The Cheating Scientist is always an atheist

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“..But you dont think for yourself, ...”

What do you mean by that? -that I am not selfish or what?

“...you just blindly accept the evolution theory,(the books) ...”

I don not accept it “blindly” because such science is based on evidence.

“...the evolution theory,(the books)...”

I do not get is from “books”. I got it from listening abou ...[text shortened]...

“...So you have just accepted blindly...Why ...”

Nope, I have just accepted the evidence.

But when I say others have gone before me and have raised their consciousness, and have developed love for god, you dont accept this, but you accept the evidence of the science people who have put it all together....you have just accepted.

And the evidence you speak of is fabricated, by the dishonest scientists, and they have been caught so many times fabricating, and being exposed.

If you where not biased, you would get the book "Forbidden Archeology" and read it, but because your biased towards the atheistic view, then you dont want anything to disturb that stance......and thats dishonest.

If you where truly unbiased and honest, then you would get that book, because that book is authorized and accepted by all honest scientists who want truth, and the dishonest scientists, are running as fast as they can, away from it.

Your arguments for not accepting God are very weak, and the reality is that you have not studied Vedanta, and have no idea what it presents, but you dismiss it, because you think it is like Christianity or something, and this argument that you have no proof of God is the weakest, because even in your science, you accept things unseen.

To perceive God, a person must purify their heart and mind first....are you willing to do this?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“..But you dont think for yourself, ...”

What do you mean by that? -that I am not selfish or what?

“...you just blindly accept the evolution theory,(the books) ...”

I don not accept it “blindly” because such science is based on evidence.

“...the evolution theory,(the books)...”

I do not get is from “books”. I got it from listening abou ...[text shortened]...

“...So you have just accepted blindly...Why ...”

Nope, I have just accepted the evidence.

error in transmission

Originally posted by vishvahetu
If you where not biased, you would get the book "Forbidden Archeology" and read it, but because your biased towards the atheistic view, then you dont want anything to disturb that stance......and thats dishonest.

Here is a review by Wade Tarzia, PhD of "Forbideen Archeology" with references.

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/tarzia.html

Originally posted by lausey
Here is a review by Wade Tarzia, PhD of "Forbideen Archeology" with references.

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/tarzia.html

Yes this man is dishonest, and his comments are a text book example of fundamental Darwinism, which means he is committed to Darwinism more on the idealogical, rather than the scientific grounds.

He sees instinctively any scientific work that does not come to a Darwinian conclusion as pseudoscience.

He acknowledged that the mass of details in "Forbidden Archeology" would require a book length response to be fair in an accurate assessment, so he gave it a brief analysis and then gave his pre-determined review.

His review was a blanket attack of accusations of pseudoscience, which are themselves the hallmark of pseudoscience,.......thus his review is unscientific.

The book Forbidden Archeology has been the center of intense scientific discourse, and didn't draw attention from the minor interest groups, but drew full reviews from the....

American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Geoarchaeology, L Homme, L Anthropologie, British Journal for the history of science.

Did you know that any pseudoscience offerings, are always featured in the minor interest groups, and never see the light of day with the above mentioned establishment, which means that Forbidden Archeology is an authorized scholarly scientific work of the highest merit.

Also there is a complete response to his review in, "Forbidden Archeology the Impact" which is a book put together responding to all the fabricated dishonest reviews by the dishonest reviewers. (scientists)

On page 169 through to 184 of " Forbidden Archeology The Impact" is the complete annihilation of this mans false review, and the whole book is dedicated to responding to all the other fabricated dishonest reviews by other so called scientific persons.

So you see the scientific establishment can do nothing to disprove " Forbidden Archeology" so they systematically slander the book with no verifiable back-up, and wild baseless statements, and this is their dishonest nature.

Will you read both those books now, or will you hide your head in a hole like everyone else.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Yes this man is dishonest, and his comments are a text book example of fundamental Darwinism, which means he is committed to Darwinism more on the idealogical, rather than the scientific grounds.

He sees instinctively any scientific work that does not come to a Darwinian conclusion as pseudoscience.

He acknowledged that the mass of details in "Forbi ...[text shortened]... you read both those books now, or will you hide your head in a hole like everyone else.

I explained a few posts back how scientific process works and how it is carefully scrutinised. Everything referenced and can be traced back to the original experiments and discoveries. There are many thousands of them which support evolution.

The link I mentioned above is also thoroughly referenced and researched. Yet you come up with blatant untruths like the Vedenta is millions of years old which has no references whatsoever. You are blindly following scriptures which you have no idea where the information comes from and cannot possibly trace it back to its source. Scientific writings, you can.

You are using technologies which come from science. Why would one area of science be very meticulous and thorough, and other areas (which just happen to not support your point of view) be half-baked?

I am more willing to agree with what is mentioned in the link I have posted than what you say.

I generally do not feel comfortable spending my hard earned readies on pseudo-scientific books, but I will see if I can get hold of the ones you have mentioned. Hopefully second hand or free, as I do not want the author capitalising on it and writing more BS.

Originally posted by lausey
I explained a few posts back how scientific process works and how it is carefully scrutinised. Everything referenced and can be traced back to the original experiments and discoveries. There are many thousands of them which support evolution.

The link I mentioned above is also thoroughly referenced and researched. Yet you come up with blatant untruths like ...[text shortened]... pefully second hand or free, as I do not want the author capitalising on it and writing more BS.

Honestly, I wouldn't bother if I were you. I have recently borrowed a copy and read much of it - it's not complete bo**ocks, but the evidence quoted is all out of date and almost wholly discredited. I would place it on a shelf between "Chariots of the Gods" and "The Da Vinci Code". Mildly entertaining fiction at best as long as one is not irritated by blatant and deliberate misinterpretation of archaeological evidence. Of course, that's just my opinion - well, mine and the vast majority of reviewers, Hare Krishnas and crackpots excepted.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Honestly, I wouldn't bother if I were you. I have recently borrowed a copy and read much of it - it's not complete bo**ocks, but the evidence quoted is all out of date and almost wholly discredited. I would place it on a shelf between "Chariots of the Gods" and "The Da Vinci Code". Mildly entertaining fiction at best as long as one is not irritate ...[text shortened]... on - well, mine and the vast majority of reviewers, Hare Krishnas and crackpots excepted.

"The Da Vinci Code"

I had the misfortune to have wasted my time reading much of this. 😞

Your opinion is noted. 🙂

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Honestly, I wouldn't bother if I were you. I have recently borrowed a copy and read much of it - it's not complete bo**ocks, but the evidence quoted is all out of date and almost wholly discredited. I would place it on a shelf between "Chariots of the Gods" and "The Da Vinci Code". Mildly entertaining fiction at best as long as one is not irritate ...[text shortened]... on - well, mine and the vast majority of reviewers, Hare Krishnas and crackpots excepted.

It is you who is a fundamentalist Darwinian crackpot, who skims through the book to try and find some fault, and then gives your pre- determined dishonest comments.

This is typical of a dishonest atheistic person, and you have not read the book, because if you have read it, then your opinions would not be as they are......false!

Originally posted by vishvahetu
It is you who is a fundamentalist Darwinian crackpot, who skims through the book to try and find some fault, and then gives your pre- determined dishonest comments.

This is typical of a dishonest atheistic person, and you have not read the book, because if you have read it, then your opinions would not be as they are......false!

I feel sorry for your children, and your dog.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Some more Vedic thought

Little more than a century ago, science began to entertain notions of life arising from inert chemicals. Through the microscopes of that time, the cell appeared to be no more than a simple bag of chemicals. Therefore it seemed reasonable to scientists such as Darwin to imagine that elementary living forms might have arisen from ...[text shortened]... rocesses involved. This has not been done.


Biochemists may call upon...

You really should cite your source. Otherwise you may be accused of plagiarism.

Originally posted by lausey
I explained a few posts back how scientific process works and how it is carefully scrutinised. Everything referenced and can be traced back to the original experiments and discoveries. There are many thousands of them which support evolution.

The link I mentioned above is also thoroughly referenced and researched. Yet you come up with blatant untruths like ...[text shortened]... pefully second hand or free, as I do not want the author capitalising on it and writing more BS.

All your comments are unfounded, and its the usual atheistic denial.

I never comment about technology science which is of course true, and you know this, but when the science is about false evolution, and the rejection of God and the soul, then I have something to say about the dishonesty in the teachings that the scientists present.

The scientific evidence that is referenced that your talking about, has been carefully studied by the authors of " Forbidden Archeology" and was found to be manipulated, fabricated and anything that supported the fact that evolution is not true, was systematically removed from the scrutiny of the scientific establishment,and public.

Your blind acceptance of the evolution theory, does not give you a sound foundation to speak from, because you have not tested any evidence that is suppose to support evolution yourself, and actually any evidence that is put forward is fabricated anyway by the dishonest scientist to support their atheistic values.....so the whole theory is a joke, and if you support it then your are completely a dishonest person.

Vedanta is actually eternal, but the present universe we are in is trillions of years old and Vedanta is as old as the universe......and you have no way of perceiving this, because you dont even know you are a spiritual being, so how could you understand anything if you dont know what you are.

If you dont know what you are, then your intelligence must be defective, and you can make no comment about evolution or the soul, that would be taken seriously.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
All your comments are unfounded, and its the usual atheistic denial.

I never comment about technology science which is of course true, and you know this, but when the science is about false evolution, and the rejection of God and the soul, then I have something to say about the dishonesty in the teachings that the scientists present.

The scientific ctive, and you can make no comment about evolution or the soul, that would be taken seriously.

So you are saying that out of the millions of scientists who have help develop technology and medicine, which includes vast studies in physics, chemistry and biology, are very honest, meticulous and thorough.

Yet, when it comes to evolution, they all fabricate a whole body of evidence just to support a false theory for some massive conspiracy theorist agenda?

Even if this was the case, it certainly cannot be an atheist agenda, because many creationists also agree with evolution, as I said earlier.

Life is too short. I have better things to do than argue with a half-wit.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
It is you who is a fundamentalist Darwinian crackpot, who skims through the book to try and find some fault, and then gives your pre- determined dishonest comments.

This is typical of a dishonest atheistic person, and you have not read the book, because if you have read it, then your opinions would not be as they are......false!

Bite me, moron. You spray around your accusations of dishonesty with such incontinence that it has long since gone beyond risible and achieved tedium. An actual example of dishonesty is to pretend, as you so obviously and clearly do, that you have read and understood the vedas and reached some sort of spiritual understanding when in fact you've just cribbed all of your half-baked ideas from a pseudo-scientific work of money-grubbing, fact-perverting fiction which it appears is the only book you've ever managed to read, although from my reading of it, you may not have even done that or you'd perhaps have noticed the flavour of humility that the author has the decency to express throughout. Tell the truth, somebody read it to you, didn't they?

You will, of course, counter with some more of your tiresome drivel, asserting that I am dishonest and false et cetera, but while you're wasting your time typing that please bear in mind that at least my opinions are considered, in obvious contrast to your own. And I'm not an atheist.

Now go and get yourself educated, then come back and apologise with sincerity to everyone you've insulted here, [insult withheld].

Originally posted by lausey
Life is too short. I have better things to do than argue with a half-wit.

He hasn't taken the pills his doctor gave him...