info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
32 views
Skip to first unread message
Jahnu
Jul 16, 2019, 7:47:26 AM7/16/19
to
Naturally, the chicken came first. Or what? Tell me what you think
sounds more plausible - first there was nothing, and then an egg
appeared out of no where, and from the egg a chicken appeared.
Or - first there was nothing, and then a chicken appeared out of no
where, and began to lay eggs.
You see, it really doesn’t matter how the origin is explained in
atheism, it makes the same sense, which is no sense.
What makes sense, however, is that God created all living entities,
and gave them the ability to reproduce.
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. (Bg. 15.7)
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. (Bg 15.8)
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. (Bg
15.9)
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. (Bg. 15.10)
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 to. (Bg 15.11)
Lucifer
Jul 16, 2019, 6:32:28 PM7/16/19
to
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:17:14 +0530, Jahnu <ja...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Naturally, the chicken came first. Or what? Tell me what you think
>sounds more plausible - first there was nothing, and then an egg
>appeared out of no where, and from the egg a chicken appeared.
>
>Or - first there was nothing, and then a chicken appeared out of no
>where, and began to lay eggs.
Or - first there was nothing, and then a God appeared out of
>Naturally, the chicken came first. Or what? Tell me what you think
>sounds more plausible - first there was nothing, and then an egg
>appeared out of no where, and from the egg a chicken appeared.
>
>Or - first there was nothing, and then a chicken appeared out of no
>where, and began to lay eggs.
nowhere, and began to create.
>You see, it really doesn’t matter how the origin is explained in
>atheism, it makes the same sense, which is no sense.
Even William Craig, who is a full on theist nutcase, has to admit
there are some things he doesn't know.
>What makes sense, however, is that God created all living entities,
>and gave them the ability to reproduce.
be that honest.
>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. (Bg. 15.7)
Kevrob
Jul 16, 2019, 6:39:56 PM7/16/19
to
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Lucifer wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:17:14 +0530, Jahnu <ja...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Naturally, the chicken came first. Or what? Tell me what you think
> >sounds more plausible - first there was nothing, and then an egg
> >appeared out of no where, and from the egg a chicken appeared.
> >
> >Or - first there was nothing, and then a chicken appeared out of no
> >where, and began to lay eggs.
>
> Or - first there was nothing, and then a God appeared out of
> nowhere, and began to create.
The proto-chicken, descended from the dinosaurs, laid an
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:17:14 +0530, Jahnu <ja...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Naturally, the chicken came first. Or what? Tell me what you think
> >sounds more plausible - first there was nothing, and then an egg
> >appeared out of no where, and from the egg a chicken appeared.
> >
> >Or - first there was nothing, and then a chicken appeared out of no
> >where, and began to lay eggs.
>
> Or - first there was nothing, and then a God appeared out of
> nowhere, and began to create.
egg, which hatched a chicken. Assuming Ms Proto is not
chicken-like enough, but the hatchling is, I'd say "egg."
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Christopher A. Lee
Jul 16, 2019, 6:55:25 PM7/16/19
to
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 08:32:15 +1000, Lucifer
<LuciferMo...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:17:14 +0530, Jahnu <ja...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Naturally, the chicken came first. Or what? Tell me what you think
>>sounds more plausible - first there was nothing, and then an egg
>>appeared out of no where, and from the egg a chicken appeared.
>>
>>Or - first there was nothing, and then a chicken appeared out of no
>>where, and began to lay eggs.
>
>Or - first there was nothing, and then a God appeared out of
>nowhere, and began to create.
>
>>You see, it really doesn’t matter how the origin is explained in
>>atheism, it makes the same sense, which is no sense.
>
>That's why we must be honest enough to admit we don't know.
>Even William Craig, who is a full on theist nutcase, has to admit
>there are some things he doesn't know.
>
>>What makes sense, however, is that God created all living entities,
>>and gave them the ability to reproduce.
What fucking god, question-begging moron?
<LuciferMo...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:17:14 +0530, Jahnu <ja...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Naturally, the chicken came first. Or what? Tell me what you think
>>sounds more plausible - first there was nothing, and then an egg
>>appeared out of no where, and from the egg a chicken appeared.
>>
>>Or - first there was nothing, and then a chicken appeared out of no
>>where, and began to lay eggs.
>
>Or - first there was nothing, and then a God appeared out of
>nowhere, and began to create.
>
>>You see, it really doesn’t matter how the origin is explained in
>>atheism, it makes the same sense, which is no sense.
>
>That's why we must be honest enough to admit we don't know.
>Even William Craig, who is a full on theist nutcase, has to admit
>there are some things he doesn't know.
>
>>What makes sense, however, is that God created all living entities,
>>and gave them the ability to reproduce.
>What makes sense is to admit we don't know, but theists can't
>be that honest.
extensions from current objective knowledge.
Although nobody insists that any of them is the right one - unlike
theists who insist that an unjustified and unevidenced magical
superbeing from their bronze-age mythology did it - to people outside
that religion in the first place.
The religious loonies deny quantum physics, which knows about the
spontaneous appearance of particles which "borrow" the necessary
energy and "pay it back" at the end of their life.
These various scenarios suggest that the big bang was a similar
phenomenon, after all the singularity was infinitesimally small - and
the universe is considered to have a zero sum over its lifetime.
Which both Jesper and Craig know, because they have both had it
explained over and over again.
So repeating their bullshit as if it hadn't been debunked over and
over again, is deliberately dishonest.
>>Krishna says:
Fuck off, in-your-face, low IQ, pig-ignorant, lying, raving loonie.
Mike_Duffy
Jul 16, 2019, 6:55:50 PM7/16/19
to
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:17:14 +0530, Jahnu wrote:
> Naturally, the chicken came first. Or what? Tell me what you think
> sounds more plausible - first there was nothing, and then an egg
> appeared out of no where, and from the egg a chicken appeared.
>
> Or - first there was nothing, and then a chicken appeared out of no
> where, and began to lay eggs.
For whatever exact definition you have for a chicken, once there were two
> Naturally, the chicken came first. Or what? Tell me what you think
> sounds more plausible - first there was nothing, and then an egg
> appeared out of no where, and from the egg a chicken appeared.
>
> Or - first there was nothing, and then a chicken appeared out of no
> where, and began to lay eggs.
birds (a male + a female chicken 'progenitors'), each not having exactly a
genome with a close enough match to make it what we can call a chicken. But
together their DNA combined to yield what we can call a chicken. This bird
was close enough genetically to breed with others in the same flock to
produce more viable chickens.
So no, Janhu, chickens do not appear out of thin air. The only thing
appearing out of thin air are all your bullshit holy book quotes.
--
http://mduffy.x10host.com/index.htm
Christopher A. Lee
Jul 16, 2019, 6:59:23 PM7/16/19
to
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:55:45 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
wrote:
Cluck off and fry, JEsper.
wrote:
Bob
Jul 16, 2019, 7:11:48 PM7/16/19
to
On 7/16/2019 6:55 PM, Mike_Duffy wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:17:14 +0530, Jahnu wrote:
>
>> Naturally, the chicken came first. Or what? Tell me what you think
>> sounds more plausible - first there was nothing, and then an egg
>> appeared out of no where, and from the egg a chicken appeared.
>>
>> Or - first there was nothing, and then a chicken appeared out of no
>> where, and began to lay eggs.
>
> For whatever exact definition you have for a chicken, once there were two
> birds (a male + a female chicken 'progenitors'), each not having exactly a
> genome with a close enough match to make it what we can call a chicken. But
> together their DNA combined to yield what we can call a chicken. This bird
> was close enough genetically to breed with others in the same flock to
> produce more viable chickens.
We all have different religious beliefs. That's your religious belief.
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:17:14 +0530, Jahnu wrote:
>
>> Naturally, the chicken came first. Or what? Tell me what you think
>> sounds more plausible - first there was nothing, and then an egg
>> appeared out of no where, and from the egg a chicken appeared.
>>
>> Or - first there was nothing, and then a chicken appeared out of no
>> where, and began to lay eggs.
>
> For whatever exact definition you have for a chicken, once there were two
> birds (a male + a female chicken 'progenitors'), each not having exactly a
> genome with a close enough match to make it what we can call a chicken. But
> together their DNA combined to yield what we can call a chicken. This bird
> was close enough genetically to breed with others in the same flock to
> produce more viable chickens.
You cannot prove your religious belief is any truer than Jahnu's, and
vice versa. Same with me. I cannot prove my religious belief is
any truer that your two religious beliefs.
Hence, the Final Judgement. When all "cards" will be "turned over".
P.S.- I personally believe the fully-formed chicken, with feathers and eggs,
came first. But I can't prove it. I believe that's the way God wants
it. If
we could prove it, there would be no reason for the Final Judgement.
Kevrob
Jul 16, 2019, 7:18:45 PM7/16/19
to
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 6:55:50 PM UTC-4, Mike_Duffy wrote:
> For whatever exact definition you have for a chicken, once there were two
> birds (a male + a female chicken 'progenitors'), each not having exactly a
> genome with a close enough match to make it what we can call a chicken. But
> together their DNA combined to yield what we can call a chicken. This bird
> was close enough genetically to breed with others in the same flock to
> produce more viable chickens.
>
Yup.
> For whatever exact definition you have for a chicken, once there were two
> birds (a male + a female chicken 'progenitors'), each not having exactly a
> genome with a close enough match to make it what we can call a chicken. But
> together their DNA combined to yield what we can call a chicken. This bird
> was close enough genetically to breed with others in the same flock to
> produce more viable chickens.
>
Jahnu
Jul 18, 2019, 2:06:04 AM7/18/19
to
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:55:45 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
wrote:
wrote:
>For whatever exact definition you have for a chicken, once there were two
>birds (a male + a female chicken 'progenitors'), each not having exactly a
>genome with a close enough match to make it what we can call a chicken. But
>together their DNA combined to yield what we can call a chicken. This bird
>was close enough genetically to breed with others in the same flock to
>produce more viable chickens.
>
>So no, Janhu, chickens do not appear out of thin air. The only thing
>appearing out of thin air are all your bullshit holy book quotes.
Get an education, Duffboy. Why don't you tell me, how exactly, in your
>birds (a male + a female chicken 'progenitors'), each not having exactly a
>genome with a close enough match to make it what we can call a chicken. But
>together their DNA combined to yield what we can call a chicken. This bird
>was close enough genetically to breed with others in the same flock to
>produce more viable chickens.
>
>So no, Janhu, chickens do not appear out of thin air. The only thing
>appearing out of thin air are all your bullshit holy book quotes.
feeble, disturbed mind, you envision the universe came about.
hahaha :) Now watch this idiot fumble and blather.
--but, but there was a point, and the point exploded.
----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
Jahnu
Dec 10, 2019, 12:21:20 AM12/10/19
to
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:55:45 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
wrote:
>For whatever exact definition you have for a chicken, once there were two
>birds (a male + a female chicken 'progenitors'), each not having exactly a
>genome with a close enough match to make it what we can call a chicken. But
>together their DNA combined to yield what we can call a chicken. This bird
>was close enough genetically to breed with others in the same flock to
>produce more viable chickens.
>
>So no, Janhu, chickens do not appear out of thin air. The only thing
>appearing out of thin air are all your bullshit holy book quotes.
Get an education, Duffy. Why don't you tell me, how exactly, in your
wrote:
>For whatever exact definition you have for a chicken, once there were two
>birds (a male + a female chicken 'progenitors'), each not having exactly a
>genome with a close enough match to make it what we can call a chicken. But
>together their DNA combined to yield what we can call a chicken. This bird
>was close enough genetically to breed with others in the same flock to
>produce more viable chickens.
>
>So no, Janhu, chickens do not appear out of thin air. The only thing
>appearing out of thin air are all your bullshit holy book quotes.
https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch
https://www.quora.com/profile/Jahnu-Das
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq-n0bbhpaA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B46rjU_q_cM
Mike_Duffy
Dec 10, 2019, 7:09:27 PM12/10/19
to
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:51:17 +0530, Jahnu wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:55:45 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
> wrote:
>
>>For whatever exact definition you have for a chicken, once there were two
>>birds (a male + a female chicken 'progenitors'), each not having exactly a
>>genome with a close enough match to make it what we can call a chicken. But
>>together their DNA combined to yield what we can call a chicken. This bird
>>was close enough genetically to breed with others in the same flock to
>>produce more viable chickens.
>>
>>So no, Janhu, chickens do not appear out of thin air. The only thing
>>appearing out of thin air are all your bullshit holy book quotes.
>
> Get an education, Duffy. Why don't you tell me, how exactly, in your
> feeble, disturbed mind, you envision the universe came about.
>
> hahaha :) Now watch this idiot fumble and blather.
>
> --but, but there was a point, and the point exploded.
Yeah. The point was I gave you an explanation about how chickens first came
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:55:45 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
> wrote:
>
>>For whatever exact definition you have for a chicken, once there were two
>>birds (a male + a female chicken 'progenitors'), each not having exactly a
>>genome with a close enough match to make it what we can call a chicken. But
>>together their DNA combined to yield what we can call a chicken. This bird
>>was close enough genetically to breed with others in the same flock to
>>produce more viable chickens.
>>
>>So no, Janhu, chickens do not appear out of thin air. The only thing
>>appearing out of thin air are all your bullshit holy book quotes.
>
> Get an education, Duffy. Why don't you tell me, how exactly, in your
> feeble, disturbed mind, you envision the universe came about.
>
> hahaha :) Now watch this idiot fumble and blather.
>
> --but, but there was a point, and the point exploded.
into existence, which you could not refute logically.
Thus you 'chickenly' moved the goalpost from chicken origins to how the
Universe came into existance instead.
I can also tell you how chickens cease to exist. I have one in my oven
right now.
Jahnu
Dec 10, 2019, 7:57:22 PM12/10/19
to
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:09:20 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
wrote:
>Yeah. The point was I gave you an explanation about how chickens first came
>into existence, which you could not refute logically.
You? Logic? hahaha :D
--but, but Ah seen it on TV.
>Thus you 'chickenly' moved the goalpost from chicken origins to how the
>Universe came into existance instead.
Awww, poor Duffy. Is it now I break down sobbing, and beg forgiveness?
>I can also tell you how chickens cease to exist. I have one in my oven
>right now.
Enjoy now, suffer later.
“He who injures harmless creatures from a wish to give himself
pleasure, never finds happiness in this life or the next.”
(Manu-samhita 5.45)
“He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other
creatures, lives in misery in whatever species he may take his [next]
birth.” (Mahabharata, Anu.115.47)
wrote:
>Yeah. The point was I gave you an explanation about how chickens first came
>into existence, which you could not refute logically.
--but, but Ah seen it on TV.
>Thus you 'chickenly' moved the goalpost from chicken origins to how the
>Universe came into existance instead.
>I can also tell you how chickens cease to exist. I have one in my oven
>right now.
“He who injures harmless creatures from a wish to give himself
pleasure, never finds happiness in this life or the next.”
(Manu-samhita 5.45)
“He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other
creatures, lives in misery in whatever species he may take his [next]
birth.” (Mahabharata, Anu.115.47)
Mike_Duffy
Dec 10, 2019, 10:15:49 PM12/10/19
to
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 06:27:17 +0530, Jahnu wrote:
> Awww, poor Duffy. Is it now I break down sobbing, and beg forgiveness?
It depends. Do you feel that you were deceptive, stupid, or just ignorant?
> Awww, poor Duffy. Is it now I break down sobbing, and beg forgiveness?
Don Martin
Dec 11, 2019, 6:26:28 AM12/11/19
to
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 03:15:36 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 06:27:17 +0530, Jahnu wrote:
>
>> Awww, poor Duffy. Is it now I break down sobbing, and beg forgiveness?
>
>It depends. Do you feel that you were deceptive, stupid, or just ignorant?
Yes.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 06:27:17 +0530, Jahnu wrote:
>
>> Awww, poor Duffy. Is it now I break down sobbing, and beg forgiveness?
>
>It depends. Do you feel that you were deceptive, stupid, or just ignorant?
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Mike_Duffy
Dec 11, 2019, 8:47:04 AM12/11/19
to
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 06:26:27 -0500, Don Martin wrote:
> Yes
Janhu is getting senile as well. Usually he writes the "Is it now I break
down sobbing and beg forgiveness" canned response in order to address
abandoning all the people he knew, not to deflect from reason & logic.
So now he is getting his boilerplates mixed-up. I wonder if this will make
him a better example of the chronic effects on the brain of drinking from
an open sewer.
Maybe he will use what little brainpower he has left and learn to program
in perl. That way, he could write a 'bot to emulate himself. It shouldn't
take too much. When I first met him here, I actually thought he was a
poorly-written script due to the extreme vague weakness of the semantic
links between his responses and what he was responding to.
> Yes
Janhu is getting senile as well. Usually he writes the "Is it now I break
down sobbing and beg forgiveness" canned response in order to address
abandoning all the people he knew, not to deflect from reason & logic.
So now he is getting his boilerplates mixed-up. I wonder if this will make
him a better example of the chronic effects on the brain of drinking from
an open sewer.
Maybe he will use what little brainpower he has left and learn to program
in perl. That way, he could write a 'bot to emulate himself. It shouldn't
take too much. When I first met him here, I actually thought he was a
poorly-written script due to the extreme vague weakness of the semantic
links between his responses and what he was responding to.
Malcolm McMahon
Dec 11, 2019, 10:30:18 AM12/11/19
to
On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 12:47:26 UTC+1, Jahnu wrote:
>
The egg came first, laid by something which was almost, but not quite, a chicken (by whatever criterion you care to use).
>
The egg came first, laid by something which was almost, but not quite, a chicken (by whatever criterion you care to use).
Jahnu
Dec 11, 2019, 6:35:06 PM12/11/19
to
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 03:15:36 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
wrote:
wrote:
>It depends. Do you feel that you were deceptive, stupid, or just ignorant?
Hey Duffy, next to me in intelligence, you're like a doorknob. I mean,
seriously, you're a stinking meat-eater, right? You actually like to
have slices of a pig cadaver and scrambled snot for breakfast, I mean,
seriously? Good grief. Talk about an ignorant piece of shit.
--but, but Ah grew up in a sub-human shithole culture where it's
considered completely normal to eat cadavers.
Krishna says:
Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among
mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the
atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me. (Bg 7.15 )
Kevrob
Dec 11, 2019, 8:22:46 PM12/11/19
to
On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 10:30:18 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 12:47:26 UTC+1, Jahnu wrote:
> >
>
> The egg came first, laid by something which was almost, but not quite, a chicken (by whatever criterion you care to use).
I've told him that, as has Mike Duffy, and yourself.
> On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 12:47:26 UTC+1, Jahnu wrote:
> >
>
> The egg came first, laid by something which was almost, but not quite, a chicken (by whatever criterion you care to use).
He's "not listening."
Don Martin
Dec 12, 2019, 7:25:30 AM12/12/19
to
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:22:43 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
This is Jahnu: when his mouth is open, his ears are blocked.
wrote:
Jahnu
Dec 13, 2019, 5:30:47 AM12/13/19
to
>I've told him that, as has Mike Duffy, and yourself.
>
>He's "not listening."
It’s an observable fact that over time humans have devolved, not
>
>He's "not listening."
evolved. In fact, the present state of humanity disprove Darwin’s
theory. Each generation of humans have become increasingly
destructive, unthinking and mentally deficient, thus proving
themselves to be less fit for survival. If evolution were true, the
opposite would be the case.
"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.
Actually, evolution is a myth invented by atheists i their desparate
attempt to rule out God from the equation of existence. That evolution
is taught in all educational institutions of the world as an
established, scientific fact, says less about the veracity of
evolution, and more about the ungodly forces that rule the world at
present.
Fortunately mother nature, right now as we speak, is in the process of
removing that ungodly culture from her surface. The consumer
civilization is simply too destructive and harmful to nature and her
inhabitants to be allowed to continue for long.
Vishnu says:
When one resents the demigods, who represent God, the Vedas, which
give all knowledge, the cows, brahmanas, Vaisnavas and religious
principles, and ultimately Me, the Supreme, he and his civilization
will be vanquished without delay. -- Srimad Bhagavatam 7.4.27
John Locke
Dec 13, 2019, 7:24:03 AM12/13/19
to
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:25:30 -0500, Don Martin
<drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:22:43 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 10:30:18 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 12:47:26 UTC+1, Jahnu wrote:
>>> >
>>>
>>> The egg came first, laid by something which was almost, but not quite, a chicken (by whatever criterion you care to use).
>>
>>I've told him that, as has Mike Duffy, and yourself.
>>
>>He's "not listening."
>
>This is Jahnu: when his mouth is open, his ears are blocked.
>
...oh damn, that must be a pretty disgusting sight to behold !
<drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:22:43 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 10:30:18 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 12:47:26 UTC+1, Jahnu wrote:
>>> >
>>>
>>> The egg came first, laid by something which was almost, but not quite, a chicken (by whatever criterion you care to use).
>>
>>I've told him that, as has Mike Duffy, and yourself.
>>
>>He's "not listening."
>
>This is Jahnu: when his mouth is open, his ears are blocked.
>
________________________________________________________________________
I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic
depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means
are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough
I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race - Friedrich Nietzsche
The purpose of a democratic government is to protect the poor from the rich.
The purpose of religion is to protect the rich from the poor.
________________________________________________________________________
Don Martin
Dec 13, 2019, 9:36:03 AM12/13/19
to
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 04:24:07 -0800, John Locke
<johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:25:30 -0500, Don Martin
><drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:22:43 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 10:30:18 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 12:47:26 UTC+1, Jahnu wrote:
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> The egg came first, laid by something which was almost, but not quite, a chicken (by whatever criterion you care to use).
>>>
>>>I've told him that, as has Mike Duffy, and yourself.
>>>
>>>He's "not listening."
>>
>>This is Jahnu: when his mouth is open, his ears are blocked.
>>
>...oh damn, that must be a pretty disgusting sight to behold !
And in addition to the sight, one has the olfactory treat of
<johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:25:30 -0500, Don Martin
><drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:22:43 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 10:30:18 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 12:47:26 UTC+1, Jahnu wrote:
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> The egg came first, laid by something which was almost, but not quite, a chicken (by whatever criterion you care to use).
>>>
>>>I've told him that, as has Mike Duffy, and yourself.
>>>
>>>He's "not listening."
>>
>>This is Jahnu: when his mouth is open, his ears are blocked.
>>
>...oh damn, that must be a pretty disgusting sight to behold !
Ganges-tinged halitosis.
Christopher A. Lee
Dec 13, 2019, 10:00:39 AM12/13/19
to
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:36:02 -0500, Don Martin
millions of years to oviparous dinosaurs.
>>>>I've told him that, as has Mike Duffy, and yourself.
>>>>
>>>>He's "not listening."
>>>
>>>This is Jahnu: when his mouth is open, his ears are blocked.
>>>
>>...oh damn, that must be a pretty disgusting sight to behold !
>
>And in addition to the sight, one has the olfactory treat of
>Ganges-tinged halitosis.
"You are what you eat" - and he's a coprophage.
<drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 04:24:07 -0800, John Locke
><johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:25:30 -0500, Don Martin
>><drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:22:43 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 10:30:18 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 12:47:26 UTC+1, Jahnu wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> The egg came first, laid by something which was almost,
>>>>> but not quite, a chicken (by whatever criterion you care to use).
Heck, not just the "almost but not quite" ancestor, but going back
>On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 04:24:07 -0800, John Locke
><johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:25:30 -0500, Don Martin
>><drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:22:43 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 10:30:18 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 16 July 2019 12:47:26 UTC+1, Jahnu wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> The egg came first, laid by something which was almost,
>>>>> but not quite, a chicken (by whatever criterion you care to use).
millions of years to oviparous dinosaurs.
>>>>I've told him that, as has Mike Duffy, and yourself.
>>>>
>>>>He's "not listening."
>>>
>>>This is Jahnu: when his mouth is open, his ears are blocked.
>>>
>>...oh damn, that must be a pretty disgusting sight to behold !
>
>And in addition to the sight, one has the olfactory treat of
>Ganges-tinged halitosis.
Jahnu
Dec 13, 2019, 5:47:23 PM12/13/19
to
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 04:24:07 -0800, John BLockhead wrote:
>...oh damn, Ah must be a pretty disgusting sight to behold
>as I sit on the can passing out the decompsed cadavers I ate
>for dinner. Is it any wonder, Ah is such a miserable, stinking
>bastard? I try to mask the vile stench of cadavers that ooze
>from every pore of mah skin, with deodorant and mouthwash
>but nothing helps, Ah still stink like shit.
hahaha :D what the hell did you expect, Johnnyboy? You think some
chemicals going to hide the fact that you're a stinking meat-eater?
Krishna says:
One must deliver himself with the help of his mind, and not degrade
himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul, and his enemy
as well. (Bg. 6.5)
For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends;
but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest
enemy. (Bg. 6.6)
>...oh damn, Ah must be a pretty disgusting sight to behold
>as I sit on the can passing out the decompsed cadavers I ate
>for dinner. Is it any wonder, Ah is such a miserable, stinking
>bastard? I try to mask the vile stench of cadavers that ooze
>from every pore of mah skin, with deodorant and mouthwash
>but nothing helps, Ah still stink like shit.
hahaha :D what the hell did you expect, Johnnyboy? You think some
chemicals going to hide the fact that you're a stinking meat-eater?
Krishna says:
One must deliver himself with the help of his mind, and not degrade
himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul, and his enemy
as well. (Bg. 6.5)
For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends;
but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest
enemy. (Bg. 6.6)
Jahnu
May 9, 2020, 7:42:04 AM5/9/20
to
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 03:15:36 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
wrote:
wrote:
>It depends. Do you feel that you were deceptive, stupid, or just ignorant?
None of the above, Duffboy. I feel like Einstein in a discussion with
a bunch of third grader.
Evolution is probably the most common myth, people in general hold to
be true. Of course, most scientists know that evolution is pure
belief, with no evidence to back it up, still, this belief is being
taught in all educational institutions of the world, as a scientific
fact.
Before science came along, people needed religion to tell them about
the world. Religion taught people that God created the world, that God
was the original cause if everything.
Now a days, of course, we know better, because now we have science to
tell us how the world works. Today we we know that chemicals combined
to create life and then evolution created all the different living
entities.
The theory of evolution according to Darwin, is not even a theory
anymore. It’s been updated to science. For the last five decades or
so, evolution has been propagated to the general populace as a
scientific fact.
So lets examine how existence is accounted for by evolution, and see
if it makes any sense.
You see, first there was a pool of chemicals. Then, by the
fluctuations of those chemicals, an amoeba-like creature was formed,
and then this amoeba gradually, through many, many intermediate
species, grew legs and learned to talk.
Ok, so far so good. Don’t even think about whether the first human was
a male or female, that’s just an annoying detail, you don’t have to
worry about. Such annoying details are not taught in evolution.
Then, how did the first human learn to talk, when there was no one to
talk to? That’s another annoying detail they don’t teach in evolution.
So, you are the first human on the planet, completely alone, no one to
talk to. So what do you do? Do you sit down and wait for your counter
part to evolve, so you can begin procreating? Maybe you grunt a little
bit under your breath at the sheer idiocy of your situation.
hahaha :D I know, right? Who comes up with shit like that?
Also when your counter-part finally evolves, you can begin grunting
together and evolve some kind of language. Of course, don’t ask what
language a evolved, and speken by the first people, that’s another
annoying detail. As far as we know Sanskrit is the mother of all
languages, and how that fits into evolution is not yet clear.
Note, in contrast to the sheer idiocy of this evolution nonsense, and
it’s linear concept of time, the logical, coherent and authentic
explanation we are offered in the Vedic tradition - humans have simply
always existed. Time is cyclic - civilizations goes through endless
cycles of creation, maintenance, and destruction, age after age. At
least that explanation makes sense to a rational mind.
The modern explanation of evolution is not only improbable and highly
speculative, wishful thinking, it is also complete and utter
anti-intellectual garbage.
Still, it is being taught in all universities as an objective,
scientific fact. It is considered completely rational and the best
explanation according to observable facts. They actually teach you
that in school - evolution is the best explanation we have right now
to explain the world.
Of course, nobody with a brain actually believes in this nonsense, but
this is how it is being propagated to the broad masses.
The fact is that modern mainstream people are brainwashed fools. They
don’t have so much as one single independent thought in their brains.
If they didn’t have TV, newspapers and magazines to tell them what to
think and believe, they’d be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
It’s a statistic fact that the general mass of people are more
disturbed and dissatisfied than ever before. Anti-depressants are
selling like never before. Some years ago WHO reported that the
biggest health problem facing humanity in the new millennium is that
more and more people will be born with mental problems. Is that the
symptoms of an evolved civilization?
It's rather peculiar how people in this scientific age are so little
scientifically oriented when it comes to God and religion. The dogma
has been created in modern society, that religion is faith only and
science is knowledge only. That’s hardly a scientific approach to
religion and God.
I can understand, how one may reject certain religions, but to
downright deny the existence of a Supreme Being is simply irrational,
and indicates an unevolved intellect.
There is nothing healthy or open-minded about being an atheist, and
the proof is that at the same rate society dispenses with its former
religious values, at the same rate society becomes debased, riddled
with crime and insanity.
Besides, it should be noted, that whether one calls himself a
Christian, Hindu, Mohammedan, Democrat, Republican or whatever, one
can still be of an atheistic mentality. It is not the designations we
put on ourselves that determine our identity. It's our mindsets and
actions and the knowledge we cultivate that define who we are.
There is a Bengali saying - phalena parichiyate - something is judged
by its result. Or, like Jesus said - you judge a tree by its fruits.
So things are judged and understood, not by their names, but by their
effects and influence. And the effect modern society has on the world
is one of destruction. Again, are those the symptoms of an evolved
culture?
In conclusion, here is what science has to say about evolution.
"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.
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)
kry...@gmail.com
May 9, 2020, 7:48:11 AM5/9/20
to
The egg comes first. A divine egg. And when the egg hatches, the whole cosmos goes out, and it is mistakenly called the big bang.
KRYOEL
KRYOEL
Miloch
May 9, 2020, 10:58:57 AM5/9/20
to
In article <uk5dbf1gkqmt227mv...@4ax.com>, Jahnu says...
'brevity'...and no copy/pasta of someone else's long wandering screed.
*
>
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 03:15:36 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
>wrote:
>
>>It depends. Do you feel that you were deceptive, stupid, or just ignorant?
>
>None of the above, Duffboy. I feel like Einstein in a discussion with
>a bunch of third grader.
>
>Evolution is probably the most common myth, people in general hold to
>be true. Of course, most scientists know that evolution is pure
>belief, with no evidence to back it up, still, this belief is being
>taught in all educational institutions of the world, as a scientific
>fact.
>
Brevity, JahnuBoy!...brevity! The secret to USENET communication is
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 03:15:36 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
>wrote:
>
>>It depends. Do you feel that you were deceptive, stupid, or just ignorant?
>
>None of the above, Duffboy. I feel like Einstein in a discussion with
>a bunch of third grader.
>
>Evolution is probably the most common myth, people in general hold to
>be true. Of course, most scientists know that evolution is pure
>belief, with no evidence to back it up, still, this belief is being
>taught in all educational institutions of the world, as a scientific
>fact.
>
'brevity'...and no copy/pasta of someone else's long wandering screed.
*
Harry Krishna
May 11, 2020, 1:16:33 PM5/11/20
to
On Sat, 09 May 2020 17:12:01 +0530, Jahnu <ja...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 03:15:36 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
>wrote:
>
>>It depends. Do you feel that you were deceptive, stupid, or just ignorant?
>
>None of the above, Duffboy. I feel like Einstein in a discussion with
>a bunch of third grader.
It's hilarious that you think so, but your posts all indicate that
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 03:15:36 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
>wrote:
>
>>It depends. Do you feel that you were deceptive, stupid, or just ignorant?
>
>None of the above, Duffboy. I feel like Einstein in a discussion with
>a bunch of third grader.
you're a complete idiot, so it's also kind of sad that you're that
clueless about how stupid you really are.
Don Martin
May 11, 2020, 2:13:56 PM5/11/20
to
Kevrob
May 11, 2020, 3:09:36 PM5/11/20
to
On Monday, May 11, 2020 at 2:13:56 PM UTC-4, Don Martin wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 13:16:31 -0400, Harry Krishna
> <op...@pearpimples.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 09 May 2020 17:12:01 +0530, Jahnu <ja...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 03:15:36 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>It depends. Do you feel that you were deceptive, stupid, or just ignorant?
> >>
> >>None of the above, Duffboy. I feel like Einstein in a discussion with
> >>a bunch of third grader.
> >
> >It's hilarious that you think so, but your posts all indicate that
> >you're a complete idiot, so it's also kind of sad that you're that
> >clueless about how stupid you really are.
>
> Dunningji and Krugerji paddle in the Ganges, too.
It took him 5 months to reply to Mike D, and he has yet to deal with
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 13:16:31 -0400, Harry Krishna
> <op...@pearpimples.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 09 May 2020 17:12:01 +0530, Jahnu <ja...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 03:15:36 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>It depends. Do you feel that you were deceptive, stupid, or just ignorant?
> >>
> >>None of the above, Duffboy. I feel like Einstein in a discussion with
> >>a bunch of third grader.
> >
> >It's hilarious that you think so, but your posts all indicate that
> >you're a complete idiot, so it's also kind of sad that you're that
> >clueless about how stupid you really are.
>
> Dunningji and Krugerji paddle in the Ganges, too.
the response several of us gave, that the first chicken egg's parents
would have been "proto-chickens" - still some type of pheasant (Phasianidae,)
but each able to contribute half the DNA that would result in the first
"ur-gallus."
Track that bird's ancestors back far enough and you'll have proto-
birds" laying the first bird eggs.
Cloud Hobbit
May 11, 2020, 3:13:10 PM5/11/20
to
Jesper wrote:
>Hey Duffy, next to me in >intelligence, you're like a doorknob.
One of these days you might wish to demonstrate your "intelligence" by getting something right, instead of the lies, quote mining, goal post moving, nonsense and denial of science that you vomit forth on a daily basis.
>Hey Duffy, next to me in >intelligence, you're like a doorknob.
No wonder the parts of the world dominated by Hindu religious morons are all still part of the "3rd world."
They can't get people to stop shutting in their water supply and they refuse to accept modern scientific thought and shake off the caste system so that their countries won't remain literal shit holes.
Krishna is just as imaginary as the Christian God.
Neither can be shown to have ever existed.
Religion is so absurd it approaches imbecility.
H.L. Menken
%
May 11, 2020, 3:17:20 PM5/11/20
to
Miloch
May 11, 2020, 3:43:53 PM5/11/20
to
In article <59259264-9312-4a55...@googlegroups.com>, Cloud Hobbit
says...
*
says...
>
>Jesper wrote:
>
>>Hey Duffy, next to me in >intelligence, you're like a doorknob.
>
Gets two points for using the word 'doorknob' is a post.
>Jesper wrote:
>
>>Hey Duffy, next to me in >intelligence, you're like a doorknob.
>
*
%
May 11, 2020, 3:47:21 PM5/11/20
to
Miloch
May 11, 2020, 3:57:44 PM5/11/20
to
Jahnu
May 12, 2020, 9:10:34 PM5/12/20
to
On Mon, 11 May 2020 13:16:31 -0400, Harry Krishna went:
>bitch moan whine
Obviously, nobody is an atheist due to lack of evidence of God. In
fact, the last thing an atheist wants, is proof of God. The whole
world is proof of an intelligent designer. One becomes an atheist when
one does not want God in his life, not because there is no proof of
God. It’s as simple as that.
I mean, I can understand why someone would be against certain
religions. The theology of the Abrahamic religions, for instance, is
largely sectarian nonsense.
But to deny the obvious intelligent design observable in nature, to
actually suggest the world created itself out of a bunch of chemicals,
that’s just plain dumb.
Of course, only God can prove who He is, but there is empiric proof of
His existence. The irreducible complexity of living organisms is the
logical proof of the Intelligent Design of nature.
So ID is a direct, observable fact of nature.
Thus, ID comprises the empirical proof of God.
Irreducible complexity is like a car engine, where all the parts of
the engine are interdependent in their functions. The cylinders
function only in combination with the pistons, the pistons function
only in connection with the spark plugs, the spark plugs depend on the
electric system for their function, and son on. All the components of
the engine work only in combination with each-other.
In other words, a car engine is only functional as a complete unit. If
one component fails, the whole engine fails. Hence the term
irreducible complexity.
IOW, the idea that abiogenesis and evolution, with no guiding
intelligence behind it, produced all the living species, is basically
an affront to a working intellect.
To say, like atheists do, that the universe created itself out of a
bunch of chemicals, is like saying that a Mercedes Benz created itself
without any creative intelligence behind it.
Professor Werner Gitt, who works in the field of information science
writes:
There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to
information, neither is there any physical process or material
phenomenon known that can do this. All languages, alphabets, and codes
that we know of, as well as the information spoken or written in them,
originated in minds. The blind faith of the atheist that the first
life was an exception to this fact is contrary to all known evidence.”
(Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, p. 79)
In my mind, however, apart from the fact that the ID observable in
nature is proof of God, and, say, if one’s brain is not equipped to
handle logic and reason, the best proof of God is that you become
totally happy by adding Krishna to your life.
Someone may object - you also become happy by smoking some dope or
winning the lottery, or having sex, what’s the difference? How is that
proof of God?
The thing about bodily or mental pleasures, though, is that they don’t
make the soul happy. Connecting to Krishna makes the soul happy, and
contrary to sense-gratification, which always ends in misery and
leaves you frustrated, the happiness of the soul is a constant fact.
Not only does the happiness of the soul not end, it only increases
more and more. It’s a deep and lasting bliss that is never interrupted
by suffering.
Sure, you may break a leg, your wife may leave you, your children may
think you’re a complete loser, or you may be depressed due to lack of
money, but the deep satisfaction of Krishna consciousness, once
established, never leaves the heart. And that’s the proof that Krishna
is God.
So, as the saying goes - the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Krishna says:
O learned Uddhava, those who fix their consciousness on Me, giving up
all material desires, share with Me a happiness that cannot possibly
be experienced by those engaged in sense gratification. --Srimad
Bhagavatam 11.14.12
>bitch moan whine
Obviously, nobody is an atheist due to lack of evidence of God. In
fact, the last thing an atheist wants, is proof of God. The whole
world is proof of an intelligent designer. One becomes an atheist when
one does not want God in his life, not because there is no proof of
God. It’s as simple as that.
I mean, I can understand why someone would be against certain
religions. The theology of the Abrahamic religions, for instance, is
largely sectarian nonsense.
But to deny the obvious intelligent design observable in nature, to
actually suggest the world created itself out of a bunch of chemicals,
that’s just plain dumb.
Of course, only God can prove who He is, but there is empiric proof of
His existence. The irreducible complexity of living organisms is the
logical proof of the Intelligent Design of nature.
So ID is a direct, observable fact of nature.
Thus, ID comprises the empirical proof of God.
Irreducible complexity is like a car engine, where all the parts of
the engine are interdependent in their functions. The cylinders
function only in combination with the pistons, the pistons function
only in connection with the spark plugs, the spark plugs depend on the
electric system for their function, and son on. All the components of
the engine work only in combination with each-other.
In other words, a car engine is only functional as a complete unit. If
one component fails, the whole engine fails. Hence the term
irreducible complexity.
IOW, the idea that abiogenesis and evolution, with no guiding
intelligence behind it, produced all the living species, is basically
an affront to a working intellect.
To say, like atheists do, that the universe created itself out of a
bunch of chemicals, is like saying that a Mercedes Benz created itself
without any creative intelligence behind it.
Professor Werner Gitt, who works in the field of information science
writes:
There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to
information, neither is there any physical process or material
phenomenon known that can do this. All languages, alphabets, and codes
that we know of, as well as the information spoken or written in them,
originated in minds. The blind faith of the atheist that the first
life was an exception to this fact is contrary to all known evidence.”
(Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 1997, p. 79)
In my mind, however, apart from the fact that the ID observable in
nature is proof of God, and, say, if one’s brain is not equipped to
handle logic and reason, the best proof of God is that you become
totally happy by adding Krishna to your life.
Someone may object - you also become happy by smoking some dope or
winning the lottery, or having sex, what’s the difference? How is that
proof of God?
The thing about bodily or mental pleasures, though, is that they don’t
make the soul happy. Connecting to Krishna makes the soul happy, and
contrary to sense-gratification, which always ends in misery and
leaves you frustrated, the happiness of the soul is a constant fact.
Not only does the happiness of the soul not end, it only increases
more and more. It’s a deep and lasting bliss that is never interrupted
by suffering.
Sure, you may break a leg, your wife may leave you, your children may
think you’re a complete loser, or you may be depressed due to lack of
money, but the deep satisfaction of Krishna consciousness, once
established, never leaves the heart. And that’s the proof that Krishna
is God.
So, as the saying goes - the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Krishna says:
O learned Uddhava, those who fix their consciousness on Me, giving up
all material desires, share with Me a happiness that cannot possibly
be experienced by those engaged in sense gratification. --Srimad
Bhagavatam 11.14.12
0 new messages