it keeps the consciousness trapped
in a 3-dimensional world of matter. It keeps the self from its rare
mission in the human life-form - to understand consciousness. It
cultivates a perception of life where the consciousness cannot see
itself - a deception where the self is being absorbed in matter
forgets itself.

Every individual is duty-bound to alter their consciousness and
connect it with the whole - Sri Krishna. While Srila Prabhupada was a
nitya-siddha, he was also a social revolutionary, as was the Lord he
served - Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. The political correctness that
predominates in the world and passes as social etiquette should not
stop us from assisting him in his mission - to silence the atheistic
class of men, and to inundate the world with Krishna Consciousness.

Krishna says:

The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal
fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very
hard with the six senses, which include the mind.

The living entity in the material world carries his different
conceptions of life from one body to another, as the air carries
aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take
another.

The living entity, thus taking another gross body, obtains a certain
type of ear, eye, tongue, nose and sense of touch, which are grouped
about the mind. He thus enjoys a particular set of sense objects.

The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body,
nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of
the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can
see all this.

The endeavoring transcendentalists who are situated in
self-realization can see all this clearly. But those whose minds are
not developed and who are not situated in self-realization cannot see
what is taking place, though they may try.

- Bhagavad-gita 15.7-11

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

m***@gmail.com

2018-12-09 04:29:32 UTC

Post by Jahnu
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 00:15:28 +0000, Ernest Major

Post by Ernest Major
That's an odd statement to read, as speciation has be observed many
times (and is almost routine in agronomy). Does it make more sense in
context?

Jahnu is a Krishna hippy hop. He knows nothing at all about science and
most of what he posts is from Hindu religious scrolls.

A quote which says nothing about whether speciation has been observed.

Jahnu

2018-12-09 21:36:10 UTC

Post by m***@gmail.com
Jahnu is a Krishna hippy hop. He knows nothing at all about science and
most of what he posts is from Hindu religious scrolls.

"I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad Geeta. It was the first of
books; it was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy,
but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which
in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same
questions which exercise us." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and
I see not one ray of hope on the horizon, I turn to Bhagavad Geeta and
find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the
midst of overwhelming sorrow. Those who meditate on the Gita will
derive fresh joy and new meanings from it every day." - Mahatma Gandhi
"The marvel of the Bhagavad Geeta is its truly beautiful revelation of
life's wisdom which enables philosophy to blossom into religion." -
Herman Hesse

"The Bhagavad Geeta is the most systematic statement of spiritual
evolution of endowing value to mankind. It is one of the most clear
and comprehensive summaries of perennial philosophy ever revealed;
hence its enduring value is subject not only to India but to all of
humanity." - Aldous Huxley

"The idea that man is like unto an inverted tree seems to have been
current in by gone ages. The link with Vedic conceptions is provided
by Plato in his Timaeus in which it states 'behold we are not an
earthly but a heavenly plant.' This correlation can be discerned by
what Krishna expresses in chapter 15 of Bhagavad Geeta." - Carl Jung

"The Bhagavad Geeta has a profound influence on the spirit of mankind
by its devotion to God which is manifested by actions." - Dr. Albert
Schweitzer

"In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal
philosophy of the Bhagavad Geeta, in comparison with which our modern
world and its literature seem puny and trivial." - Henry David
Thoreau

"The reader is nowhere raised into and sustained in a bigger, purer or
rarer region of thought than in the Bhagavad Gita"
- Henry David Thoreau

"The religion and philosophy of the Hebrews are those of a wilder and
ruder tribe, wanting the civility and intellectual refinements and
subtlety of Vedic culture." - Henry David Thoreau

"In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating
as that of the Upanishads. It has been the
solace of my life -- it will be the solace of my death." -- Arthur
Schopenhauer

"I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad Gita. It was as if an empire
spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but
large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in
another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same
questions which exercise us."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson The famous poem "Brahm" is an example of his
Vedanta ecstasy.

"The most beautiful, perhaps the only true philosophical song existing
in any known tongue ... perhaps the deepest and loftiest thing the
world has to show." --Wilhelm von Humboldt

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

Mark Isaak

2018-12-03 18:59:48 UTC

Post by Jahnu
[...]
You are merely spouting the slogans of the mindless masses.

Are you blind to the irony of that statement? Your posts consist of
almost nothing else besides mindlessly spouted slogans.

To answer the question in your subject: Religion, as you practice it,
requires that you cease to think for yourself. Evolution requires that
people be able to reason independently. Therefore evolution is not a
religion.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

Cloud Hobbit

2018-12-02 22:33:08 UTC

One more thing Jesper, ToE and evolution have nothing to do with atheism. That atheists are smart enough to recognize that understand that ToE is sound science has nothing to do with any decision to reject the idiotic idea of any God or gods.

John Locke

2018-12-02 23:32:30 UTC

...you're already dead in the water. In regards to evolution, there's
no "point of view". Evolution is a proven fact of nature, supported
by a huge body of irrefutable evidence and confined across multiple
scientific disciplines. Religion, on the other hand, has no
supporting body of evidence whatsoever and can thus be discarded
into the trash bin with all the other rubbish.

JWS

2018-12-03 00:41:41 UTC

You mean "unrefuted" evidence, right? The whole
point is that it is refutable.

2018-12-03 00:47:38 UTC

Post by JWS

You mean "unrefuted" evidence, right? The whole
point is that it is refutable.

no he means get ready to hear him tell you no matter what you show him ,
that that is unacceptable proof in fact get ready for him to say
anything that denies what you say

JWS

2018-12-03 11:59:21 UTC

Post by %

Post by JWS

You mean "unrefuted" evidence, right? The whole
point is that it is refutable.

no he means get ready to hear him tell you no matter what you show him ,
that that is unacceptable proof in fact get ready for him to say
anything that denies what you say

Looks like Mr. Locke showed you that you're full of shit.
As usual.

John Locke

2018-12-03 01:23:43 UTC

Post by JWS

You mean "unrefuted" evidence, right? The whole
point is that it is refutable.

...oooops. Yep. Correct.

Davej

2018-12-03 01:51:07 UTC

Post by Jahnu
[...]
The TOE is the best that atheism has and it’s used
tirelessly to promote atheism.

Evolution can be observed. It seems to explain why species
slowly change over time. Religion proposes that GAWD is the
reason for everything and the reason for every single event
which occurs anywhere and everywhere.

Even if I believed in a GAWD -- that doesn't automatically mean
that I would believe that GAWD is good, or caring, or loving,
or in any way interested in human beings or this tiny planet,
or is doing anything at all. Why? Because GAWD is never seen and
never heard and never seems to prevent terrible tragedies or
wars or do anything at all.

You could be a THEIST and still ignore the lame and useless GAWD
who is nasty, uncaring, irrelevant or dead.

v***@gmail.com

2018-12-03 07:05:57 UTC

Post by Davej

Post by Jahnu
[...]
The TOE is the best that atheism has and it’s used
tirelessly to promote atheism.

No. Not all theists are Creationists.

Post by Davej
Even if I believed in a GAWD -- that doesn't automatically mean
that I would believe that GAWD is good, or caring, or loving,
or in any way interested in human beings or this tiny planet,
or is doing anything at all. Why? Because GAWD is never seen and
never heard and never seems to prevent terrible tragedies or
wars or do anything at all.
You could be a THEIST and still ignore the lame and useless GAWD
who is nasty, uncaring, irrelevant or dead.

m***@gmail.com

2018-12-09 04:14:06 UTC

Post by Davej

Post by Jahnu
[...]
The TOE is the best that atheism has and it’s used
tirelessly to promote atheism.

Evolution can be observed. It seems to explain why species
slowly change over time. Religion proposes that GAWD is the
reason for everything and the reason for every single event
which occurs anywhere and everywhere.
Even if I believed in a GAWD -- that doesn't automatically mean
that I would believe that GAWD is good, or caring, or loving,
or in any way interested in human beings or this tiny planet,
or is doing anything at all. Why? Because GAWD is never seen and
never heard and never seems to prevent terrible tragedies or
wars or do anything at all.
You could be a THEIST and still ignore the lame and useless GAWD
who is nasty, uncaring, irrelevant or dead.

That sounds like Deism. My view of this is a god that lays Universe eggs
all over the place, then leaves them to develop on their own. Whatever
evolves is on its own. The Universe laying Super Chicken might not even
know what it's doing. The question remains, where did the Super Chicken
come from and what made it? And what made whatever made it? Chickens all
the way down?

Malcolm McMahon

2018-12-03 10:46:30 UTC

Post by Jahnu
It is very similar in many ways.

Nobody was ever burned at the stake for not believing in Evolution.

Post by Jahnu
Like religions, evolution is learned. There is no proof for either,
and there is nothing anyone from either group can demonstrate that
conclusively illustrates their chosen point of view.
Champions of evolution point to scientific books, papers, theories,
DNA, fossils etc and declare evolution to be obvious.
Champions of religions point to religious books, papers, philosophy,
design, experiences etc and declare God to be obvious.

The difference is that, ultimately, religion has only appeal to authority. The
evidence for evolution ultimately lies in the physical world, whereas the
evidence presented by religion lies in the mental world. Darwin is not a
prophet. The ToE ceased to belong to him as soon as he published it. Indeed the
ToE existed long before Darwin. The ToE itself, has evolved to encompass new
facts.

Science is always open to defend it's theories with facts about the physical
world, not just facts about what convictions people may have.

Post by Jahnu
Both rely heavily on a willingness to learn the subject for it to be
believed, and both fail to convince if that willingness is absent.
Believing in a religion offers benefits, and believing the theory of
evolution does too.
Without the theory of evolution, atheism falls pretty flat. If the
species didnt appear by random mutation and natural selection then
how did they appear? There arent many options, and none of them fit
well with atheism.

Remember Darwin started off as a comitted Christian, and was reluctant to
publish partly _because_ he felt that these discoveries weakened religion.
Indeed they clearly weakened his own religious faith. As he examined nature he
was horrified by its cruelty, and that seems to have brought he to question
what kind of a god could be responsible. And yes, evolution drove the god of
the gaps into a more confined area. But atheism has always existed. All the ToE
has done is to demolish one of the problems.

Post by Jahnu
With the theory of evolution, atheism has a foothold. Its tenuous
because it needs support from abiogenesis (which is not forthcoming),

Again you confuse evolution with abiogenesis. They are separate problems.

However there's a third way with our understanding of how abiogenesis occuered,
neither God nor Oparin-Haldane and that's to admit that WE DON'T KNOW. The same
thing could have been said about the origins of the species before Darwin
thought about natural selection. That's the starting point for science. WE
DON'T KNOW. Religion always believes that everything is known. Science thrives
on known unknowns.

Jahnu

2018-12-05 00:33:44 UTC

On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 10:46:30 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

Post by Malcolm McMahon
Nobody was ever burned at the stake for not believing in Evolution.

Now a days you can't get away with burning people on stakes like the
church used to.

But no university will hire you if you express doubt in the theory of
evolution.

Brilliant, prominent scientists, however, who have made a name for
themselves already, they don't give a shit about the atheistic
dominance in modern science, they just speak the truth - that
evolution is a bullshit theory with no science to back it up.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
great con-men, And the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX
EVER." -- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only
a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
University, in an Oxford University Press text.

"Darwinian evolution - whatever its other virtues - does not provide a
fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially
clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic
model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in
the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.
None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however,
mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental
biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of
scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones
for tangible breakthroughs." --U.S. National Academy of Sciences
member Philip Skell

"[The] Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular
half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by
the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." --National Academy of
Sciences member Lynn Margulis

"Mutations have a very limited ?constructive capacity? . No matter how
numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."
--Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has
been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of
evolution." --Late American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

Malcolm McMahon

2018-12-05 22:46:23 UTC

Post by Jahnu
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 10:46:30 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

Post by Malcolm McMahon
Nobody was ever burned at the stake for not believing in Evolution.

Now a days you can't get away with burning people on stakes like the
church used to.
But no university will hire you if you express doubt in the theory of
evolution.

Reckon they'd welcome you with open arms if you came up with a better theory.
Goddunit isn't a theory, it's the lack of one.

Christopher A. Lee

2018-12-06 00:49:42 UTC

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 22:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

Post by Malcolm McMahon

Post by Jahnu
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 10:46:30 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

r>>>Nobody was ever burned at the stake for not believing in
Evolution.

Post by Malcolm McMahon

Post by Jahnu
Now a days you can't get away with burning people on stakes like the
church used to.
But no university will hire you if you express doubt in the theory of
evolution.

Because that would be an admission of mindless stupidity and
deliberate ignorance.

And it's _still_ nothing to do with atheism, no matter how many
pig-ignorant, low IQ retards lie about it.

Post by Malcolm McMahon
Reckon they'd welcome you with open arms if you came up with a better theory.
Goddunit isn't a theory, it's the lack of one.

Jahnu

2018-12-06 05:08:34 UTC

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 22:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

Post by Malcolm McMahon
Reckon they'd welcome you with open arms if you came up with a better theory.
Goddunit isn't a theory, it's the lack of one.

You mean something like - the chemicalsdoneit? :D

----but, but, but there is no magic involved in creating life. It's
all a natural process. If you ask me what exactly is that natural
process, I have no idea, I just call it a natural process to make it
sound like it's science, to fool creationists into thinking, that I
know what I'm talking about.

These poor religious fanatics, they need some magical, invisible pixie
sitting in the sky, to explain nature, but me? Forget it, I don't need
magic to explain nature, because it's all a naturall process.

You see, first there was a point... I call the point a singularity to
make it sound less ridiculous, I fabulate it's a point of all mass,
space, and time, so no need to worry about what was outside the point,
because there was nothing outside the point - no space, no time, no
mass, no condencity, no nothing, you understand? There was only the
point, and from that point a universe came out, just like that, for no
apparent reason, it just happened, see? No magic involved... it's all
a natural process, and as we all know natural processes are very
scientic.

I won't get into what happened with the natural processes after the
universe popped into existence - how life evolved out of chemicals and
then transmuted from an amoeba into a talking human being. Don't worry
yourself about all these annoying details, all you have to understand
is that it's completely natural and scientific.... and that it
happened over long, long time. That's all you have to know.

Also, don't worry yourself that noone with a brain actually believes
the world created itself out of a bunch of chemicals, don't worry that
the most prominent and brainy scientists on the planet support the
idea of ID - Intelligent Design, simply because it makes more sense.

That's totally inconsequential. All you have to know, is that it's all
completely natural. It doesn't matter you have no clue what it means
or entails. You simply have to repeat it like a mantra, just try it -
natural process, natural process, natural natural process process, no
magic, no magic, magic magic no no... see how good it makes you feel?

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry
and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about
in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so
overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." - Fred
Hoyle, astrophysicist

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

Malcolm McMahon

2018-12-06 10:33:51 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 22:46:23 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

Post by Malcolm McMahon
Reckon they'd welcome you with open arms if you came up with a better theory.
Goddunit isn't a theory, it's the lack of one.

You mean something like - the chemicalsdoneit? :D

As usual you are not talking about evolution, but abiogenesis.

And, in that, there is plenty of room for theorising, and several theories still considered plausible.

As I posted recently - life is like fire. The shape of a fire isn't much affected by the spark that ignited it, but rather by the fuel it consumes. Little or nothing about evolution depends on the spark that was the first replicator, or how that came to be. And, like a forest fire, life has probably consumed all evidence of the spark that ignited it.

Jahnu

2018-12-06 21:01:31 UTC

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 02:33:51 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McMahon

Post by Malcolm McMahon
As I posted recently - life is like fire. The shape of a fire isn't much affected by the spark that ignited it, but rather by the fuel it consumes. Little or nothing about evolution depends on the spark that was the first replicator, or how that came to be. And, like a forest fire, life has probably consumed all evidence of the spark that ignited it.

Who gives a shit what brain-dead garbage you post? Listen, Mac, did
you actually think we were having a debate here? hahaha :) I'm just
here to tell you how it is, ok? Whether you accept it or not is
totally irrelevant, get it?

www.dissentfromdarwin.org

DISSENT FROM DARWIN GOES GLOBAL AS OVER 600 SCIENTISTS FROM AROUND THE
WORLD EXPRESS THEIR DOUBTS ABOUT DARWIN'S THEORY

Over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have now signed a
statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary
theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at
www.dissentfromdarwin.org, reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the
ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the
complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian
theory should be encouraged."

The fastest growing segment of the list is scientists from outside the
United States. International scientists now represent just over 12%
of all signers, and as a group has seen nearly 40% growth in the past
four months.

"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, because I
am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in
favour of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist,
and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of
Guadalajara, Mexico.

"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism
at all," added Leguizamon. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in
order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And
an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say."

The list of 610 signatories includes member scientists from National
Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India
(Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of
the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and
international research institutions such as Cambridge University,
British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk
University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of
Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico,
University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Pal?ontologie
Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan,
Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.

"Dissent from Darwinism has gone global," said Discovery Institute
President Bruce Chapman, former US Ambassador to the United Nations in
Vienna. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in
the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly
started finding US scientists that disproved that statement. Now we're
finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists
all over the world that don't subscribe to Darwin's theory."

Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From
Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian
evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series. At the time it
was claimed that "virtually every scientist in the world believes the
theory to be true."

Prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member
Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow -Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author
Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a
researcher at the National Institutes of Health's National Center for
Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di
Biologia / Biology Forum --the oldest still published biology journal
in the world--Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural
Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

Malcolm McMahon

2018-12-07 21:28:22 UTC

Post by Jahnu
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 02:33:51 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McMahon

Post by Malcolm McMahon
As I posted recently - life is like fire. The shape of a fire isn't much
affected by the spark that ignited it, but rather by the fuel it consumes.
Little or nothing about evolution depends on the spark that was the first
replicator, or how that came to be. And, like a forest fire, life has probably
consumed all evidence of the spark that ignited it.

No, you're clearly incapable of debate but what we say here is occasionally
read by people who might be mislead

Jahnu

2018-12-08 09:45:38 UTC

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 21:28:22 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

Post by Malcolm McMahon
No, you're clearly incapable of debate but what we say here is occasionally
read by people who might be mislead

Debate? With you? hahaha :) Why would I debate anything with you, Mac?

Krishna says:

Now hear, O son of Prtha, how by practicing yoga in full consciousness
of Me, with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in full, free from
doubt.

I shall now declare unto you in full this knowledge, both phenomenal
and numinous. This being known, nothing further shall remain for you
to know.

Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and
of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth.

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego --
all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.

Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior
energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting
the resources of this material, inferior nature.

All created beings have their source in these two natures. Of all that
is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain
that I am both the origin and the dissolution.

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything
rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

--Bhagavad Gita 7.1-7

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

Malcolm McMahon

2018-12-08 12:09:05 UTC

Post by Jahnu
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 21:28:22 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

Post by Malcolm McMahon
No, you're clearly incapable of debate but what we say here is occasionally
read by people who might be mislead

Debate? With you? hahaha :) Why would I debate anything with you, Mac?

Your pattern of response is consistent at least. An insult, hoping to drive
someone who disagrees with you away, followed by some cut and paste quote.

But I smell hidden anger which is encouraging. Anger is a defence against
anything that threatens a person with doubt.

Jahnu

2018-12-09 01:57:11 UTC