Dialogue 1 Back to contents
Rebuttal from:Vj -November 30, 1999 To all evolutionsists/scientists/ creationists or whatever you call yourselves.
I asked before - what are the 5 elements in its correct order that brought about the effect, our universe, as perceived by the eyes?
I will advise all you brainless twits to first try and understand natural laws before defending evolution or even attempting to discredit the truth of the Vedic religion
Rosamond- December 06, 1999 Rosa: The last line of my post read "The earth contains a lot of iron and has a silica crust." I stand by my earlier statement.
Vj ~ While I have no disagreement with it, what has that got to do with my question?
Rosa: The focus of my endless discussion with VJ has frequently touched on the atmosphere and condition of early earth, and said atmosphere was as described.
Vj ~ Why not focus on the elements instead, and give me an answer? Rosa: While it didn't speak precisely to his question, you have to understand that because VJ defines his own terms sometimes I simply answer the question he should have asked, rather than the one he did ask.
Vj ~ And since you haven't answered the question as yet, I can easily assume that you are ignorant of the five elements, never mind the correct order, that led to the creation of the universe. Is there no shame in you that even Mydrin has to wonder if you do live on this planet? Quit making excuses and let see what your science really can do for you. Maybe your buddy Harryll can lend you a helping hand if he is not too busy scratching his backside (a habit of his early ancestors). Rosa: I hope you visit this board frequently.
Vj ~ It shows that no one has to, really, to figure you out. Rosa: I would help to have a person well grounded in the sciences to address some of the remarkable misunderstandings that arise from time to time.
Vj ~ I doubt it very much, otherwise, you would have already done some studies on Vedic science. You have an ego so huge, that even a volcano can not burn it out.
Deb_on_air - 6:04AM - December 06, 1999 Deb: I just want to point out the fact that you and the Vedic are not so different.
Vj ~ On the contrary, the Vedic believe in the purity and conviction of the soul, that what is good for them is good for the world and what is painful to them is pain to others. There is no greater happiness or greater good in this world, than when one can be enlightened by the correct knowledge. A knowledge that is in harmony with reasoning and science and in conformity with natural laws.
Deb: Though I think if you chose to start an unlearning process you could discover the excitement and satisfaction of the philosopher.
Vj ~ Not in all cases Deb, compulsion being so.
Deb: It is the nature of dreams that the dreamer cannot separate the dream from reality during the dream
Vj ~ And this is why he (Harryll) and his likes, must continue dreaming. Their ego won't let them do anything different.
Deb: Be happy
Vj ~ How can one be in the absence of the correct knowledge?
Deb: Do not make others unhappy. When you can, help others be happy
Vj ~ It is only when one is indeed happy (in true knowledge), that one can make others happy.
Deb: That's all there is, there is no more
Vj ~ If it was that simple the whole world would have been a paradise of joy and perfect harmony. It simply means that only one truth (Vedic) can bring harmony to our world, and even though it might offend many, it is for their own good.
Dialogue 2 Back to contents
Rebuttal from: Rosamond - December 07, 1999 Rosa: Do you even know what an element is? As with most of your terminology, you haven't exactly mastered certain refinements of the English language. Vj ~ Yet those who had mastered "certain refinements of the English language" could not have made their scientific theories practical (space technology) without the grammar of Panini (Sanskrit) in such a short time. And if you are truly an example, I'll rather stick to my own rather than being ignorant of natural laws, the source of all ethics, morals and sciences.Rosa: The "elements" are the basic chemicals - like hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, silica, etc. - that matter is composed of.
Vj ~ Elements are various compositions in the correct order, that brings about an effect. So now that you know that matter is an element, what are the other four that brought about the Universe? Rosa: The size of my, or anyone's, ego is irrelevant to this fact.
Vj ~ It is only irrelevant to an idiot who rejects the idea of further investigations of another source, than his/her own. Rosa: I urge you to continue to educate and enlighten yourself before attempting to play guru to others.
Vj ~ If my play of a guru is only an attempt, you certainly haven't achieved anything, however little it was. By the same reasoning, I urge you to do the same (educate and enlighten) before attempting to contradict a true guru.
Rosa:
Rosamond _ December 09, 1999 Vj ~ Yet those who had mastered "certain refinements of the English language" could not have made their scientific theories practical (space technology)without the grammar of Panini (Sanskrit) in such a short time. Rosa: I do not dispute the benefits Western technology and culture has enjoyed as a result of the mathematic and other contributions of the Near East.
Vj ~ Isn't it good enough a reason to investigate its origin, then? Rosa: My dispute is with one person who is internally contradictory and aggressively ignorant yet positions himself as superior and more knowledgeable than others.
Vj ~ The dispute is in your own ignorance, for how can you question my knowledge when you don't know squat about the Vedic religion? It is like a tribesman in the Kalahari contradicting Henry Ford of his knowledge of the automobile.Vj ~ Elements are various components in the correct order, that brings about an effect. So now that you know that matter is an element, what are the other four that brought about the Universe? Rosa: Rosamond: ??
Vj ~ Have you forgotten something here or you don't know? Vj ~ If my play of a guru is only an attempt, you certainly haven't achieved anything, however simple it was. Rosa: That's because my student is far stupider than your student.
Vj ~ And who was stupider than who, when there were no languages? Were they all stupid or were they all intelligent? If they were stupid how could they have invented something so complex as language and if they were intelligent, how could they (illterate without language) become intelligent?
Rosamond - December 11, 1999 Vj ~ Isn't it good enough a reason to investigate its origin, then? Rosa: You have no basis to suppose I have not.
Vj ~ Of course I do, as I have also explained over and over again, that your science of evolution of man from a lower creature is a breach to the immutable natural laws. It calls for it to be steady and repeated, as all other laws are. Secondly, man had to be taught, had it not been so, there would have been no necessity for schools. There are many in the Western world (theologians and scientists) who are bigots and would never accept that ethics, morals and science have their origin in the ancient religion of the Aryas, compulsion being so. However, I am certainly not the one to change that, but there is absolutely to harm in shedding some light on the subject for the benefit of an impartial few.
Hello Rosamond - December 12, 1999 Rosa: VJ: ---Let me know when you're ready to be impartial.
Vj ~ I doubt whether you will ever understand such a word since it comes by fair and practical inquires of all claimed sources of knowledge to ascertain truth by them. The established result being a source that is in harmony with reasoning, science and in conformity with the immutable laws of nature (one truth) and disseminating the same for the good of all humankind.
Dialogue 3 Back to contents
Rebuttal from: valender - December 09, 1999 Val: vj- glad to see your back. have you nothing at all to say about my last post? Vj ~ I am sorry valender, I didn't know it was directed to me. Val: 1) the ability to see 2)the ability to think 3) the ability to learn 4) the ability to communicate 5) the ability to rationalize
Vj ~ It is true that these are elements also of ascertaining truth when the correct knowledge is applied. When this procedure is taken, the evidence of the 5 elements space (matter), gas/air, heat/electricity, liquid/water and solid, in that order brought about the creation of our Universe and the reverse procedure would result in its dissolution. valender - December 11, 1999 Val: vj- the answers i gave came from the wording of your statement. 'as it is percieved', so the universe, as it is percieved, only exists within us, and the 5 items i quoted are those necessary for us to percieve the universe as we do, regardless of it's natural state of being.
Vj ~ The mechanic is in a better position know or look after his own car, than one (non-mechanic) who merely owns or drives one. Similarly, the one who has knowledge of matter and its elements are in a better position of knowing the Universe, than one only by perception. valender - December 12, 1999 Val: vj- where in evolution does it say that it is steady and repeated?
Vj ~ It doesn't? This is the reason why it is in violation of natural laws.
Val: and who taught you vedic religion?
Vj ~ One can never be taught Vedic wisdom, one can only be shown the way. The best teacher to do that is one (my own brother) by example or practice rather than by mere words (preaching).
valender - December 16, 1999 Val: vj- no, it doesn't.
Vj ~ Then it is a breach to the immutable laws of nature since it is not steady or repeated occurences. This alone is proof that evolution of man from lower creature is not only a false theory, but a false 'fact'. valender - December 18, 1999 Val: vj- the issue is one of semantics, not the deeper truth.
Vj ~ How would you know what is "deeper truth" if you know not what is consisted of truth? It will always continue to be semantics until you have developed a discriminating intellect (knowing truth from falsehood). Val: btw, i finally figured out the difference between science and religion, a science seeks to provide answers, while a religion provides answers along with a purpose.
Vj ~ Whenever you have it figured out, you will find true religion can only be ennobled by science and vice-versa. Val: not all religions give a hoot about death. but they all try to give meaning to life.
Vj ~ What meaning can be given to life, if we know not the objective (the rewards and/or punishment)? valender - December 20, 1999 Val: vj- sanskrit is an early offshoot of proto-indo european, which is the foundation of all indo-european languages including (but not limited to) gaelic, farsi, english, german, french, italian, and sanskrit... however, proto-indo european is not the foundation for other languages such as arabic, the khoisan and berber families, chinese, etc.
Vj ~ Sanskrit is the language of the Vedic revelation (almost 4 million years ago). It is the first language known to man, how could it be an offshoot of some "proto-indo european" when there were no other languages before it?
Dialogue 4 Back to contents
Rebuttal from:smcglasson - December 09, 1999 Smc: VJ - Re. your comment about "...an idiot who rejects the idea of further investigations of another source, than his own." This is a very common problem for many, Vj ~ Now that you know what your problem is, what are you going to do about it? Smc: but it can be remedied, with an honest desire for truth.
Vj ~ Let's see how honest you are in developing the "honest desire" for truthSmc: In the meantime, hey, don't be so hard on yourself. I'm sure you're not a total idiot, just confused.
Vj ~ Be careful! Even if I am an idiot or just confused, it can only add to your embarrassment, whenever you do find this truth.smcglasson - December 11, 1999 Smc: So, you seem to be saying to me, as far as I can tell, that I'm somehow unaware of truth,
Vj ~ Well, aren't you? You would have atleast tell me what is truth before boasting of it.Smc: I checked it out - I read some about the Indian history controversy involving Aryans, but didn't find any revelatory spiritual messages.
Vj ~ And who had become a scientist by merely browsing a few pages of a science book? "Revelatory spiritual messages" can only be properly understood after good reasoning which you completely lack at this time.Smc: I have to tell you, any time somebody claims to offer the path to "The One True Religion," as this site does, it's near impossible to take it seriously at all.
Vj ~ Actually you are absolutely correct, now think of the billions of idiots who are immersed in false beliefs who feels the same way of my site. Are you truly proud of being one among this 'great' majority of idiots?
smcglasson - December 12, 1999 Smc: I don't get your point, really.
Vj ~ Nothing new, I really don't expect you to. If these little details you cannot grasp how can I expect you to when it comes to the immutable laws of nature, not to mention the vast knowledge of the one true religion. Smc: You vaguely insinuate various negative things about me and others who aren't buying your sermon, but you're not exactly making a case for anything.
Vj ~ The case has already been made, evolution of man from a lower creature is in violation of the immutable laws of nature, which calls for it to be steady or repeated occurrences. The case is not your problem, but your ignorance of natural law and its operations. Smc: Where's the argument; where is anything remotely convincing?
Vj ~ I am quite sure you weren't "remotely" convinced of evoluion in merely a few questions?Smc: For example, rosamond, monardo, snapper, bakho, etc. are usually convincing to me, their arguments make sense and can be verified.
Vj ~ And almost 1.9 billion Christians have no problem convincing each other of the Bible, and to them, they all make a lot of sense too. Smc: Your arguments make me laugh at their ridiculous, unreasonable, tunnel-vision zealotry.
Vj ~ 1.9 billion Christians can even laugh louder, not because of my vision only, but yours also. I am quite sure fools feel comfortable laughing especially when they are among the majority, but the sad reality they are fools heading no where close to truth.Smc: I just don't see how you could expect someone to be interested in your views, based on your snippy, unlistening style of dialog in this forum.
Vj ~ I agree, and like the study of everything else, time and careful reasoning of the subject from both perspective, evolution and true religion, are called for. I have done my part, have you?
Dialogue 5 Back to contents
Rebuttal from: Rosamond_ December 16, 1999 Rosa: Here's a little something for you to chew on from BBC News: Vj ~ Vedic wisdom is almost 4 million years old, long before BBC News, and yet you haven't found anything to chew on, but like the pig you eat, the habit leads you to the preference of rubbish. Rosa: German scientists have created artificial life in the laboratory.
Vj ~ Excellent! But I am not surprised at all. Haven't you heard of artificial egg extract? I am now waiting for the chicken to come out of it. What a bunch of idiots!Rosa: They have made molecules that are capable of copying themselves. Although several labs around the world have done the same, these molecules can evolve as well.
Vj ~ The subtle ether evolving or manifesting into matter, matter to atoms and atoms to molecules, electrons, protons, etc. are a constant and daily phenomenon since the beginning of creation and is nothing new in Vedic wisdom. It is these molecules that give form to the physical, but it is not life. Since there are no shortages of molecules, how come we die? It is you and your brainless scientists who can fool the ignorant that they can create life.Rosa: The team of scientists from the University of Bochum hope the molecules can be used to produce new drugs and even new materials.
Vj ~ Why hope? That has always been the purpose of molecules (material cause), to create all that is physical but it is still not life. The danger of pain and misery still looms, longevity without true knowledge, leads to further pain and misery.Rosa: The self-replicating molecules may also give us clues to how life itself evolved on Earth.
Vj ~ It can only enlighten us to the cause of the physical, but never life which is the soul . Both animate and inanimate things of this world are the product of these molecules so why haven't the inanimate things come to life yet?Rosa: The Germans have gone further than anyone in mimicking this behavior.
Vj ~ You should also know that they were the leaders of all Western Sanskrit scholars.Rosa: No population can go on growing at that rate - there is not room for it. So, just as happens with animals and plants, the toughest, fittest molecules survive and go on replicating and the others are destroyed.
Vj ~ No creation can last forever either - it is a law that all things finite (created) even molecules must decay or die. Then what? Scientists don't know the source of matter how can they ever possible know the source of life? Rosa: Struggle for existence
Vj ~ It is only those who dwell in ignorance are subjected to the "Struggle for existence", and never those who know.Rosa: "Molecules can be evolved into drugs, for example. We hope that in the future we will be able to develop new drugs in this way."
Vj ~ Wise men see prevention as the highest science of all and the science of cure as inferior.Rosa: The new research is published in Nature.
Vj ~ There is nothing new in Vedic wisdom, only knowledge or science rediscovered. Rosa: Evolution is a fact. It is observable and not a matter of dispute among legitimate scientists.
Vj ~ The discussion is about the evolution of man from a lower creature and since the 'fact' was established at some time in the past, there has been no other occurrence since, a violation of the immutable laws which calls for it to be a steady, as I keep repeating over and over. Get it! Rosa: There also appear to be immutable universal laws
Vj ~ Appear! Is it a new discovery your science have recently made? You fellas are such 'geniuses', that even those (scientists) gone maybe brought back to life in your labs someday too, to continue where they left off. Rosa: Your inability to reconcile the two lies with your interpretation of how these immutable laws operate.
Vj ~ The law has always been the law, unchangeable, there can be no reconciliation among mankind that can change that. If there are changes then it lies with those who are ignorant of these laws and not the laws themselves, and so far you are no exception.Rosa: You lack the necessary open mindedness and ability to objectively (not subjectively) review your beliefs in a realistic context.
Vj ~ Actually how would you know that, when you have no idea of what my beliefs are? Try to be sensible and I am almost sure you will enjoy it even if it lasts only for a few seconds.
Dialogue 6 Back to contents
Rebuttal from: michele8466 - December 18, 1999 Michele: Vj ~ When even a 'grasshopper' can give a human such great laughs, know that the human is less than a grasshopper. Michele: Havent been here for months and am quite suprised to see that your board even still exists.
Vj ~ I never said there are no cure for those with brains less than a grasshopper. Michele: This has to be the longest running/least productive board on Excite.
Vj ~ Makes a lot of sense why you are so attracted to itMichele: Havent yet convinced one soul yet huh? HHmmm.....
Vj ~ I must have, I got you laughing. Michele: Hello to Rosa, Abby and the others that I know.
Vj ~ Don't forget Santa Claus, before you grow up. Michele: This guy is quite a number isnt he?
Vj ~ And will always be since it is we, the Indians, who gave you mathematics.Michele: I already had my go around (waste of time) with him.
Vj ~ Makes sense since only fools go around in circles.Michele: Very unfruitful, I might add.
Vj ~ True, rolling stones never gather any moss.Michele: Have a good time with this one!!! Merry Christmas everyone, even you, Grasshoppah. .
Vj ~ Same to you Michelle, feel free to drop by anytime, even if it is not Christmas there is always grass here to feed on.
Rosamond - December 20, 1999 VJ- Knowledge must be taught, but wisdom is self-acquired because it can only be accomplished by one's own reasoning through practice. The point in question was Vedic wisdom where one can only be shown the way and not Vedic knowledge which must be taught. Rosa: Now VJ is the one quibbling about semantics.
Vj ~ The semantics lie in your 'knowledge' that does not conform with the immutable laws of nature. Speaking of injustice, it is also unfortunate that your prehistoric ancestors were deprived of this knowledge. Rosa: Here's a little bit of free advice for VJ: "It is better to remain silent and appear foolish than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Vj ~ I only wonder how this fitted in with your early ancestors who knew no language - were they all stupid or intelligent? If stupid how could such brainless twits invented such a thing as complex as language? On the other hand, if they were intelligent, how could they be, without language? Now it seems your friendly advice is coming back to haunt you. VJ-The Vedas were revealed to man from the beginning of this cycle of creation which is nearly 4 million years ago. There is no blunder in my earlier statement Rosa: VJ said the BBC reported Vedic wisdom was 4 million years old.
Vj ~ I also said the physical body is composed of molecules and if they (molecules) are life, as now discovered or created by your scientists, how come the physical body dies?
Rosa: Four million years ago there was no spoken or written language.
Vj ~ Only shows how ignorant you are of natural laws. Perhaps not written but certainly spoken. The law states that as long as there is a cause there will be an effect. Material cause is eternal and as such the cycles of creations are also eternal. Therefore, if you can infer, language as life are also eternal. Besides progression is always downwards which means your present language is the deteriorated (inferior) form of the original language. Rosa: One who cannot admit their error is destined to live in ignorance and without knowledge or wisdom.
Vj ~ Why would it matter if I am ignorant or not when it leads to nothing (rewards or punishment)? Your science or knowledge has no objective or incentive for the human self to acquire or reject it. According to it, we just came by chance, live and die for nought. Rather it is you, whose knowledge is not in conformity with the immutable laws of nature that "is destined to live in ignorance.." which further leads to pain and misery. VJ If you can't refute my belief there is no way you can support your facts. Rosa: The fact that VJ has beliefs is irrefutable. So is the fact that VJ's beliefs do not in any way conform to fundamental scientific reasoning, a condition VJ claims is necessary for a true religion to have. Therefore, VJ's beliefs are not religious according to VJ's own stipulations.
Vj ~ It is not belief or "fundamental scientific reasoning" that conforms the rationality of science or religion, but the immutable laws of nature guided by the correct knowledge . You are hardly in a position to refute or acknowledge this faith, since you know nothing of it.
It is your science that brought to light the Harappa civilization and if the age is contradictory then look to your science for the imprecision. We of the Vedic philosophy don't need history or your science (Direct cognizance) to convince us of what is true.
Dialogue 7 Back to contents
In Reply to Paul Lucas on July 10, 1999 at 00:12:47:
Paul: Vj ~ The first act of the Supernatural is the scientific creation of the Universe. What could be more specific than that?
Paul: But how can you demonstrate that the universe was created by a deity? A deity is one of the current hypotheses, but it is not the ONLY hypothesis. Until you can eliminate the others, then you haven't demonstrated the supernatural.
Vj ~ It is through the correct knowledge of science that the deity is a current hypotheses. In the same way you must investigate the correct knowledge to determine the existence of a deity. Until then, it is not intelligent to reject or accept a maker.
- "Nothing in this world can be produced without the proper applications." Mimansa.
- “Nothing can be done or made without the expenditure of time.” Vaisheshika.
- “Nothing in this world can be produced without the material cause.”Niyaya.
- “Nothing can be made without the requisite skill, knowledge and thought.” Yoga.
- “Nothing can be made without the definite combination of atoms." Sankhaya.
- "Nothing can be made without a maker." Vedanta.
Paul: None of these are experiments to test the existence of the supernatural. Vj ~ If tests are the ultimate result of determining the existence of the invisible, then you are void of reasoning. What proof do you have for a layman that there is oxygen?
Paul: They are all assertions.
Vj ~ If your skill, knowledge and thought are only "assertions", how would you be able to determine what is true even by a tests?
Paul: In fact, atheists would regard “Nothing in this world can be produced without the material cause.” as a demonstration AGAINST the supernatural.
Vj ~ How could they when they don't know the source of matter? Is lumber (material cause) a demonstration against the existence of a carpenter also?
Paul: So would Johnson and the other IDers, since they only propose the supernatural where they think there isn't a material cause.
Vj ~ Where they "think"? You can do better than that, can’t you?
“Nothing can be made without the requisite skill, knowledge and thought.” Yoga and "Nothing can be made without a maker." Vedanta
Paul: They are alternative statements of Paley.
Vj ~ I hope for your sake that Paley existed before 6,000 years ago.
Paul: However, cumulative (natural) selection is an algorithm to "make" without an intelligent maker. The ultimate data is that humans use natural selection to make artifacts without human intervention and which the humans cannot then understand.
Vj ~ The theory of natural selection is indicative of nature's imperfections. According to it Nature is still improving or progression upwards. This is in violation of the immutable laws of nature which points to progression as downwards.
Paul: I think we are hung up here a bit on expectations. You are expecting me to deny the possibility of deity. I am not. Instead, I am taking your hypothesis of a deity "creating the universe" seriously. What I object to is your implication that deity is absolutely without doubt the correct one. What we have here is a classic case of multiple competing hypotheses, with deity being in the competition. What needs to happen is for all alternative hypotheses to be refuted and deity to remain the only one standing. When that happens then you can be more confident (but not absolutely sure) that deity created the universe.
Vj ~ How can we do that when you lack the knowledge of the Vedic philosophy? Subjective knowledge of the Supernatural is the most abstruse science of all and can only be determined by invisible evidences (means) or the practice of Yoga, not in a lab or University.
Paul: I also object to your "the correct knowledge of science". As we will see below, you have a long way to go before you have a "correct knowledge of science".
Vj ~ The correct knowledge of applying science for the benefit of the human race can only be determined when the source is known. You will probably learn by then that science is far superior when it can prevent rather than seeking a cure or satisfying curiosity. Paul: Science uses the hypothetico-deductive means of reasoning. By this method a hypothesis is proposed, then deductions are made concerning the consequences if the hypothesis is accurate. These consequences include empirical tests that can be made. Then the empirical tests are made to either support, or refute, the hypothesis. In science, tests are the ONLY result that determines the existence of the invisible.
Vj ~ The abstruse of Science of the Supernatural is also determined by means of reasoning guided by the correct knowledge, through the evidences of Direct Cognition, Inference, history and testimony, and must conform with the immutable laws of nature.
Paul: Now, let's move to your example of oxygen. We hypothesize an element of atomic number 8 with atomic weight 16. From its place in the Periodic Table we deduce its chemical properties. One of these is combustion. We can combust carbon in a closed chamber and measure the change in gasses in the chamber as a result of the combustion. Or we can deduce that water (MW 18) will dissociate in an electric current to hydrogen and oxygen. Oxygen will form at the positive electrode. When bubbles form there, we have our first support. But we can collect the gas and measure the molecular weight and find a MW of 32 -- 2 oxygen atoms per molecule.
Vj ~ Wonderful, now how do you get a layman to understand your test if he is not fully acquainted with your scientific calculations? The same applies to you, by your lack of the Vedic knowledge and how to apply it by the practice of Yoga (the test).
Paul: Look above. The statements were billed as tests for the supernatural. They aren't. Instead they are hypotheses in their own right that need to be tested before acceptance. And some of them are wrong.
Vj ~ Yes, but even if they have to be tested either by you or me it will require skill, knowledge and thought which you earlier claimed are only "assertions". If it is not assertion, then is it not enough proof that the statement is correct?
Paul: Look at your language again. You said "material CAUSES". Atheists believe that material causes are the ONLY causes. The quote affirms that material causes are necessary. As to the matter, now we are back to those alternative hypotheses for the source of the big bang.
Vj ~ Why is my language not English enough for you? Matter is the material cause true, but where did matter come from? The big bang is obviously not the answer since it must have manifested out of matter.
Paul: Nope. He wrote Natural Theology in 1803. What this shows is that the idea of the necessity of an "intelligence" to get design has been around a long time. But Yoga, Vedanta, and Paley were all wrong. You can get design by the algorithm of natural selection without an intelligence.
Vj ~ So whatever you do, does not require skill, knowledge and thought? Therefore, any fool who lacks them but can design a car or space shuttle can be considered a genius also by "algorithm". Paul: Incorrect. This is a straw-man misconception of natural selection. The idea of "improvement and progression" is a PHILOSOPHICAL idea proposed by Victorian Englishmen who thought that the pinnacle of evolution was a Victorian Englishman. Natural selection is not about "progression" but about getting design to fit the parameters of a given environment.
Vj ~ First there were only animals, then pre-historic or primitive man, medieval and now an advance civilization. Isn't this what is called progression given the parameters of the environment?
Paul: This is another spot where you fail to demonstrate "correct view of science". This refers to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLOT). I am surprised to see you using such an oft-refuted argument. A cursory reading of any physical chemistry text would show you the error. The following post will be a discussion of SLOT.
Vj ~ If the "correct view of science" does not demonstrate that all things created must die or come to an end (progression downwards) then your science does not conform with the immutable laws of nature? This means no physical chemistry can right the wrong.
Paul: But for the time being, let's try out the hypothetico-deductive method, shall we? According to your statement, ALL systems (immutable law) can not "progress". Instead, you have to "degress". That means become simpler, doesn't it? Well, so we can deduce that ALL systems must get simpler, not more complex. Let's test that deduction.
Vj ~ How can it be simpler, when a new car is expected to perform better (simple) than an old one (complex)?
Paul: You started out as a single cell -- a fertilized ovum. Today you are a complex organism composed of billions of cells in specialized tissues. "Progress" is a judgement call, but would you say you are "improved" over that single cell? You can talk, walk, manipulate objects. You are certainly more complex. And complexity is usually associated, by creationists, with "progress". So, according to your formulation of "immutable law", you as an adult cannot exist. But you do exist. So, by deductive logic, the original statement has to be false.
Vj ~ You started out innocent and pure (child) and then you decay with sin (adult). It is progression downwards where we loose our innocence and purity with age. The same goes for all things created. There is no exception to this law.
Dialogue 8 Back to contents
Rebuttal from: Rosamond - December 22, 1999 Rosa: VJ picks and chooses the science that conveniently fits his spectacularly peculiar interpretation of the meaning of the Vedas Vj ~ But how would you know whether I am right or wrong when you know nothing of the Vedic philosophy? Rosa: According to the Rig Veda, the ancient Hindu scriptures written after about 1500 BC, (that would be 3,500 years ago)Aryan invaders conquered the earliest Indian civilization.
Vj ~ Exactly what I am saying all along, the Rig Veda as the Sama, Atharva and Yajur are eternal revelations and for all creations past, present and future. They are always free of historical references. Those who have claimed historical reference in the Vedas, are as ignorant as you are of the Vedas.Rosa: VJ's first for paragraphs are a meaningless repetition and avoidance of errors VJ made, such as attempting to claim a 4,000 year old religion was 4,000,000 years old.
Vj ~ And may you know that a layman (as you are in my case) also would not accept your claim of evolution either, simply because they have no knowledge of it. Rosa: Language evolved as human intelligence evolved .... slowly, steadily, over time.
Vj ~ This is quite interesting - "as language evolved" man became intelligent, but how can something so complex as language evolved without intelligence?Rosa: The physical body dies for a number of reasons, mainly because the individual genes have a limited ability to replicate. This is a perfectly natural and in fact essential part of the entire process of life.
Vj ~ It may suffice for explaining death at old age to the ignorant, but how do you explain the untimely death of someone young as a "perfectly natural...process of life". Rosa: One type of cell is immortal, however:
Vj ~ Nothing finite can be immortal or eternal, lamebrain. It is a law that what is not eternal must perish. Besides if the cell is immortal, what is the source of such knowledge? There is no man-made theory or formula that can authenticate any case of immortality or an entity to be eternal.Rosa: Knowledge is its own reward.
Vj ~ And what were the rewards for those without knowledge, no fault of their own, in the absence of language? Rosa: Knowledge is the gift of Truth.
Vj ~ So why are you being given this gift of truth, while your early ancestors were deprived of it?Rosa: The conclusion that because random chance plays a part in evolution does not mean life has no higher purpose. If VJ draws that conclusion, it's nobody's problem but VJ's.
Vj ~ I still see it as your problem, since it serves the purpose for few, while billions were and are denied a purpose. Any reason why this injustice? Rosa: Sanskrit as a language evolved only after the Aryans invaded VJ's country and conquered VJ's aboriginal ancestors.
Vj ~ Arya (noble) is a Sanskrit word and could not have had its origin after the 'invasion'. You are an idiot who rattle on like a parrot of what other idiots wrote. Tibet was the first country inhabited by humans in the beginning and later they were divided into two classes called Aryas (noble) and the Dasyus (wicked) as quarrels rose among them, the Aryas moved to Aryavarta (India) where they were the first inhabitants.
Dialogue 9 Back to contents
Rebuttal from: valender - December 22, 1999 Val:vj- life is beautiful, Vj ~ And no one knows that better than one who practices Yoga. Val: so why are you wasting it
Vj ~ If I were I would not have been here disseminating truth.
Val: i don't care what anyone or anything says, the bottom line is that life is beautiful.
Vj ~ When you know what afterlife holds, it is even most beautiful.
Val: instead of reading and preaching the Vedas or evolution, or the bible, get out and live a little. climb a mountain, go scuba diving, fall in love, get laid, smoke a joint, or play basketball, whatever, just do something, otherwise this life will be wasted.
Vj ~ Speaking of your own miserable life, eh! It is those who live a little that look to outside (materialism) cure for banality, but it always end up to be a temporary one. None of it, or a little or too much of it brings the same result (boredom). It is obvious that there is only one solution - absolute control of mind through yoga
valender - December 23, 1999 Val: - my last comment was not meant as an attack, merely as a suggestion
Vj ~ So was my response also.
Val: vj, we were given free will, life and emotions.
Vj ~ I agree, but in the end we are subject to His Divine Justice of reaping exactly what you have sown, no more or no less. The adversities (pain and misery) of many and the luxurious life of a few are the evidence of this justice. Val: to who ever or whatever did that, but with that said, i intend to use them.
Vj ~ I see nothing wrong in exercising the will of a free-born soul. It is also a man's free-will that leads him to kill, maim and steal but freedom, however long it was enjoyed, comes with a price and that is the period of punishment. "There is no turpitude in drinking alcohol, eating meat and committing adultery, these are the natural ways of created beings, but abstinence brings great rewards." Manu.
Val: no greater joy can be found than in the eyes of a woman that loves you. Vj ~ It may perhaps work until old age steps in. But after Yoga, it is infinite love, not only for the woman who loves you, but the highest of all ecstasy of the Supreme.Val: yoga, rock climbing, life eternal be damned, i'd give it all up for something as spectacular as that.
Vj ~ Everyone is entitled to their passions (riches and fame), and for many it only led to regrets. It is only true knowledge can cure man of such fear.Val: foolish, perhaps. but the bottom line is that we are individuals. perhaps yoga does for you what love does for me, but no one is the same as anyone else, and no matter how much you may preach, or be preached to, some things will never change.
Vj ~ I agree with you, but I am not here to change anyone. It is for my own benefit, to further develop my reasoning power. Correct practice makes perfect and if by chance one find it a good source to help one's reasoning abilities, it is solely by one's own inclination and not mine. Val: if profound belief in the Vedas gives you solace at night, then more power to you, but they wont, and never will, do the same for me, nor i think, anyone else on this board.
Vj ~ Solace is the desire of every human being, and if I am enjoying it 24 hours a day, there is no harm in showing others the way, then it is their choice or free-will to accept or reject. Val: btw, what do you mean by 'steady and repeated'?
Vj ~ All actions that are governed by the immutable laws of nature call for constant and uninterrupted repetition. It is never a onetime occurrence. For instance, rain comes from the clouds, it has been, is and will be so until the end; it is a steady action, and there is no other way we can have rain. Similarly, our physical body is the product of the reproductive element, it is so now, it will be so in the future and since the law is unchangeable, it had to be so from the very beginning also. A law mutable can only bring disorder and it is not logical to believe that all laws are immutable except one. Humans, beside being specially created from the reproductive element, were given instructions (taught). Had it not been so, there would have been no necessity for schools.
Dialogue 10 Back to contents
Rebuttal from:michele8466 - December 23, 1999 Michele: Rosamond.....LOL...Furthur, if he was half as WISE as he lets on, he would be humble (as all great wise men are) and willing to share the knowledge that he believes the rest of the ignorant world doesnt know. Vj ~ And if you weren't completely stupid you would have clicked on my home page as I have so many times recommended. It is also quite obvious, that one completely stupid can never recognize one even half-wise. Michele: He isnt at all interested in "teaching" the "truth" to anyone.
Vj ~ On the contrary, I can only teach one who wants to learn (know) of my faith. Michele: He is here because he has no life in reality.
Vj ~ Since you are always complaining and at the receiving end, it is obvious that reality is working for me.Michele:
michele8466 - December 25, 1999 Michele: VJ...I HAVE clicked on your home page and have found it to be as non sensical as you.
Vj ~ I never said it can be accomplish without reasoning. Besides, it is the same response I got from those whose religions I have condemned as false. It only shows you are not better off.
Michele: Yours is but another religion who claims to know the answers and you are but another fanatic who doesn’t exhibit what you say you believe.
Vj ~ I have exhibited my belief that you are an idiot, and yet there is disbelief. I would expect an intelligent person to refute it. It is called a rational dialogue and only then it is sensible to draw a conclusion. Michele: Oh and, ON THE CONTRARY: You have taught nothing here.
Vj ~ I agree fully with you, a fool who has't come to learn, cannot never be taught. Michele: Not now, not months ago, not in the future.
Vj ~ It simply means you are a fool, now, years ago and will in the future. In short, there is no cure for a fool.Michele: You do not have the humble spirituality required of such a faith.
Vj ~ And how would you know what humility is demanded of my faith if you have no knowledge of it? Michele: You haven’t even spelled the word right. It is RELIGION, not RELGION. "Failure of evolution and religion" huh?
Vj ~ I thank you, the infallible, for correcting me, the fallible.Michele: I believe that YOUR beliefs ARE a religion, now arent they?
Vj ~ Continue to click on it, and perhaps you would find the answer all by your self.Michele: rosamond.......lol..yes, it would appear that he is operating out of sheer ignorance.
Vj ~ It would be helpful to you both, to explain what is ignorance. Michele: I see him as the typical religious fanatic who doesn’t have a clue.
Vj ~ You have now become like the fox who cried "the grape is rotten" when he couldn't reach itMichele: They tend to disregard concrete evidence and stick to their delusions.
Vj ~ Even concrete has its weaknesses, it cracks easily, pending weather conditions.Michele: I have never seen him answer anything that has been asked of him, besides his little "question-comment" method that he likes to do, which primarily contains non-sense.
Vj ~ You have never seen a human evolved from a lower creature either.Michele: He doesnt actually answer anything rationally.
Vj ~ Very true, nothing I say can be rational to an idiot.Michele: He just tends to throw out insults. Pretty spiritual eh?? Ahhhhh Grasshoppaaah....hehehehe........
Vj ~ It is spiritual especially when it is done for your own good.
michele8466 - January 01, 2000 Michele: glitter.....the way you worded it made it sound like you have ONE complaint about blacks. You said blacks, not just ONE black, so you can see why it was confusing. I got a totally different meaning out of it. But anyway, just be careful where he is concerned. He isnt playing with a full deck.
Vj ~ I have noticed that you have deservingly found the debate best suited to your static intellect. I wish I could help, but the wise would consider it a travesty to good reasoning to stoop that low.
Rosamand - December 25, 1999 Rosa: I bet VJ has never once in his life been able to say "I was mistaken". A sign of immaturity if ever there was one.
Vj ~ Sorry guys I am mistaken, I thought I found a cure for ignorance, not realizing, that even God has no cure for a fool.
Dialogue 11 Back to contents
Rebuttal from: valender - December 31, 1999 Val: vj- i still cannot resolve the difficulty i encounter when you say that the laws are infinite and immutable, yet the creator is not constrained by them. Vj ~ I understand and in spite of your strong reasoning power, your difficulty comes from the lack of the correct knowledge. Did you not also see the difficulty in man making progress without language (being taught)?
If you meant that He can be allowed to breach it, then it would violate His attributes of All-wise, All-perfect and All-knowing. A breach of the immutable laws of nature would result in disorder of His creation, but since there is no sign of any such disorder, then even He cannot breach these laws.
valender - January 01, 2000 Val: aaaahhh, so you are saying that in his omnipotence, he deemed that these laws were necessary for the proper order in the universe,
Vj ~ And for us, as intelligent beings, to determine truth by it. Val: and therefore he chooses not to breach them, but is not otherwise constrained by them? ie, he could breech them if he wanted to?
Vj ~ Even if He wanted to, He could never breach His own laws being constrained by His attributes of All-powerful (All-perfect, All-wise and All-knowing). It is by these laws where they are breached, that religion or scientific facts or theories are deemed false.
valender - January 02, 2000 Val: vj- what happened between you and your father? it sounds sad.
Vj ~ I will be forever grateful to my father since what I have achieved, is his doing. When I reflect on the billions that have come and would have gone without having a taste of this wisdom, he must have done a lot of good, to have brought such a highly inclined soul as mine into this world through which I was able to grasp this truth and even though with much difficulty. It is when we dwell in ignorance which I was once succumb to, that sorrow overcomes us.
valender - January 03, 2000 Val: vj, but even if the greatest wisdom were advertised in every commercial on television, people would only believe it if they wanted to.
Vj ~ Very true, but young minds would have been afforded the opportunity to be more prudent and inquisitive instead of being constantly brainwashed in the absence of it.
Val: it's an interesting phenomena, that the truth is so often ignored in favor of something easier to believe... a good example is Hitler's Germany during the depression.
Vj ~ Lack of reasoning is the prime source of belief, and there aren't much teachers in this world today to do the job of ingraining the proper reasoning habits. Atheism takes us out of credulity, but the real travesty is those who reject the correct knowledge even when it is put forward to them in such a rational way. Val: (most) everyone is grateful to their parents for their existence, but usually they can find other things to be grateful of also... u have no similar kind words for your mother?
Vj ~ It is obvious, that if I have high praise for the cow because of the motherhood qualities of providing milk, etc., I would have even higher praises for my own mother. But my highest praises are for the altruistic teachers (God and Rishis and Sages of yore). *Val: vj- i just want u to know, that despite the fact that we disagree here and there, i like you. Fundamentally, you bode no ill will towards anyone, and there's a lot to be said for that.
Vj ~ There is a lot more that can be said of you Valender to have recognized the humility displayed by this wisdom. When a few of us can reach even this state whereby even in disagreements we can foster such mutual love and appreciation for each other what doubt can there be of the harmony of true religion.
valender - January 08, 2000 Val: vj- where in evolution does it say the dead come back to life?
Vj ~ It does not, but I use it as an example where an immutable law is also violated by a religion to support its views (resurrection of the dead), thus misleading billions . This shows that any religion or any scientific theory or 'fact' that breaches these laws are false.
Dialogue 12 Back to contents
Rebuttal from: StrayCat_11 - January 02, 2000 Cat: Singh, give me one good reason why you think evolution is a failure, and I will debate the point. Vj ~ What is wrong with the reason given above? How would you be able to handle a good reason, if I should give you one, when you are having a problem with the existing one? StrayCat_11 - January 03, 2000
Cat: My first time posting here, I didn't want risk touching on what might have become an overly hashed out point by now
Vj ~ What do you expect when you are a stray? Truth is for all ages and it only becomes an "overly hashed out point" by those weak in intellect.
Cat: (2) I wouldn't say which is a good reason or which is a weak one at this moment since we haven't begun discussing any particular point.
Vj ~ Since you have asked for a good reason , then I can only conclude the existing one was weak.
Cat: (3) When you say "the reason given above" I'm assuming you refer to what's in the original topic description.
Vj ~ In the sameway then I must also assume that whatever you know of the sciences of evolution are assumptions also.
Cat: I like a challenge.
Vj ~ If you are one that truly loves a challenge as this, then I would assume that you have taken the advantage to read all my previous responses and also my site.
Cat: By your logic, you may ask, "If Vj had really come into being through biological reproduction, then it was, as it were, a fact - a law which according to biologists, has been unceasing in its operations under any conditions whatsoever. If the law was of a constant and permanent nature, ever working itself out, how is it that all women are not forever pregnant with Vj?"
Vj ~ It is obvious by this analogy that you are very shallow in intellect. If you had used the word "humans" instead of "Vj" you would have made perfect sense, since it is the law that the human specy is the product of its own reproductive element. It is not only unchangeable, but it is a steady and repeated occurrence for as long as any human can remember.
Cat: (My analogy is somewhat fatuous, but I think it parallels your argument. Obviously it would be more fun if all women were forever pregnant by Vj! LOL.)
Vj ~ How could it be a parallel to my arguement, when "Vj" is not comprised of the whole human race. Besides if all women were forever pregnant, with "Vj", we won't be having this argument at all and not to mention the world would have been in perfect harmony because of me and my one truth.
Cat: What you seem to be talking about is not evolutionary change but revolutionary change, as if a lower creature would miraculous bifurcate into a man no matter what that lower creature might be.
Vj ~ No that is not what I am saying. I am speaking of a law that is steady and repeated that man is the product reproductive element as it were for thousands of years in the past, as it is now and as it will continue to be in the future, as oppose to evolution of man from whatever as a one time occurrence.
Cat: It could also be that you're arguing that if some prehuman primates evolved into man, then why didn't all prehuman primates evolve into man?
Vj ~ On the contrary, I am saying if man evolve from some lower species or whatever it should then be steady and repeated as all other processes that are governed by the immutable laws of nature, which means until our present time it should continue to be. But it is not so and haven't been for thousands of years. And it is not necessary that all primates evolved into a human since some women are barren also.Cat: If man descended from apes, why are there still any monkey, gorillas, etc. in the world?
Vj ~ No, I am saying if there are still existing pre-human ancestors why has the law ceased? It is like saying that we once use our ears for smelling and now we have reverted to the nose.
Cat: Could it be that you misperceive evolution to be like a magic wand that is waved over an ape and it changes "presto change-o!" into a human being?
Vj ~ It should make no difference to you, since out of nothing the same magic has brought a universe of law, order, purpose and design into being. Then there is the question of language, it is indeed magic for any illiterate (instinctive knowledge) to invent something so intricate and complex as language.
Cat: It seems you misunderstand the basic biology of the theory of evolution.
Vj ~ Since you understand it so well, then you must know the the source of biology (life) and while you are at it perhaps you can throw me in the source of matter as well.
Cat: If you are confused about some of the simple, underlying principles of biology (reproduction, radiation, isolation, etc.), you naturally won't understand the more complex theory of evolution.
Vj ~ So far it is you who are confused or ignorant of the immutable laws of nature. Any theory, however complex, that breaches the immutable laws of nature is false. Those who have vainly tried to prove the evolution of man from lower creatures are all ignorant of the immutable laws of nature, otherwise how else could they have promoted it.
StrayCat_11 - January 05, 2000
Cat: Vj, your idea that evolution is a permanent and constant law of nature is true.
Vj ~ How then is the evolution of man permanent when it was only a one time occurrence?
Cat: Theoretically, there is no bottom for evolution.
Vj ~ I am afraid, evolution of man from whatever, has already bottomed out and had the law been constant, it would have continued until this day and to the end.
Cat: Evolution is very slow. It typically takes immense stretches of time for evolution to show itself
Vj ~ I aware of its timing, but thousands and perhaps millions of years have past already and there are still no sign of any lower creature becoming a human.
Cat: The process is a law, but it's governed by probabilities a lot like evolution.
Vj ~ Logic can tell any intelligent person that the immutable laws of nature can never be interrupted by the governance of any probabilities. Its (probabilities) main use is to foster the theory of evolution as a scientific fact by those who are themselves ignorant of these laws and their operations.
Dialogue 13 Back to contents
Rebuttal from: michele8466 - January 02, 2000 Michele: ahh grasshoppa......you are quite the nosy one, arent you? Vj ~ How could it be when you are the one peeking in my 'house'?
Michele: I was not referring to you or about you.
Vj ~ If you were, I would have called it sensible.
Michele: And if you think you are WISE enough to debate with me, bring it on....
Vj ~ It seems that you are the one who is not sensible enough for a debate of this nature. Whatever we are by race, creed and class, rich or poor, sickness or in good health, ignorant or wise, virtuous or sinful, etc., all seem to have come about by chance and will all somehow go away without rewards or punishments. In short, any 'wisdom' you have acquired is just a waste of time.
Michele: .....but of course, we must find a nice racist board to do it on. This one isnt the place......
Vj ~ Discrimination of all sorts are prevalent everywhere and since I bring a truth which conforms with the immutable laws of nature which many have rejected, there is no reason to believe that bigotry is not present here.
michele8466 - January 03, 2000 Michele: VJ....Number 1) "Your house" is a public message board.
Vj ~ I have no objection, do you?
Michele: Number 2) You make no sense at all.
Vj ~ I totally agree with you, as I have said before, I can only make sense when you have become sensible. It is my hope, that you are not really a fool, because even God has no cure for one.
michele8466 - January 05, 2000
Michele: You state that you will only make sense when I become more sensible. Why does your rationale depend on me?
Vj ~ Simple, because it is an idiot who is always looking for sense and even when something sensible comes up, it still does not make sense to the idiot. I already know I am rational, but an idiot never know it, unless the idiot can first become sensible.
Michele: Perhaps you will make sense when you discover what it is you are talking about. You have no idea what you are trying to represent.
Vj ~ The subject is the "Failure of evolution and religion" both breaching the immutable laws of nature and you haven't so far put up any argument for or against it. So much for your ignorance!
Michele: You need some "ultimate purpose" in life and it would seem you have watched one too many episodes of Grasshappa.....Separate reality from fantasy Grasshappa.....
Vj ~ How come then you are the one who is endlessly hopping around (the board and the subject) like a "Grasshappa"?
Michele: You tell every single person who posts here that they do not understand. How can EVERYONE OF US not understand?
Vj ~ It is only a few by my standard, but, what would you say when you find out that almost 2 billion believe a dead man (Christ) can come back from the dead or a murderer (Moses) can split the sea. "Vj ~ I totally agree with you, as I have said before, I can only make sense when you have become sensible. It is my hope, that you are not really a fool, because even God has no cure for one."
Michele: Man, how many times are you going to say that? That is one generic answer and you use it constantly.
Vj ~ As many times as it takes a fool to understand. There is absolutely no point moving on to something else, when you are yet to grasp the first concept. Repetition is normal when dealing with one completely dull in intellect.
Michele: Very interesting point: You making sense depends on someone else??
Vj ~ Making sense always depends on two people, how else would you know that you are not sensible and I am?Michele: Cant you get it through your thick bald head that you are NOT God's little trooper, nor are you above the rest of the world as far as wisdom goes.
Vj ~ Even if I am not, a perfect idiot could easily make me one and you are doing just that. On the other hand, you would have to be at par or above the world in wisdom to know who is and who is not.
Dialogue 14 Back to contents
Replying to rebuttal from: Rosamond - January 05, 2000
Rosa: Straycat, I want to commend you for your very thoughtful post and for your attempt to enlighten VJ. Vj ~ There is only one source for true enlightenment of the human mind, and it comes from a faith that is in harmony with reasoning and science and in conformity natural laws.
Rosa: In one of my such posts I actually took the opposite tact, accepting VJ's "immutability" rule and putting evolution in that context.
Vj ~ And since no other creature has evolved into a human since your early ancestors, breaching "immutable", your "tact" is hogwash.
Rosa: The only thing immutable is, unfortunately, VJ's ignorance.
Vj ~ Considering your ancestors were destitute of language and therefore ignorant, it will be a contradiction if you consider yourself otherwise. It was from ignorance sprung all things sensible (you, language and science), so you should hold it in high esteem. You never know what it ( my ignorance) can further do for mankind's good yet.
Rosa: I suggested evolution was "steady and unchanging"
Vj ~ And I am suggesting 'evolution of man' is not "steady and unchanging" but the cause of the physical body by the reproductive element is. There is a difference that is, if your brains are not too sick to have noticed.
Rosa: in that the same conditions, i.e. environmental pressures, species with individuals carrying the same useful mutations, would result in the same changes.
Vj ~
No condition irrespective of "environmental pressures", etc. can breach the immutable laws of nature. If the very first creatures were reproduced by their own reproductive element, why was it not possible for humans, in the same condition.
Rosa: VJ was unaware that other organisms also evolved.
Vj ~ Whatever organisms are involved it still could not have violated the law, but that is not the issue here.
Rosa: Furthermore, VJ seems to think the goal of evolution should be immortality, and that evolution should always produce a "superior" being.
Vj ~ On the contrary my friend, it is your ignorance again of the law that points to progression as upwards and not downwards. According to the theory of evolution, nature is still improving which is a direct breach of the law. It is evolution that is pointing to a super superior being.
Rosa: VJ has been given ample information to the contrary but the response is always non-acceptance and derision. It's pretty discouraging.
Vj ~ I am yet to find an idiot who is not discouraged by his/her own ignorance.
Rosa: After the dialogue (if one can call it that with VJ, who is only capable of parroting his self-authored dogma) deteriorated to name-calling,
Vj ~ It is never wrong to offend a fool when it is for the fool's own good.
Rosa: I didn't seriously attempt to enlighten him except on very specific areas.
Vj ~ Enlightenment is for all from the beginning to the end of creation, and since evolution only caters for the enlightenment of those in the future, it serves as an injustice of a false concept where early man were deprived of what we know today.
Dialogue 15 Back to contents
Rebuttal from:michele8466 - January 07, 2000 Michele: Not one shred of that made sense again. Vj ~ How could it when you are still an idiot?
Michele: And no, it doesn’t take two people to make sense.
Vj ~ Really! Then if we are both sensible or stupid, what is the need of either of us arguing here?
Michele: It takes the person who is spouting shit to make sense
Vj ~ True, but if you have only nose and brain for shit, everything will be shit for you. Reminiscent of the fact that you know nothing of my faith, and yet seek to contradict it.
Michele: The other person (me) already has sense and therefore can see through your charade.
Vj ~ You must be one proud idiot, since almost 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Muslims and 1 billion Hindus have also your "sense" (even though you oppose their beliefs) when it comes to seeing through my "charade".
Michele: Oh and for the record, I don’t believe a dead man come back from the dead either.
Vj ~ Very good, then do you truly believe the laws of decay (death without resurrection) to be immutable or do you believe, like evolution, that the law could have been breached, where in the past the dead did come back to life?
Michele: And I also don’t believe in any other religion, yours included.
Vj ~ You may be right of the others, but disbelief or belief for mine can never be possible if you are destitute of good reasoning.
michele8466 - January 08, 2000 Michele: VJ......the problem here is that what you are trying to "teach" doesn’t make sense.
Vj ~ And can the problem not be an idiot's failure to see any sense also? It is the same argument you would have with a Christian who believes the dead can come back to life. There must be a rule or law, unchangeable, to determine what is true or false.
Michele: If you were interested in enlightening people, you would refrain from the constant ridicule,
Vj ~ It is because of truth I am never offended or unhappy and if you were truly interested in learning you would have braved all ridicules to acquire the same.
Michele: and actually explain WHY your beliefs are what they are.
Vj ~ Every response on this board and my site is an explanation of my belief and what they are. You are blinded by your own ego and unless you bury it, you will never see any sense.
Michele: I am here (in answer to your question) primarily to call you on your self righteousness.
Vj ~ You came and also left before, didn't my self-righteousness need a calling then?
Michele: Certainly the Vedic religion says something somewhere about humility, acceptance, love etc?
Vj ~ It is not what any religion speak of humility that makes one humble, but what must be acquired to make one humble. Reading a book alone cannot make you a doctor or mechanic until what you have read, is put into the correct practice. The same goes for humility.
Michele: No religion has ever been "sold" using your techniques.
Vj ~ Again, neither am I selling my religion nor can it be bought; it must be acquired by one's own individual's effort of ingraining proper reasoning guided by the correct knowledge. Actually, it is free and you are still rejecting it.
Michele: It is like you are trying to sell a "cheap product" here. You want us to just say "Oh yes, VJ is the wisest man alive, now I get it. He is right and we, the rest of mankind, are wrong".
Vj ~ And of course, if it was cheap, who would have refrained from buying? And it is not a fool who determines who is wise, but one himself wise.
Michele: We are just supposed to take you seriously when you act like an obnoxious moron?
Vj ~ If it is vain to ridicule, I only wonder why you would also stoop that low?Michele: Just for the record, I am more "science" minded than religious. I do not believe in magical powers. I do not believe that some "spirit" waved a wand and created the human being.
Vj ~ It is still a belief that lacks reasoning, because nothing with purpose, design and order can be created without an efficient cause. In short, since your science have no source for matter, it is magic for something to come out of nothing.
Michele: I do believe, since there is tons of concrete evidence, that evolution does happen.
Vj ~ If your evidences do not conform with the immutable laws of nature there can be no truth in them and if you are ignorant of these laws and their functions of order, then what sense can you possible see in my arguments.
Michele: Take a look at the Wolly Mammoth and then today's elephants (now I know this is basic, but it is a good example). It is very obvious that they are related. Nature sees to it that living things "adjust" to their environment.
Vj ~ Different conditions (good or bad, cold or hot, etc.) will bring about different manifestations, it is the law of karma, (what one sows that will one reap), but no condition or manifestation can violate the immutable laws of nature. Meaning that the physical body was always the product of the reproductive element and never evolved from a lower creature.
Michele: These are very logical reasons why an animal can and does go from one state to another. The process of adaptation goes hand and hand with evolution.
Vj ~ The logic lies when the adaptation conforms with unchangeable laws of nature from the beginning to the end. An elephant can only produce an elephant and no other creature.
Things need to "adapt" to their environment, and the outcome of this is evolution. It doesn’t take any kind of genius to see that this has happened.
Vj ~ If you don't need to be a "genius" to figure it out, that will leave a fool to figure it out. Isn't this a good reason for calling you an idiot?
Michele: For crying out loud, take a look at the many breeds of dogs that mankind has created. Big dogs bred down to small versions, new breeds created from combining two or more other breeds together, etc. Yes, man did this, but it goes to show that it can be done, by whatever forces.
Vj ~ It is the same with humans, many breeds of different races will produce a mixture, but the fact remains, that the human reproductive element cannot produce anything else but a human and the same for an ape, monkey or dog, of their own.
Michele: Of course, living creatures adapt to their environment, animals, plants, humans......always have and always will.......
Vj ~ You forgot to mention how orderly it occurs, I mean the disappointment of not picking a lemon from a tree, that was supposed to give me apples. Order comes from laws that are unchangeable; order is everywhere but one must become knowledgeable or a "genius" to understand these laws.
Michele: Now about the origin of mankind, I am not sure about that one.
Vj ~ Then aren't you a shameless idiot to refute one who knows?
Michele: Think about the stages a human goes through from conception to birth. We start out as a pin size organism, not looking a bit like a human. But by the end of 9 months, we have a fully formed baby.
Vj ~ What you are supposed to think, is how can a human baby be produced from any living organism, in the absence of the human seminal fluid.
Michele: Perhaps "God" (however one interprets God to be) provided the ingredients for those cesspools to create the first "zygote", if you will.
Vj ~ If God can create the ingredients, why can He not specially create all known species.
Michele: Stranger things have happened, friend.
Vj ~ Very true, but none can violate natural laws.
Michele: Certainly we aren’t the only life forms in the entire Universe (as they said on the movie "Contact", it would be an awful waste of good space, now wouldn’t it?).
Vj ~ Nothing that God has created is useless. All have a purpose.
Michele: Religion has always attempted to answer these questions via "God", science has always attempted to answer these questions via research, recording data, digging up actual bodies, etc.
Vj ~ Neither can science alone without true religion since it is only through Vedic wisdom one can become enlightened of the laws of nature and source of all sciences. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Einstein.
Michele: If there is an answer, it is obviously not meant to be known, or it is too "deep" for the human mind to comprehend.
Vj ~ It is an idiot who will never be able to comprehend so until you find a religion that is in harmony with reason, science and in conformity with the immutable laws of nature, you are as lost in science as those in belief of their personal Gods.
Michele: So there is no way that your religion is the RIGHT answer
Vj ~ It is truly amazing that even the the law of human evolution has ceased, but your stupidity continues unceasingly. How can one speak for all religions when one hasn't examine them all?
Michele: Every religion on earth says the same thing as yours.
Vj ~ Beats me why you would say that, especially when mine have diagnosed you to be an idiot.
Michele: They all think they are right.
Vj ~ I guess you must do some soul-searching now, since they all maybe right of you being a fool.
Michele: What you need to do is provide the "proof" to convince us. There isn’t a religion yet that has convinced me of a God.
Vj ~ If it is any interest to you, one who lacks reasoning can never be convinced. There is a universe with an orderly function and yet you deny the efficient Cause, and those who believe in a Maker, deny the material cause while both are ignorant of the immutable laws of nature. In short, I am saying you don't need proof, you need to ingrain the proper reasoning habits guided by the correct knowledge.
Michele: "God" gives people a "purpose" for being here. Religion is a way for people to feel "taken care of" by their "maker". It is a needy thing, if you ask me.
Vj ~ I am glad that no one is asking you. Don't you see a purpose for everything that man has created also? If everything else has a purpose by design and order, how could you and the creation of the universe alone not have a purpose?
Michele: You are a slave to your own faith. If it were as strong as you would like us to think, you wouldn’t need to be online trying to convince us. You would just be content in "knowing" your answers. Just my thoughts......
Vj ~ Thoughts or sound reasoning can only be developed by constant contemplation of the correct knowledge with the Divine and/or other objects, but never alone. Many are living in their own small world and communicating with others as ignorant as you are, so they born, live and die ignorant. There is only one way out, and you like them, are rejecting it. Vj ~ "No laws of probability can breach the immutable laws of nature and if it does it is due to your ignorance of these laws."
Michele: Now VJ, are you telling us that our ignorance (which is a weakness) is more powerful than your "immutable" laws of nature???
Vj ~ No, I am telling you that you are an idiot and neither do you have any knowledge of the immutable laws of nature nor do you want to acquire the knowledge. In short you have the ego of a stubborn jackass.
Michele: If something is immutable, how can our ignorance change it? Doesn’t sound all the "powerful" to me.
Vj ~ Very simple, the same way the ignorant believers of false religions change it to come back from the dead to enjoy an 'eternal heaven'. How could you be right when they also breach the same laws?
Michele: Oh I know you will spout off some non sensical crap as an answer, but the bottom line is that this is a prime example of why you arent being taken seriously.
Vj ~ The question is, whose loss is it, if I am not taken seriously?
Michele: You dont make sense.
Vj ~ It simply means your static intellect is intact.
Michele: Rosamond.......hello! This guy is completely off his rocker here. Glad that I am not lucky enough to be THAT "enlightened" LOL......woohoo!!
Vj ~ Reminds me of the near frozen bird that fell in a pile of fresh shit, it felt so happy by its warmth, she started to sing only to be eaten by a lurking cat. The moral of this story is, when you are warm and comfy in a pile of shit, learn to keep your mouth shut and listen. The worst in all this Michele, you don't even know you are in a pile of shit, much less to get you to shut up.
Dialogue 16 Back to contents
Rebuttal from:StrayCat_11 - January 07, 2000
Cat: Vj, evolution is not equivalent to "becoming human"; life on earth has had about 1 billion years to proceed from microbes to manatees, with long-term stability for numerous species all along the way; Vj ~ Evolution is equivalent to human evolving out of some lower creature or organism where the source of intelligence was the direct result of instinctive knowledge. It breaches the immutable law of nature which clearly explains the source of the physical body to be the productive element and that instinctive knowledge being natural, can neither increase nor decrease. Man being specially created, the source of human intelligence had to be acquired knowledge. In short, man had to be taught from the very beginning as they are now and will be in the future. Cat: regarding the laws of probability, what are the chances that assorted test tubes of chemicals would assemble themselves to form Vj?
Vj ~ Like you and me and every human, we are the product of the reproductive element it is a law, unchangeable from the beginning to the end. Similarly, from the beginning to the end man must be taught. No laws of probability can breach the immutable laws of nature and if it does it is due to your ignorance of these laws. Cat: --evolution, like reproduction, is an ongoing, self-sustaining biological process;
Vj ~Evolution of early or the first humans cannot be the same as ongoing or present reproduction since the source differs. It had to be a source that was and is steady, and this is only possible in the case of the latter.
Cat: since you seem to want evolution to be logical, I'm trying to explain it that way.--SC
Vj ~ How can probability be logical above immutable?
P.S. Cat: Rosamond, I agree with you. I believe Vj is a follower of a guru who was named Dayanand. In any case, I understand and accept evolution, and I've studied Hinduism and found it wonderful.
Vj ~ What has Hinduism got to do with Dayanand or I, when it is not our faith? It is impossible to understand evolution and religion muchless accepting them, when you are destitute of the knowledge of natural laws and its operations.
StrayCat_11 - January 08, 2000 Cat: Vj, you are asserting on this message board that evolution is a failure.
Vj ~ Rightfully so, yes! It fails natural laws.Cat: But I notice that you've been the using term "evolution" differently than it's used in biology.
Vj ~ When you would have found the true source of biology, you would see no difference.
Cat: I don't know your specialized definitions for what appear on the surface to be ordinary words or phrases, such as "immutable law of nature", "instinctive knowledge", "source of intelligence", etc.
Vj ~ Then it is unwise of you to enter a debate with me.
Cat: Could you speak in the "vernacular"? (Your choice of words I have no problem with, provided you use them in a way that accommodate their meanings to the parties posting here.) I think it's your place to do so, since you started this message board in the "world-at-large" outside your website(s).
Vj ~ The "vernacular" is not the problem, many are just confounded by this truth. It is my place to show you the way and only after careful examination or study of my faith we can begin the process of acquiring good reasoning power.
Cat: Otherwise, our "debate" will forever be like two ships missing each other completely in the night.
Vj ~ It is obvious then, since it is your ship that is doing the missing, it is you who need to do some navigation (research). It is the only way I can guide you in. Cat: I trust it's not your strategy to have merely a pseudo-debate proving no argument whatsoever.
Vj ~ On the contrary, if it was so, I would have been long gone.
Dialogue 17 Back to contents
Rebuttal from:StrayCat_11 - January 09, 2000 Cat: Vj, you've made one thing clear: Vj ~ That it would be to your advantage to know my faith before discussing it.
Cat: that you wish to invite people to study your faith by visiting your website,
Vj ~ Then what would be the point of having a website, if debate alone can educate one of my faith?
Cat: but not to engage in a meaningful debate on your message board.
Vj ~ Perhaps, you have already consider yourself, like Michele and Rosamond as, the sole authority of propagating truth, without the necessary examination of any other source. In this case it is you, like them, that have no interest in a meaningful debate. A meaningful debate is when one responds to the argument at hand, but such, is hardly the case. Furthermore, if my debates had no meaning, it is hardly likely that, I would have lasted this long, still actively engaged in over 600 responses, ignoring none.
valender - January 10, 2000 Val: vj- then why did you (in post 643) claim that about evolution?
Vj ~ It was to Michele's rebuttal, "Oh and for the record, I don’t believe a dead man come back from the dead either". I will rephrase the question - "very good, then do you truly believe the laws of decay (death without resurrection) to be immutable, or do you believe in the past the dead did come back to life? If it is immutable in the case of death, then why is not immutable in the case of birth (reproduction from the reproductive element). In other words, how could the first humans be an exception by evolving from a lower creature or organism, to later ones as the steady product of the reproductive element."
valender - January 17, 2000 Val: vj- must one follow you're way to find happiness?
Vj ~ Is there any other way? It is not my way or your way valender, it is the only one way (true path) to perpetual happiness. It is not difficult to understand that the science of prevention (Yoga) is, by far, superior to the science of cure, even though both are of the same source.
valender - January 18, 2000 Val: vj- is perpetual happiness the same happiness one experience in the normal course of events, only differing in it's longevity?
Vj ~ Matterialistic happiness is the "experience in the normal course of events" and it is always momentary, while perpetual happiness is only possible by the practice of the correct knowledge. One can be very elated in acquiring the gift of a beautiful Farari sports car, but could be torn apart by the same if the car gets even a scratch.
"The pleasure one experiences in enjoying the best things of the world does not equal the one thousandth part of the pleasure one feels after acquiring knowledge." Swami Dayanand .
Let's put it this way, in belief there are doubts of not knowing, which bring fear and when there is fear, there is unhappiness.
valender - January 19, 2000 Val: vj- i wasn't referring to materialistic happiness in that last post. both you and i agree that's not true happiness, rather a passing elation... I’m referring, instead, to happiness akin to petting a pet, falling in love, or walking in a forest... so, i repeat my last question... is the happiness you refer to like this, only differing in it's longevity?
Vj ~ I am sorry valender I can't do any better than that, since it is entirely a personal experience which can not be described by words alone.
"No tongue can express that bliss which flows, from communion with the Supreme Spirit, into the soul of that man whose impurities are washed off by the practice of yoga, whose mind being abstracted from the outside world is centered in the Supreme Spirit; because that happiness is felt by the human soul in its inner self alone." The Upanishad
valender- January 22, 2000 Val: 'it is possible to understand another's point of view, but it is impossible to know what another person is, or has, experienced'... i can easily buy your last post. Vj ~ Pain and misery can easily be experienced, because everyone is subjected to it at one time or the other. Perhaps not in the same form but pain is pain a reality of ignorance.
Val: Is it preferable for people to find their own happiness their own way, or that they must find the happiness of the Vedas?
Vj ~ On the other hand, perpetual happiness is the reality of true knowledge and the only source is the Vedas. It was revealed in the very beginning of creation for all of mankind, depriving none; it is eternal and therefore free of any historical references; it is the source of ethics, morals and all sciences and its truth does not break allegiance with any particular age; it is in harmony with reasoning, free of contradictions and inconsistencies; and above all it conforms with the immutable laws of nature. It is the only truth that can free the soul (emancipation) from the bondage of embodiment (birth and death) for a very long (extreme) period.
Dialogue 18 Back to contents
Rebuttal from: michele8466 - January 09, 2000 Michele: had a hard time getting through that last one, huh? Vj ~ Rather, it is nectar for the wise. It is the ignorant that faces hard times; you should know!
Michele: VJ, you don’t make sense.
Vj ~I will give you credit for at least trying, but compulsion being so, perhaps like many others, you are born to die an idiot. And whether you do or not I have nothing to lose.
Michele: I suppose YOU have examined every single religion in existence? NOT.
Vj ~ Why guess when you are graced with the opportunity of knowing? It is quite simple, especially when they are all in violation of natural laws. So continue to be stupid which you are good at, and prove me wrong.
Michele: There are about 1200 forms of Christianity alone.
Vj ~ Makes no difference even if there were a million forms, their bible, the source is false.
Michele: Your belief in God is no more valid than the next guys
Vj ~ Very true, they all will be the same in the eyes of an idiot. And whenever you see it as different know that you coming out of ignorance.
Michele: You believe blindly.
Vj ~ According to evolution (no purpose), what have you, I or anyone else got to loose, whether it is blind or not?
Michele: Faith is NOT proof and you do not have proof of anything. JUST FAITH.
Vj ~ Who said faith was proof? There are proofs, but it is the searcher that must seek it by his/her own reasoning (effort) guided by the correct knowledge. If it weren't so, all would have already accepted this one truth. It is idiots who demand proofs, and if you truly need more of it, then embrace Christianity and the other false dogmas where these prophets sneak up when no one else is around to speak to you.michele8466 - January 11, 2000 Michele: What the hell are you talking about? I believe when we die, we get buried and rot in the ground and that is that.
Vj ~ If "that is that", why bother to care if we evolve or not? I know how many would like to think that way, it spares them the thought of pain and misery to come. On the other hand, to avoid it, they will have to abandon materialism (sensuality, etc.) for austerity, not entirely an easy thing to do. It is the sole reason, why false religions made redemption and repentance (forgiveness of sins) a guarantee of salvation.Michele: Perhaps the original humans (who were nothing like the humans of today) were not reproduced in the same manner as we are today.
Vj ~ Perhaps the mouth "of the original human" was the organ used for the excretion of waste matter also. If you don't think that it every happen that way, then you cannot deny the other law.
Michele: This would make sense considering there were no parents to reproduce them.
Vj ~ Does it not make sense also, that there were no parents to teach them as your parents have taught you?
Michele: You keep speaking of these immutable laws (which by the way , you claim MY ignorance has the power to change, which makes them very weak laws).
Vj ~ If ignorance could change these laws you would have tasted your excrement many times over. It is the same ignorance (of the law) that brought the dead back to life, so you are in good company. Michele: Explain how YOUR "maker" would exist in the first place. Something had to have started your "maker" too. Things just do not pop out of thin air. Cause and effect, friend. Get a grip.
Vj ~ Well, if your creation popped out of thin air why not a Maker? Matter is the material cause also and something would have had to start it, so how does your science explain where it came from?
Michele: Every human since day one has pondered these questions and NOT ONE of them has ever known the truth, including you and your turban.
Vj ~ And may you know that not "every human" including you, know what is consist of truth much less pondering over it. Rather striking, that you would rather not ponder over my faith, since truth could be anywhere. Michele: It is apparent that these answers are not achievable, for whatever reasons.
Vj ~ There is only one reason and you are full of it - ignorance.
Michele: Personally, I do not care if God waved his magic wand, or if we were built from Lego's......
Vj ~ It is not magic to create with order and design, but it is magic when it happened by chance. You are also a liar, you do care and you are here because you are unsure of what you are belching as evolution.Michele: I am here, I am happy and I make my OWN purpose in life.
Vj ~ An idiot liar who is subjected to ridicule can never be happy.
Michele: That is what most healthy minded, well adjusted folks do.
Vj ~ A healthy mind can never be offended by ridicule or name-calling. Michele: You do not know the answers, and you never will. Sorry.
Vj ~ It would obviously mean that you do know the answers, how else would you know that I don't have all the answers.
michele8466 - January 14, 2000 Michele: Vj ~ "An idiot who is subjected to ridicule can never be happy." Prove that one. You have no way of knowing if I am happy or not, other than what I say about myself.
Vj ~ You have left this board many times in disgust before. A happy person can never be one who complains of being ridiculed.Michele: Further, your "ridicule" is actually amusing because it reflects YOUR ignorance and inaccuracy concerning spirituality.
Vj ~ What do you know of spirituality - it is punishment and rewards. Yours is all chance.
Michele: Your ancient proverbs are silly.
Vj ~ Couldn't be sillier than a monkey, your source of learning.Vj ~ "If "that is that", why bother to care if we evolve or not?" Michele: Dying dont have shit to do with evolution.
Vj ~ According to evolution there shouldn't be death, since life is 'amino acids'. Michele: Birth has more to do with it.
Vj ~ How could it when the first humans evolved, instead of being born (created), the direct result of the reproductive element? Michele: Things don’t evolve because something died, things evolve because something is born. SPED.
Vj ~ So why couldn't human be created as the direct result of the reproductive element? You are indeed an idiot. I guess it is the nature of ignorance that you can't help it. Michele: Harry.....nice to see you around again. You are indeed right about VJ. The fanatics are a dime a dozen, aren’t they? LOL
Vj ~ Maybe your friend harryll can help you with a response to the below topic which you earlier ignored. Debates are sensible and intelligent when ideas are responded to in the appropriate manner since it is the only way of ascertaining truth.
Dialogue 19 Back to contents
Rebuttal from: Rosamond - January 14, 2000 Rosa: When VJ says "any idiot who is subjected to ridicule cannot be happy", you should tell him you feel sorry for him. It's obvious he is speaking from personal experience! Vj ~ Of course, it is a personal experience, the reason you are keeping away from dialogue with me. Happy one moment and unhappy the next is not what I would call happiness. It is only through wisdom (practice of the correct knowledge that one can be free of physical and mental discomforts. The rewards are better and better lives to come (by re-births) with the ultimate goal of emancipation, which is a very, very long period, free of bondage (births and deaths).
Rosa: Nah, long-term happiness comes from being and doing good because it's intrinsically the best way to live.
Vj ~ How come the Pope, the vicar of goodness, kindness, mercy and compassion, is stricken with painful and incurable diseases? Long-term happiness is the reward of goodness indeed, but if you don't know what is consist of goodness, then how is long-termed happiness possible? It is like a murderer serving life-imprisonment, claiming he is the happiest man in the world, by doing good for his fellow inmates.
Rosa: Plants! Big problem there, as animals evolved from plants, if the "immutable laws" operated the way VJ assumes they do, the plants would be evolving to animal, etc.
Vj ~ The cause of the physical body is the reproductive element of which its source is plants (food). Man was created from this element in the beginning and until now it is still the source of the physical body. This shows that the law is steady and therefore is immutable.
michele8466 - January 17, 2000 Michele: Now VJ, how you exaggerate! I have left several times? No, I don’t think so. I left once and that was about a year ago (give or take). You cant even tell the truth about something trivial.
Vj ~ It makes no difference since a fool is always unsteady (comes and goes). Even though you are here, you have learnt nothing yet, which amounts to the same as if you are not here at all. Besides, a lie is a good thing especially if it can rehabilitate an idiot.Michele: ALTHOUGH, you may be confusing me with the several hundred others who have visited your ridiculous board and made an ass out of you also.
Vj ~ How could I be the "ass" when you are the one who is confused? And even if I am, please tell me what kind of an individual can be so easily confused by an "ass"?
Michele: What does your "religion" teach your "enlightened" ass about truth? Not much apparently.
Vj ~ It enlightens me of those who are confused and make no gain in a sensible debateRosamond - January 17, 2000 Rosa: science_f: ---------- Evolutionary biologists will be the first to acknowledge they do not have all the answers.
Vj ~ If they don't have "all the answers", how is it possible to ascertain that what they have so far are really 'answers'?
Rosamond - January 20, 2000 Rosa: craziest: ----Evolutionary Theory has nothing to do with genocide and does not promote the idea that race or sexual orientation are inferior.
Vj ~ Except for your (inferior) source of all ethics, morals and sciences, of course!Rosa: As a matter of fact, Evolutionary Theorists recognize that variety and complexity are essential survival tools for a species as a whole.
Vj ~ And without a grain of purpose, why some species are doomed to be stupor while some rise intellectually, even though such enrichment of wisdom bears no reward in the end? Is it all for naught? Rosa: I am pleased, though, that you (valender) and VJ have found one another, and deservedly so.
Vj ~ No more pleased than I, since you have found me long before and deservedly so.
Dialogue 20 Back to contents
Rebuttal from:jared_000 - January 14, 2000 Jared: It could be argued that man has not evolved in such a long time simply because man has evolved to a place where he no longer needs to adapt to a harsh, ever changing environment. Vj ~ Then it could be argued, that the olfactory sense was used for hearing at one time or could at sometime in the future. The immutable laws of nature is responsible for the orderly sustenance of our universe an its habitants. There can be no breach to any of these laws. Therefore, the cause of physical body from the reproductive element from the very beginning of human existence is more a logical argument.
Jared: If you think your very body is without evidence of evolution, I urge you right now to reach around a feel the very lower most portion of your back side.
Vj ~ I reached around and felt my scotum (seeds), does that prove also that I grew from the ground like a tree? It is only an evolutionist's argument, but the immutable law is the law and since it is unchangeable, your argument is false.
Jared: The only failure of evolution, and religion alike, is that alone, neither one can answer all of the questions. Both contain holes that can only be filled in by the other.
Vj ~ Not true, show me the holes in mine when it pertains to the source of good reasoning and all sciences.
Jared: vijai, you say that religion points downward, so how do you reconcile this statement with the fact the you are one of "the one true religion".
Vj ~ True revelation of the Vedas, is and will be the same for all ages, because it is an eternal revelation, but universal righteousness (practice of true religion) which is born out of it is finite, and therefore is subjected to decadence by either rejection and/or compulsion.
Jared: Weather its the one true religion or not, it still a religion, and therefore is not exempt from your statement.
Vj ~ It is the revelation that is exempted not the universal practice of righteousness (religion), and it conforms with the immutable law of nature that progress is downwards and never upwards. All other religions propagate the opposite, a world of universal harmony (eternal heaven) to come on this earth. It can never be, since nothing finite can regain its original purity, which means, even our universe must die. In short, nothing old, can become young or new again. Jared: You said that religion focused on purity and righteousness, and was steady and unchangeable. How wrong you are.
Vj ~ Purity and universal righteousness which is finite decays like everything else that is finite which is a law that is steady and unchangeable. As a child is born innocent and pure and begin to loose innocence and purity as he/she grows, the same can be said of righteousness.
Jared: My religion focuses on harmony and wholeness of the human spirit, and reverence of the ever changing and infinitely diverse force that we call life.
Vj ~ How can life be infinite when it had a beginning? You neither know the source of matter, how can you begin to focus on "harmony and wholeness"?
Jared: It progresses neither up nor down, but rather it just is what its is
Vj ~ It is the 'religion' of one in the stupor state (lack of human intelligence) that instinctive knowledge neither increase or decrease. Truth, on the other hand, is based on acquired knowledge, in that, man can make progress by higher learning to achieve higher goals or rewards, otherwise, there would be no incentive to do so.
Jared: Thank you, BTW, your topic really inspired me to think this morning.
Vj ~ I hope it is the beginning of good things (reasoning with the correct knowledge) to come for you.
Jared: With any luck, humans will die well before they kill everything else, at least then nature has a chance.
Vj ~ Whether it is man's greed or nature's power, the universe will come to end, but only when its alloted time expires and not before.
Jared: Not that I wish for human destruction, but we are really blowing our chance.
Vj ~ Then don't blow your only chance of seeking true knowledge.
Jared: What I don’t understand is, how in a modern society can one look at truth in the face and still try to pretend its not.
Vj ~ Speaking of yourself, of course! Truth is ascertained through reasoning guided by the correct knowledge and must be in conformity with the immutable laws of nature. If yours is not compatible to this, it is not truth.
Jared: Religion is one thing, its subjective to the practitioner, but science is not.
Vj ~ Scientific theories are first born of subjectivity, before they become objective or practical. It is no different with the abstruse science of the Divine. Have you even made an attempt to try it?
Jared: When the subjective truth of your religion conflicts with the Objective reality of science, you are then presented with two choices. You can rethink your stance and evolve like the rest of creation, or you can die out and become extinct like the dinosaurs.
Vj ~ Science only comes in conflict with religion, or vice versa, in the absence of the true source. You have made good study of science, but had you equally investigated true religion, you would have been in a better position to reject or accept. Jared: The choice is yours, but as one woman put it "you do not have the choice to believe or disbelieve (evolution), you have the choice to learn or remain ignorant."(not exact, but the gist is the same)
Vj ~ There is a choice, but it is only the ignorant would reject or contradict an argument without proper investigation of its true source. Isn't it foolish to ascertain that all religions are the same without examining their tenets?
|