all you say is, your not qualified to understand, you have only made your self look dumb. And i can bet you wont be done answering my posts, you will post again, you wont be able to resist lol.
The MAJOR failure of evolution is that IT HAS DISPLAYED ZERO MUTATIONS THAT CAN FORM HEALTHY ORGAN TISSUE, PLACE IT IN JUST THE CORRECT POSITION ON THE HOST FOR UTILITY, IN JUST THE CORRECT AMOUNT, AND IT WOULD NEED MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF MUTATIONS, YOU FAIL TO NAME ANY. Hare Krishna, Gaura!
And I think I´ve made you look dumb enough for any decently intelligent viewer reading this, so this is where enough is enough. I´m done answering your constant posts.
It´s ridiculous to even use the term "evo scientist" because an overwhelming majority of scientists are for evolution. Not only that but scientist are less religious in general. The higher the degree of the scientist, the less likely they are to be religious. If they´ve won a Nobel´s price they are overwhelmingly likely to be atheists.
You don´t really have the intellectual capacity to understand evolution so all I could possibly get out of this argument is to make you look dumb.
The idea of 130 million retinal cells collecting a visual image, codifying that image, sending the code through 130 million connected nerve fibers to the visual cortex of the brain which decodes and forms the incredible images that we see is simply beyond imagination. The idea that these cells can casually evolve over eons without a plan is simply beyond unthinkable. and yet no evolutionary mechanism is known, this is just one of my arguments. Have fun dreaming abt this rokkvi
It really does not matter that you do not have the capacity to think of how it can happen. Fact is, the vast majority of the science community agrees on this. Much of the evolution of the eye is understood and explained already. I am willing to bet you do not have a degree in science or any real qualifications on the subject and you are obviously just not very bright. Your opinion is of no consequence.
Whoa radhacharan´s last comment removed. Wonder what he put in there. Grave insults or threats even? Nice going radhacharan, you should be really proud of yourself.
lol actually i couldnt post a reply for a long time, so i decided to test it by posting "bhdfbsdfsk", it posted fine. So i deleted it. then i realised that youtube cant post website addresses (URL's) thats why my comments were rejected. so ur talking nonsense again, without any evidence, just like you evo scientists do all day long. I never threaten or insult, its not my nature. for a man with a science degree to assume that, without any evidence is rather strange lol. funny science man :P lol
Do you know the meaning of a question mark? It´s this symbol here "?" and it is used for questions, not statements. "Wonder what he put in there. Grave insults or threats even?" Is not a statement, it´s just pondering and thus does not demand proof. Saying you never insult is also wrong because you called me a science illiterate, which is an insult.
You are obviously pretty illiterate in general, not just in science.
hey rokkvi, your the illiterate one in science or shall i say scientism lol. The computer simulations you are talking about already have the end result laid out for them, theyre nature is not random like mutations and natural selection. Abiogenesis is nonsense, Louis Pasteur established that life comes from life, we have no experience of something beyond that, so sticking to what we know and can prove would be deemed good science and not making stories/myths, ur response shud stick to facts! :)
Hey moron, I have a degree in science, so I´m obviously not illiterate in it. I also have a deggree in computer science and your simplistic view on these simulations is as ignorant as I would have expected.
Pasteur´s "law" is that whole organisms don´t spontaneously arise from non-living matter. Not that organic molecules can´t arise from no-organic ones (abiogenesis) or that these organic molecules can´t later form simple life forms. Again you´re the illiterate on science.
Pour a bunch of EVERY biochemical needed to make cells into a beaker, give it the best temperature, pressure, and conditions imaginable, and see what happens. We both know what will. Muck will be the result, in a very short time. thats all folks
Sorry but you´re pretty illiterate in science. It´s very possible for the laws of physics alon to create complex systems. A lot of the things you say are impossible have actually been demonstrated, like complex systems arising out of simple ones. Read up on abiogenesis and computer programs that simulate evolution for one thing.
Even when humans make something complex, humans are governed by the laws of physics so the laws of physics are still "making" it.
you need to watch the entire 8 parts. he smashes what you just said. how can a material body be conscious? the brain is no different from a computer, the body from a vehicle. are either conscious? the operator has the consciousness and must be non-material.
Neurons, just like other cells, are made of cell membrane, mitochondria, DNA and ribosomes. Where is the consciousness in these? ...
...How can they suppose that consciousness is a result of chemical reactions between the neurons and electrical signals when they cannot explain a single "chemical reaction with consciousness or "electric wave" that starts to "think" at a certain voltage level
Unconscious atoms cannot be Darwinist or materialist and come together to write a book or form a can of coke.
And the rational processes of the human mind are not completely algorithmic so cannot be duplicated by a complex computer.
Tell me what happens when you remove neurons from a brain then? We even know what cognitive ability will be lost if certain parts of the brain is damaged.
What happens if you take certain drugs or electrocute the brain? It very much affects your cognition/concious being. And yet you refuse the fact your conciousness in controlled by physical processes.
that's like saying remove the engine from a car and expect it to drive. a car without a driver will not drive, despite any engine removal or not. a soul can only inhabit a capable body. when damaged the soul is forced to leave.
the human body is nothing but a machine. it needs to be operated. its totally mechanistic. how on earth can u say it is conscious and can think or have emotion? utter madness.
"The solution of the riddle of life and space and time lies outside space and time.
Physical science gives you things inside space and time, in principal you cannot explain in physical terms where the universe came from. The cause of universe - must be outside the universe and must be a non physical entity outside space and time - that is the only logically consistent explanation there is."
Explain how evolution of hearts, eyes, lungs, brains, haemoglobin, flight, teeth, butterfly's (metarphosis from caterpillar, pupa to butterfly), no heart to a single chamber heart (which is also complex!). evo scientists feed you tall tales, ie tiktaalic having proper legs and two leg fins at end of its body, when only front part of fossil was found haha, silly. Hare Krishna
To rokkvi and all you evolution BELIEVING FAITH HEADS! LOL
Type evillusion net into google search (youtube wouldn't post website)
The author (an ex 30 year evolution believer) shows how evolutionary mechanisms cannot be responsible for the diversity of life on earth. And he also shows how evo scientists blatantly lie and stretch information way further than real objective science would allow them to. If you dont look at the website, you are too brainwashed to consider alternative ideas. :)
Rokkvi said, "Even when humans make something complex, humans are governed by the laws of physics so the laws of physics are still "making" it."
To say we are products and governed totally by physical laws is an absolute assumption, and also how can u state a conclusion as an argument?
All living things and especially humans guide the physical laws greatly,(they can do things it can't etc etc). Life is itself a revolt against the physical laws. Good day. Hare Krishna
Are you ever going to stop spamming comments to this video. Good job of accusing me of absolute assumption and then making on of your own, one that is far further fetched, namely "All living things ..."
If you don´t believe in evolution you automatically prove you´re a science illiterate. The author of this vid "shows" nothing, he just talks and puts his (ignorant) opinions forward. Reading books like The blind watchmaker and Climbing mount improbable would be a good start for you.
OK, but you can say birds fly against gravitational force, we can lift our own mass, humans especially do a heck of a lot.
saying that i am wrong and science (scientism) illiterate because I don't believe in the story of total (macro)evolution is incorrect. Dawkins would say your an idiot, a tactic of his.
That argument is as potent as a christian saying if you don't believe in jesus ur wrong lol.
Can it be shown that mutations can bring about retinal cells,or lens cells? name some haha
These arguments are clear and precise. I haven't heard so little assumptions and dogma in a long-ass time. I consider myself a postmodernist in in the sense that things can't be 'objectively' known or proven, but even I see reality illumiated in these words. Damn proofs altogether, there's best a pure logical inquirey and living from now.
You're avoiding the issue. Extrapolating laws back in time is one thing, and speculating that time, space and causality appeared out of nothing is another.
I'm not talking religion. I haven't put forward any irrational or unsupportable belief.
Let's get down to basics. Do you maintain that everything in the universe is running purely according to physical laws or not? What is your position?
Sorry, it looks as though at least two of my replies are missing from the thread. And I did not get an email alert to this latest reply of yours. My posistion is that no one actually *knows* anything. Speculation, thoughts, desires, faith, etc. are fine, fun, but none of them are the "truth". We are all human, and that means we don't know anything about what's really going on in and of this universe. I don't *know* what's going on in universe...and neither does any other human being.
I've been reluctant to express myself completely on these matters. But, it's frustrating to try to have this conversation 500 words at a time. So, I've decided to make a vlog. It's going to take at least a week, maybe two. When complete, I'll post a reply.
Noudownt *knows* that "no one actually knows anything." Ooops. Bubu. Knowledge is a positive and undeniable principle. We want to know. OK, no absolute proof, but we can say definitely what is *the most consistent explanation*, and which explanations *do not make sense*. The Vedic model of self and Universal Self is consistent and can be verified by spiritual practice. The materialistic myth "only matter exists, only physical laws act" is inconsistent and illogical. This is useful certainty.
Sorry to wax verbose on this. It's frustrating to coverse on such a broad subject 500 characters at a time. Faith, philosophy, systems of thought, paradigms of science, are not religion. All of those things are how humans have responded to what religion really is...those questions we ask ourselves that we know we cannot honestly answer. I, for one, would like to keep asking the questions, but I would prefer real answers, when possible, rather than unsupportable speculation.
Just another new-age charlatan. If this guy were x-tian he'd be called a fundy. Science and scientists do not "try to explain everything" through science and materialism. Science is just a framework for accurately and unambiguously exploring and reporting about the physical properties of our universe. It still requires "consciousness" to evaluate and use the information. And, "consciousness" is still capable of interpreting the information badly or wrongly; just as this "swami" has done.
Yes, science IS meant to report physical properties of our universe. However, the scientific community makes statements about reality that are way outside the range of their observations. Evolution theory, "life comes from matter" and the Big Bang theory are gospel in academia. However, neither evolution nor biogenesis nor the big bang are observed or observable physical properties of the universe. Let's get real. Your statements are inconsistent with what's going on in the real world.
I'd say anyone who starts an argument on the first of an eight part series is already off. Have you watched the entire presentation? You're making yourself out to be a shallow and close-minded person.
No, I haven't watched the entire series. I don't have to. Lack of credibility is established in the first sentence of this vid by the claim of "certain knowledge". We are all human beings. None of *knows* what this universe really is, where it came from, how it came into existence, or why. We do not *know* why we, or any other creatures, exist in this universe. All we have are distrubing questions, that no human being can **honestly** answer.
As I said, I will reply. But I choose to do so in my own way. And it's taking some time to put this together. I understand that many may think I've offered offense. I cannot control anyone's feelings in that regard. But, honestly, this tit-for-tat accomplishes nothing. When I reply you may understand me, or you may decide to hate me. I have no control over anyone's reactions. But, platitudes and argumentative rhetoric profits none. Please be patient.
I also agree that if you have not listened to the whole series then you cant really argue about it, especially if you argue that because one phrase is wrong the rest must also be.So you jumped to a conclusion without listening any further and interpreted without further investigating the rest of the series.If you would do so you would soon realize that He makes some very valid points.
Why does the video keep freezing?
Xearf 1 year ago
all you say is, your not qualified to understand, you have only made your self look dumb. And i can bet you wont be done answering my posts, you will post again, you wont be able to resist lol.
The MAJOR failure of evolution is that IT HAS DISPLAYED ZERO MUTATIONS THAT CAN FORM HEALTHY ORGAN TISSUE, PLACE IT IN JUST THE CORRECT POSITION ON THE HOST FOR UTILITY, IN JUST THE CORRECT AMOUNT, AND IT WOULD NEED MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF MUTATIONS, YOU FAIL TO NAME ANY. Hare Krishna, Gaura!
radhacharan 2 years ago
And I think I´ve made you look dumb enough for any decently intelligent viewer reading this, so this is where enough is enough. I´m done answering your constant posts.
rokkvi1 2 years ago
It´s ridiculous to even use the term "evo scientist" because an overwhelming majority of scientists are for evolution. Not only that but scientist are less religious in general. The higher the degree of the scientist, the less likely they are to be religious. If they´ve won a Nobel´s price they are overwhelmingly likely to be atheists.
You don´t really have the intellectual capacity to understand evolution so all I could possibly get out of this argument is to make you look dumb.
rokkvi1 2 years ago
The idea of 130 million retinal cells collecting a visual image, codifying that image, sending the code through 130 million connected nerve fibers to the visual cortex of the brain which decodes and forms the incredible images that we see is simply beyond imagination. The idea that these cells can casually evolve over eons without a plan is simply beyond unthinkable. and yet no evolutionary mechanism is known, this is just one of my arguments. Have fun dreaming abt this rokkvi
radhacharan 2 years ago
It really does not matter that you do not have the capacity to think of how it can happen. Fact is, the vast majority of the science community agrees on this. Much of the evolution of the eye is understood and explained already. I am willing to bet you do not have a degree in science or any real qualifications on the subject and you are obviously just not very bright. Your opinion is of no consequence.
rokkvi1 2 years ago
Whoa radhacharan´s last comment removed. Wonder what he put in there. Grave insults or threats even? Nice going radhacharan, you should be really proud of yourself.
rokkvi1 2 years ago
lol actually i couldnt post a reply for a long time, so i decided to test it by posting "bhdfbsdfsk", it posted fine. So i deleted it. then i realised that youtube cant post website addresses (URL's) thats why my comments were rejected. so ur talking nonsense again, without any evidence, just like you evo scientists do all day long. I never threaten or insult, its not my nature. for a man with a science degree to assume that, without any evidence is rather strange lol. funny science man :P lol
radhacharan 2 years ago
Do you know the meaning of a question mark? It´s this symbol here "?" and it is used for questions, not statements. "Wonder what he put in there. Grave insults or threats even?" Is not a statement, it´s just pondering and thus does not demand proof. Saying you never insult is also wrong because you called me a science illiterate, which is an insult.
You are obviously pretty illiterate in general, not just in science.
rokkvi1 2 years ago
Comment removed
radhacharan 2 years ago
hey rokkvi, your the illiterate one in science or shall i say scientism lol. The computer simulations you are talking about already have the end result laid out for them, theyre nature is not random like mutations and natural selection. Abiogenesis is nonsense, Louis Pasteur established that life comes from life, we have no experience of something beyond that, so sticking to what we know and can prove would be deemed good science and not making stories/myths, ur response shud stick to facts! :)
radhacharan 2 years ago
Hey moron, I have a degree in science, so I´m obviously not illiterate in it. I also have a deggree in computer science and your simplistic view on these simulations is as ignorant as I would have expected.
Pasteur´s "law" is that whole organisms don´t spontaneously arise from non-living matter. Not that organic molecules can´t arise from no-organic ones (abiogenesis) or that these organic molecules can´t later form simple life forms. Again you´re the illiterate on science.
rokkvi1 2 years ago
Pour a bunch of EVERY biochemical needed to make cells into a beaker, give it the best temperature, pressure, and conditions imaginable, and see what happens. We both know what will. Muck will be the result, in a very short time. thats all folks
radhacharan 2 years ago
Sorry but you´re pretty illiterate in science. It´s very possible for the laws of physics alon to create complex systems. A lot of the things you say are impossible have actually been demonstrated, like complex systems arising out of simple ones. Read up on abiogenesis and computer programs that simulate evolution for one thing.
Even when humans make something complex, humans are governed by the laws of physics so the laws of physics are still "making" it.
rokkvi1 2 years ago
you need to watch the entire 8 parts. he smashes what you just said. how can a material body be conscious? the brain is no different from a computer, the body from a vehicle. are either conscious? the operator has the consciousness and must be non-material.
Neurons, just like other cells, are made of cell membrane, mitochondria, DNA and ribosomes. Where is the consciousness in these? ...
Rasabihariji 2 years ago
...How can they suppose that consciousness is a result of chemical reactions between the neurons and electrical signals when they cannot explain a single "chemical reaction with consciousness or "electric wave" that starts to "think" at a certain voltage level
Unconscious atoms cannot be Darwinist or materialist and come together to write a book or form a can of coke.
And the rational processes of the human mind are not completely algorithmic so cannot be duplicated by a complex computer.
Rasabihariji 2 years ago
Tell me what happens when you remove neurons from a brain then? We even know what cognitive ability will be lost if certain parts of the brain is damaged.
What happens if you take certain drugs or electrocute the brain? It very much affects your cognition/concious being. And yet you refuse the fact your conciousness in controlled by physical processes.
rokkvi1 2 years ago
a plant is conscious. it has no brain.
that's like saying remove the engine from a car and expect it to drive. a car without a driver will not drive, despite any engine removal or not. a soul can only inhabit a capable body. when damaged the soul is forced to leave.
the human body is nothing but a machine. it needs to be operated. its totally mechanistic. how on earth can u say it is conscious and can think or have emotion? utter madness.
Rasabihariji 2 years ago
And as for using physics to explain life. Read...
"The solution of the riddle of life and space and time lies outside space and time.
Physical science gives you things inside space and time, in principal you cannot explain in physical terms where the universe came from. The cause of universe - must be outside the universe and must be a non physical entity outside space and time - that is the only logically consistent explanation there is."
Rasabihariji 2 years ago
Explain how evolution of hearts, eyes, lungs, brains, haemoglobin, flight, teeth, butterfly's (metarphosis from caterpillar, pupa to butterfly), no heart to a single chamber heart (which is also complex!). evo scientists feed you tall tales, ie tiktaalic having proper legs and two leg fins at end of its body, when only front part of fossil was found haha, silly. Hare Krishna
radhacharan 2 years ago
To rokkvi and all you evolution BELIEVING FAITH HEADS! LOL
Type evillusion net into google search (youtube wouldn't post website)
The author (an ex 30 year evolution believer) shows how evolutionary mechanisms cannot be responsible for the diversity of life on earth. And he also shows how evo scientists blatantly lie and stretch information way further than real objective science would allow them to. If you dont look at the website, you are too brainwashed to consider alternative ideas. :)
radhacharan 2 years ago
Rokkvi said, "Even when humans make something complex, humans are governed by the laws of physics so the laws of physics are still "making" it."
To say we are products and governed totally by physical laws is an absolute assumption, and also how can u state a conclusion as an argument?
All living things and especially humans guide the physical laws greatly,(they can do things it can't etc etc). Life is itself a revolt against the physical laws. Good day. Hare Krishna
radhacharan 2 years ago
Are you ever going to stop spamming comments to this video. Good job of accusing me of absolute assumption and then making on of your own, one that is far further fetched, namely "All living things ..."
If you don´t believe in evolution you automatically prove you´re a science illiterate. The author of this vid "shows" nothing, he just talks and puts his (ignorant) opinions forward. Reading books like The blind watchmaker and Climbing mount improbable would be a good start for you.
rokkvi1 2 years ago
OK, but you can say birds fly against gravitational force, we can lift our own mass, humans especially do a heck of a lot.
saying that i am wrong and science (scientism) illiterate because I don't believe in the story of total (macro)evolution is incorrect. Dawkins would say your an idiot, a tactic of his.
That argument is as potent as a christian saying if you don't believe in jesus ur wrong lol.
Can it be shown that mutations can bring about retinal cells,or lens cells? name some haha
radhacharan 2 years ago
Naturalism is so self defeating it's pitiful. Why do they even bother argueing?
braino2000 3 years ago
Om Numah Shivaya thank you.
ommozy 3 years ago
These arguments are clear and precise. I haven't heard so little assumptions and dogma in a long-ass time. I consider myself a postmodernist in in the sense that things can't be 'objectively' known or proven, but even I see reality illumiated in these words. Damn proofs altogether, there's best a pure logical inquirey and living from now.
lordofyourmind 3 years ago
Thanks for your encouragement. You're obviously a seeker and enquired. What are your fields of interest?
BVNemi 3 years ago
You're avoiding the issue. Extrapolating laws back in time is one thing, and speculating that time, space and causality appeared out of nothing is another.
I'm not talking religion. I haven't put forward any irrational or unsupportable belief.
Let's get down to basics. Do you maintain that everything in the universe is running purely according to physical laws or not? What is your position?
500 words at a time.
BVNemi 3 years ago
Sorry, it looks as though at least two of my replies are missing from the thread. And I did not get an email alert to this latest reply of yours. My posistion is that no one actually *knows* anything. Speculation, thoughts, desires, faith, etc. are fine, fun, but none of them are the "truth". We are all human, and that means we don't know anything about what's really going on in and of this universe. I don't *know* what's going on in universe...and neither does any other human being.
Noudownt 3 years ago
I've been reluctant to express myself completely on these matters. But, it's frustrating to try to have this conversation 500 words at a time. So, I've decided to make a vlog. It's going to take at least a week, maybe two. When complete, I'll post a reply.
Noudownt 3 years ago
Noudownt *knows* that "no one actually knows anything." Ooops. Bubu. Knowledge is a positive and undeniable principle. We want to know. OK, no absolute proof, but we can say definitely what is *the most consistent explanation*, and which explanations *do not make sense*. The Vedic model of self and Universal Self is consistent and can be verified by spiritual practice. The materialistic myth "only matter exists, only physical laws act" is inconsistent and illogical. This is useful certainty.
BVNemi 3 years ago
Sorry to wax verbose on this. It's frustrating to coverse on such a broad subject 500 characters at a time. Faith, philosophy, systems of thought, paradigms of science, are not religion. All of those things are how humans have responded to what religion really is...those questions we ask ourselves that we know we cannot honestly answer. I, for one, would like to keep asking the questions, but I would prefer real answers, when possible, rather than unsupportable speculation.
Noudownt 3 years ago
Just another new-age charlatan. If this guy were x-tian he'd be called a fundy. Science and scientists do not "try to explain everything" through science and materialism. Science is just a framework for accurately and unambiguously exploring and reporting about the physical properties of our universe. It still requires "consciousness" to evaluate and use the information. And, "consciousness" is still capable of interpreting the information badly or wrongly; just as this "swami" has done.
Noudownt 3 years ago
Yes, science IS meant to report physical properties of our universe. However, the scientific community makes statements about reality that are way outside the range of their observations. Evolution theory, "life comes from matter" and the Big Bang theory are gospel in academia. However, neither evolution nor biogenesis nor the big bang are observed or observable physical properties of the universe. Let's get real. Your statements are inconsistent with what's going on in the real world.
BVNemi 3 years ago
I'd say anyone who starts an argument on the first of an eight part series is already off. Have you watched the entire presentation? You're making yourself out to be a shallow and close-minded person.
gaura 3 years ago
No, I haven't watched the entire series. I don't have to. Lack of credibility is established in the first sentence of this vid by the claim of "certain knowledge". We are all human beings. None of *knows* what this universe really is, where it came from, how it came into existence, or why. We do not *know* why we, or any other creatures, exist in this universe. All we have are distrubing questions, that no human being can **honestly** answer.
Noudownt 3 years ago
well it kinda pointless to respond if you haven' t watched all of it- because the answers are in the later episodes. lol
gaura 3 years ago
If the first sip tells you the milk is sour, will you finish the rest of the glass?
Noudownt 3 years ago
believe it or not sour milk is sometimes good for you!
gaura 3 years ago
Butter milk tastes sour to me and I love to use it for making my (eggless) hot cakes, which end up being very sweet when I serve them.
asarapi 3 years ago
As I said, I will reply. But I choose to do so in my own way. And it's taking some time to put this together. I understand that many may think I've offered offense. I cannot control anyone's feelings in that regard. But, honestly, this tit-for-tat accomplishes nothing. When I reply you may understand me, or you may decide to hate me. I have no control over anyone's reactions. But, platitudes and argumentative rhetoric profits none. Please be patient.
Noudownt 3 years ago
I also agree that if you have not listened to the whole series then you cant really argue about it, especially if you argue that because one phrase is wrong the rest must also be.So you jumped to a conclusion without listening any further and interpreted without further investigating the rest of the series.If you would do so you would soon realize that He makes some very valid points.
devarsi 3 years ago 2