Bible proven wrong

[Guest guest]

Darwin's evolution theory has conclusively proven Old Testaments and all its derivative holy scriptures wrong.

 

Isn't it easier to shut up any overzealous missionary with the above statement alone? We don't even have to indulge in great debate sessions, it is as simple as that.

 

 

I'm eagarly looking forward to opinions on this subject.

[Guest guest]

darwinian evolution is a theory - just a speculation. it is not true or proven.

 

in fact evolution has been disproved by findings of human bones millions of years old...

[Guest guest]

Darwin's theory is a thoery as mentioned!

 

Adding to theories about the history are just that-----thoeries-best guesses based on triangulation of data. Triangulation of data is a statsitically proven methodology based on broken data from different sources and different times. So, Darwins theory is not tried and tested in any modern rigoruous scientific methods.

 

Haribol!

 

anand

[godsent 0]

Your thread is a primitive and childlike thread,your really unsure of your own faith that you have to try and attack other stronger and much more evidential faiths,you may be a hindu,and there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF of any type of god or godess in your faith,pure hersay.

 

Evolution is a theory and nothing else,NOT FACT.

and i do not know how the bible has been proven wrong by a man giving a certain perpesctive.

 

Silly silly threads!

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

"there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF of any type of god or godess in your faith,pure hersay."

 

There is no proof. But there is evidence. Evidence is that many souls have seen these gods, have talked to them and have related with them. The only way this can be proven or disproven is if you carry out the experiment yourself i.e. practice devotion to a deity with faith, determination and practice for at least two weeks and then make a conclusion whether you experience any difference in yourself. If you see a difference then you must continue - because God-consciousness is an eternal experiment. The conclusion comes with self-realisation. I'm sure you put faith in a lot of things, such as doctors, the possibility that you won't get run over the next time you cross a road - so why not put faith in the clear descriptions of God from the Vedas? Or if you are unwilling to put faith in Him, then at least reserve judgement instead of making invalid conclusions.

 

Hare Krishna

[Guest guest]

 

there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF of any type of god or godess in your faith,pure hersay.

 

 

Not anymore than your father god or your holy ghost making virgin mary pregnant.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

"Not anymore than your father god or your holy ghost making virgin mary pregnant"

 

There is no need to blaspheme other devotees of God.

 

Hare Krishna.

[narayanadasa 0]

Jai Sriman Narayan:

 

I heard from an Aacharya tha Darwins theory had most of the statements (about 1000 or more times) beginning with words like

 

It seems

Probably

Perhaps

It appears

In all probability etc

 

This shows that Darwin himself was'nt sure of what he was telling. So, it can only be theory not a reality or a philpsophy by itself as someone made it.

[Guest guest]

For those who say Darwin's theory is just a plain "theory" with no proof, you are right. When Darwin proposed his theory based on what he observed while travelling all over the world, he didn't have much proof, but proof has been accumulating ever since in the form of fossils and other sources.

 

One interesting thing I noticed is that all those who objected the theory showed great emotions, but none stated any facts.

 

I'll list out a few facts in favour of the theory:

 

1.Indians and Africans living in hot and arid landscapes have adapted to the environment by producing natural sun screen lotion, Melanin. This gives us and Africans the characteristic black coloured skin.

Europeans don't secrete Melanin at all or secrete less quantities when exposed to sun for long duration, which gives them the tanned complexion.

This conclusively proves that our bodies are constantly adapting to surrounding environment and pass on the adaptation logic to subsequent generations through genes.

In other words, we are constantly "evolving"

 

2.Ancient human fossils like Neanderthal man had greater number of teeth and stronger jaw bones. This was because they didn't cook their food, which was mostly meat, hence they required powerfull jaws and more cannine teeth to tear the raw flesh. However, after man learnt to produce fire, he started cooking his food which made the meat easier to bite and chew. Subsequently we Homo Sapiens lost the need for powerfull jaw bones and hence our jaw bones shrinked in size.

 

I can list out many more examples like appendix organs, smaller ears, body hair, larger brain, lesser muscles and so on. But I think I've proven my point already, it is upto the people who object to exhibit their facts.

[Guest guest]

I don't think an Acharya is right person to validate Darwin's theory.

 

I can understand if you approach your Acharya for guidance in understanding religious philosophies and scriptures, but science and rational beliefs are totally different issues.

 

Would you approach your Acharya if your car breaks down and you don't know what went wrong??

Or if you fall sick and you need to seek medical treatment, would you ask your Acharya to prescribe medicines for you?

 

For such day to day problems, we seek the help of modern science and accept the solutions that modern science prescribes, but when the same science invalidates our fundamental beliefs, we blindly reject it without even attempting to analyze the subject.

[Guest guest]

Mr.Shaivite,

 

One doesnt have to be a scientist to read Darwin's thoery or any theory.

 

Ok...since you are specific about scientific world, iam a research scientist in the social industry, in the human service delivery industry to be specific.

 

So i can say iam a little knowledgable in scientific analysis and methodology.

 

Yes, Mr.Narayanadasa is completely correct because most of the scientific world, if you read technical papers and thoeries, at the end, the conclusion of their analysis starts with..."most likely" or "probablY".....iam saying this i have done my own thesis research and that is how it was accepted by my professors who are all research scholars.

 

This is how all technical papers will conclude, this is because the methods to inquire into the phenomenon of science is invariably based on statistics or if it is lab experiments, based on lab experiments.

 

We use words like probably and most likely because we do not test the entire population and we only test the sample of the entire population and based on the sample we make best guesses of the entire population. This my friend is modern science.......just a guess work...or shall i say an informed best practices guess work.....ultimately it is guess work no matter how you see it.

 

and Vedic scriptures say....Knoewledge is knowledge and does not change with time.....the sea is salty....the earth is round no matter what time or yuga we live in....so real knowledge means it should not change as time goes on.

 

About your analogy to car mechanic and doctor, are you telling me that just bcos one is ignorant about cars, one should not read car catolog or go to a car expo or know about cars....and just bcos one is not a doctor.......we should not discuss about medical science with my friends........what are yuo saying?

 

What is wrong in an Acharya criticizing a thoery.....he did not critcize it scientifically.....all he said was using words like...most likely and probably is not acceptable as knowledge as per the vedas (may be in modern science) but not in the vedas.

 

Haribol!

 

anand

[narayanadasa 0]

Thanks Anand (picked your name from your signature).

 

Dear Mr. Shivite,

 

The Aacharya was indeed a scientist and professor in IIT a few years ago but later sacrifised his career after realizing the flaws of science and is now serving humanity and God by spreading Vedic truth. Please read one of his books "God, Rebirth and Vedas" ISBN 8122405061 which gives good scientific explanation to Vedas. This book is especially for those who say Vedas are not scientific.

 

The Aacharya however does not critisize Science too.. he said Science by itself may not be bad becaise it has the courtesy to admit it flaws when more information is available and rectify itself. But, given the fact that science cannot be absolutely correct at a given point of time (due to human analysis defect, mostly) why do scientists present the theories as absolute. For example (from one of Srila Prabhupada's lectures):

Scientists say life is made of chemicals,but when you tell them whether they can create life when they are given the chemicals, they are not sure.

 

But, I am curious about one thing: If I understand correctly (from this thread and some others as well), you believe in God but not in his words (i.e Vedas). You also dont believe in Aacharya. Then how do you go about realizing truth?

[Guest guest]

>The Aacharya was indeed a scientist and professor in IIT a few years ago but later sacrifised his career after realizing the flaws of science and is now serving humanity and God by spreading Vedic truth<

 

Scientists are by nature very inquisitive, they always search for answers and if their current belief doesn't give them an answer, some even go to the extent of discarding their belief, while others stick to it reluctantly.

 

Religion is better than science, I accept, why? because it is one step ahead of science. I'll try to explain using a simple example.

 

This is an imaginary conversation between a religious person and a scientist.

 

RP:You say god didn't create first life form, then who created the first living creature?

 

S:It manisfested by itself!!

 

RP:Nothing can manifest by itself, which means some supernatural power created first life, and that is god.

 

S:Then who created god?

 

RP:He manifested by himself.

 

See, religion is definitely better than science /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I also believe in god, but I don't believe that god delivered vedas or Bible or Koran.

 

God has no compulsion to explain to us how he created life, world, etc.. Because it is not going to serve any usefull purpose other than satify our ego and curiosity.

 

Instead, he has given us choice to lead a good life or bad life, only guaranteed good deed is showing love and compassion to fellow human beings, and in my humble opinion that is a sure ticket to realizing god.

 

 

In fact, I believe love itself is god and god is nothing but love.

 

Anbe Sivam!

[Guest guest]

>RP:You say god didn't create first life form, then who created the first living creature?

 

S:It manisfested by itself!!

 

RP:Nothing can manifest by itself, which means some supernatural power created first life, and that is god.

 

S:Then who created god?

 

RP:He manifested by himself.<

 

After typing the above, an interesting thought came to my mind, would Advaita hold the key to truth??

 

I only recently came across the word "Advaita" after accidentally visiting this religious forum.

If my understanding is correct, Advaita says god is everywhere but it is the illusion (maya) that is preventing us from realizing the truth.

 

So, it means god has placed a huge curtain and if we manage to lift it up, we'll realize the truth.

 

Don't you think science in its own way is trying to lift this curtain??

Maybe there is more similarity between science and religion than it appears, maybe only an realized advaitin will be able to answer.

 

But unfortunately, true advaitins who had realized god don't indulge in debates trying to enforce their opinions, they rather chose to lead life of seclusion and silence, so we may never know the answer until death.

 

[Guest guest]

regarding the above, we are limited in our understanding of who and what God is and where God came from, purely because we are working within the concept of Time. this universal manifestation is limited by time, and the manifestation was created by God - it is His maya. our human understanding cannot fathom how or where the beginning came, whether or not God is subject to Time, and so on.

[Guest guest]

Do you know some thing else? I am becoming bald ! That means really getting evolved (civilized). Primitive people needed hair as most of them lived in wilderness , so that they can conserve heat. Now we live in nice shelters, heated or airconditioned and there is minimal heat loss from the skin, Who needs hair? Hey, Iam getting wiser. You Baldies out there. Do not feel bad any more. You are climbing the ladder of the evolution.... Good day.. God loves all of us. KT

[Guest guest]

"" I also believe in god, but I don't believe that god delivered vedas or Bible or Koran....God has no compulsion to explain to us how he created life.. He hasgiven us choice to lead a good life or bad life....love and compassion to fellow human beings, and in my humble opinion that is a sure ticket to realizing god."

 

 

You put it nicely my brother!

Bible is mostly a metaphor and it has very rich meaning. I am sure people read Bible,Vedas, Koran Geeta etc in their own way and they find their own definition of so called TRUTH. It appears most Christians take the Bible literally and they do not grow. Brought up as a Hindu I found a fascinating explanation in the Bible about God. It was actually explained by a Russian author Fyodor Dostoveski in his novel Brothers Karamazov. Christians think Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God( of course this story is a myth, but it is a huge metaphor, if you care I can explain the meaning sometime). My question for them why did their God made them to disobey? He is such a nice "Guy", why create bad people?. He should have kept them in his Garden of Eden with heavenly experience for ever there would not have any Sins. What kind of God is He if He is so perfect ?

Old testament stories are like our Hindu Epics and God's Avtars.He comes down to earth punish or kill the evil person (like in typical Hindi movies). He gave 10 commandments. Did people learn any thing? They kept doing bad things! . It is my guess God finally decided there was no sense coming down as a Lion instead He decided to come down as a Lamb. Dostoveski in his novel ( chapter Grand Inquisitor) says there is no miracle. no mystery and no authority.God decided not to act as a lion, superman or a batman. His decided to give us Grace or freedom. Each one is right according to their own way and what gives them that right is the power of Grace. As I understand God’s grace is nothing but human freedom. People in freedom do both Good and evil but the TRUTH is that it is the only way to realize the meaning of Love. God knew it was very expensive and knew it was the worth the cost. He put freedom before life. Life is meaningless without love and there is no love without freedom. He sacrificed His son (metaphorical, Jesus did not die by commiting suicide!)as His proclamation of His radical grace and freedom. God's terrible insistence on human freedom is so absolute and radical that he granted us the power to live as though he did not exist and it was OK to spit in his face, to lash him with a whip and to put him on a cross.In freedom we find love, we find compassion, we reform and get motivated to do well to others. Goodness cannot be legislated and enforced at the point of gun. Morality cannot be compelled. God knew this well and put freedom over life. God had to forsake the power over the Natural tragedies such as eathquakes, flood etc. Human freedom was his top priority.He knows when a tragedy strikes people come out, touch and hug and help one another. Their pour their Hearts out. They connect each other and they establish relationships. That is Love. This is nothing to do with duties, 10 commandments, Karmas, going to Mecca etc

What if God had all the mighty power ? We humans wound not have experienced the power of Love. Love is explained as Heart, it is pulsating and very dynamic.

I am not trying here to prove Christianity is a superior religion. I do not think Christ created a relgion and in fact He questioned all the religious people in his time.

I do not care whether you are a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, single, divorced, gay or lesbian, President, doctor, Janitor,prostitute... as long as you can treat your fellow human with respect, dignity, compassion and Love YOU HAVE SEEN GOD. You do not need to sacrifice an animal or a cocnut or a pumkin to appease God. Have Good day. We are all blessed, Love KT

[narayanadasa 0]

Jai Sriman Narayan:

 

Scientists are by nature very inquisitive, they always search for answers and if their current belief doesn't give them an answer, some even go to the extent of discarding their belief, while others stick to it reluctantly.

Yes, but why does science make wrong assumptions even when the right answers are available. I dont deny that it later accepts the same and corrects itself.

 

Scientists are by nature very inquisitive, they always search for answers and if their current belief doesn't give them an answer, some even go to the extent of discarding their belief, while others stick to it reluctantly.

No, RP doesnt say God manifested. God was always there (in fact he alone was there originally, he has no beginning). He however manifested in different forms (like Matsya, Kurma, Vamana, Rama, Krishna etc) for the sake of his devotees.

 

Instead, he has given us choice to lead a good life or bad life, only guaranteed good deed is showing love and compassion to fellow human beings, and in my humble opinion that is a sure ticket to realizing god.

How then did man originally know that there is something called Good and Bad? How did man know that there is something called compassion? Science especially has to answer this question because according to science language too was created by Man. According to Vedas languages are also God-Given (man took basic words and created more words and sentences like man took Tele and Vision and coined the word Television).

 

[Guest guest]

>Yes, but why does science make wrong assumptions<

 

As far as theory of evloution or theory of atomic science is concerned, the answers are not available anywhere.

Scientists have to make assumptions about things they can't prove.

They won't remain idle after making any assumption, instead they will constantly validate any new finding based on that assumption and if any finding violated their assumption, they'll reject their won't fundamental beliefs open heartedly and come up with new theories.

 

In over 100 yrs, theory of evolution hasn't failed and all new discoveries & excavations are in line with Darwin's theory. So this is the "most" proven theory about evolution of man.

 

> even when the right answers are available<

 

Where are the answers available? Only in religious scriptures, the same religious scriptures also say earth is static and immobile and sun revolves around earth, which has been disproved with solid evidences. Please don't say you still believe earth is immobile and that there is no solar system!!

 

Already great scientists like Galileo & Darwin have suffered in the hands of biblical fanatics, I hope we don't go back to those dark ages!

 

[Guest guest]

"Where are the answers available? Only in religious scriptures, the same religious scriptures also say earth is static and immobile and sun revolves around earth, which has been disproved with solid evidences. Please don't say you still believe earth is immobile and that there is no solar system!!"

 

Which religious scripture says this.....dont talk nonsensical things.

 

In fact, there is a book written by an American space scientist and astro-physicists/professor on the description of the cosmos based on the Srimad Bhagavatam (which is the amala pUran for mankind originally written by Sage Vyasadev 5000 years ago).

 

This book has the description of the entire current solar system and the universe we live in based on the Bhagavatam and his book concludes that the Bahagavatam description is very similar to modern day description of the solar system.

 

The greatness is, Vyasadev desribed the universe without any telescope or any modern day equpiment to calculate the distance and other scientific phenomenon of the earth and the planets around the earth.

 

So,Mr.Shaivite,without proper inquiry dont talk nonsense about religious scriptures putting everything in one bracket.

 

Haribol!

 

anand

 

 

 

 

[narayanadasa 0]

Jai Sriman Narayana:

 

>Yes, but why does science make wrong assumptions<

 

As far as theory of evloution or theory of atomic science is concerned, the answers are not available anywhere.

Scientists have to make assumptions about things they can't prove.

They won't remain idle after making any assumption, instead they will constantly validate any new finding based on that assumption and if any finding violated their assumption, they'll reject their won't fundamental beliefs open heartedly and come up with new theories.

yes, science does that makes an assumption now (someone misguides people based on this! - this is wrong) and then discards that and makes fresh assumptions.

 

In over 100 yrs, theory of evolution hasn't failed and all new discoveries & excavations are in line with Darwin's theory. So this is the "most" proven theory about evolution of man.

 

> even when the right answers are available<

 

Where are the answers available? Only in religious scriptures, the same religious scriptures also say earth is static and immobile and sun revolves around earth, which has been disproved with solid evidences. Please don't say you still believe earth is immobile and that there is no solar system!!

Oh God! Where do scriptures say this? Can you please quote the verses or the translation... I am really interested to know where you found this.

 

Already great scientists like Galileo & Darwin have suffered in the hands of biblical fanatics, I hope we don't go back to those dark ages!

Yes indeed, historians say that there probably was a lot of political interference even at the time of Darwin in propounding his theory.

But, unlike the Biblical fanatics, the Vedics never interfered in propounding wrong theories because words of Vedas has always been true. Just check it out whether you will find atleast one verse out of 10000000+++ verses with words like "May be", "I think", "Probably" etc.

[Guest guest]

It is clearly mentioned in the vedas that the sun traverses over the earth in golden chariot.

 

Also vedas claim universe appeared from egg, which split into two to form earth and sky,

 

Also there is lot of reference in vedas claiming sun is the supreme of all stars, which is very much false.

 

Bible and Koran are also full of such non-scientific materials.

 

 

In fact sun is one of the smallest stars in the universe.

And Sun is not "everlasting" star, it has going to die in 5 million years and will become what scientists call a white dwarf. In fact, it is not even big enough to become red giant before becoming a white dwarf.

Please don't tell we don't have "proof" for all this. Scientists have identified stars bigger than Sun and have witnessed several cases of star deaths.

Spectrographic analysis also shows that sun has completed half of its life already and is currently in second half of its life.

[Guest guest]

Mr.Shaivite

 

It is nice you take scientific analysis as a foundation for your argument. However, you are no more fanatic about science than we are about Vedas.

 

First of all, talking about the Sun, I suggest you read the book - "Mysteries of the Sacred Universe The Cosmology of the Bhagavata Purana" and then make your comments.

 

The sad part of your claim is you are BLINDLY saying what the scientists say. Ok...let us assume temporarily that what the scientists say are true.........then can you explain why....please read the following from a scientist on white dwarfs..."Although the basic theory of electron degeneracy and white dwarf evolution has already been laid out, there are still many ambiguities in the observations of real white dwarfs"

 

You tell me....why the same scientific people who follow the same scienec who are more educated in science than you are.....write technical papers against the concept of white dwarfs.

 

Your blind ideology is sad and obviously you are not aware of science and research. The way you put your statements indicate that you do not know how actual science research is conducted. So please dont post irrevlant statements supporting science phenomenon unless you are an expert in that area. For example, what do you know about the Cosmology about the Bhagavata Purana and modern science. Are you telling me you are more intellectual than the space scientist who analysed and compared both modern astronomy and Bhagavata Purana. If you are, then speak properly comparing both and not give lame statements which has no meaning at all.

 

Your contention about the egg, earth and sky is all in the book i mentioned earlier, if you are fair person, read that book or any book that validly used scientific methods to compare and analyse ancient scriptures with modern science.

 

Dont give blind statements supporting science because it was the same science that disproved theories that existed before which also was created by scientists initially. So what science is today is not the same tomorrow....this is not knowledge. Clearly you are just a FANATIC trying to denounce VEDIC INFERENCES based on your imperfect knowledge about both.

 

So,please dont embarass yourself cos to me you are very childish and i can tell you i read the book that i mentioned before and it is entirely based on modern methods of research and it is quite intriguig as to how Bhagavata Purana can be so accurate.

 

So, please dont . about modern science and puranas as you have no knowledge about both.

 

anand

[Guest guest]

Mr.Shaivite

 

I have attached a link to the review of methods used in space research. It clearly stated in the first paragraph that they use probablity theories and probablility laws to determine stellar dynamics, colloid chemistry and white dwarfs.

 

If you take a step back and discuss about the evolution of probablity thoery, it is apparent that it is a method of chances (the best method if you will), however ultimately it boils down to chance probablility.

 

This is the corner stone for modern day research, any field for that matter, the number of chance occurances and the ability to predict the occurances is probability.

 

So, please do not quote modern science as perfect as it is no way close to perfect as its fundamental method of analysis is based on PROBABLILITY LAWS.

 

anand

 

http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1989/A1989AY30200001.pdf

[narayanadasa 0]

Jai Sriman Narayan:

 

Dear Mr. Shivite,

 

Unless you quote the verses or the translation or the source of your information there is no way to verify the authenticity. Everything has to be read in the context of what is said i.e. we cannot just take some verse from inbetween the vedas and make interpretations from that verse alone - this is true with scientific thesis too. Right now, I have'nt heard of any such thing, so would wait to check with someone authoritative on the vedas.