The Cheating Scientist is always an atheist

Originally posted by amannion
No, not an accident - natural selection. To call evolution accidental is both mistaken and idiotic.

Yes but the phrase "the unseen hand of natural selection" is another way of saying the "unseen hand of the Supreme Spiritual Creative Principle"

And we all know its the "Supreme Spiritual Creative Principle".... at work giving us life, not the other fabricated fairy tale.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Yes but the phrase "the unseen hand of natural selection" is another way of saying the "unseen hand of the Supreme Spiritual Creative Principle"

And we all know its the "Supreme Spiritual Creative Principle".... at work giving us life, not the other fabricated fairy tale.

Edit: "And we all know its the "Supreme Spiritual Creative Principle".... at work giving us life, not the other fabricated fairy tale."


How and by which means did you came to, say, "know" it?
😵

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Yes but the phrase "the unseen hand of natural selection" is another way of saying the "unseen hand of the Supreme Spiritual Creative Principle"

And we all know its the "Supreme Spiritual Creative Principle".... at work giving us life, not the other fabricated fairy tale.

That's just popular writers trying to be creative and poetic. There's nothing directing natural selection - no unseen hand. It's just a (this'll please Freaky) process.

Originally posted by amannion
That's just popular writers trying to be creative and poetic. There's nothing directing natural selection - no unseen hand. It's just a (this'll please Freaky) process.

Unfortunately, many people misinterpret what is really meant with poetic language or metaphors. For example, when Einstein said, "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.", which is often paraphrased as, "God does not play dice."

This was in reference to strange things happening in quantum mechanics. God being a metaphor for nature.

This has often been interpreted to mean that Einstein ended up believing in a creator.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
To Andrew Hamilton

Your take on it is flawed, because dead matter cannot organize itself, and science has ignored the spiritual creative principle at work, because their dishonest.

I wouldnt mind so much if they agreed that their is something remarkable going on in all the complexity of life, but they are keeping to the belief that dead matter is a ...[text shortened]... w, that can then give man milk, cheese, yogurt,cream,butter, ghee....what a wonderfull accident.

“...Your take on it is flawed, because dead matter cannot organize itself, ...”

How do you know this?
Laboratory experiments have shown that simple organic compounds like those that would have been produced in the early Earth can, under the right conditions, self-assemble into more complex and organised structures (such as microsphere ).

Also, to help you understand why the modern complexity of cells does not pose a scientific problem, take a read of the messages in the film on:

http://wn.com/Abiogenesis

(but you might want to turn the sound down because the music on the video is a real irritation) .

There are also some very informative videos there that explain how abiogenesis probably actually occurred and mentions the fact it could have occurred with the help of RNA that doesn't need enzymes or any protein to self-replicate.
There is also proof shown on the videos of how lifeless molecules can self-organise and form complex cell structures.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
To Andrew Hamilton

Your take on it is flawed, because dead matter cannot organize itself, and science has ignored the spiritual creative principle at work, because their dishonest.

I wouldnt mind so much if they agreed that their is something remarkable going on in all the complexity of life, but they are keeping to the belief that dead matter is a ...[text shortened]... w, that can then give man milk, cheese, yogurt,cream,butter, ghee....what a wonderfull accident.

“...Why should cells combine themselves to the point of giving us a cow, that can then give man milk, cheese, yogurt,cream,butter, ghee....what a wonderfull accident. ...”

As amannion pointed out, it was no accident but natural selection. Also, cows didn’t evolve to give us milk but to give their young milk -the same is true for other mammals.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Why should cells combine themselves to the point of giving us a cow, that can then give man milk, cheese, yogurt,cream,butter, ghee....what a wonderfull accident. ...”

As amannion pointed out, it was no accident but natural selection. Also, cows didn’t evolve to give us milk but to give their young milk -the same is true for other mammals.

Cows didn't evolve, they where designed by the Supreme Spiritual Intelligence, and they where designed to give man milk....and you cannot see this because your atheistic beliefs blind you.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Cows didn't evolve, they where designed by the Supreme Spiritual Intelligence, and they where designed to give man milk....and you cannot see this because your atheistic beliefs blind you.

Were humans designed to give cows milk?

P.S. This is a rhetorical question.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Cows didn't evolve, they where designed by the Supreme Spiritual Intelligence, and they where designed to give man milk....and you cannot see this because your atheistic beliefs blind you.

and if their calfs get some leftover milk, that is ok.

i do hope you are being sarcastic. otherwise you just might be the most insane person on the internet.

Originally posted by lausey
Were humans designed to give cows milk?

P.S. This is a rhetorical question.

humans were designed to give other humans milk. we are superior. we got a good deal with the supreme spiritual intelligence. we don't have to share our milk with any other species and many other mammals must give us their milk as a tribute.

There is always soy milk for those that can aford it 😛

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
and if their calfs get some leftover milk, that is ok.

i do hope you are being sarcastic. otherwise you just might be the most insane person on the internet.

Unfortunately I don't think Vishva was being sarcastic, based on previous postings.

You foolish people, cows give enough milk to serve man and calf, and that is their purpose.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You foolish people, cows give enough milk to serve man and calf, and that is their purpose.

But why didn't he design a pet animal that would provide me with a cappuccino in the morning?

Originally posted by Palynka
But why didn't he design a pet animal that would provide me with a cappuccino in the morning?

Just modify this design slightly:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-10/ratcar-tracks-brain-waves-control-movement