Yesu_Bhaktan

but don't worry we are always here to help. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Atheism makes the extraordinary claim that there is no God. To the theist you are someone who is blind denying the existence of the Sun and theist's are superstitious fable believers to you. The limits of nature according to who...you? Hardly the known limits of nature but certainly theists contradict the limitations of atheists.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The connection between the above post and intelligent design.

As seen many scientists disagree with the Darwinian theory and the whole atheistic reading of how life began in this world. They use the same methods, read the same studies and examine the same facts yet reach the conclusion that there must be a Supreme Intelligence behind it all. The current debate is that the atheists insist their voice be the only one heard on the issue. This reveals their true intent which is to clear the human awareness of any vestige of God consciousness. Krishna conscious scientists have something most valuable and unique to bring to the table on this one. The fact that life has no begining or ending. And that all the animation of matter that appears before our eyes is simply do to the influence of the lifeforce. Thus something valuable we can offer to raise both sides of the debate. A great teaching oppurtunity presents itself.

Some of you folks talk like there is settled agreement in material science on things. That would be rather foolish. Some scientists review certain evidence and assume there is no God. *Michael J. Behe reviews the same evidence and sees proof of God's existence. How is that? Simple. Neither science or philosophy or religion reveal God to anyone. The Lord reveals Himself and the same Lord also cloaks Himself according to the desire of the individual. From the Lord come both knowledge and forgetfullness. *Behe is professor of Chemistry Dept. of biological Sciences, Lehigh University. http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html

Where is this slideshow? Sadputa was just so far ahead of everyone it seems. This is heady stuff to me. [snip]Sadäpüta: So mathematics shows that chance alone would never begin to produce the things that go into life, because this, say, is just for one protein, but it's estimated in the simplest cell that they experiment with that there are some three thousand proteins. This is what they estimate. And in a human, in a single cell of the human body, they estimate three hundred thousand, or even three million. It's just an estimate. But it shows that chance is completely unrealistic. Now the scientists will say that both chance and natural laws somehow mysteriously go together in what they call natural selection to produce living structures. In the next slide, this is also a calculation, and it shows that that is not correct either, at least as far as the mathematics goes. What this says is suppose you look at the earth and you're going to wait four point five billion years—that's what they estimate is the age of the earth—and ask what is the chance of finding a given organized structure. And mathematically there's a thing called information theory, and you can show that the chance of getting an organized structure with a high level of information goes down exponentially, so that for an amount of information higher than that of the laws that cause these things to move, the chance goes down practically to zero. So it wouldn't happen. So this gets kind of complicated, but there's a basic point behind it; namely it indicates that the natural laws that are causing things, like that list of those laws, must already have in them, built into them, whatever is going to be manifested. That is, if some given structure can be manifested in the material world, that means the laws that are causing things must already have at least that much built into them. But their understanding of natural laws, the laws are too simple, too short to have that kind of thing built into them. So there's that argument. We'll go on to the next one. This is some mathematical formulas related to that. I don't think we should dwell on that. This slide right here gives an example of the kind of structures you find even in simple organisms. This is a bacterium. When they look at it under a microscope, they can see that this bacterium has a reversible motor built into it, and this motor spins a spiral flagellum, and by spinning it it propels the bacteria through the water, just like a submarine. So this very sophisticated motor is built into the wall of the bacterium. So that shows the kind of structures for which designs would have to be there. Actually, the scientific explanation, the way that they explain how this comes about, is completely impossible, because they would say that either by chance it came about all at once—and the chances are way too small, so that would never happen—or else it would have to come by small stages somehow. But what would be a small stage in the formation of a workable motor? Can't even think of how that would work. So it doesn't make much sense. So what we wanted to argue was that these living structures are very highly complex, they have a very great amount of information needed to specify them, and then mathematically it follows that this evolution process can't happen, because the probability is way down, it's something impossible. So we wanted to argue that. The next slide—whoops, we're going the wrong way, there. We wanted to compare some structures. This is the chemist's idea of what a diamond..., the top picture is a chemist's idea of what the structure of a diamond looks like. It's based on very simple repeating patterns. It's reasonable perhaps that chemical pushes and pulls could produce a simple design like this just by pulling the molecules together. The lower thing is a structure for graphite, which is another simple design built on hexagons. But on the other hand, in living systems you have things like this. (shows slide) According to the way they've analyzed it, there are chemical structures of this complexity. So we'd like to argue that this requires a very large amount of information to specify this thing, and so the simple natural laws couldn't account for this. On the other hand, it's very reasonable to suppose that an intelligent designer can account for things like that. These protein structures that Svarüpa Dämodara was pointing out, it's not just any old structure, but it performs a very specific function within the cell, just like a little automatic machine of some kind. So we'd like to argue that the chance and molecular forces theory won't explain things like this, but to say that there is an intelligent designer would be a sensible explanation. The next slide, this shows some of the complexities of what goes on inside a cell, and it's only a fraction of what is there. It's hard to read, but each little bit of print refers to some very complicated chemical reaction involving big molecules like the one in the last slide. So there are hundreds of reactions like that on this one page, and this page is one out of four from a chart that we found detailing some of these things. This metabolism goes on even in the most primitive cells like this bacterium, and yet it's only a fraction of the total of what goes on. The scientists will admit they've only made a fractional study of all that's going on in these cells. So that kind of argument is one line of reasoning we'd like to present. (another slide) Now this refers to another thing. We'd like to describe the concept of consciousness as being something not material—nonphysical and nonchemical. And it turns out that actually in modern physics that's already a basic principle, and it's been that way for the last fifty or sixty years, but that's not widely admitted or taught in the schools. But actually in modern physics, it's called quantum mechanics. They realize that in order to describe physical processes you have to include the observer in the picture; you can't describe these things without accounting for the observer, and so they made an analysis. This was done by von Neumann, who was one of these physicists. He analyzed the difference between the observer and the observed. So here we have a man looking through, say, a microscope at some object, and you can see that in this case you can draw the line between the observer and the observed. So the man is observing the microscope plus object. And physically there are, according to the physicist's idea, there are these equations, represented by number one, equation number one, which describe all the molecules and forces of interaction on the observed side. But there's another kind of equation that goes in quantum mechanics, which corresponds to the observer's side, and this equation is completely different from the first equation. So this indicates that the observer must be something different in nature from the observed. Now the next slide shows here the boundary between the observer and the observed is moved. It's kind of arbitrary. You can move the boundary back so now the observed becomes the eyeball and the microscope and the object, and the observer is still on the other side. And the basic idea is you can move this boundary back, step by step, and on one side you can put, at least in principle, more and more of the parts of the body into the observed system, but on the other side you still have the observer, and he continues to be described by an equation that can't be reduced to the force laws that are used to describe the observed. So the conclusion is that the observer must be something nonphysical. He's not actually part of that physical body at all. So that's actually basic in quantum mechanics. So we wanted to present that. Now this slide... There's another line of evidence here. It's the inspiration, and Çréla Prabhupäda has said that intelligence is the form direction of Supersoul. So it's interesting, it's really striking to observe how various people create things in mathematics and science and art, like that. It's very striking. So we made two examples here. This one is a mathematician names Gauss. He lived in the nineteenth century, and his concern was to solve mathematical problems. The interesting thing is that in a very difficult mathematical problem, the person never solves it by figuring it out consciously, step by step. But what happens is that he tries very hard to figure it out for a long time, and nothing happens, and then all of a sudden the answer comes to him. So it's hard to read that quote. This is a quotation by this Gauss describing how that happened to him. Devotee: "I've succeeded not on account of my painful effort, but by the grace of God. Like a sudden flash of lightning, the riddle happened to be solved. I myself cannot say but when the conducting thread which connected what I previously knew with what made my success possible." Prabhupäda: So the chance theory is the grace of God. Svarüpa Dämodara: Grace of God? Prabhupäda: Yes, because if God sees that the rascal is trying for so many years, "All right, give him a chance." (laughter) That is His mercifulness. So what they call chance theory, that is grace of God. Svarüpa Dämodara: So God is all-merciful. Prabhupäda: Oh, yes. That is the proof. Sadäpüta: Actually, this couldn't come about by just chance, because the number of possibilities... Prabhupäda: There is, but he takes it as chance. All the possibilities taken together he is given by God. That he does not know. He takes it as chance. But there is no question of chance. It is the gift of God. Sadäpüta: Next example, this is another example taken from music. This example is Mozart. Mozart was a musician. He composed symphonies. And in that quote which-I'll just summarize it instead of reading it—he explains how it was that he created these symphonies. He explained that actually what happened was that ideas just came into his mind, melodic themes and so on, and he says "Whence do they come I do not know, and I have nothing to do with it." And actually what would happen was that an entire symphony would just blossom into his mind, and he wouldn't even know where it was coming from. So..."-- Life comes from life slideshow discussion July 3 1976

It is natural that a philosophical mind wants to know about the origin of the creation. At night he sees the stars in the sky, and he naturally speculates about their inhabitants. Such inquiries are natural for man because man has a developed consciousness which is higher than that of the animals. The author of Srimad-Bhägavatam gives a direct answer to such inquiries. He says that the Lord Sri Krishna is the origin of all creations. He is not only the creator of the universe, but the destroyer as well. The manifested cosmic nature is created at a certain period by the will of the Lord. It is maintained for some time, and then it is annihilated by His will. Therefore, the supreme will is behind all cosmic activities. Of course, there are atheists of various categories who do not believe in a creator, but that is due to a poor fund of knowledge. The modern scientist, for example, has created space satellites, and by some arrangement or other, these satellites are thrown into outer space to fly for some time at the control of the scientist who is far away. Similarly, all the universes with innumerable stars and planets are controlled by the intelligence of the Personality of Godhead.-- SB 1.1.1 pur Bewildering to hear devotees arguing against ID being taught in schools. Absolutely baffling.

I will let you gentleman fill in the details. But are you sure those are all the details? You are both so advanced that apparently you see atheism as being superior to intelligent design. That is very confusing to me. Perhaps you can explain that position more fully.

Brahma is the secondary creator. He uses his intelligence to design the material variety and position the jivas in their proper roles within maya. Krishna says "I am the intelligence of the intelligent." I accept Krsna therefore as the Intelligent Designer.

This means learning to put the same truth in more recognizable english. Just repeating the breathing of Maha-vishnu and Brahma on the Lotus flower won't convince anyone. It will strengthen the preconception that religious people and their old myths are stuck in a primitive mind frame with their "god". We were talking about this just recently. So many younger devotees have modern scientific understanding as well that I wouldn't think this would be hard for them.

One should be cautious about books on yoga. They sound similar on the surface but in reality may lead to very different destinations. Some say ahankara refers to the basic sense of the individual "I am". Other say ahankara covers the real I am and causes it to misidentify with something that the real I am is not. For instance I am now thinking I am a material body with a certain name, date and place of birth, family, nation, species and so forth. The goal is to separate the reality from the illusion. The reality is I am. The illusion is thinking I am what I am actually not (as listed above). Just because the I am is wrong about what it thinks it is does not mean the I am itself IS an illusion. It just means the I am is IN illusion. Krishna consciousness will not dissolve the self or I am but rather it will dissolve the false sense of self that has encapsulated the I am. So Instead of thinking I am a being of material origin one comes to know I am a part of Krsna and I am the eternal servant of the Supreme I am or Krishna. Did you check out the link JNdas gave you concerning the gunas?

Tirisilex, I can't read all the variants. To me it is most bewildering. This whole universe is a phantasmagoria of an ever changing array of different combinations. The important thing is to maintain our association with sattva through our diet and habits and acquire a simple understanding of how the gunas funtion. JNdas has referred you to above sections of the Gita. Check those out. The objective is to see Krishna as the controler of the moods. That is seeing in sattva.

Here we see where science meets philosophy and where they both meet religion.

Doesn't Bhaktivinode say in the intro somewhere that he personally believes the orthodox view over the modern scholars?

It is like someone has a jar of pure water and they hand it to someone who drinks from it. He drinks pure water. While he is holding it something from the atmosphere blows in with the breeze, some dust or leaves etc. The water is still pure but now there is something different also in the jar. He passes it on mixed with a little dust and eventually more blows in. The water is always pure but what gets passed on is now carrying something else with it. We should be interested in the unchanging essence of the scripture. We need to become Paramahamsa and learn to separate out and the essence. We want to be lazy and just take anything that is contained in the covers of a book titled "Veda" and just "believe" it. Krishna Consciousness is much more than mere "belief". It is about realization.

Same old worn out arguments by atheists. For those with enogh intelligence it is easy to understand that matter on it's own is inert and only becomes animate when in contact with the living force. You won't understand this but...oh well.

Good Vegan Calcium Sources White/Wholemeal bread, Taco Shells, Oats White bread: 30 mg of Ca per slice Whole wheat bread: 18 mg of Ca per slice Taco shell: 16 mg of Ca per slice Instant oatmeal: 163 mg of Ca per packet Soyabeans, Tofu, Almonds, Brazil Nuts, Pistachios, Sunflower Seeds Soy beans, mature, boiled: 175 mg of Ca per cup Tofu, raw: 130 mg of Ca per .5 cup (258 mg for firm tofu) Almonds, 24, dried: 75 mg of Ca Brazil nuts, 8, dried: 50 mg of Ca Pistachios, 38, dried: 38 mg of Ca Sunflower seeds, dried: 33 mg of Ca per oz Sesame Seeds, Flax Seed, Carob Sesame seeds, kernels, dried: 10 mg of Ca per Tbsp (88 mg for whole seeds) Flax seed: not listed Carob flour: 359 mg of Ca per cup Beet Greens, Collards, Dandelion Greens, Mustard Greens, Spinach Beet greens, boiled: 82 mg of Ca per .5 cup Collards, boiled: 148 mg of Ca per cup Dandelion greens, raw: 42 mg of Ca per .5 cup (73 if boiled) Mustard greens, boiled: 52 mg of Ca per .5 cup Spinach, raw: 28 mg of Ca per .5 cup (122 mg if boiled) Turnip Greens, Watercress, Broccoli, Carrots, Cabbage, Garlic, Parsley Turnip greens, raw: 53 mg of Ca per .5 cup (99 mg if boiled) Watercress, raw: 20 mg of Ca per .5 cup Broccoli, raw: 21 mg of Ca per .5 cup (89 mg if boiled) Carrots, raw: 19 mg of Ca per medium carrot Carrots, boiled: 24 mg of Ca per .5 cup Cabbage, green, raw: 16 mg of Ca per .5 cup (25 mg if boiled) Cabbage, red, raw: 18 mg of Ca per .5 cup (28 mg if boiled) Garlic, raw, 3 cloves: 16 mg of Ca Parsley, raw: 39 mg of Ca per .5 cup Spirulina, Chives, Seaweed, Cauliflower, Okra, Cassava Spirulina: no data for Ca Chives, raw: 2 mg of Ca per Tbsp Agar, raw: 54 mg of Ca per 3.5 oz Agar, dried: 625 mg of Ca per 3.5 oz Irishmoss, raw: 72 mg of Ca per 3.5 oz Kelp, raw: 168 mg of Ca per 3.5 oz Laver (nori), raw: 70 mg of Ca per 3.5 oz Wakame, raw: 150 mg of Ca per 3.5 oz Cauliflower, raw: 14 mg of Ca per .5 cup (17 mg if boiled) Okra, boiled: 50 mg of Ca per .5 cup Cassava, raw: 91 mg of Ca per 3.5 oz Figs, Papaya, Rhubarb, Molasses Figs, raw: 18 mg of Ca per medium fig Figs, dried: 269 mg of Ca per 10 figs Papaya, raw: 72 mg of Ca per medium papaya Rhubarb, frozen, raw: 266 mg of Ca per cup Molasses, barbados: 49 mg of Ca per Tbsp Molasses, blackstrap: 137 mg of Ca per Tbsp Molasses, light: 33 mg of Ca per Tbsp Molasses, medium: 58 mg of Ca per Tbsp Foods left off the original list: Azuki beans, boiled: 63 mg of Ca per cup Amaranth, boiled: 138 mg of Ca per cup Canned baked beans, veg: 128 mg of Ca per cup Beans, refried, canned: 188 mg of Ca per cup Black beans, boiled: 47 mg of Ca per cup Black turtle beans, boiled: 103 mg of Ca per cup Burdock root, boiled: 62 mg of Ca per cup Butter beans, canned: 40 mg of Ca per cup Butterbur (fuki), boiled: 59 mg of Ca per 3.5 oz (what is this?) Cabbage, chinese (pak choi): 79 mg of Ca per .5 cup, boiled (37 if raw) Cardoon, boiled: 72 mg of Ca per 3.5 oz (don't know this either) Chickpeas, boiled: 80 mg of Ca per cup Hummus: 124 mg of Ca per cup Chickory greens, raw: 90 mg of Ca per .5 cup Blackeyed peas, boiled: 42 mg of Ca per cup Cranberry beans, boiled: 89 mg of Ca per cup French beans, boiled: 111 mg of Ca per cup Great northern beans, boiled: 121 mg of Ca per cup Kale, boiled: 47 mg of Ca per .5 cup Kidney beans, boiled: 50 mb of Ca per cup Lambsquarters, boiled: 232 mg of Ca per .5 cup Lima beans, boiled: 32 mg of Ca per cup (52 mg for baby limas) Lupins, boiled: 85 mg of Ca per cup Mung beans, boiled: 55 mg of Ca per cup Mungo beans, boiled: 95 mg of Ca per cup Navy beans, boiled: 128 mg of Ca per cup Pigeon peas, boiled: 72 mg of Ca per cup Pink beans, boiledd: 88 mg of Ca per cup Pinto beans, boiled: 82 mg of Ca per cup Natto: 191 mg of Ca per .5 cup Tempeh: 75 mg of Ca per .5 cup Acorn squash, baked: 45 mg of Ca per .5 cup Butternut squash, boiled: 42 mg of Ca per .5 cup White beans, boiled: 161 mg of Ca per cup White beans, small, boiled: 131 mg of Ca per cup Winged beans, boiled: 244 mg of Ca per cup Yellow beans, boiled: 110 mg of Ca per cup

Beans also have calcium. Almonds and sesame seeds etc. It is dairy industry propaganda that you need cow's milk for it. Ever wonder why there is so much osteoporosis in America and at the same time so much milk consumption? Even if cows milk was the only place to get it I would just take some pills to avoid becoming implicated in calf slaughter.

Wrong. Every part of creation somehow points to God's presence. To me the Lord's secrets are codified in nature. Science may point some of these out and when they do I accept it as another form of scripture. I can't state how opposite my views are from yours. But to each his own.

The green dot appeared almost right away for me but the pink ones never fully disappeared but they did get very faint.

You should know that I am not a member of ISKCON. Rather you leave them or join them makes no difference to me but the only one you should hold responsible for my words is me. That includes this site. Many different views pass over these pages and they don't all represent JNdas's views. This is a forum where people have an oppurtunity to present their own views.

I agree with the above statement. The Bible doesn't even attempt to explain details on how the universe was created as far as I can tell. "The universe didn't make itself and had a creator", this is all I care about. Evolution or no evolution is a topic that misses the essential portion of the debate. This why ID must be put forward separate from the fundmental Christians, some of whom believe the universe was created in six earth days. They are also loony but at least give cedit to God. Let them theorize and speculate day and night about how God creates as long as they acknowledge the Lord as the Supreme Cause. Molecular evolutionists are incorrect in assuming life comes from random mixing of dead molecules. Life comes from Life.

there are recommendations both ways on headstands for tinnitus.

Works by incresing blood flow throughout the brain. I hope it helps.