Religion (2) & Vedic Evolution confronts Atheists/Darwin

[xXx0Sanctuary0xXx]

no hinduism mentions evolution hence the 10 avatars of vishnu

[wwxxxrum]

he is gone mad by reading and understanding

hinduism its fully useless thing in world

[toolfreak236]

have you ever heard of carbon dating?

[nemirn]

ROFL!!!

I am afraid that many of the ppl who left comments here did not realize that THIS IS SATIRE.

Damn good job-- you almost had me going there for a minute.

(Come on, people... Did you really believe there could be someone who is really this thick?)

[Playitalready]

nemirn; which vid did you watch? did you see the whole thing with link or are you just impulsivly arrogant/ignorant. darwinists prove the earth is billions of years old. everything else is just faulty speculation. your faith changes nothing. if you want more info on evolution of conscioussness click on the links on the side. they knew of ALL science/religion for countless millenia. i trust that over humans; who are far from perfect.

[pmcrimson]

By the way, the "world flood" story found in the Bible and other mythic texts was based on astronomy, not an earthly deluge. That's why it's (literally) a "universal" story found around the world. It was referring to the procession of the zodiac through the Milky Way, considered a "river" or "flood" by many ancient cultures.

For this and many more riveting insights, I highly, HIGHLY recommend *When They Severed Earth From Sky* by Paul T. Barber and Elizabeth Wayland Barber.

[NFah43Bk]

check out the videos related to the birth of civilization in my favorites.

and you will come to know about the flood that came due to the end of Ice age and its facts.

then we will talk about you so called theories of "T. Barber and Elizabeth Wayland Barber. " against the fact verly available in Vedas.

In the search of truth always.

Aum

[pmcrimson]

4) (continued) You know that most of the ancient fossils we find (such as the baby mammoth fossil recently found) were preserved through a fluke accident, so even if it was traditional for ALL ancient cultures to cremate their dead (it wasn't), there must occasionally be people eaten by lions, murdered and their body hidden, a volano erupting over a town, etc. There would, in short, still be an archaelogical record of humanity being on Earth.

[pmcrimson]

3) Social Darwinism wasn't denounced by Darwin because it didn't become a social movement until after he was dead. It would be like critizing Abraham Lincoln for not denouncing today's neocons.

4) Do you actually believe human beings were on Earth billions and billions of years ago?

[pmcrimson]

2) Fossils are dated by carbon-dating, which earlier you claimed validated Hindu conceptions of the universe and was, therefore, legitimate science. Their placement in the strata of the Earth's crust is also employed. This research is how we know that the contintents were once joined: for example, fossils of a certain ancient fern species are found both on the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa.

[pmcrimson]

1) Darwin never said that species come and go randomly. What he said is that, through natural selection, arbitrary qualities in a species changed over time to fit their changing environment. He said this before the science of genetics, which we now know to be the mechanism by which evolution works. Evolution is the marriage of natural selection and natural inheritance, or of nature and nurture. People who critize evolution because they think it's "random" don't know what they're talking about.

[eris4angel]

repeat please where the natural selction is right

i would like to learn more from this discussion

thank you

[Playitalready]

eris4angel; im not sure what your asking. Half-life dating can scientifically prove the age of any given fossil (that is found) and can confirm that the world itself is billions of years old. Also, some people may end up proving to be more fit and/or fortunate enough in their given situation to procreate more. So (to a certain extent) what Darwinists call Sexual Selection...

[Playitalready]

(cont. for eris)...sexual selection is generally scientific.

Finally, its possible for genes to have slight changes over time such as mutations, which are generally damages in the genetic code. There also maybe a limited number of variations within breeding. everything else darwinists preach is faulty speculation. evolution of conscioussness from vedas is a better model. they knew of almost all science/religion for countless millenia so i trust them over flawed people.

[Saraswathiputra]

There is fallback in the theory of Darwin!Definitely future will confirm this!

[superCatia]

Darwin scientifically proved his theory of  evolution by gathering fossils and different variations of the same animal.

[Playitalready]

no he didnt prove anything outside of what i acknowledged. . you proved your ignorant since i confronted truths/myths on this 2:23 as well as this whole topic. did you even see the links btw? maybe that can help more better.

[romanempiresucks]

are you a hindu?

[Playitalready]

hindu is a man made label but i do try to follow the duties of the spiritual teachings from the east i.e. hinduism buddhism etc. sorry for the delay i found its futile to read or reply to persons whos faith in this matter ignores all logic, science, and manners even.

[romanempiresucks]

so do you believe in ganesh and all those other idols or do you just try to act eastern? I only typed 4 words which word did you find hard to read? how does my faith ignore all logic, science, and manners?

[Playitalready]

what i meant was that i noticed when arguing on these topics, people IN GENERAL leave arrogant ignorant comments; that's why i didn't even read your comment for so long. i never said i found it hard to read your comment. yes i "believe in those idols" but i dont pray to milions of Gods or 1 impersonal brahman. Bhagvan/krsna/vishnu are the basis of all of that. perhaps you should see my other vid(s)

[Kershbob]

Took until 1:20 until I realised you have no idea what you're talking about. Well played.

[Playitalready]

i have a degree in anthopology and sociology and am writing a book on this topic. abiogenesis and (some) of darwin's theory has never been proven and is illogical, believe it or not. the vedic model of evolution, though another issue and not 100% provable, is more logical and likely true based on the evidence at hand. in the side link i was like you were,-

[Playitalready]

- but 1 day after college i finished the convo in the link- and realized and admitted i was wrong. but i guess for you ignorance is bliss? complain on something you haven't even heard out in full? i'm sure the 1 sided bias lectures in school resulting in close minded people is the best method of finding the truth? it took me 1-2 seconds to see your beliefs are based on arrogance and ignorance. bye now

[Playitalready]

if you read past 1;20 you would know i never said natural selection was random. nature may select only the fittest in the niche (According to darwin) but at the GENETIC level he ASSUMES the changes happen randomly. some others assume the same thing, but admitted their mistake. sorry, your assumptions of me making the same strawman arguments as creationists is wrong. btw i put minimal efforts in this, a Y/T vid. it's not my book. peace

[Kershbob]

Come on, you quote mined straight after. Same old same old.

[PaoloB23]

It's foolish to say something is definitively true without being able to see the facts for themselves thus I cannot say you are incorrect just as you cannot say the theory of evolution is incorrect, this is merely egotistical to say that one being knows the truth while others are incorrect. More importantly the reason it is the theory of evolution is because it cannot be proved with 'direct' observations. However there are many indirect proofs of evolution.

[Playitalready]

paolo; this was actually the most descent comment on this matter i think. finally some1 with a logical reply. btw i didnt say i dont believe in evolution. i do. i just dont accept PARTS of DARWINS theory for like u said lack of proof/logic. vedic evolution makes more sense. plus its from the same source that knew of almost everything from atoms-planets (nearly everything in bewteen) AGES ago (during PRIMITVE man?) so its pretty reliable/valid to me. btw the 1st link is the 1 that changed my mind

[Cyraside]

You define theory as 'educated guess or hypothesis.' Are you serious? Theory in science is more than just facts, it's an explanation of a specific set of facts, laws, observations, etc. If you don't even know what theory is I'm gonna also assume you know nothing about transitional fossils, ERVs, atavisms, phylogenetics, paleontology, etc. - all of the fields that cross confirm each other. Just find a poodle in the Permian or a bird with the genes for nipples and you've falsified evolution.

[Playitalready]

i knew not to listen/argue with the arrogant/ignorant who dont listen to logic/facts/wont change OPINIONS but i had to check if you commented on this vid cause i thought to reply when you SEEMED ok on your reply to the other vid. funny how all darwinists waste time debating the word theory or shifting the burdon of proof and fail to hear out how PARTS of darwinism are no factual, speaking SCIENTIFICALLY/LOGICALLY. didnt finish the vid of view the links that made me QUESTION this ay? lol pathetic

[Cyraside]

haha you called me a "darwinist" as if I'm some sort of conspirator or something lol. Anyway, you say "we" waste your time debating theory but in fact there is no debate on the term in a scientific context. "Darwinism" again you say- what? I did view the links. I tried not to laugh. Vedic creationism is pseudo-science and "real" scientists have already debunked it. Hindu insights on evolution is interesting stuff- but not scientific. Sorry. So, what mechanisms of "darwinian" evolution are false?

[Zebraboar]

that's the point I'm sure I was trying to make, that it was interesting. I probably should have clarified my full understanding on the subject.

[Cyraside]

No evidence for the theory of evolution? I'm guessing you're not a regular subscriber to the scientific journal Nature or equivalent. You're arguments are beyond old and are purely non sequitur at heart. Your ignorance on the subject isn't evidence in your favor, sorry. Evolution is not random- mutations/variation are but natural selection is deterministic.

[Playitalready]

nice try, twisting what i said around. at least that last sentence that darwin thinks MUTATIONS/variation are random but not natural selection which, by the way you failed to counter the arguments against.

[Zebraboar]

Okay, so, I tried watching this video and I have to say that although Vedic Evolution proves that Darwinism has flaws, so does this. Vedic Evolution has about the same amount of proof as Darwinism. All your doing is making a big deal out of nothing.

[Cyraside]

"Vedic Evolution proves that Darwinism has flaws"

First off, "vedic evolution" is pseudo-science just to let you know, and what is all this "Darwinism" nonsense? I suggest you see AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series because Vedic evolution is simply a form of Hindu Creationism. Can you not distinguish real, established theory from anti-science propoganda? I expect more intelligence from someone claiming to be an agnostic.

[Cyraside]

"Vedic Evolution has about the same amount of proof as Darwinism"

Oh dear, you think a "good theory" is proven and probably grows up into a law like this Playitalready guy does. Real scientific theories are falsifiable, including evolution. No, this guy is simply ridiculing good science in favor of his personal beliefs. And that's wrong. Open minded people go where the evidence takes them, not by their hearts and just make up the rest as they go along like the guy who posted this video.

[Zebraboar]

I couldn't even watch this because you talk like an autistic child.

[nicolatwo]

Hello, I like the picture of the primate becoming a human and the human becoming a bent over writer on the computer. That is hilarious. I can fully identify myself with that person. Ha. The current scientific knowledge about evolution is much more refined than the original Darwinian works. They use carbon dating which is very accurate. Bones rott away. So there are very few bones crystalized or petrified. But they have found some. It's not a theory any more because of the overwhelming evidence.

[nicolatwo]

Part 2: I agree with you about randomness. There is no randomness in the universe. It is mathematically wrong. Everything is eternal cause and effect.

[Playitalready]

I NEVER DEBATED AGAINST HALF LIFE DATING, i said that IS FACTUALLY PROVEN, why did you bring that up? but no matter how many bones you find with perfect dating of them, you can't prove there were no humans there, the bones may not exist for "Scientists" to find cause they maybe burned. prove that wrong! otherwise, theres NO evidence of his theory, its just illogical as i stated, regardless if you accept the logic from the reliable/valid Vedas and its concept of evolution. y ignore? plz review

[nicolatwo]

For Playitalready: I have talked to you in a very friendly and kind form. Why are you talking to me with such agression?

[kamijk]

It's because his beliefs are irrational and he takes offense to anyone who disbelieves. I think he also has a persecution complex.

[nicolatwo]

Hello Kamijk, Thank you for pointing that out. You are right. And I also think he has a huge ego as well. :0)

[UserNameForYeeTube]

Chronologically:

This video is utter bullshit.

Evolution is not a hypothesis, it's a scientific theory, which means it's got proof (ie. it's factual).

Big Bang wasn't a random incident, simply, the space-time expanded - there was no "random explosion" or anything of that sort.

Species do not come and go randomly, natural selection is an observable fact, not a 'fallacy'.

Check again what theory means in scientific context.

[UserNameForYeeTube]

Then, a misquote, the full quote goes as follows: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree..."

[UserNameForYeeTube]

"... When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science." - after which he goes on to elaborate why the development of the eye is a plausible idea.

[UserNameForYeeTube]

Again, natural selection is an observable fact, and overpopulation is common among herbivores, which leads to population going up and down among some species (as following generations have to struggle with finding food, until due to smaller populations more food is found, after which population starts to grow again.) Again, there's nothing random about it - the stronger, faster, healthier inviduals have better chances of escaping a predator - seems logical enough?

[UserNameForYeeTube]

Social Darwinism WAS denounced by Darwin, either, you LIE or don't know what you're talking about. The fossils' age can be determined using several independet methods, so we do know their age, thankyouverymuch. Then, some more bullshit - your hypothesis about all humans burning all their dead relatives (etc.) is absurd - unless you're willing to provide proof for it. Without proof, you're assuming things because you're trying to achieve something - like disprove evolution in this case.

[UserNameForYeeTube]

"We weren't there" - nope, but there's evidence we can see and use to study the history of our cosmos, world and species. Please, why would one assume we have souls that hop from different species to another one depending on how we lived? Please, give proof outside the Vedic (and other Hindu) scriptures, as religious works, they cannot be trusted for objective thinking.

[UserNameForYeeTube]

Again, THERE IS NO FIXED NUMBER OF SPECIES. It's a FACT that there have been huge mass extinctions in the past, and it is a FACT that species evolve, and it has even been OBSERVED. Congratulations, you proved absolutely nothing in this video, just assumed things, lied (or stated things you didn't know anything about), used/made logical fallacies, and so on - congratulations, another bullshit video on the YouTube.

[Playitalready]

so you believe ignoring the errors i confronted with higher logic while RESAYING the THEROY you ASSUME is true means n PRETENDING this was about proving something instead of confronting errors with logic that the video is BS and your BELEIF is right? sure. i guess you been throughout the universe to note there aren't alaways a fixed number of species somewhere because you saw some species came/went HERE.

[Playitalready]

right, evidence shows darwinian evolution isnt a fact but an illogical argument that can be confronted with higher logic as i just did. repeating "its a fact" isnt evidence lmao. loaded question again? i dont assume, Vedas knew things eras ago from the atom to the cosmos and much in between with DETAILED ACCURACY, unless you can tell me how "primitave" man knew this if not from a supreme being of course its PROVEN authenticity superceeds people like you saying "its a fact" lmao...

[UserNameForYeeTube]

Right.

You've got hands on your ears and you're shouting; I see no reason to explain anything to you - you wouldn't listen anyway.

Have a happy life in the dreamland you've built around yourself.

[Playitalready]

the soul is atomic in size (smaller than light), hence cant be proven or disproven also, we can only attempt logic. to prove there's no soul, can you reanimate life in any lab, or has something left upon death? proven vedas confirm it. but either way this is getting off topic i can barley have you admit or at least reply to confrontations of darwins errors and consider the higher logic. seriously what goes through your mind when you do that? do u really believe SAYING what is/isn't a fact=proof

[Playitalready]

nice try SHIFTING THE BURDON OF PROOF. the basic argument is the theory YOU belief in is NOT a fact because how could YOU know/PROVE what species are/aren't there at different dates if its possible bodies were burned as they are still today which can alter future generations studies of us. thats ILLOGICAL and us having no time machines to offer "proof" lol im only offering this HIGHER logic.

[Playitalready]

oh ya i already said we can confirm the AGE of the earth and fossiles that we FIND, THAT is a fact. but that doesn't change ANYTHING SAID IN THE VIDEO OR TO YOU, like the fact that you weren't there to know if there were humans who burned the bodies as some do today, so ASSUMING there weren't humans sometime ago is NOT factual. its ILLOGICAL. its logical bodies were probably burned, as stated by the PROVEN Vedas.

[Playitalready]

I really tried to avoid reading your reply because i knew the ignorance and illogical arguments would be annoying and id be forced to reply yet again, but i can't help it this 1l last time. natrual selection is based on genetic changes darwin states as RANDOM. maybe its random maybe its God etc, its your BELIEF, not a fact. its most illogical to say because you know not the reason, it must be random, now im a scientist and all else is wrong?...

[Playitalready]

... you KNOW this 1/2 of natural selciton is the RANDOM genetic changes part, nice try avoiding that. FOR ALL YOUR REPLIES; IGNORING MY CONFRONTING THE ERRORS WITH HIGHER LOGIC and REPEATING things like "its an observable fact" doesN'T make it a fact! repeat that!! geez how stupid/arrogant are you? "common" is the keyword; its not natrual is a choice, humans can regulate our and sometimes many others (Cats/dogs) populations and without CHOSEN capitalistic things like subsideries farmers were...

[Playitalready]

...subsideries that lead to farmers destroying crops and the great depression. farmers could feed the world many times over if needed look it up. yet you IGNORE all this and RESTATE "its an observable fact cause darwin and scientists say so" or because there are FLUCUATIONS/SOME changes in populations. that proves nothing.

[Playitalready]

lol wtf is this you type some weird quote and then say how some guy said something was plausable? great proof lol. this makes no sense and is not proof at all.

[Playitalready]

Looks like no matter in a video or text reply confronting darwins errors only results in your SAYING what is/isn't facts with some mashed up illogical things. you IGNORE my points/the higher logic cause your too arrogant/ignorant and perhaps you never fully viewed my video. i can't type for 1 hour like this i made some video annotations now, please review the whole video at least. still i doubt it matters i already disproved your/darwin's theories with higher logic but you believe what ever.

[Playitalready]

thanks for adding details in the quote that affirms my points you just stated! sorry i had limited time and could only gather and say so many things. thanks! i mean evolution of life originating by...chance? life came from...life? (humans from single cells) ha

[Playitalready]

OMG. Were not here to debate the defenition of the word theory or the big bang, nice strawman argument. SAYING this is factual wont make it so, thats equivication lol. you cant IGNORE how i confronted the FALLACIES of darwinian evolution with the higher logical vedic evolution. random genetic changes ARE random is what i said, natural seleciton ISNT a natural phenomen for FACTS i stated. halflife dating the only fact here, the rest is your BELIEFS in fallable logic. non ignorant comments only ok

[kamijk]

What is unnatural about natural selection? Do organisms that are less well adapted to their environment reproduce at the same rate as organisms that are better adapted to their environment? The equivocation fallacy that you're asserting is that in natural phenomenon and natural selection the natural means two different things. What is the definition of natural in each of the two terms?

[Playitalready]

so you'll ignore the points confronting how natural selection isn't natural/reply with a question? why ask if less fit orgs. reproduce at the same rate, i never argued against that. look you can believe as you will i was more stubborn at the time i believed darwinian evolution as the most logical but at least review the video that confronts the illogical claims with the higher logic that i found and am spreading before trying to argue. SAYING darwinian evolution is fact doesn NOT make it so.

[kamijk]

I'm trying to clarify your points so that they are coherent. At this point the argument you've made has not addressed what you mean by equivocation fallacy and why that makes natural selection false. So are you going to answer the questions?

[Playitalready]

Nothing is automatically a fact (in this case Darwin's theory) simply because he said so or because YOU are now SAYING it is. perhaps i should say this is circular reasoning not instead of an equivication fallacy. either way, you need to stop arguing technical typing issues like these to avoid how i confronted darwin's errors with higher logic. you can't keep answering questions with questions. i got my MA in Journalism from CSUN, try enrolling there to gain reading comprehension or watch my vid

[kamijk]

"SAYING this is factual wont make it so thats equivication (sic) lol." No you seem to be confused about the definition of equivocation fallacy. Equivocation fallacy means that a word has two different definitions and they are being mixed up. There has been no equivocation fallacy anywhere in the above posts. Also you use too many pronouns with antecedents that are completely unclear so it is impossible to follow whatever attempt at logic you are making.

[Playitalready]

wow so what you do is ignore the point that SAYING something does not make it true and avoid it by arguing the proper defenition of the the proper fallacy that should be used and argue over grammer? bs

[kamijk]

I can't understand what you are saying. The problem is you are using language that is at best confusing to try and disprove a principle that has withstood scientific criticism for 150 years. Is it too much to ask for something coherent?

[Playitalready]

Now you're appealing to popularity. most authorities beleived the Earth was flat for a long time and that the Vedas were wrong, for longer than 150 years, by your logic they were right lol. is it too much to ask you listen to the whole video and the points that confront the error in your/Darwin's beliefs with the higher logic? the only fact here is half-life dating. my reply was fine, your just playing dumb i think.

[Playitalready]

i mean how can anyone not understand me when i said i confronted how you ignore the points in my video and text replies that show how natural selection isn't natural or a fact or what ever word you wana use, and how all you did was replied ask me some B.S. about how some lesser fit species reproduce at a lesser rate, which i never argued against.

[kamijk]

Oh this is something I can use. The "B.S. about how some lesser fit species reproduce at a lesser rate" is natural selection. "Which I never argued against." So we see here that you do not know what natural selection is and you still argue against it. What does this mean? It means that your opinion is completely worthless (which I suspected already) and I have wasted my time. Oh well it was fun.

[Playitalready]

believe what you want but just review the video that confronts the illogical claims with the higher logic that i found, which i'm now spreading, before trying to argue. SAYING darwinian evolution is a fact doesn NOT make it a fact. only half-life dating is proven. i made some video annotations for you. read them before arguing, it's the repetitious/illogical arguments that make me rush an imperfect message reply, which i guess is futile with you.

[kamijk]

Look up non sequiturs that is essentially your fallacy. Well I guess I'll go to sleep knowing that the theory of evolution is safe from vedic creationism's "higher logic."

[Playitalready]

using cuss words at something and saying a stupid theory is fact doesnt make it so. pretending darwin didnt pressume genetic changes occur randomly or that farmers cant feed the world while species like humans never find equilibream doesnt make your absurdness right. changing the subject to "what is a theory" doesn't help either. besides, maybe your right, theory is science not a hypothesis, so that means the the THEORY of Vedic Evolution is a fact! thanks.

[UserNameForYeeTube]

Testing.

[JWonn]

It's funny because many religions make similar claims. "How could our religion know this and this etc..." but the problem is that people seem to remember the hits and forgets the misses it works in much the same way as psychic readings and other paranormal BS.

[Playitalready]

Its funny how no 1 is able how they knew nearly everything from the atom to the cosmos and beyond, u must see its only arrogance/ignorance. i said RELIABILITY/validity, not many misses ive heard. like this darwinism thing, only issues are things science CANT prove, but still the most logical answer is there. SAY n BELIEVE w/e u want, but you cant have your own FACTS or make illogical claims/attacks. btw there are SOME FAKE religions/psychics, that dont mean discount ALL TRUE ones.

[JWonn]

Of course you don't remember the misses, because that would discredit your 'holy book'. You live in the GOD OF THE GAPS, if you want to do that, thats fine but don't try to drag the rest of us into your intellectual dark-age. The evidence to suggest biological evolution did occur is overwhelming, and of the individual who are experts in biology there is a consensual agreement of evolution.

Your plethora of ancient myths and fables will never trump hard scientific evaluation.

[Playitalready]

Of course your goona pretend all that. i NEVER SAID I DONT remember misses, youve none to refer to! Nice strawman argument. SAYING stuff doesnt make it true! I CANT BELIEVE HOW YOU IGNORE WHAT IS FACTUAL and what is just your BELIEF! I felt obligated to point out what is FACTUALLY proven, then confront the logical FALLACIES, in this case in darwins theory, and give the most logical evolution. IF YOUR GOING TO IGNORE THAT, twist the argument n SAY im wrong your right then i cant help u further.

[JWonn]

"saying stuff doesn't make it true"

have i ever said it does? And no, you can't really prove anything in the physical world, although you can in mathematics. Scientists rely on physical evidence and empirical observations, and there is an abundance of this for evolution. While creationism has no evidence whatsoever.

Creationism like anything else COULD be true but doesn't have enough evidence to support it and i won't believe it for that reason.

[Playitalready]

why dont you answer my REPLY to this below, maybe u cant answer (unless you IGNORE my points and do illogal things like SAY your more scientific n im into myths when its the other way around or you HEARD that this or all religions are unscientific from some BS "source" or ASSUME that or who knows) i guess ignorance is bliss for u. my fault for trying to reason with crazy people.

[Playitalready]

Tell me 1 thing, how could Vedas know of things eras ago like of the atom to the cosmos and much in between had it not been from a higher power? watch my religion 1 vid for details. if you try and IGNORE this or argue it in arrogance/ignorance u r truly ignorant. it has reliability/validiy for these things you claim but cant prove, plus thte answers are more logical so id believe it over u or darwinists.

[JWonn]

You are so deluded it makes me chuckle. Mutations are cause by mistakes in genetic replication. The genetic code is so long that everything won't copy over exactly. I don't care what the Vedas says, the Vedas is wrong. Tons of prehistoric human remains have been found. Otzi the ice man being the most famous example.

The Vedas can say all kinds of thing and unless you can independently prove them you might as well be quoting Dr.Seuss!

[Playitalready]

Dear dr frog in the well; finding SOME or many bodies at give times DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN FIND THEM ALL AT ALL TIMES and ASSUME "i stopped finding bodies at this dated times, therefore theyre were no human bodies." thats ILLOGICAL belief, NOT science. plus it seems you know of Vedic EVOLUTION. confirm they're arent 8.4 million species ALWAYS around somewhere in this universe. HOW? Dr. Frog is more scientific in his well than persons like U are in relation to the universe.

[JWonn]

1) see my post below for correct explanation of scientific use of the word theory.

2) Natural selection isn't random, that is correct, natural selection is the catalyst of evolution so evolution CANNOT be random and no scientist has ever said it was.

3) this excuse is pathetic to say the least. Some bodies are burned and some aren't, body burning isn't wide spread enough occurance for this to even be a concern. Pre-historic Human remains have been found so this makes your point moot!

[Playitalready]

2)So what causes mutations and recombinations if it's not random? you know believe God does? unless your contridicting yourself, THANKS!

3)UH in the Vedas it clearly says all bodies at the given times darwinists claim no humans were around were burned, so YOUR MOOT for being illogical to say i know 0 humans were around far enough in history, HOW DO YOU KNOW? HOW DO YOU KNOW all species come n go randomly, VEDIC EVOLUTION EXPLAINS there are 8.4 million species in the universe. U make the claim-

[Playitalready]

-that species come n go as a result of RANDOM genetic shifts that NATURAL SELECTION weeds out the most fit in the nitch, U PROVE IT! u searched the whole world/universe to verify/TEST this in FACT? no its YOUR FALLICIOUS BELIEF. u verified human remains of THOSE GIVEN TIMES OK, NOT BEFORE THEN CAUSE OF CREAMATION! PLEASE WATCH THE WHOLE VIDEO (OPEN MINDED) N UNDERSTAND VEDIC EVOLUTION U KNOW NOT OF THAT U R TRYING TO ARGUE AGAINST. OTHERISE IT SEEMS YOUR MORE ILLOGICAL THAN "RELIGIOUS" PEOPLE.

[JWonn]

Here is what the encyclopedia says about the word THEORY:

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

[Playitalready]

logical explanation, or"<< is the key, just as i said. Newtons theory are now LAWS since the after this line of being tested and stuff kicked in. BESIDES, Consider Vedic Evolution a theory until it can be tested as law, so your've PROVED its true again! thanks!

[lethalcobra2k3]

give me any evidence of intelligent design, besides the bible because the bible isnt the word of god, it is the OPINIONS of men. All human bodies werent burned, or we would have no cro magnon or neanderthal bones. Not only that, but what happened before fire? did god, the invisible deity that only speaks to a few people thousands of years ago,mysteriously create fire whenever someone dies? Noahs flood is false, a hoax, the dinosaurs werent killed by a flood, a meteor did that

[Playitalready]

lol WTF are you people NOT WATCHING the thing your arguing against? no wonder this makes no sense. i never defended the Bible read the dam description. i didnt say ALL bodies burned, but logical how can you prove they werent and your fossile record is right? uh BEFORE fire wtf? wtf is this noahs flood argument, go argue in Bible study not here this is LOGIC.

[JWonn]

Error #1: No a theory in scientific terms in not simply an 'educated guess' as you put it. theories are well substantiated explanation of facts.

Error #2: The theory of evolution never states that species 'come and go randomly' your evaluation is flawed.

Error #3: There is not a fixed number of species, the lack of diversity in older fossils is evidence enough of that.

[Playitalready]

Error 1, look up the word theory, until then your wrong. lets pretend theory is fact, Vedic evolution theory is a fact. THANKS.

Error 2 evolution IS based on mutations/recombonations of genes that are said to happen RANDOMLY, natural selection ISNT random.

Error 3, YOU IGNORED how can "scientists" find fossiles if humans burned bodies after death? bottom line, BELIEVE AS U WILL, but facts=facts, as is halflife dating, otherwise u failed 2 defend Darwins FALLACYS or (proven) Vedas HIGHER LOGIC.

[JWonn]

1) I have looked up the word theory, but a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is not the same as the common usage of the word.

2)Mutations are purely random, but the extinction of species is not, the lest-fit species go extinct. there is nothing random about this.

3)It doesn't matter if humans burned the bodies, because apparently the scientists have found the fossils regardless. Not to mention burning bodies is only practiced by some groups of people.

[Playitalready]

1) JUST look up the word n SHOW your link, till then your wrong AND IF theory is fact, Vedic evolution theory is a fact ;) 2) u just REPEATED what i said (earlier u said i was wrong, ha!) yet SAID evolution based on mutations/recombonations of genes that are SAID to be random, YOU ASSUME IT IS! thats your BELIEF! If back in the day we didnt know why there stars form, "Scientists" or people like you would say random. this is lack of intellegiance/a fallicious belief that ignores logic not facts

[Playitalready]

3), YOU IGNORED how can "scientists" find fossiles if humans burned bodies after death? FINDING SOME dont mean they FOUND ALL, SOME GROUPS AS IN INDIA RECORDED IN VEDAS THEY BURNED BODIES IN ERAS "scientists" claim humans werent there, so your points are debunked! BELIEVE AS U WILL, but facts=facts, as is halflife dating, otherwise u failed 2 defend Darwins FALLACYS or (proven) Vedas HIGHER LOGIC.

[ATL45]

i looked up a bit about hinduism, and it appears that their mythology involves the idea that the universe persists for 4.32 billion years at a time, and is currently about 4 billion years into it.

if that's their belief, then it is incorrect. the earth itself is slightly over 4.5 billion years old, per half-life dating and other methods. the universe itself is currently estimated to be 13.7 billion years old.

granted they're closer than the bible, but they're still off by a large percentage.

[Playitalready]

nice try with the cheap shot, its eternal religious teachings, not their mythology. 2nd can u show the link/source for what u find? r u sure your not confusing hindu teachings or science on age of earth with of the universe? consider halflife dating of earth is more easily to confirm than something like the UNIVERSE AND that is only 1 teaching, from the ATOM to the cosmos AND MUCH IN BETWEEN is what i said. i love astronomy/lol at astrology till i learned more, if it earned my respect maybe u2

[Playitalready]

To any commenters, below or upcoming; BELIEVE as you will, but SAYING im wrong doesnt make it fact. like i stated my case with LOGIC n FACTS where applicable, u can only counter with counter LOGIC/facts. n if i was wrong teaching Vedic Concept of evolution, U must support YOUR theory (darwinism or what ever) with FACTS or LOGIC, not SAYING its true.

[dalekman69]

Wow, You have a perfect right to believe in anything you want, but when you try to present it (poorly) as fact whilst telling me a scientific theory with reams of data to back it up is just plain wrong, you're playing a lsoing hand.

[Playitalready]

Again I dont mind people (includes U) believing as they will, but youve NO data back up n ive addressed the "points" darwinism made and he is no better than Geneses beleifs, i wonder what goes through your guys head when you say these things in vain/ignorance. Half life dating has FACTual support, Earth is that old, confirmed by Vedic Concept of evolution, which makes more sense.

[Playitalready]

... otherwise, humans always around, species dont come/go randomly the spirit evolves etc. ps dont diss my "presentation" n ignore facts senselessly ur comment is not 1/2 my efforts/results.

[bluebeard2]

A "theory" is not somehow less than a fact. A theory is far superior to a fact, because a facts (the ball fell) are united into laws (say, F=ma) and then united into theories (theory of gravity). There is NO TIME in the future when we will call it a "law of gravity" or a "fact of gravity". In the same way, the theory of evolution is a much higher level of understanding than the laws and facts it's based on, because it unites those facts into a coherent explanation that's testable.

[Playitalready]

SAYS you. a theory (you can PROVE this by looking it up) does not have the same defenition as a law or fact does. Newtons LAWS of gravity are FACTUAL LAWS; they can be proven. by your logic my theory on evolution's facts/myths are true. I CANT BELIEVE YOU PRETEND DARWINS EVOLUTION IS PROVABLE, DID YOU NOT hear OR ARE YOU IGNORANT? HALF LIFE DATING; PROVABLE, BUT I EXPLAINED ASPECTS OF HIS THEORY THAT WERE NOT PROVED AND ILLOGICAL BELEIFS, AND COUNTERED THEM WITH THE MOST LOGICAL.

[JamesThWilliams]

It was Darwins belief in god that held him back. Much like Kant never took his thoughts to their ultimate conclusion that god is not real due to his missguided belief in god.

[Playitalready]

Wait, so held them back, misguided (them believing in God)? so your atheist. beliefs are one thing, but but evolution is not factual accept for things i refered to that are. i countered point for point being as logical as possible. please consider the points in the video. no random cause or end, or evolution as darwin stated.

[JamesThWilliams]

Evolution is fact our explanation of how it works is the theory. The scientific communtity has spent a long time refining Darwins intial theories. By going after Darwins theories specifically you show that you do not actually have any understanding of modern evolutionary theory.

[Playitalready]

Darwinism evolution is not a fact i just disproved by IGNORING the Vedic Conception of evolution which IS a fact and MOST LOGICAL youve shown your ignorance.

[bluebeard2]

I just gave you the definition of a scientific theory. Gravity will never be a fact, it will always be a theory. So will atomic theory, theory of electromagnetism, quantum theory, theory of relativity... there will never be a time in the future when they are called "facts" or "laws". And yes, there are things about evolution that are untestable. That's why we test the testable parts :o)

[Playitalready]

Last i checked the theory of gravity as per newtonion is now a LAW, because it has been PROVEN! you just gave me a false defenition, theory comes from hypothesis, educated guess. quantuam theories are still theories or else science would have found a theory for everything but the search continues! regardless i cant beleive your arguing defenetions of words rather than accept the truth, i THOUGHT darwinism was true till i heard the logic, only carbon dating shows earth age in fact, otherwise...

[ATL45]

"Last i checked the theory of gravity as per newtonion is now a LAW, because it has been PROVEN!"

your gross misunderstanding of scientific laws and theories has already given me the reasonable right to dismiss everything you say.

you're confusing the theories about gravity (currently best reflected by einstein's work in relativity) with newton's specific law of gravitation.

carbon dating is only good for about 50,000 years, dates for earth are K-Ar or Uranium. much longer half lives.

[Playitalready]

why do u cop out/pretend i dont understand science/laws/theories lol then gettin off topic (while being wrong,i confused no such theory wtf, Newtons Universal Law of Gravity is now a proven LAW not theory, like Einstien's is. but it takes over under higher circumstances i.e. stars black holes. einstien said I apologize Newton etc. cause he contridicted it. wtf i never debated that carbon/half-life dating. so the earth is not billions of years old? uh even i learned that FACT in science/Hinduism.

[ATL45]

einstein's theory is more accurate that newton's theory, since it takes into account the relative velocities of the bodies involved. newtonian mechanics are more useful at low speeds than high ones, but einstein's model is always more accurate (albeit still imperfect).

moon orbit calculations with newtonian mechanics are a few miles off. using einstein's theory, the calculations are off by under 20 feet.

and it's certainly NOT about one model "taking over" in certain circumstances

[Playitalready]

I can confirm what you said about favoring relativity over newtonian laws of gravity except you messed up at the end unless you dont like the choice of words newtonian gravity laws arent applicable over strong fields relativity laws equiations explanations do look it up or prove me wrong and neither are applicable at very small distances its somehow stronger. regardless this doesnt change the Vedic concept of evolution prevailing over darwinism as my video/comments show.

[bluebeard2]

The reason why this theory/law/fact distinction is important is because the statement "it's a theory, not a fact" is a *fraudulent* misrepresentation of what scientists mean when they say "theory", and it makes theories and facts sound like opposite things.

A theory, which you seem repeatedly unable to grasp, is NOT SPECULATION. It is a self-consistent model that explains some facts and laws, and makes falsifiable predictions. The Theory of Evolution, like Relativity, is just such a theory.

[Playitalready]

Your wrong/distorted my words. theory=eDUCATED guess, it (like Newtons LAW of gravity/what Relativity scientists say is not time to be labeled as law since it's now proven) isn't a law until 100% proven. halflife dating is now proven law. so string theory/opposing theories are BOTH fact?

my theory on humans/physics unpublished are logics/facts and ua/all must accept it regardless of if u confront the flaws with more logic/facts as i tried against darwinism in this video using Vedic Evolution?

[bluebeard2]

And here we go again. A theory is not an educated guess. A law is not something that's 100% proven. A theory is not a fact. A law is not a fact. Theories never become laws.

To save myself trying to ram a square fact into your round mind, I recommend you keep rereading my previous posts until you know what theories, facts and laws are. I spelt it out very clearly.

Interesting how everyone on this page, except you, gets it...

[Playitalready]

YOU reread what i already said. YOUR WRONG AND HAVENT PROVED YOUR RIGHT WITHOUT EQUIVIVATION (SAYING it) and appeal to popularity. notice how your so scared to admit VEDIC EVOLUTION IS RIGHT AND DARWINS FALSE, YOU WONT DISCUSS POINT FOR POINT. WHATEVER THEN.

[Playitalready]

This goes for anyone not just you, i am not here to debate the defination or words. label darwinism however makes u feel good, BELIEVE in it if u LIKE to. but that doesnt make it true. the proven Vedic Evolution is true. u can accept it, or show point for point how its wrong and how darwinism is right. the fact that no 1 including u has done that shows your ignorance. BTW maybe your right theory is proven, Vedic evolution is also theoretical, so its true. THANKS.

[Playitalready]

so prove to me how you tested the phenomena that there arent 8.4 million species ALWAYS throughout the universe, INCLUDING HUMANS (human bodies were burned before so digging wont find them) and a higher force (GOD) isnt controlling the results of genetics/natural selection. howd you test there isnt a soul evolving throughout the different bodies of species and darwninism is a natrual pheonomena w/out a cause/cretor. thought not.

[lethalcobra2k3]

prove to me how you can confirm there are and always were 8.4 million species! IT would take you nearly a hundred years to count that high. IM not saying there is no creator, but god is hardly a fitting title. Also, what created God, when did he/she/it begin? THere is always a beginning and end to everything, so something must have created your god. Evolution is proven, god is not.

[Playitalready]

You ignore the key points of the video; halflife dating is a FACT, confirmed by SCIENCE and the proven Vedas. otherwise, these things cant easily be proven/disproven! im countering logical fallacys (in this case darwin says species come n go through RANDOM genetic changes resulting in natural selection of survival of the fittest,) its ILLOGICAL, how do YOU BOTH know species arent around somewhere? ask any scientist if all life is on earth ONLY. UR SHIFTING THE BURDON OF PROOF! SAYING evolution-

[Playitalready]

is proven doesnt make it so. God's ETERNAL, like light. study relativity n youll know about light. people arent eternal, hence there's a higher power. but im not trying to PROVE God, YOU CANT DISPROVE it anymore than i can prove it, its BELIEFs that can only be LOGICALLY argued. PROVE ALL starts/ends! tell me how Vedas knew eras ago of atoms to cosmos n much in between (Relativity/planets;their nature and MORE) if not from a higher power? thats what i thought. u need RELIGION 1 video b4 arguing.

[Playitalready]

do me a favor stop debating defeinition of words this is a video posted to confront the flaws of darwinism with the highest teachings in this case vedic evolution, u can either accept it or show with LOGIC or FACTS how its wrong and darwinism (not counting its age of earth, that we both confirm) is right point for point. if u know not vedic evolution, your arguing something u dont know lol. o SAYING darwinism is fact vedic evolution is not is BELIEF/equiviation fallacy, NOT logical or factual

[sroHex]

Theories, in Science, are working models that explain natural phenomena. That's a really oversimplified way of looking at it, but the fact remains, it makes predictions and is tested.

Like Germ Theory, Gravitational Theory, Cell Theory. You should get your terms straight because under proper definitions, you have no argument. Theories are applicable to reality.

Evolutionary theory has brought about a lot of good, and since it applies to reality, unlike god, it's superior, even if incomplete.

[Playitalready]

This goes for anyone not just you, i am not here to debate the defination or words. label darwinism however makes u feel good, BELIEVE in it if u LIKE to. but that doesnt make it true. the proven Vedic Evolution is true. u can accept it, or show point for point how its wrong and how darwinism is right. the fact that no 1 including u has done that shows your ignorance. BTW maybe your right theory is proven, Vedic evolution is also theoretical, so its true. THANKS.

[Playitalready]

so prove to me how you tested the phenomena that there arent 8.4 million species ALWAYS throughout the universe, INCLUDING HUMANS (human bodies were burned before so digging wont find them) and a higher force (GOD) isnt controlling the results of genetics/natural selection. howd you test there isnt a soul evolving throughout the different bodies of species and darwninism is a natrual pheonomena w/out a cause/cretor. thought not.

[bluebeard2]

Ok, I'm glad we can move past our use of language. For a minute I thought we'd never ram how what a "theory" is. But we'll get to the validity question of evolution later.

For now, I want to examine your claims from the video. You claim:

1) There are a fixed number of species: 8.4 billion

2) Humans were always around and were burning bodies, so no fossils

3) Vedas are logical and true

Can you substantiate any of these? Your video didn't actually say anything other than "its logical" :o)

[Playitalready]

I told myself make a quick video and let people believe what they will, having given the facts or logic where applicable. i meant to stop arguing long ago but kept getting sucked in, and now if i leave it maybe bad timing as u seem open to reasonable discussion, so ill reply for now. 1st certain things cant be proven, hence its belief, so those questions must be left at that, just dont say darwinism is factual. half life dating is scientifically proven hence both Vedas/darwin are right on that-

[Playitalready]

1) 8.4 MILLion, again modern science lacks ability to visit (more stars than grains of sand on earth, watch a youtube video i rated on vastness of universe) to prove/disprove this its BEST THEORY WE HAVE species are out there somewhere. 2) didnt neanderthals burn bodies as per darwinists? isnt that most LOGICAL answer? 3) READ the vedas, or REFER to Einstien, youtube it, google it, NO WAY PRIMITAVE MAN COULD KNOW from the atom to COSMOS from a source not of highest source.

[bluebeard2]

1) I accept that there are 8.4 billion (or million) species. I wasn't questioning the mind-blowing bigness. I was questioning it being a fixed number. Doesn't it change? Why not?

2) Well... evolution doesn't say anything about neanderthals burning the dead. Maybe they did... but the bones of some of them fossilised.

3) It was this third point I was hoping (more than the other two - they're less important points, I think) that you'd elaborate on ;)

[Playitalready]

otherwise, humans always around, species dont come/go randomly there always there for us "spirits" or whatever u wana call it throghout the universe. youve no tests to find humans in the beginning they burn the bodies youve no proof things happen species come n go randomly u dont seem to even know or be able to counter the Vedic concept of evolution your arguing against this is senseless.

[nukem911]

You're exactly right. The word theory is not properly defined to children.

[Playitalready]

Thanks

[Playitalready]

My believe is FACT based. Hinduism is fact based, it can be PROVEN. you haven't disproved anything i said with any counter facts. the only room for arguments is things science can not prove or disprove, and in that case we can only reason. HInduism is not only reason based, but it has REALIBILITY and VALIDITY, and you must view the first religion post dealing with this AND if you have more "Facts" use them to counter mines, and if theres non applicable only then can we reason or disagree.

[agathodem0n]

You are clueless about what constitutes a "fact."  It's fine that you "believe" Hinduism, but to pretend that it is fact is nonsense. Your whole argument is another argument from personal incredulity. While it is true that the Hindu version of creation superficially matches the time scale of the universe better, the rest is just more faith without evidence. There is solid empirical evidence [not textual speculation] for evolution and science.