Evolution is Unscientific

[Aupmanyav]

Let's pick this apart. The belief is not intelligent or the person is not intelligent?

Belief in the latest that science says is intelligent. It may not always be 100% true, it will be improved in future, but in most cases the basic premise is not going to be abandoned like in creation of the universe or evolution. Science has arrived at its present position with many experiments and verifications. A person who does not believe that is not intelligent.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But, you don't know that.

I know it absolutely. There is no elephant in my cupboard.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. you won't say what you mean by the word "intelligent."
.. and none are floating in space (thank you Mr Russell).
I have no evidence you have a brain, I haven't seen it. I could be communicating with an AI.

Who accept truth.
You are not correct here. All teapots, whether they are cracked or not, whatever the color or size, exist in space. According to theists only their God does not require space to exist.
Oh, you believe only in what you see! Then how come you accept the existence of God and soul? Have you seen any?
That too is not correct. If I am creating a meaningful text and my fingers are typing that, it means that I have a brain. I would not have been able to do if I had no brain. My brain will stop functioning only when its blood supply is stopped.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are inserting your values on these peoples.
What land holdings?

Your children are just animals to me.

Beautiful poetry. Did not they had tribal wars for land. We fight for our owner. Indian Army will fight for Indian land.
All humans, whatever be their age, are a species of animals. Are you not Homo sapien sapien? Are you some other type of creature?

 

[EricPH]

Belief in the latest that science says is intelligent.

Science says that smoking, obesity and drug addiction are bad for you, science has very convincing evidence to back this up. How many people on this Earth choose to ignore all the convincing evidence, that science puts forwards. In the Uk, there are graphic and horrible pictures on cigarette packets, that show how harmful smoking is.

It may not always be 100% true,

Ahh, so you want us to believe in things that might not be true today, that does not sound intelligent.

but in most cases the basic premise is not going to be abandoned like in creation of the universe or evolution.

Science has a number of conflicting Beliefs / ideas, as to how the universe may have come into existence. which one do you want me to believe? How did the matter and energy come into existence, that set the Big Bang in motion? The BB seems to have wiped out any evidence of pre BB.

Science has arrived at its present position with many experiments and verifications.

But no verifications for pre Big Bang.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Many of your statements here seem to be based rather based on belief without evidence.

You claim to be Advaitist but based on your posts here surely you don't believe in Maya or the Great Soul Brahman being One with Man? I believe it as true because I had an experience of it. Which aspects of Advaita do you believe in? After all, those two are possibly the key central tenets of Advaita!

Which ones? Kindly clarify.
I do believe in existence of 'maya'. What we perceive in the world is 'maya'. That is why Sankara said 'jagan-mithya'.
I also believe in existence of Brahman. What is 'physical energy' which constitutes all things in the universe. That is Brahman.
I completely believe in Advaita and in what Sankara said 'Brahma satyam'. Nothing exists in the universe other than Brahman.
"Eko sad, Dwiteeyo Nasti; Nasti, Nasti, Na Nasti, Kinchana."
Like Krishna said:
"vidyā-vinaya-sampanne, brāhmaṇe gavi hastini;
śuni caiva śva-pāke ca, paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ."
Personal experiences are not evidence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

which one do you want me to believe? How did the matter and energy come into existence, that set the Big Bang in motion? The BB seems to have wiped out any evidence of pre BB.
But no verifications for pre Big Bang.

The standard models. They are the best verified.
What is that you believe? 'Goddidit' or something else?
Not really. We have the CMBR.
That is true, not yet.

 

[EricPH]

We have the CMBR.
That is true, not yet.

The CMBR is a plausible explanation for post BB. But that barely goes back 14 billion years, What happened 20 billion years before, or a trillion years before?

This evidence has been destroyed by the BB. Its like putting some item of clothing with DNA, in a blazing furnace for a few days. Any forensic evidence is destroyed.

What is that you believe? 'Goddidit'

Yes, God created the universe and life with full knowledge, power and a purpose.

 

[juantoo3]

Who accept truth.
You are not correct here. All teapots, whether they are cracked or not, whatever the color or size, exist in space. According to theists only their God does not require space to exist.
Oh, you believe only in what you see! Then how come you accept the existence of God and soul? Have you seen any?
That too is not correct. If I am creating a meaningful text and my fingers are typing that, it means that I have a brain. I would not have been able to do if I had no brain. My brain will stop functioning only when its blood supply is stopped.

After all of that, and you still won't define what you mean by the word "intelligence."

If you cannot define a single word, how can I rely on your definitions of any other English word? I have no baseline to compare against.

That isn't very smart in my view, and shows evasiveness, which in my mind is a precursor to untruth. <shrug>

I enjoy your posts, but in this thread you leave me wondering what purpose you derive from immersing yourself in and among those you deem as unintelligent. I wouldn't waste my time doing anything remotely similar.

As atheists go around here, you are certainly among the more polite and civil, but I fail to understand the value, as an atheist, of hanging out at a religious site if all of it is nonsense to you? Ironic in my eyes, is your use of religious style arguments in defense of your "unreligion" that is in fact simply another religious meme (which you definitively illustrate).

I am not an unintelligent person, and I think I can safely say others here that took the same offense are not unintelligent either.

I respect we have different views on life, no problem, I can understand and accept just the same - without ridicule. Not that I can't ridicule, but that ridicule serves no purpose in a civil discussion. If ridicule and ad hominem are your only defenses, you have weak arguments.

 

[juantoo3]

Beautiful poetry. Did not they had tribal wars for land. We fight for our owner. Indian Army will fight for Indian land.
All humans, whatever be their age, are a species of animals. Are you not Homo sapien sapien? Are you some other type of creature?

There are lines, sometimes crossing those lines leads to unintended consequences.

The Germans of WWII learned that lesson the hard way with Eugenics. Humans are so much more than "just" animals.

Allow me to ask you, what is Love? Or will you dance around and avoid defining that as well?

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

I know it absolutely. There is no elephant in my cupboard.

Then tell us How you know this?

 

[Aupmanyav]

The CMBR is a plausible explanation for post BB. But that barely goes back 14 billion years, What happened 20 billion years before, or a trillion years before?
This evidence has been destroyed by the BB. Its like putting some item of clothing with DNA, in a blazing furnace for a few days. Any forensic evidence is destroyed.

Yes, God created the universe and life with full knowledge, power and a purpose.

CMBR is from before the BB. Did we know of CMBR? How can we presume that all evidence is destroyed and we will never be able to get the secret. Science will continue its search. Happenings always leave a trace. Even a spoon-fall in the farthest galaxy will send its gravitational imprint to earth.

That is your belief and I am OK with it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

After all of that, and you still won't define what you mean by the word "intelligence."

I enjoy your posts, but in this thread you leave me wondering what purpose you derive from immersing yourself in and among those you deem as unintelligent. I wouldn't waste my time doing anything remotely similar.

As atheists go around here, you are certainly among the more polite and civil, but I fail to understand the value, as an atheist, of hanging out at a religious site if all of it is nonsense to you? Ironic in my eyes, is your use of religious style arguments in defense of your "unreligion" that is in fact simply another religious meme (which you definitively illustrate).

I am not an unintelligent person, and I think I can safely say others here that took the same offense are not unintelligent either.
If ridicule and ad hominem are your only defenses, you have weak arguments.

You missed it. I said "Belief in the latest that science says is intelligent."
We post our views on things in a forum. That is what every one does including you and me.
Why? I am very religious. I am a staunch orthodox Hindu. My religion has no problem with my atheism. I explain the reasons why I am of that kind. I am not just an atheist, I am a Hindu Atheist.
No. Redicule and ad honinems are not my defenses, but I would not consider a person who does not accept the latest in science as 'intelligent'. Proofs of science have to be accepted. That Relativity and Quantum Mechanics exist will not be denied by any intelligent person. So too evolution and Big Bang till they are proved wrong. At the moment, the evidence provided by them is the best available.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Allow me to ask you, what is Love? Or will you dance around and avoid defining that as well?

Love is a civilized synonym for selfishness. I do not know how to dance.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then tell us How you know this?

Checked a thousand times. There was never one.

 

[Vasu Devan]

Which ones? Kindly clarify.

-What is that you believe? 'Goddidit' or something else?
-A person who does not believe [Science] is not intelligent.
-Oh, you believe only in what you see! Then how come you accept the existence of God and soul? Have you seen any?
Plenty more..

Admittedly, 'unintelligent' is not a well-defined word according to Bing. Later, you changed the statement to say 'Belief in the latest that science says is intelligent'. A radical reversion. I can agree with that since understanding science requires some level of strong mental capacity.
So does understanding personal evidence since they are usually couched in mystery. Most of them are non-repeating so cant be deeply studied. Dreams and synchronicity are more frequent so offer more chance for study. Ultimately, they are useful tools for understanding the deeper mind and self which is private, not the shared physical world.

Calling the religious beliefs of others unintelligent because you only believe Science is extremely rude and not openminded. You are welcome to be rude and closeminded of course. I don't think humans have any genuine rights. The ones created by Man are not really rights but laws. Laws can often be broken and often with no major consequence if one has enough moolah.

I do not deny Science especially on its studies of the physical world. It's approach starts to fail when trying to explain the mental. The closest branch trying to explain it is neuroscience which can only study the blood flow in the brain and project the behavior of lab grown mice to explain the human mind. Open minded explorations of psychology ended with the dismissal of Jung and the attraction to Freudian belief.
Though I think there was a recent advancement where using machine AI, the entire neuronal circuit in the C. Elegans worm's brain was mapped to its behavior.

I also believe in existence of Brahman. What is 'physical energy' which constitutes all things in the universe. That is Brahman.
I completely believe in Advaita and in what Sankara said 'Brahma satyam'. Nothing exists in the universe other than Brahman.

Defining Brahman as purely physical before claiming him as the Absolute. So, no conscious aspect of him exists? If so, where did Shankara say this? Please use English since I don't understand Telugu and Google couldn't translate your scripture.

 

[JustGeorge]

Love is a civilized synonym for selfishness.

How did you reach this conclusion?

I do not know how to dance.

Me either. I don't think we're missing much.

 

[Aupmanyav]

-What is that you believe? 'Goddidit' or something else?
-A person who does not believe [Science] is not intelligent.
-Oh, you believe only in what you see! Then how come you accept the existence of God and soul? Have you seen any?
Plenty more..

Admittedly, 'unintelligent' is not a well-defined word according to Bing. Later, you changed the statement to say 'Belief in the latest that science says is intelligent'. A radical reversion. I can agree with that since understanding science requires some level of strong mental capacity.
So does understanding personal evidence since they are usually couched in mystery. Most of them are non-repeating so cant be deeply studied. Dreams and synchronicity are more frequent so offer more chance for study. Ultimately, they are useful tools for understanding the deeper mind and self which is private, not the shared physical world.

Calling the religious beliefs of others unintelligent because you only believe Science is extremely rude and not openminded. You are welcome to be rude and closeminded of course. I don't think humans have any genuine rights. The ones created by Man are not really rights but laws. Laws can often be broken and often with no major consequence if one has enough moolah.

I do not deny Science especially on its studies of the physical world. It's approach starts to fail when trying to explain the mental. The closest branch trying to explain it is neuroscience which can only study the blood flow in the brain and project the behavior of lab grown mice to explain the human mind. Open minded explorations of psychology ended with the dismissal of Jung and the attraction to Freudian belief.
Though I think there was a recent advancement where using machine AI, the entire neuronal circuit in the C. Elegans worm's brain was mapped to its behavior.

Defining Brahman as purely physical before claiming him as the Absolute. So, no conscious aspect of him exists? If so, where did Shankara say this? Please use English since I don't understand Telugu and Google couldn't translate your scripture.

Something else.
Yes, I believe that way. It is a matter of fact statement IMHO.
Well, the person with whom I was interacting said he believed only in what he saw.
Yes, truth hurts. But there is no reason why it should be hidden.
I do not believe in any world other than this. No 'spiritual world' for me.
I do not ditto what all Sankara or Buddha (my gurus) said. I have my own views.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How did you reach this conclusion?

By analysis. Now, you don't start on analysis. It is a sour pill. Let it be.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Love is a civilized synonym for selfishness.

For most people, it means rather the contrary. If you redefine the meaning of the word in a sense it's not used by others you will not understand what they say.