harry: The little that you have stated that is supposedly based on these "laws" has always shown to be nonsense when examined closely and impartially...

harry: You can never be impartial because these things are your obsessive religious beliefs having NOTHING to do with science or reality....

harryll - October 29, 1999
harry: I only hope that your anger is a sign that you are beginning to grasp how seriously you are at odds with reality...

harry: Since you continually refer to these alleged "immutable laws of nature", why don't you actually give us one or two in their "official" forms along with any references concerning their source and/or validity.???...

harry: Please don't pull the same escape routine of the past by asking me to find it on your board or from your scriptural reference...

harry: What I'm asking is a very simple request...

oinkus - October 30, 1999
oinkus: VJ, Harryl asked that you actually right down the immutable laws of nature here.

oinkus: You refused to do so, instead you called him a Jackass.

oinkus: It's obvious you are refusing to actually debate with Haryll.

oinkus: Calling someone a Jackass is not debate VJ.

oinkus: It only shows your ignorance.

doob: I think we can safely say, since VJ has failed to produce any valid arguments or any actual facts so far that he will continue to spout his religious nonsensical babble in a steady and repeated occurrence.

doob: Vijai-- I guess all the rest of us are complete morons

doob: , and you're the only person on earth who knows the "true" answer.

doob: It's official vj, you're an idiot.

doob: creation of the universe is steady and repeated??? How so?

Oinkus - October 30, 1999
oinkus: I am curious VJ, if I got your some of your immutable laws down correctly.

"the appearance of our species, by virtue of being unique, requires God's intervention, as these events are outside the immuntable laws'

oinkus: This seems to be what you're saying.

Benji_uk - October 31, 1999,
Benji: Well, blind faith has a powerful grip on you V, and as you have proven time and time again.

Benji: Ignorance is a GREAT substitute for logic and common sense.

Benji: P.S if your still reading this...GO F--- YOURSELF!!!

Benji: VJ, i'll stress this again, and i do mean stress..........

Benji: YOU COULD, and i mean COULD be right, but so far you have shown nothing, not.

Benji: IT makes me think maybe you heard this from someone who has a brain and are passing it off as your own philosophy, which would explain why you don’t know these laws of nature.

Benji: SO... Veejay, i'd just like to say on behalf of anyone here who's too polite to say it.. FOR F---"S SAKE GET A JOB,

Benji: it's people like you who make 3rd world countries and start wars,

Benji: infact don't get a job, kill yourself, it would save us all the trouble. all together now

Benji: F--- OFF!!!!

Benji_uk - November 03, 1999
Benji: Hehehehe, Vi, you have deteriorated into a laughable mere speck of what you used to be.

Benji: I was hoping i was wrong, and that you could infact bring back a serious challenge to convince me that you were right. I might have turned too. But, you are so PREDICTABLE.

Benji: You will pick at anything anyone says no matter what it is, just for the sake of spite.

Benji: Well, i think I’m gonna follow that person's advice and walk away from this one,

Benji: seems everything i said about you in the last one, which you for the most part, conveniently avoided(YET AGAIN) in order to continually slander me at how i could be so stupid.

Benji: Well. I hope you resolve whatever issues you are harboring.

Benji: 1 piece of advice though. No matter what your religious beliefs, support them, but tolerate those of others.

Benji: 1 more thing, the laws of nature do NOT qualify as religious belief unless you are Anglo-Saxon pagan, which you are not.

Benji: Oh and just so you know, i am a Christian, but i believe in evolution and creation.

Benji: Want me to explain that i will but if you are gonna come back at me with your "ape-nonsense" i suggest you read up on your zoological classification and medelian genetics.

Benji: Bye for now.... this is getting boring.

Rosamond - November 03, 1999
Vj ~ Really! And who gave birth to the first parents?
Rosa: The first "parents" were cells assembled from amino acids, proteins and lipids. Early replication was the process of mitosis, not "birth", which came many generations and levels of evolution later.

Vj ~ Aren't humans, and other species reproducing their own, steady and immutable.
Rosa: No. It is not immutable, but the change is not something one or even a hundred generations of human observers are likely to notice.

Vj ~Aren't inanimate things decaying also?
Rosa: No. Only organic matter that was once alive decays. Inanimate things do not decay.

Vj ~ So what created and nourished the first life when there was nothing to die and decompose?
Rosa: Chemical composition on early earth was radically different and the "nourishment" used by primitive "cells" was a process called ATP for short.

How do you explain the population growth of 6 billion people and perhaps 12 billion in another 25 years? According to you it seems we are not killing our grandparents soon enough.
Rosa: Overpopulation of a species leads to its extinction, and appears to be the eventual fate of humans.

Vj ~ The Christians, Muslims, etc. have already found immortality - the promise by their scriptures and like you, are all idiots. There is no such thing as immortality in any finite object as it would be a breach to the immutable laws of nature. It shows how much more ignorant you are of these laws.
Rosa: You have not found immortality. You are clinging to a superstition out of fear. Fear and ignorance.

Vj ~ If indeed billions of years have past by, shouldn't we have seen a few monkeys or lower creatures evolving into human today?
Rosa: It is NOT in the best interest of every living organism to evolve into a human.

Rosa: For instance, if an organism exists in a niche that is underwater, mutations that would ensure its survival would not involve lungs or feet.

Rosa: I'm trying to make this simple, VJ. Whether you ridicule the specific analogy or try to understand the concept is your choice.

Vj ~ You are the one who first claimed that I said [that evolution only applied to apes to human] it...!
Rosa: You did say it, VJ, please refer to post #328, your quote was "I thought the evolution theory was based on one specific organism, an ape or a monkey."

Rosa: You obviously are not very well-educated

Rosa: and compensate by playing delusional games such as internet "guru" to compensate for your low status in life.

Rosa: Have you ever been hospitalized for a mental illness?

Val: or speciation to occur, the mutation must also actually benefit the body which it belongs to over the long term so that it can survive, reproduce, and pass itself on.

Val: the process often takes thousands of years for a distinct species to arise from another one, however these processes are well studied... perhaps that will help explain the ideas of evolution a little better.

Val: I think i'll add a word on religion too. most (not all) describe the beginning (creation) and what happens after death, but say little or nothing about the nature of nature.

valender - November 03, 1999
Val: Vijai, there are no laws.

Val: your ignorance proves this.

Val: specifically tell me the "law" you claim that exists, and i will show you just how far up your ass your head is.

valender - November 04, 1999
vj- even if you are living in a primitive age without language, there is one law you or anyone else would have had to abide with, that is excretion by the backside. If you think it is not a law of nature then try excreting by the mouth.
Val: Ok, you have now demonstrated the wittiness of your intellect. Alle. However, ignorance rears it's ugly head, for it is not a law of nature that one should always excrete through the backside...

Val: i think several species of cnidarians and flatworms would be dismayed by your remarks. They seem to have devoloped so that their backside is their frontside.

vj- It seems your intelligence has yet to be decided depending on what you know of the law governing the functions of your backside.
Val: Well vj, it seems i know a tad bit more about laws of backsides than you.

Val: Touche. So if, by your reasoning, i don't know the difference, then you know even less than i. Lets see, like any good theory, this requires empirical evidence to be backed up.

vj- it is now certain it is up your head since you have no law that dictates your mouth and backside to have specific functions.
Val: is that so? seems to me you do not even have the terminology correct.

Val: it is exceedingly difficult to get ones ass in ones head.

Val: since you have spouted this line of bullshit, i can only conclude that as far up my ass my head is, yours rest even further in.

Val: It is no wonder the world seems so dark to you, your eyes are cannot see for your anus. fin.

valender - November 05, 1999
Val: once again vj, i ask what are these immutable laws of nature?

Val: what makes your truth the truth?

Val: what makes my bullshit bullshit and yours wisdom?

Val: you do not seem to be able to elucidite clearly, and are unaware of the difference between having ones head up ones ass and having ones ass up ones head.

Val: so instead of spouting lines of vulgar bullshit at me, tell me what you really think about life, the universe,...and everything.

Val: otherwise our views degenerate into an incommensurable swearing match.

Val: what i am asking you is to give the salient point of your laws, not a link, because frankly, i don't have the time to read all your links. now, if you'd be so kind...

Valende - November 06, 1999
Val: now your talking. as you might be aware, i just recently stumbled across this board, so if the salient points you mentioned were presented before my arrival, i missed them. if after, then there is no excuse.

Val: but you also seem to misunderstand my question, i am not asking for more salient points, merely the ones you refer to when you address me.

Val: vj- zoroastrianism was founded 500-600 BCE, not in the last 1500 years as you mention in the introduction, and judaism is much older than christianity or buddhism, probably closer to hinduism in age, maybe older, but like hinduism, no exact date can be ascertained for it's emergence.

Val: ok vj, i've finished the intro now. correct me if I’m wrong, but your promoting a more holistic approach to truth integrating aspects of various religions and science?

Val: and the first immutable law i've come across is also more commonly know as the 2nd law of thermodynamics- that all things finite decay in time?

Val: i'm not arguing anything here, i just want to make sure I’m getting this correctly before i go on.

Val: i've only heard of a handful of the hindu derivitives you speak, however i chalk that up to my own ignorance.

Val: and as for the buddhism, i've never heard of any of the 4 schools you mention.

Val: but that aside, i do have one question. you ask the poignant question "who taught the buddha".

Val: Not to pretend to know the buddha, i do have some possible replies. for one, he could have taught himself, if the answer is within, then that is possible.

Val: or secondly, the teachings could have come from the world around him.

Val: careful analysis of a tree yields new insights into the nature of things, for example.

Val: now, i seek more knowledge about the immutable law that all things finite decay in time. how did you come across this law?

valender - November 06, 1999
Val: ok, so now im curious.

Val: if matter is eternal, then it must not be finite, or it would decay.

Val: there are some things in this universe which are immutable. but everything is matter. only the form changes. or do you disagree with einstein? e=mc^2?

Val: vj- to harm none, i am now inquisitive. what is this "primitive ether" you speak of, and what are you're sources to it's existence?

Valender - November 08, 1999
Val: hmm, vj, interesting discourse on the 3 atheist religions of asia. now, my inquisitive mind has developed a few questions for you.

Val: how do you know the soul exists as anything other than mere conscience?

Val: why does every effect require cause?

Val: why do you believe the universe (and it's constituents) are rational or part of a plan?

Val: A child does not develop a guilty or virtuous conscience until it's cultural tell's it what should be sin and virtue.

Val: since time doesn't reset for every successive generation, virtue and sin has it's effects on the following generations.

Val: so children do not get punished for their sins in a previous life, but for their parents, or grandparents failings or misfortune.

Val: you're evidence for the soul is unsubstantiated at best.

Val: as for cause- didn't you mention that THE cause had no cause to exist? if so, then why doesn't the same effect occur all the time?

Val: ok, so if there is a plan, can we know it, or is the plan totally above our heads?

valender - November 10, 1999
Val: vj- due to circumstances beyond my immediate control, i have not yet been able to do further reading on your web page.

Val: in reply to your question though, the answer is blatantly obvious. some people feel ashamed of homosexuality because they were raised in a culture that really hated homosexuality, and others weren't.

Val: some people feel guilty for violating Quranic teachings because they're muslim, while others don't give a hoot about Quranic law, only biblical.

Val: different cultures have different crimes and rewards, and a child's sense of sin and virtue is almost entirely learned from it's culture, with the rest being provided by genetic nature.

Val: a child becomes first aware of it's own existence, compassion develops only later. which is why many children are mean or disrespectful to animals when they're young.

Val: i agree that it is an injustice the way the system works, but it hasn't always been this way, and it can be fixed, but that's neither here nor there for this discussion.

Val: but sin does not always wait to be returned, it's a very fickle thing, and generally the worse one sins, the sooner it comes back to them. despotic rulers are a good example of this.

Val: how do you know that all other effects are finite?

Val: it seems that if everything was manifestations of matter and whatnot, then they would share the properties of their constituents and be infinite as well.

Val: so, you believe that it is possible to know god's plan without being a god? hmm, interesting, reminds me of an islamic concept.

Val: the universe, when viewed totally removed from a religious perspective, seems irrational. what answers do you (and/or the vedic teachings) provide to solve this problem?

What caused such a state you might ask?

mad:Thinking about these same topics I find all over the boards. Where did we come from? Where are we going? Why are we here? The truth is: No one KNOWS the answers to these questions.

mad:We live our lives, experience many dramas, come to conclusions, and establish our beliefs. "BELIEFS" not knowledge.

mad:I believe 2+2=4, but in actuality what is 2? Is there such a thing as 2? All we have experienced in life is ever changing.

mad:The laws that govern our very environment have changed so in just the past thousand years that we would be fools to believe what we deem truth today may not be truth tomorrow. Again, ALL IS CHANGING.

mad:So, is a 2 a 2 or really a 2.009573? Singhvj is a pretentious quack!

mad:I think we all have come to this conclusion. He will refute anything he doesn't understand with half-ass, half-tangible quips.

mad:This doesn't mean I don't like singhvj, quite the contrary, he sticks to his guns and doesn't back down.

mad:Ever whiley, and almost as insane as I (He is bound to dispute this, for it seems inteligence, knowledge, and sanity are things he sees as gems; while I see then as cement blocks whieghing me down.)

mad:Actually it is all who come here trying to get this simple man to understand complex issues, that I hold contempt for.

mad:YES! He started the fight, but when my five year old picks a fight with me, I have enough resolve to walk away.

mad:Perhaps you should do the same.

mad:Singhvj, if you wish me to dispute anything you "Believe", you know I'll be happy to "play" your game. Chaos!!!

I_M_MAD - November 04, 1999
mad:knowledge: the body of facts, principles, etc. accumulated by mankind, as far as one knows; within the range of ones information.

ignorant: lacking knowledge, education, or experience; unaware

VJ, What's UP? keep the hits coming,

but don't ask me to go to your long, drawn out links.

mad:Obviously I have spent much time pondering the TRUTH of these questions, LOOKING for the answers, and allowing much to try and ingrain itself into me. That, my friend is what almost put me in the looney bin!

mad:Then it accurred to me, HA, I have all I need already. Doesn't matter where I'm going, doesn't matter where I've been, doesn't matter why I'm here. There is no here, there is no there, there really isn't anywhere. There is no up, there is no down, there is no good, there is no evil, so if you believe things are on an upward spiral or a downward trend, then fine! But things just are.

mad:Allways in flux, things! Life is whatever we THINK it IS. Reality is created by the observer. VJ, I'm your "brave man", buddy. Hit me with your best, do your worst! Chaos!!

doob:VJ, I'm afraid you've gotten this all mixed up.. The STARTING cause IS water.

doob:Clouds cannot produce water unless water has first produced the clouds.

doob:Rain does not produce rivers, evaporating water from the rivers produces clouds which, in turn, produce rain. example: water - clouds - water - clouds.. get it

doob:Among the many natural laws i have researched it has failed to become apparent to me exactly WHICH law you speak of.

doob:We KNOW all natural laws to be immutable (the sun will always shine, clouds always produce rain etc.)

doob:but there is no natural law regarding evolution.

doob:I am rather curious to know if perhaps you are aware of some evolutionary law that nobody else has heard of.

doob:Genetics need not adhere to any natural laws. Genes MUTATE. Genetic mutations are wildly unpredictable, different circumstances yield different outcomes therefore there cannot be any steady and/or repeated occurrences.

doob:Hence there are no natural laws regarding genetics (which is exactly what evolution is based on, in case you haven't been listening for the past six months).

doob:I find it hard to believe that nobody else here has noticed this hole in your theory yet, but perhaps they are all monkey-brains, yes?

doob:Before you start spouting off about "immutable laws" i suggest you research the exact laws that govern your topic (or lack of laws).

doob:If you care to dispute this I will request that you find sufficient PROOF to show otherwise.

doob:A study, or article available for everyone to read would be nice.

doob:Scripture or ramblings from your personal pages are NOT proof, as we all you are delusional not to mention pig-headed and self-righteous.

doob:Feel free to call me any names you like since i am positive now you are nothing more than a sniveling snotweasel shit for brains. Have a lovely day!!

val:let me explain, evolution is a theory that explains the current differentiation of life on earth.

val:earth rest within a framework called the universe, and the universe works according to laws, one of which is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed (the infinite), and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (tendency to decay).

val: to build a building does not violate the 2nd law because energy from outside the building was used to raise it, and it took more energy to raise than it contains. likewise, life on earth may appear to be progressing upwards, but that progression comes only at the expense of the sun's energy.

val:Animals may eat animals, and more animals may eat plants, but plants utilize solar energy to power their own functions.

val:once the sun burns up, the plants can no longer live. so the net effects of the law are not violated, but if you look at just earth, it appears contrary.

val:which reminds me of another question. why is it bad to eat animals?

val:this implies that it is good to eat plants, so why should plants be punished and animals spared?

"There is no turpitude in eating meat, drinking alcohol or committing adultery, it is the natural way of created beings, but abstinence bring great rewards." Manu.

val:and why do we have canine teeth if we aren't supposed to use them?

val:anyway, back to my point. where does evolution say that man evolved from a lower creature?

val:as i understand it, creatures evolve only as they're better able to survive in the current environment than their ancestor. At one time, the ancestor was better adapted, but as time goes on, the new species are better suited for the new environments.

val:but you mention a car, man is exactly like a car. evolution theory states that all living creatures are comprised of basic building blocks (similar to the ore, just different minerals) arranged in different ways. So, man might be a space shuttle, while cro magnum man would be rocket, and chimps might be a leer jet. Keep in mind that this is just an analogy.

val:PS, man's civilization reached it's height long ago, before agriculture. ever since then, we have been in decline.

valender - November 12, 1999
val:but vj, about the car, perfection was in the ore. all life started out as ore (well actually just various coming together of organic molecules).

val:For life, the earliest living beings were perfect, being homogenous and alone. From those early cells' mutations come all present forms of life.

val:my version of the origin of man is that, slight differences among our immediate predecessors gave rise to a being better able to survive than it's predecessors in the changing environment.

val:Man's intelligence does nothing to support the claim that we are "higher" creatures, merely the most recent.

val:in fact, as man has changed throughout the ages, man has done more harm to the rest of the world than 3 billion years of evolution previously. pretty advanced, huh?

val:id like to point out that although man has been the most adaptable mammal, this comes only at the expense of the environment he adapts too. Other noteworthy survivors among the species: rats, cockroaches, and bacteria. we keep good company

Vj ~aren't inanimate things decay also?
Rosamond: No. Only organic matter that was once alive decays. Inanimate things do not decay.
Vj ~ So you have never seen or heard of a house (the inanimate) burnt to the ground?.
Rosa: You are wrong. First, burning is not "decay".

Rosa: all living matter eventually dies and decays,

Rosa: returning the fundamental materials necessary to creation of other life.

Vj ~ And what is the source of these chemicals and what happen to them now
Rosa: These chemicals are still present, still used in human and other life...suggesting a common origin of metabolism.

Your concept breaches the law. It is by this law that the wise refutes the virgin birth of Christ also. Do you believe his birth to be true, if not, why?
Rosa: Religion and philosophy are irrelevant to the fact of evolution.

Rosa: However, to humor you, no, I do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ. I believe Christ was a human and was born in the same manner other humans are.

Rosa: Are you now or have you ever been hospitalized for a mental illness?

Val: as for the reproductive element- not all species are born from sex.

Val: the first cell was born of non-living combinations, but it's own reproductive element gave rise to different cells which used the same reproductive element to reproduce.

Val: Humans have always only come from sexual intercourse, and we have shared that element with our ancestors since the dawn of the mammalian age.

Val: since it is an immutable law of nature, doesn't your knowledge of the vedas decay in time?

valender - November 13, 1999
Val: vj- a couple more questions for you.

Val: if humans were present in the first cycle, and time does not stop, then according to the immutable laws, wouldn't the first humans be more perfect than the present cycles?

Val: Furthermore, each cycle in itself must follow the laws of nature, and therefore, the iron age of the last cycle would be more perfect than the golden age of this cycle.

Val: also, are the immutable laws infinite?

Rosamond - November 13, 1999
Rosa: You are wrong.

Rosa: After you have studied basic biology, organic and chemical science and physics, assuming of course you have the intellectual capacity to absorb information of that degree of complexity, you will then be qualified to make contributions to scientific issues.

Rosa: Until then, take a deep breath, and shove your head back into your rancid asshole where it obviously has resided for virtually all of your sick, pathetic disturbed existence, dumbell.

Rosa to harryll: Ever the gentle and patient observer. Do you think that last response to VJ was perhaps a trifle inflammatory?

Rosa: You have done this without any real understanding or knowledge of how the world and life in it is structured.

Rosa: People who dismissively brush aside concepts, theories and laws that are commonly held as true, that are reliable, that are predictive, and accepted by the best minds in the world, including many from the Middle East and Asian regions of the world are not themselves teachers.

Rosa: Worse, they are not even students. They are isolated, mentally stunted, and it is a waste of time and resources to consider that they have something worthwhile to share with others.

Rosa: I am quite sure many people of your own culture and religious or spiritual persuasion who were also blessed with greater intellectual faculties than yourself are able to embrace and employ the valuable information science has to offer for their benefit.

Rosa: You will never know what you are missing.

Rosa: I would no more as your opinion than I would ask a goat.

valender - November 14, 1999
Val: rosamond- if everything were random, then our chances for actually being here are extremely slim. There MUST be a divine force for us to exist, otherwise, it would be like being born bill gates in a world of 7 billion people.

Val: but is constrained by them, which, by definition, the creator cannot be constrained. the immutable laws have to be his own doing.

Val: Furthermore, the immutable laws show a newborn baby to be the most perfect form a human takes in it's lifetime.

Val: But a newborn baby is much more like an animal than a human, in that it is not conscience.

Val: Which means that animals are more perfect, by nature of not being conscience than humans, which means that human sentience is not progress.

Val: Which means that your argument against evolution for progressing upwards is unfounded because evolution doesn't progress upwards.

Val: In fact, with such creatures as dolphins and some apes nearing sentience, it appears that evolution as a whole is progressing downwards.

Val: Tell me more about food and the reproductive element.

valender - November 14, 1999
Val: vj, loss of purity and innocence comes regardless of will, for it is a law. Animals are subjected to the same laws we are, regardless of will or sentience, and thus, they decay in time also.

Val: furthermore, nature is not working towards a goal to produce the best forms. The best forms for each time are alive for each time. And if each new day is worse than the previous day, then that means that tomorrows creatures will be worse, not better, than today’s.

Val: as for the reproductive element, explain to me how that disproves evolution?

Val: moreover, you seem to consider civilization an improvement on the past.

Val: admittedly, civilization has given rise to the most profound advances in medicine and science,

Val: but civilization also created the need for those advances.

Val: Furthermore, civilization has also lead to the worst massacres, suffering, and the greatest crimes imaginable. I do not see human civilization as a sign of progress.

Val: as to your comment on scientific knowledge, all science is observing. all our knowledge can be summed up as observations of the principles which govern this universe, our ignorance or our knowledge of them makes no difference to their existence or nature.

Val: And as i mentioned above, it was by use of our knowledge that we facilitated such horrors.

Val: as for the reproductive element, if what you say is true, then parents would only be able to give birth to their clones, and all the brothers would be identical, as would the sisters. girls would look just like there mothers and boys their fathers. This is obviously not the case, so how do you account for that?

valender - November 16, 1999
Val: vj- no, we are not by any means alone in believing that civilization is not progressing.

Val: Perhaps the difference between animals and humans is that animals are already perpetually happy by default, while humans are not, and thus we need to search for knowledge in order to become blissfully happy.

Val: After all, newborn children, the closest to an animal a human (normally) gets is happy unless it's surroundings affect it badly

Val: How can civilization be progress from an evolutionary point of view?

Val: Evolutionist have no interest in recent human cultural constructs, that is the realm of anthropologists, and the various other social sciences.

Val: The truth, as it is, exists as it is regardless of our interpretation of it. Science or theology have no impact on the nature of truth, merely how we perceive it.

Val: If genetic differences result from karma, and genetic differences occur constantly in animals and other living beings, why can't karma cause entirely new species to come from old ones, just by making incrementally small differences over time?

Val: I was wondering, which immutable law states that man had to be created from the beginning?

Val: Could it be that man was determined to be created, yet not actually in existence in the beginning? Just a thought.

Val: How do you know animals don't have true knowledge?

Val: This idea conforms with the newborn thesis, that if true knowledge was in a human, it would be in a newborn and deteriorate as it grew up.

Val: Furthermore, i get the idea that perhaps humans are the relegated souls and animals a step above on the reincarnation ladder. Where does it say otherwise?

Val: as far as truth, i still maintain that only our interpretations differ.

Val: This is what Baha'i was sort of coming to realize.

Val: This is because our perceptions are clouded by our culture, education, and miseducation.

Val: Here's an analogy, Two people see an eclipse, one being a medieval peasant, the other an oxford scientist. They both observe the same thing, yet the peasant calls it a sign of the apocalypse, while the oxford scientist calls it an eclipse. The scientist was probably right, but it is extremely difficult to be absolutely sure.

Val: But this illustrates the difference in interpretation i talked about.

valender - November 19, 1999
Val: actually vj, i seriously would not mind being reincarnated as a cat.

Val: as for humans, my thought is that perhaps as the whole of creation deteriorated, disharmonies would arise (speciation, the emergence of more and more species over time) and the introduction of each new species was a further break from the earlier harmony, and humans (being as destructive as we are), are just a greater sign of the deterioration of creation.

Val: after all, our earliest history shows that we weren't bad at first, only in time did we become destructive.

valender - November 22, 1999
Val: vj, if i were a cat, i would look forward to chewing on the guts of a rat, it's cat nature.

Val: I don't, however, understand what you were saying about decay being marked by righteousness, etc

Rosamond - November 22, 1999
Vj ~ I thought it best to respond since Valender may not want to admit how tired he is of a fool.
Rosa: " Subjective" does not mean invisible and it is definitely not a way to seek truth!

Rosamond - November 25, 1999
Vj - Oxygen, gas or air are all invisible and exist, it is subjective and it is the truth.
Rosa: Your above comment is as nonsensical-sounding as the pseudophilosophical gibberish you spout.

Rosa: Subjective has NOTHING whatsoever to do with invisibility.

Vj - It [religion] must be in harmony with science. Oppose - Modern science has proven creation to be more than 6,000 (biblical age) years old...
Rosa: Evolution IS science. As a matter of fact, it is part of the science that evidenced the age of the earth and additionally is the foundation of and essential basis for all biology.

Rosa: Therefore, your opposition to evolutionary science is in conflict with your own religious tenets. Major Problem.You have a real problem, VJ: Do you remember writing this?

"We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." Albert Einstein.

Rosamond- November 27, 1999
VJ says Oxygen, gas or air are all invisible and exist, it is subjective and it is the truth. They are invisible, and only known to exist by subjective knowledge which means it cannot be objective by perception.
Rosa: Of COURSE oxygen, gas and air (talk about redundant!) can be known objectively. For instance Oxygen is different from Carbon Monoxide, although both are invisible gasses, the two are very different. They are a different atomic weight, for instance and this can be OBJECTIVELY verified.

Rosa: Breathing one will keep you alive. Breathing the other will kill. If I had a bottle of oxygen and a bottle of Carbon Monoxide I could OBJECTIVELY verify which gas is in which bottle.

Rosa: VJ is so uneducated it's laughable.

VJ says It [religion] must be in harmony with science. Oppose - Modern science has proven creation to be more than 6,000 (biblical age) years old...
Rosa: The term "proven" is not a scientific term. In any event, modern science has as much evidence for evolution as it does for the age of the earth.

VJ also claims fire is also a necessity for sustenance, but it can also destroy. Similarly, Science being a necessity can also destroy and misinform.
Rosa: Whether fire sheds light or burns a house down it is still fire. Whether Science is used for to cure a disease or inflict one through germ warfare, doesn't make a lie out of a Science fact.

VJ also says Science, while it may be able to enlighten one with the age of creation to be more than 6,000 years, is still inferior, since its seeks cure rather than prevention; it has no accurate age of creation; it doesn't know if there were previous ones or if there will be future ones; and has no source for matter and life. I see no logic in your argument.
Rosa: VJ's failure to see the logic is simply that: HIS FAILURE. VJ lacks the intellectual capacity to grasp these facts. Maybe after a few more lifetimes VJ will be able to absorb these baby steps toward clarity and reason.

Rosa: Valendar knows his last name, and the fact that Valendar does not know my last name does not diminish Valendar's knowledge of his own name.

Rosa: Similarly, what Science knows, Science knows.

Rosa: What remains to be known does not affect this

Rosa: If Science knew whether there was only one "Big Bang" or one hundred, it would not affect the fact that all living organisms on Earth arose from a single species of microbe over 3 billion years ago.

Rosa: And the facts are certainly not affected by or concerned with what VJ believes or knows.

Val: i think that it us, as a species, who are afraid, not animals. We have decayed to the point where we are no longer satisfied by our naked, animalistic existence, and are afraid of the very society that created us.

Val: We seek social acceptance in material items, tommy hilfiger jeans, cars, and money. We are afraid of death, and even more afraid of those who are not afraid of death. The most frightening terrorist acts are suicide bombers because they both kill, and are fearless of death. but when was the last time you saw an animal do something for social acceptance? Ghost in the Darkness was frightening exactly because the lions took on human nature, not lion nature.

Val: I still maintain that humans are the only living beings without divine wisdom and knowledge. We had it once, but decayed and lost it.

valender - November 27, 1999
Val: vj- i don't get it. on the one hand you say that animals are stupor,

Val: and you wouldn't want anyone to reincarnate into one,

Val: yet on the other, you point out that we are below animals, that they are superior. it doesnt add up.

valender - November 29, 1999
Val: vj, the maker must have created the immutable laws, otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent.

Val: therefore, the laws themselves are finite and thus subject to decay, so in time, adherence to them becomes less rigorous and advancement can actually be made

"We believe in the pre-existence of all things in nature, and in their later manifestations, not as an originality, but as manifestation of pre-existing substance, lying latent in its bosom." ~ "Light of Nature".

Deb: We are neither...we just are. What ego to divide life into to three forms. Humans, sub humans and all the rest of life.

Deb: NO there is just existence in multiple forms. Assuming the common reality of cause and effect of history, science and religion.

Deb: Modern science shows new evidence every day that humans and the rest of the animal kingdom are identical...it is antiquated belief that we (humans) socialize, parent, feel and behave significantly different than other animals.

Deb: Regarding FEAR, of course we fear.. As do virtually ALL mammals because if we did not we would not survive as a specy. It is basic evolution. You are punished with the feeling of fear so you avoid death.

Deb: Our ancestors that did not, perished before they could pass along that short-lived innocent peace. This is truth of other animals also or they would not be around for us to talk about.