Spirituality
24 Aug 11
26 Aug 11
Why is a scientist the reference point for validating evolution.?
A scientist is a person that blindly accepts the pile of books at is desk so he can obtain that Phd.
With a Phd he can now demand respect from all the lay persons and obtain a licence to speculate.
A scientist is the last person you should go to for getting information about evolution.
Unless .............they are an honest person/scientist in which case believe every word they utter.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by Dasagranting the absurdity of the entire post, that last bit of advice is especially absurd. an honest scientist can still be wrong.
Why is a scientist the reference point for validating evolution.?
A scientist is a person that blindly accepts the pile of books at is desk so he can obtain that Phd.
With a Phd he can now demand respect from all the lay persons and obtain a licence to speculate.
A scientist is the last person you should go to for getting information about evolution. ...[text shortened]... ss .............they are an honest person/scientist in which case believe every word they utter.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsit's a conspiracy!!!! your 100 creationist scientists (damn that sounds stupid) are more intelligent than the 700 steves that find evolution to be a pretty worthy idea at least.
If the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution then we must have a lot
stupid scientist in the world. But I think that estimate is not reasonable. And
I believe most scientist are not even concerned with evolution because it has
no effect on what they do.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by Dasa😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀
Why is a scientist the reference point for validating evolution.?
A scientist is a person that blindly accepts the pile of books at is desk so he can obtain that Phd.
With a Phd he can now demand respect from all the lay persons and obtain a licence to speculate.
A scientist is the last person you should go to for getting information about evolution. ...[text shortened]... ss .............they are an honest person/scientist in which case believe every word they utter.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀
😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵
question: i wish the forum designers would allow me to insert a wav in posts.
that way could insert a laughter sound file whenever dasa posts something so mind bogglingly stupid.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritno, you don't understand how dasa uses honest/ dishonest. forget the regular meaning.
granting the absurdity of the entire post, that last bit of advice is especially absurd. an honest scientist can still be wrong.
he claims that someone being "honest" means his views are exactly the same as dasa's. that the vedas hold such awesome and ultimate truth about life, the universe and everything, that every sentient being from everywhere actually believe them on a subconscious level, but they are revolting against this ultimate truth and refuse to acknowledge it. thus lying to themselves.
he refuses any discussion, any debate. not only does he refuse the possibility he might be wrong, he refuses even the possibility we might be of the opinion he might be wrong. thus anyone who disagrees with him only needs to stop lying and accept the ultimate truth. his.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo teaching conscious life crawled from a muddy puddle is not dishonest?
no, you don't understand how dasa uses honest/ dishonest. forget the regular meaning.
he claims that someone being "honest" means his views are exactly the same as dasa's. that the vedas hold such awesome and ultimate truth about life, the universe and everything, that every sentient being from everywhere actually believe them on a subconscious level, b ...[text shortened]... s anyone who disagrees with him only needs to stop lying and accept the ultimate truth. his.
Do you see how foolish you look defending this claim.
Its dishonest.
Now lets go to cheating religion.....
Thou shalt not kill................means "Thou shalt kill abundantly".
Are you going to defend this also?
Its all dishonest.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaTell me, how many years did you eat meat before your became a vegan, vishavahetu?
So teaching conscious life crawled from a muddy puddle is not dishonest?
Do you see how foolish you look defending this claim.
Its dishonest.
Now lets go to cheating religion.....
Thou shalt not kill................means "Thou shalt kill abundantly".
Are you going to defend this also?
Its all dishonest.
27 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaThou shalt not kill...does not mean... "Thou shalt kill abundantly".
So teaching conscious life crawled from a muddy puddle is not dishonest?
Do you see how foolish you look defending this claim.
Its dishonest.
Now lets go to cheating religion.....
Thou shalt not kill................means "Thou shalt kill abundantly".
Are you going to defend this also?
Its all dishonest.
It means "Thou shalt not murder".
You must read it in context. It was referring to the moral treatment
of other humans. The first group of the ten commanments concerned
man's relationship to God and tha last group of the ten commanments
concerned man's relationship to his fellow man.
27 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYou know, a few years ago there was a new thing happening with the net. The introduction of the troll.
Thou shalt not kill...does not mean... "Thou shalt kill abundantly".
It means "Thou shalt not murder".
You must read it in context. It was referring to the moral treatment
of other humans. The first group of the ten commanments concerned
man's relationship to God and tha last group of the ten commanments
concerned man's relationship to his fellow man.
The message was DNFTEC. Do Not Feed The Energy Creature. Get the picture? The more we feed them, the more excited they get and they feed off the negative energy. If we stop responding to it, it will go away eventually.
27 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThe Bible has said "thou shalt not kill" for 1600 years.
Thou shalt not kill...does not mean... "Thou shalt kill abundantly".
It means "Thou shalt not murder".
You must read it in context. It was referring to the moral treatment
of other humans. The first group of the ten commanments concerned
man's relationship to God and tha last group of the ten commanments
concerned man's relationship to his fellow man.
They have changed it so they can kill.
Now you are dishonestly defending that change so you can kill'.
If the Bible is the word of God you cannot change it.
You cannot change Gods words.
Why do you defend the slaughter of Gods creatures.
27 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaI did not change God's word. It has remained unchanged. It has always
The Bible has said "thou shalt not kill" for 1600 years.
They have changed it so they can kill.
Now you are dishonestly defending that change so you can kill'.
If the Bible is the word of God you cannot change it.
You cannot change Gods words.
Why do you defend the slaughter of Gods creatures.
said what it says today. Men that did not know the original language very
well have sometimes translated it into other languages with words that
approximate the meaning of the original text language. That is how we
got "Thou shall not kill" instead of "Thou shall not murder". Murder is
a more correct translation than just "kill". Murder is a specific kind of
killing that is intended by the original text. By reading the rest of the
Holy Bible you can also see that "murder" has to be the correct translation
else there would be a contradiction when killing is done later in the text.
And as you said yourself that it is not wrong for the cheetah to kill his
prey for his food.
27 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsNot true............its always said THOU SHALT NOT KILL
I did not change God's word. It has remained unchanged. It has always
said what it says today. Men that did not know the original language very
well have sometimes translated it into other languages with words that
approximate the meaning of the original text language. That is how we
got "Thou shall not kill" instead of "Thou shall not murder". Mur ...[text shortened]... you said yourself that it is not wrong for the cheetah to kill his
prey for his food.
Christians embrace the word change enthusiastically because it allows them to kill.
27 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsNo.........they have only recently changed it and have left the original translation stay for all this time even though the Bible is the most scrutinized book on the planet.
I did not change God's word. It has remained unchanged. It has always
said what it says today. Men that did not know the original language very
well have sometimes translated it into other languages with words that
approximate the meaning of the original text language. That is how we
got "Thou shall not kill" instead of "Thou shall not murder". Mur ...[text shortened]... you said yourself that it is not wrong for the cheetah to kill his
prey for his food.
This excuse is not accepted.
The true translation is kill.............not murder.
Never was murder and never will be.