Darwinism Extinct

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by skywalker


There are no good arguments against darwin - natural selection is ultimately a tautology. Moreover, evolution states NOTHING about the origin of life

I disagree

Natural selection isn't a tautology. Nowadays, natural selection is said to be:

"a differential process that make some individuals to have more offspring than other. What indivduals? Those who have more offspring"

that's a tautology ,

but, and now comes the science, there is a correlation between have more offspring and be envoirementally/sexually adpated. That corelation is a inherent part of nowadays darwinism and it's far from being a tautology...

Thake the peafowl for instance, its tail is not an envoiremental adaptation (just the contray - it doesn't help the animal but it's a burden!), but a sexual one. It was darwin himself called "sexual selection".

(Just my humble opinion)

EDIT: Smilies and some lines added

[Moti]

Therefore these atheist fools, they want to deny next life. That is very horrible for them. That is very horrible to them. If they accept next life... They know their life is very sinful. Then what life they are going to get by the laws of nature? When they think of it, they shudder. "Better deny it. Better deny it." Just like a rabbit. Enemy is in his front, and he is going to die, but the thinks, "Let me close my eyes. I am out of danger." This is atheistic view, that they are trying to forget that there is... Therefore they deny, "There is no life." Why not? Krsna says that "You had a childhood body. You had a baby... Now you have... Where is that body? You have left that. You are in different body. Similarly, this body you'll change. You will get another body." And who says? Krsna says. The most superior authority, he says. I may not understand, but when He says... This is the process of our knowledge. We accept knowledge from the perfect person. I may be fool, but the knowledge received from the perfect person is perfect. This is our process. We don't try to speculate. That may or may not be successful, but if you accept knowledge from the perfect authority, that knowledge is perfect. Just like we are speculating, "Who is my father?" You can speculate who is your father, but that speculation will not help you. You will never understand who is your father. But you go to your mother, the supreme authority. She'll immediately, "Here is your father." That's all. And you cannot know father in any other way. There is no other way. This is practical. You cannot know your father without the authoritative statement of your mother. Similarly, things which are beyond your perception, avan manasa-gocara, you cannot think of, you cannot speak of. Sometimes they say, "God cannot be spoken. God cannot be thought of." That is all right. But if God Himself comes before you and says, "Here I am," then where is the difficulty? Where is the difficulty? I am imperfect. I cannot know. That's all right. But if God Himself comes before me...
So this Krsna consciousness movement is to know everything perfectly from the supreme authority, Krsna. This is the process. Tad vijnanartham sa gurum eva abhigacchet. In order to understand subject matter which is beyond our perception, you have to approach such authority who can inform you. Exactly in the same way: to understand who is my father is beyond my perception, beyond my speculation, but if I accept the authoritative statement of my mother, this is perfect knowledge. So there are three kinds of processes to understand or to advance in knowledge. One is direct perception, pratyaksa. And the other is authority, and the other is sruti. Sruti means by hearing from the Supreme. So our process is sruti. Sruti means we hear from the highest authority. That is our process, and that is very easy. Highest authority, if He is not in default... Ordinary persons, they are in default. They have got imperfection. The first imperfection is: the ordinary man, they commit mistake. Any great man of the world, you have seen, they commit mistake. And they are illusioned. They accept something as reality which is not reality. Just like we accept this body as reality. This is called illusion. But it is not reality. "I am soul." That is reality. So this is called illusion. And then, with this illusory knowledge, imperfect knowledge, we become teacher. That is another cheating. If you have not... They say, all these scientists and philosophers, "Perhaps," "It may be." So where is your knowledge? "It may be" and "perhaps." Why you are taking the post of a teacher? "In future we shall understand." And what is this future? Would you accept a post-dated check? "In future I shall discover, and therefore I am scientist." What is this scientist? And, above all, our imperfectness of senses. Just like we are seeing one another because there is light. If there is no light, then what is the power of my seeing? But these rascals they do not understand that they are always defective, and still, they are writing books of knowledge. What is your knowledge? We must take knowledge from the perfect person.
Therefore we are taking knowledge from Krsna, the Supreme Person, the perfect person.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by yaroslav


I disagree

Natural selection isn't a tautology. Nowadays, natural selection is said to be:

"a differential process that make some individuals to have more offspring than other. What indivduals? Those who have more offspring"

that's a tautology ,

but, and now comes the science, there is a correlation between have more offspring and be envoirementally/sexually adpated. That corelation is a inherent part of nowadays darwinism and it's far from being a tautology...

Thake the peafowl for instance, its tail is not an envoiremental adaptation (just the contray - it doesn't help the animal but it's a burden!), but a sexual one. It was darwin himself called "sexual selection".

(Just my humble opinion)

EDIT: Smilies and some lines added

Nope, it's still a tautology (not in a bad way, merely in the sense that it's a priori, or at least doesn't require a postiori knowledge). It is simply that statistically, those organisms that are best suited to survive and reproduce in an environment will survive and reproduce more successfully than those who aren't.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by monkspider
Moti, you have a lot of good points. There is a great deal of truth in what you have posted. But it should be remembered, that everything, Darwinism included, has a purpose.

[Kuciwalker]

You cannot know your father without the authoritative statement of your mother.

Except for having your DNA matched up

[Moti]

First you would need to fine the father to take a DNA sample..

[Kuciwalker]

Or you can have samples from a lot of people.

However, what if your mother, the supposed "perfect authority", lies? You could get a DNA test to disprove this supposed "perfect authority".

Thus, the only "perfect authority" is a) a priori knowledge and b) empirical knowledge.

[monkspider]

To all: The DNA from various Larks disproves this hypothesis.

[Kuciwalker]

[DarkCloud]

It's obvious that even moti doesn't take himself seriously.. as evident by his little "v****a" comments on the first page

This is stranger than civnation by far

[Moti]

Prabhupada exposed the root of the scientific dogma = DENIAL OF A SUPREME CONTROLLER.

One must know that there is a controller. That is the beginning of knowledge. Why should you deny? In every field of activity we find some controller. How can I deny that there is no controller of this creation?


And he exposed the bluff which the suckers have all swallowed namely that life comes from chemical combination.

Karandhara. Modern proponents of Darwinism say that the first living organism was created chemically.
Srila Prabhupada. And I say to them, "If life originated from chemicals, and if your science is so advanced, then why can't you create life biochemically in your laboratories?"

And these tools are swallowing this dog**** because they are in denial of the punishment that awaits them for their sinful life. HEAD IN THE SAND!

[Kuciwalker]

In every field of activity we find some controller.

Prove this.

If life originated from chemicals, and if your science is so advanced, then why can't you create life biochemically in your laboratories?

Because our science isn't so advanced, maybe?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Moti
Srila Prabhupada. And I say to them, "If life originated from chemicals, and if your science is so advanced, then why can't you create life biochemically in your laboratories?"

Haha, he is proven wrong. Again.

Polio virus created from scratch.

Read and weep, Moti.

[Boris Godunov]

This is pointless...he's not here to have a rational argument. He hasn't posted a single thought of his own (I doubt he has them), he's just cut n pasted crap. He's ignored the dumb claims of his Swami being ripped to shreds, and he's continued to ask a stupid question that has repeatedly been answered.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
Because our science isn't so advanced, maybe?

Prabhupada failed to foresee that sciences keep advancing.

This says something about his pretense of being a learned man.