Not Acknowledging the Theory of Evolution

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

ok - now I understand why you posted the link
the problem is that the link works forward from a given axiom whereas to accept evolution one is required to work backwards and anticipate the axiom - in other words you would have a substantial case for evolution if you had an evidenced and repeatable axiom to work with (abiogenesis would be one such axiom)

Hopefully such will be revealed through scientific study soon. But at the very least, we know it is possible -if- such axiom exists. If not, then we are rightfully screwed.

why is life not perfect?

Iso Invocation: The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

There is much in the way of imperfection. Our aforementioned junk DNA associated with chimpanzees is an example of an imperfect design which would have clearly gotten rid of said DNA if we were designed perfectly.

contingent knowledge finds its application in sleeping, eating, mating and defending - unfortunately not even everything in philosophy is free from it

Such as?

BG 6.20-23: In the stage of perfection called trance, or samādhi, one's mind is completely restrained from material mental activities by practice of yoga. This perfection is characterized by one's ability to see the self by the pure mind and to relish and rejoice in the self. In that joyous state, one is situated in boundless transcendental happiness, realized through transcendental senses. Established thus, one never departs from the truth, and upon gaining this he thinks there is no greater gain. Being situated in such a position, one is never shaken, even in the midst of greatest difficulty. This indeed is actual freedom from all miseries arising from material contact.

I would question the validity of any experience of God through any process, on account of the fact that it is well known that humans are capable of deception. That is to say, if empirical knowledge cannot be trusted to 100 percent, then we cannot trust any mystical experience to conform to truth. Only things known by reason and the philosophic method, which prove themselves through the absurdity of their opposites, can be put forth as true and absolute.

(It would be much appreciated if you could present substantial information and not merely a list of footnotes and references)

I don't intend to give you a bibliography, no. I am actually so far shocked and disappointed with the answers in Biology & Genetics, for clearly it demonstrates the weakness of experimental proof to establish key points. Inferrence is not enough to satisfy the truth.

 

[NDS]

Don't worry LG, there is no right or wrong, right? Hinduism teaches us that facts of reality don't really exist, and that there is no true or false.

So according to Hinduism, evolution over billions of years both did and didn't happen. In either case, why do you feel the need to valiently argue against Darwin Evolution? It wouldn't disprove your religion, so why argue?

 

[Godless]

So according to Hinduism, evolution over billions of years both did and didn't happen. In either case, why do you feel to need the valiently argue against Darwin Evolution? It wouldn't disprove your religion, so why argue?

That is his/her nature! She/he whatever, may just like to argue. What else can one expect when they believe reality is just an illusion? :shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

LightGigantic:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65021

That is the aforementioned thread. Keep an eye on it, if you might.

thanks - i will read it but I won't submit to it, lest my mere appearance transform the thread into another theist flaming exercise

“
ok - now I understand why you posted the link
the problem is that the link works forward from a given axiom whereas to accept evolution one is required to work backwards and anticipate the axiom - in other words you would have a substantial case for evolution if you had an evidenced and repeatable axiom to work with (abiogenesis would be one such axiom)
”
Hopefully such will be revealed through scientific study soon. But at the very least, we know it is possible -if- such axiom exists. If not, then we are rightfully screwed.

correct

“
why is life not perfect?

Iso Invocation: The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.
”
There is much in the way of imperfection. Our aforementioned junk DNA associated with chimpanzees is an example of an imperfect design which would have clearly gotten rid of said DNA if we were designed perfectly.

the point of the scriptural quote was to indicate that the reflection of god's perfection that is found in life, is that life (whether macrocosm or microcosm) can go on as a complete whole and repeat other complete whole - in other words life is considered perfect when it can reproduce (at the very least you couldn't categorize any human endeavor done in the field of science, industry or arts as perfect in the same way)

“
contingent knowledge finds its application in sleeping, eating, mating and defending - unfortunately not even everything in philosophy is free from it
”
Such as?

meaning that philosophy that doesn't find its application beyond the exploitation of material elements for personal or extended sense gratification is simply another element of ignorance

“
BG 6.20-23: In the stage of perfection called trance, or samādhi, one's mind is completely restrained from material mental activities by practice of yoga. This perfection is characterized by one's ability to see the self by the pure mind and to relish and rejoice in the self. In that joyous state, one is situated in boundless transcendental happiness, realized through transcendental senses. Established thus, one never departs from the truth, and upon gaining this he thinks there is no greater gain. Being situated in such a position, one is never shaken, even in the midst of greatest difficulty. This indeed is actual freedom from all miseries arising from material contact.
”
I would question the validity of any experience of God through any process, on account of the fact that it is well known that humans are capable of deception.

not only do we have the tendency to make mistakes (see a rope as a snake) but we also have the tendency to cheat (see a rope and tell everyone we saw a snake because others will think we are heroic), imperfect senses (the inability to see a snake in the dark anyway) and the tendency to fall in illusion (scream in the dark because we think there are snakes there).

The solution is to encounter a person who is beyond these four stages of conditional life, and that is what it means to encounter god - or alternatively god's pure representative - a person who is not conditioned by these four imperfections (ie a liberated person)

That is to say, if empirical knowledge cannot be trusted to 100 percent, then we cannot trust any mystical experience to conform to truth.

in spiritualism there is the claim that there is a type of perception that is more valid than empiricism (and also there is a process to go along side it as well ...)

Only things known by reason and the philosophic method, which prove themselves through the absurdity of their opposites, can be put forth as true and absolute.

interestingly enough there is an aspect of this in spiritual life (called 'jnana' or 'sankhya yoga") - it can bring one to the point of cessation of material pains (by negatively analyzing the phenomenal world) but cannot bring one to the point of vijnana (or realization of the positive aspects of the spiritual world) - in other words philosophy and reason have an essential part to play in the establishment of realization (even though by themselves them are insufficient to situate one on the transcendental platform)

“
(It would be much appreciated if you could present substantial information and not merely a list of footnotes and references)
”
I don't intend to give you a bibliography, no. I am actually so far shocked and disappointed with the answers in Biology & Genetics, for clearly it demonstrates the weakness of experimental proof to establish key points. Inferrence is not enough to satisfy the truth.

True

Yeah. I saw you quote a mythical tale to support your mythical tale.

you sure it wasn't your tentative reasoning from a tentative reasoning?

The difference in Ophi's citations is that they are sources that contain methodologies that are potentially reproducible by even you.

its when they depart into tentative reasoning that I have a problem however

Your myths are superstitions that the intellectual cowards who assert that they are fact will say that only they can know them to be true since they believe.

sounds remarkably similar to the institutional empirical supremacy that you are heavily steeped in

Those that question or doubt their veracity are, to these cowards, simply unable to reproduce the results since they conveniently can't understand the myths.

ditto

Circular bullhshit reasoning. Which is what all religious superstition boils down to.

will the irony never end?

500 years ago LG would have been valiently arguing that the earth was at the center of the solar system, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Why? Because he felt it might have challenged his Hindu beliefs somehow.

I wasn't aware that was a vedic standpoint, even 500 years ago

Hey LG, nice to talk to you again. It's been a while since I destroyed you in that other thread.

First off, this is the original question I asked you:

I'm just curious LG, please explain to me the differences between dogs and cats, because I don't see many.

Notice the qualifier word "M-A-N-Y." This means that I do see a few differences in cats and dogs, but not M-A-N-Y.

Your response:


Your response implies that I said that I don't see "ANY" differences. See the problem there? Now if I had said, "because I don't see ANY," then your statement would have some merit.

I guess I differ from you because I see many differences between a dog and a cat - themain one being that you can't make a dog from a cat or vice versa

I see you have conveniently avoided my original question:

"LG, why is it that the largest known genome belongs to the single-celled amoeba Amoeba dubia, with over 6 billion base pairs, while humans only have about 3 billions base pairs?"

Is that because you have no response, or because you just missed it?

I can't see how it relates to the discussion at hand, no

Let me add a few more:

1) How do you explain humans being born with tails?

bad karma

2) Why does mitochondria in a cell have its own DNA?

its god's mercy for the scientists since since life is so damn complicated in allows them to get bigger budgets for their grants that attempt to create life from matter

3) Why do some cats have 38 chromosomes and some have 36?
4) Why do dogs show different chromosome numbers?

my attempts at humour aside, you do realize that all these q's are not evidence but crutches that the tentative claims of evolution rests on ... and as such, if there's room for one tentative claim there is room for another .... (and another, and another and another and another etc etc)

 

[lightgigantic]

Don't worry LG, there is no right or wrong, right? Hinduism teaches us that facts of reality don't really exist, and that there is no true or false.

it does?

Iso 11: Only one who can learn the process of nescience and that of transcendental knowledge side by side can transcend the influence of repeated birth and death and enjoy the full blessings of immortality.

So according to Hinduism, evolution over billions of years both did and didn't happen.

Actually it teaches something else

In either case, why do you feel to need the valiently argue against Darwin Evolution?

I only have an issue about it when it is assumed to be a fact - the main reason being that to accept evolution as fact transgresses the integrity that empiricism is built on (namely observability, direct perception, repeatability etc)

It wouldn't disprove your religion, so why argue?

I don't think I have even really got into the specifics of the vedic standpoint- which at this point is quite far away - I have mostly dealt with evolution on grounds of validity by empiricism - so far we have had a few 'experts' tell us that it is valid, but empiricism doesn't work like that

 

[Godless]

I only have an issue about it when it is assumed to be a fact - the main reason being that to accept evolution as fact

Thus you show us your ignorance, when one speaks of a subject, it helps to have an understanding of the subject. Like you claim I'm not "qualified" to have direct perception, cause I've not bee through the process. I now make the claim; your not qualified to make claims on evolution since you haven't been through the process! Have you had you would understand that evolution is both fact and theory!

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

TalkOrigins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

[lightgigantic]

Godless

“
I only have an issue about it when it is assumed to be a fact - the main reason being that to accept evolution as fact
”
Thus you show us your ignorance, when one speaks of a subject, it helps to have an understanding of the subject. Like you claim I'm not "qualified" to have direct perception, cause I've not bee through the process. I now make the claim; your not qualified to make claims on evolution since you haven't been through the process!

the process of empiricism is quite straight forward however

Have you had you would understand that evolution is both fact and theory!

at the very least, judicial courts have a different understanding of these terms

“
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
”
TalkOrigins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

what he glossed over is that facts require direct perception to be accepted as facts (hence one can talk about the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity - such duality is not approachable by evolution, sincethe entire concept is tentative)

 

[Ophiolite]

the next question is whether you can actually present the findings of this weighty bibliography or if you are brainwashed?

What a strange, apparently pointless remark.
Of course I could present these findings. I largely make my living because of my presentation skills. I can quite comfortably present material, with conviction, of which I have only the haziest understanding. Therefore, my ability or inability to present these findings has absolutely no bearing on the validity and relevance of the findings themselves.

I offered the short bibliography to counter your assertion that there was no evidence of actual speciation occuring. You are the one who doubts this is the case. I have offered you a way of removing that doubt. You have two options:
a) Behave in a rational, honest way and study those findings.
b) Follow the intellectually dishonest and inherently sinful technique of ignoring them.

Now as to the matter of me being brainwashed by these items. Not at all. My acceptance of evolution came through a study of the fossil record. This was, I might say, wholly convincing. It was only many years later that I began to appreciate that there was superior evidence within the fields of comparative anatomy, genetics and embryology.
It still surprises me that we have actually been able to observe speciation events with so little time to work with. Looking at things from a geologist's viewpoint a hundred years is an eyeblink. Personally, I don't need the non-fossil evidence to convince me of the reality of evolution. I don't need to know that speciation has been observed. It seems that you do need this, or view its alleged absence as justification for your superstitious views.

Therefore I provided you with the evidence. As I noted above you have two ways you can deal with that evidence. I regret you will opt for the second, but bear this in mind - the only person fooled by the lies you are then forced to tell will be yourself.

 

[Ophiolite]

such duality is not approachable by evolution, sincethe entire concept is tentative)

Now you see, you are starting to annoy me.
Evolution has been observed.
I just posted a score of references to such observations.
You can claim anything you wish for how it occurs, but it does occur.

Your statement above is a lie. You, sir, are a liar. Please cease and desist your lies at once.

 

[Godless]

Liar, liar pants on fire!

the process of empiricism is quite straight forward however

yes as it should be, when one rationalizes only you are making vague analysis, hence the thought that the world was flat by mere observation was a rationalization, the rationalization of geocentric theory, was done by mere observation, however it was through empiricism that we gained knowledge that these rationalizations were not true!

at the very least, judicial courts have a different understanding of these terms

Least indeed, this is not a court of law. However in courts of law, evolution has maintained it's integrity!

what he glossed over is that facts require direct perception to be accepted as facts (hence one can talk about the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity - such duality is not approachable by evolution, sincethe entire concept is tentative)

My friend Ophiolite answered that above!

 

[Ophiolite]

When Godless and Ophiolite agree, Light Gigantic, you are not only backed into a corner, but the corner has jaws.

 

[iam]

When it comes to religion, it always starts with good intentions. Religion was the first vehicle of group morality and law for others to adhere to for and protection of eachother and initial source of enlightenment. But with any good thing, it gets exploited by those who don't want fairness but power or greed. Then they use the name of the religion and it morphs into something else resulting in a false identity and imposterism. Then you can't tell who or what is the true essence of this religion or what is uncorrupted meaning as others take over and add their twisted or tainted morals. Then you have people using the religion under false guise to manipulate and pretty soon the whole organization is full of them. These days religion is exactly what the unenlightened represent because they outnumber the enlightened and wear it as if it can be bought in the form of religiosity which conveniently serves their fears, protects their weaknesses while allowing the vice of spite or immorality in the name of their 'god', in essence original human unenlightensim masked as otherwise, self-deception. Those who are unreligous can fall in this category too because religion is no more than a label for the ones who call themselves 'religious' as well. Moral people, true people etc are marginalized because their name has been taken. Now the majority has appropriated that title. Though religion had a very imperfect but necessary form of police, it is detrimental to these times. spiritual quest is ultimately the search for truth, but religiosity has become the antithesis of it. It has been twisted all along with bits of truth or good sparsely left. True spiritual quest is the desire to be better, religiosity is self-serving manmade agendas masked as god's will. In the end, something that was a spark and start of enlightenment got trampled on, sidetracked, ignored, appropriated, used, abused, misinterpreted and brought down for the petty agendas for man.

 

[NDS]

I can't see how it relates to the discussion at hand, no

Of course not, your very inexperienced in the field of biology and evolution. Maybe you should consult a practitioner who actually is experienced and knowledgable.

Iso 11: Only one who can learn the process of nescience and that of transcendental knowledge side by side can transcend the influence of repeated birth and death and enjoy the full blessings of immortality.

Thanks for this verse. Too bad it has no relevence to anything.

You're pretty good at posting verses which don't relate to the subject.

I wasn't aware that was a vedic standpoint, even 500 years ago

Atharva Veda
VII. CHARMS TO SECURE PROSPERITY IN HOUSE, FIELD, CATTLE, BUSINESS, GAMBLING, AND KINDRED MATTERS.

III, 12. Prayer at the building of a house.
1. Right here do I erect a firm house: may it stand upon a (good) foundation, dripping with ghee! Thee may we ...


LOL. You put a lot of faith in the Vedas. The Vedas also have charms to help me in gambling so I can win money.

LG, please tell me what that charm is so I can win more money at poker, thanks.


LG, get out of your fantasy land.

 

[iam]

This is a christian's scientific justification of why there cannot be life on other planets which was told to me.

Because then jesus christ would have to die for everybody sins on those planets as well and that is impossible. All the ones who are chosen, important and going to heaven are here on this plain planet called earth.

Really, christians do need a planet of their own or another universe that works the way they think.

 

[NDS]

LOL, don't tell LG that. LG believes there are literally billions of planets with life just like ours.

And here's the kicker, LG doesn't even put Jesus on the top 25 "incarnations" list for the earth!!! Hinduism simply added Jesus to their religion as some kind of "lower tier avatar" just to adapt Christianity to Hinduism, since Hinduism tries really hard (and fails) to combine all religions (yes, even Christianity and Islam which directly contradict each other).

Basically, Hinduism and Christianity view Jesus completely different from one another. To Christianity, Jesus is "the One". To Hinduism, he is not even "The 25."

This is some of the smack down I layed on LG on the other thread.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ophiliate

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
such duality is not approachable by evolution, sincethe entire concept is tentative)
”
Now you see, you are starting to annoy me.
Evolution has been observed.
I just posted a score of references to such observations.
You can claim anything you wish for how it occurs, but it does occur.

On the contrary it is a tentative claim based on a a series of artifacts and observations (which makes it a theory) - I am familiar enough with the body of knowledge that surrounds evolution to know that is a fact

Your statement above is a lie. You, sir, are a liar. Please cease and desist your lies at once.

if you think I am wrong pull something out of your bibliography to suggest otherwise

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the next question is whether you can actually present the findings of this weighty bibliography or if you are brainwashed?
”
What a strange, apparently pointless remark.
Of course I could present these findings. I largely make my living because of my presentation skills. I can quite comfortably present material, with conviction, of which I have only the haziest understanding. Therefore, my ability or inability to present these findings has absolutely no bearing on the validity and relevance of the findings themselves.

I offered the short bibliography to counter your assertion that there was no evidence of actual speciation occuring. You are the one who doubts this is the case. I have offered you a way of removing that doubt. You have two options:

Actually I have been contending evolution, the idea of the movement between species and not speciation.

a) Behave in a rational, honest way and study those findings.
b) Follow the intellectually dishonest and inherently sinful technique of ignoring them.

a x time = a1
b x time = b2
therefore a1 = b2

is not a logical proposal

Now as to the matter of me being brainwashed by these items. Not at all. My acceptance of evolution came through a study of the fossil record.
This was, I might say, wholly convincing. It was only many years later that I began to appreciate that there was superior evidence within the fields of comparative anatomy, genetics and embryology.
It still surprises me that we have actually been able to observe speciation events with so little time to work with. Looking at things from a geologist's viewpoint a hundred years is an eyeblink. Personally, I don't need the non-fossil evidence to convince me of the reality of evolution. I don't need to know that speciation has been observed. It seems that you do need this, or view its alleged absence as justification for your superstitious views.

so after all is said and done the acceptance of evolution as a fact rests on the assumption that speciation leads to movement beyond the species - what evidence do you have for that? (meaning what do you offer as a repeatable means that enables direct perception of this as a fact ... as opposed to a tentative or theoretical claim based on extrapolation?)

Therefore I provided you with the evidence. As I noted above you have two ways you can deal with that evidence. I regret you will opt for the second, but bear this in mind - the only person fooled by the lies you are then forced to tell will be yourself.

on the contrary you are accepting something as an empirical fact when it clearly transgresses the integrity of empiricism

Godless

Liar, liar pants on fire!

that seems to be the extent of your argument at the moment
“

the process of empiricism is quite straight forward however
”
yes as it should be, when one rationalizes only you are making vague analysis, hence the thought that the world was flat by mere observation was a rationalization, the rationalization of geocentric theory, was done by mere observation, however it was through empiricism that we gained knowledge that these rationalizations were not true!

actually I would argue that the notion that the earth is flat is an empirical mechanism and not one that belongs to the school of rationalism ... but to get back to the issue at hand, you say that I am unqualified to venture into the topic of evolution - I am saying that empiricism is quite a straight forward model to penetrate since all one has to inquire is whether there is anyone who is making claims of direct perception in the said field - as regards evolution, the answer is no.

“
at the very least, judicial courts have a different understanding of these terms
”
Least indeed, this is not a court of law. However in courts of law, evolution has maintained it's integrity!

not to say that things cannot be misrepresented in courts, but to say that as far as the distinction between a theory and a fact, even a child knows the difference

“
what he glossed over is that facts require direct perception to be accepted as facts (hence one can talk about the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity - such duality is not approachable by evolution, sincethe entire concept is tentative)
”
My friend Ophiolite answered that above!

he indicated direct perception of evolution?
I don't think so
Seems he just gave a great deal of info to argue my case - namely that the claim is tentative according to findings in the fossil record, genetics etc - he certainly didn't even come close to establishing how or who the apparent movement between species is directly perceptible to

LOL, don't tell LG that. LG believes there are literally billions of planets with life just like ours.

and on what basis do you say that there isn't?

And here's the kicker, LG doesn't even put Jesus on the top 25 "incarnations" list for the earth!!!

what makes you think that he should be?

Hinduism simply added Jesus to their religion as some kind of "lower tier avatar" just to adapt Christianity to Hinduism, since Hinduism tries really hard (and fails) to combine all religions (yes, even Christianity and Islam which directly contradict each other).

that is too much of mess to unravel here - take it to another thread

Basically, Hinduism and Christianity view Jesus completely different from one another. To Christianity, Jesus is "the One". To Hinduism, he is not even "The 25."

Most christians I encounter perceive jesus as the medium for approaching god - kind of ties in with the description of him as the son of god I guess

This is some of the smack down I layed on LG on the other thread.

:shrug:

 

[John99]

Hey LG, nice to talk to you again. It's been a while since I destroyed you in that other thread.

First off, this is the original question I asked you:

I'm just curious LG, please explain to me the differences between dogs and cats, because I don't see many.

Notice the qualifier word "M-A-N-Y." This means that I do see a few differences in cats and dogs, but not M-A-N-Y.

Your response:


Your response implies that I said that I don't see "ANY" differences. See the problem there? Now if I had said, "because I don't see ANY," then your statement would have some merit.

Again, please list for me all the differences you see between these two little cuties.


I see you have conveniently avoided my original question:

"LG, why is it that the largest known genome belongs to the single-celled amoeba Amoeba dubia, with over 6 billion base pairs, while humans only have about 3 billions base pairs?"

Is that because you have no response, or because you just missed it?

Let me add a few more:

1) How do you explain humans being born with tails?
2) Why does mitochondria in a cell have its own DNA?
3) Why do some cats have 38 chromosomes and some have 36?
4) Why do dogs show different chromosome numbers?

What exactly is that supposed to prove?

 

[NDS]

What exactly is that supposed to prove?

Think about it a while. It'll sink in.

 

[NDS]

Most christians I encounter perceive jesus as the medium for approaching god - kind of ties in with the description of him as the son of god I guess

Most Christians I encounter percieve Jesus as the most powerful authority in heaven and on earth besides God. They view him as the Number One Avatar, not the number 25+. Are they wrong to believe this?

Most Christians I encounter believe that animals don't have souls/spirits.

Most Christians I encounter believe earth is the only planet with life, and that once Jesus (not Rama, not Krishna) returns to earth and reigns over everyone, that will mark the end of the material universe. They don't believe God will continue the existence of the material universe.

Most Christians I encounter believe God actually created the earth and Mankind with a plan and a goal, not just accidently like in Hinduism. They think this is all actually leading up to something. They don't believe that the material universe will continue on and on and on forever with no purpose and no plan.

They believe there is a finite number of human souls, and that X amount of them is going to live in the kingdom of God with Jesus for eternity when he returns, and X amount of them will go to the Lake of Fire to burn alive for eternity.

Most Christians I encounter believe your concept of reincarnation is pure Grade A bullshit. They believe you get one chance to get your shit together. Not infinity.

So, LG, please enlighten me. Are all these Christians incorrect in these beliefs?

 

[Ophiolite]

Think about it a while. It'll sink in.

You may be mistaken. If your target audience were smart enough for it to sink in, then it wouldn't have been necessary for you to post it in the first place.