Again, according to the law of conservation, matter is neither created nor destroyed, it can only take a new form. Thus matter cannot dissolve, only the current form where the information (matter) is stored. The information is the profound divine wisdom that is inherent in nature. These laws are immutable.

Again, according to the law of conservation, matter is neither created nor destroyed,
Vj ~ I really don't give a s-h-i-t of your law of conservation, whatever that is, and matter. The subject is natural laws, where did it originate from?

Until you give a s-h-i-t about the law of conservation of energy and mass you will never learn physics. Here's an analogy. An agent is reincarnated and hops like a grasshopper from fish to tree to man to whatever. Yes, the reincarnation (body or form) is finite, but the soul (matter and natural law) is eternal. Get it?

Until you give a s-h-i-t about the law of conservation of energy and mass you will never learn physics.
Vj ~ Why would the wise want to learn physics, when physics don't have all the answers? Let's start with the origin of man and language.

An agent is reincarnated and hops like a grasshopper from fish to tree to man to whatever.
Vj ~ Yes, this is the law of karma. What is your source of this knowledge?

Yes, the reincarnation (body or form) is finite, but the soul (matter and natural law) is eternal. Get it?
Vj ~ Yes, I got it from the Vedas, the most ancient of all books in the library mankind.
Where did you get yours from?

PS
So you were wrong before when you said the natural laws were created/formed out of matter?

Here's an analogy: Just as a soul hops like a grasshopper from fish to tree to man to whatever, so too does matter hop from one form to another. This is the law of conservation of energy. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it only takes a new form, a law of nature.

You may have disdain for science and can rely on blind faith without question. But the rest of us feel that people have a duty to study the laws of nature to improve ourselves and society, without depending on divine assistance.

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it only takes a new form, a law of nature.
Vj ~ I agree and the source of my knowledge is the Vedas. What's your source?

You may have disdain for science and can rely on blind faith without question.
Vj ~ "Science without religion is lame...." Einstein. It simply means that there is faith that is in harmony with science.

But the rest of us feel that people have a duty to study the laws of nature to improve ourselves and society,
Vj ~ How can you improve yourself and society when you don't have a source knowledge?

Philosophers discover their source of knowledge by studying the world, by learning science, and physics. The laws of physics are eternal; the profound divine wisdom is inherent in nature.

Philosophers discover their source of knowledge by studying the world, by learning science, and physics.
Vj ~ And what was the source knowledge (books) of these philosophers?

The laws of physics are eternal; the profound divine wisdom is inherent in nature.
Vj ~ So who were the first human beings on the planet to know this and what was the first language?

Again, learning about the first humans is irrelevant to learning the sciences.

Again, learning about the first humans is irrelevant to learning the sciences.
Vj ~ You're dumb-a-s-s! What's the point boasting of having "divine wisdom" and you don't have an answer?

Why answer the irrelevant?

Why answer the irrelevant?
Vj ~ It shows humility and compassion for the weak in learning.

Here's my answer, then. I think that there is lots of truth in the theories of evolution. I believe that people have evolved.

I think that there is lots of truth in the theories of evolution. I believe that people have evolved.
Vj ~ When you use lines like "I think" and "I believe" it shows doubt which is definitely not the trait of one who claim to have or follow "divine wisdom".

Never mind a lot of truth, just name one!

No one now argues against the evolution of the eye. Now the argument of the evolution of the eye is completely conceded, read Richard Dawkins.

No one now argues against the evolution of the eye.
Vj ~ Except the wise!
"Behold the wonderful organization of the physical body! How the learned are wonder-struck with it? First, there is the osseous framework girt with a network of vessels - veins, arteries, and nerves, etc., - invested with flesh and the whole covered by skin with its appendages - nails and hairs. Then how beautifully are the different organs, such as the heart, the liver, the spleen and the lungs - ventilating apparatus - laid out. The formation of the brain, of the optic nerve with the most recticulate formation of the retina, the demarking of the paths of indryas - the principles of sensation and action -, the linking of the soul with the body, the assigning of definite places to it for wakeful state, slumber and deep sleep, the formation of different kinds of dhaatus - tissues and secretions, such as muscle, bone marrow, blood, reproductive elements - and the construction of various other wonderful structures and mechanisms in the body who but God could have caused." The Light of Truth

"Nothing can be made without a maker." Vedanta

"Nothing can be made without a maker."
Yes, I agree that everything that occurs in this world has an immediate cause, which, in turn, is caused by something else, and so on back to the first cause, God, however, it is part of nature that everything in this world develops gradually. Just as a flower sprouts in steps and not by leaps, so do humans evolve. Darwin's theory does not delute religion at all. There is no reason why God or nature could not have guided evolution to its perfected state.

Darwin's theory does not delute religion at all.
Vj ~ Man evolving from a lower creature is Darwin's theory and where we evolved from a primitive state are a breach to natural laws.
Yes everything created was slow and gradual especially from one race to another.

"Yes everything created was slow and gradual especially from one race to another."

We agree that from simplicity you get complexity. Everything develops gradually, a law. This is in harmony with evolution.

This is in harmony with evolution.
Vj ~ It is in harmony with creation!
Evolution can't tell you the age of creation, the first civilization, the origin of language, etc.

No one now argues against the evolution of the eye. Now the argument of the evolution of the eye is completely conceded, read Richard Dawkins. Now, where does your source mention that?

Now the argument of the evolution of the eye is completely conceded, read Richard Dawkins.
Vj ~ Why should I take instructions from Dawkins or even you who don't know the origin of language?

Because Dawkins knows about the evolution of the eye, your book does not.

Because Dawkins knows about the evolution of the eye, your book does not.
Vj ~ So you're saying no one knew "about the evolution of the eye" before Dawkins?
We're considered intelligent beings because of language, and if you can't see that, good luck with Dawkins.

Nope. You don't understand science. So far all your objections have been religious, not scientific. We know for a fact that evolution happens. We know that biological features are caused by gene expression. Together, that makes evolution the leading theory for the development of life. I know of no competing scientific theories. And no, "God did it" is not a theory.

If you claim otherwise, you are bringing in a religious/non-science perspective.

You don't understand science.
Vj ~ I'm glad I don't otherwise I would be just another idiot.
It is better to know the origin of science before understanding it.
"Science without religion is lame" and "we owe Indians who taught us how to count......" Albert Einstein.

I know of no competing scientific theories.
Vj ~ But then what does an idiot know?

And no, "God did it" is not a theory.
Vj ~ It is for the wise!

"It is for the wise!"

No, it isn't. That's not what science claims. You repeatedly conflate different concepts and make repeated argument from incredulity. That's a logical fallacy. You are essentially saying that evidence does not matter; logic does not matter; all that matters is what fits in to your imagination. Reality, and more specifically, science does not work that way.

You are making a purely religious argument "I can't believe in evolution therefore God!" That's not a scientific argument in the slightest. It's fine for you to take that position, but it's completely dishonest to continue to claim you believe in the science. You clearly don't.

And no, "God did it" is not a theory.
Vj ~ It is for the wise!

No, it isn't.
Vj ~ How do you know that? Are you wiser than the wise?


That's not what science claims.
Vj ~ "Science without religion is lame....." Einstein

all that matters is what fits in to your imagination.
Vj ~ Wisdom is not imagination! It is years of selfless study and practice (honest inquiries) of the correct knowledge.

but it's completely dishonest to continue to claim you believe in the science. You clearly don't.
Vj ~ The most abstruse of all sciences is Divine science. I'm not interested in how man went to the moon or the milky way, but the human soul, its origin, its present state of existence and its final destination.

"It is for the wise!"
No, it doesn't.

"I'm interested in the human soul"
Then you might want to read Aristotle. In De Anima (On the Soul), Aristotle said that the soul is the life force; comprised of five parts: the nutritive system, the appetitive, senses, locomotion, and thinking. Plants and animals also have souls, but not all five parts. Aristotle felt that the intellect cannot be destroyed and that the intellect (and not the soul) survives death (it gets absorbed by the active intellect).

P.S. Obviously, you've never read Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species.

Then you might want to read Aristotle
Vj ~ Why do I need to consult the Greeks when they got it from the very source (Vedic) I'm promoting?

(On the Soul) Aristotle felt that the intellect cannot be destroyed and that the intellect (and not the soul) survives death
Vj ~ Better the original source. The intellect is finite and the soul is infinite. It is best for you to understanding the meaning of "finite" and "infinite".

P.S. Obviously, you've never read Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species.
Vj ~ Darwin was an idiot! He married his first cousin, not knowing incest leads to mental and physical infirmities.

Obviously, you've never read my dialogues on Darwin's evolution

I disagree. Aristotle recognized that nothing disappears from the earth. It only changes its shape. Therefore the intellect gets absorbed by the active intellect. "The Greeks learned from the east," source, please?

P.S. Look if you don't like Darwin try Richard Dawkins.

I disagree.
Vj ~ I know, God has no cure for a fool.

Aristotle recognized that nothing disappears from the earth. It only changes its shape.
Vj ~ And what's Aristotle source?

"The Greeks learned from the east," source, please?
Vj ~ You don't need a source you need an intellect that works.

Aristotle's source is the De Anima.

You claim the Greeks learned from the east. No source for that, just your assumption. So far all we have is your opinion, and your opinion is worthless. Someone who wants to make a claim needs to bring evidence for it. No evidence, then the claim is worthless.

P.S. And Aristotles' all about the development of the intellect, so you might want to think again.

Aristotle's source is the De Anima.
Vj ~ What the hell is that? Did you just pull that out of your arse?

So far all we have is your opinion, and your opinion is worthless.
Vj ~ Their opinion are in harmony with mine and that is all that matters to me.

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." Plato

Someone who wants to make a claim needs to bring evidence for it.
Vj ~ And where is your evidence for "the De Anima" dumb-a-s-s?

And Aristotles' all about the development of the intellect, so you might want to think again.
Vj ~ This is how Swami Dayanand taught how to developed the intellect:

In studying the systems of philosophy, it is necessary that the mind adopt a discipline of impartiality and sobriety. It must then be raised to an exalted mental condition through the process of reasoning. This intellectual function is required for the comprehension of recondite and invisible truths of matter and nature.

Can you tell me a little about Aristotle methods?

The De Anima (On the Soul), is a book by Aristotle.

"Their opinion are in harmony with mine and that is all that matters to me"!

Well, then, facts be damned, "your opinion" is what counts?!

Aristotle wrote that what distinguishes people from animals is their intelligence. People are people because they think, and an excellent person – a person who is truly human – is a person who is fully rational.

Aristotle taught that people should develop proper habits of behavior according to the middle path, the “golden mean,” between two extremes. He emphasized the acquisition of knowledge. Thus correct intelligent conduct is in the middle. Thoughtful people develop suitable habits.

Aristotle taught that logic reveals that the only means to improve intelligence is by studying philosophy and study of the sciences, the laws of nature. Aristotle taught that people should not focus on the “soul.”

Thus, Aristotle said: “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”

The De Anima (On the Soul), is a book by Aristotle.
Vj ~ Still no source knowledge. It is foolish, to begin with, to write about anything without presenting the source of your knowledge.

Well, then, facts be ****ed, "your opinion" is what counts?!
Vj~ Yes it is! Besides being in harmony with reason, science, and in conformity with natural laws, I have a source for my knowledge.

Aristotle taught
Vj~ And who taught Aristotle, dumb-a-s-s?

Aristotle used reason and a thorough understanding of the laws of nature as a source of knowledge. Yes, the Greeks felt that humans were perfectly capable of understanding the universe.

So far all we have is your opinion, and your opinion is worthless as far as defining objective fact. It is your opinion, not fact. And neither I nor anyone else is obligated to accept your opinion.

P.S. Rational religion must conform to reason. The denial of evolution is a rejection of science.

Yes, the Greeks felt that humans were perfectly capable of understanding the universe.
Vj ~ So why do you need the Greeks to enlighten you when you're "perfectly capable of understanding the universe" all by yourself?

So far all we have is your opinion, and your opinion is worthless as far as defining objective fact.
Vj ~ It is worthless because of your stupidity. You've got too much s-h-i-t piled up in your head and frankly speaking I don't have any cure for that.

Rational religion must conform to reason.
Vj ~ And you don't see the requirement of a source knowledge as being conform to reason?

The denial of evolution is a rejection of science.
Vj ~ "Science without religion is lame......" Albert Einstein

I already defined Aristotle's source of knowledge as “natural law.”

What you need to realize is that you're not the measure of all things. You're entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. It is your opinion, not fact. And neither I nor anyone else is obligated to accept your opinion.

PS a religion in denial of evolution is without science, is blind.

I already defined Aristotle's source of knowledge as “natural law.”
Vj ~ And Im asking again, what is the source knowledge of natural law?

And neither I nor anyone else is obligated to accept your opinion.
Vj ~ You seem to be the one having a problem with that, why else are you here?

a religion in denial of evolution is without science, is blind.
Vj ~ So finally, you're smarter than Einstein who said science of evolution is a breach of natural laws!

God is the “ultimate cause,” since everything produced must have an immediate cause, which, in turn, is caused by something else, and so on back to the first cause, God who created the universe. Thus G-d is the ultimate cause of the source since G-d created the laws of nature.

There are some misconceptions here. In 1939, speaking at Princeton Theological Seminary, Einstein famously decried conflicts arising “when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of a religious text.” The result of such an insistence, he explained, is “an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science... the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin...” He clearly considered Galileo and Darwin right and the Church wrong.

Thus I find no evidence that Einstein ever cast doubt on evolution in any way. No physicist I know of thinks that evolution violates the laws of physics. Neither life nor evolution violates any physical law. Please stop saying things about Einstein for which there is no evidence.

God is the “ultimate cause,”
Vj ~ Says who?

G-d created the laws of nature.
Vj ~ Says who?

In 1939, speaking at Princeton Theological Seminary, Einstein famously decried conflicts arising “when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of a religious text.”
Vj ~ Its simple, what I was (atheist) in 1979 when I began my research, wasn't the same 20 years later. The same can be said of Albert Einstein years later, after 1939.

Thus I find no evidence that Einstein ever cast doubt on evolution in any way. No physicist I know of thinks that evolution violates the laws of physics.
Vj ~ Neither Darwin nor physicists you know, had any idea of how the laws of nature worked and Einstein knew it.

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Neither life nor evolution violates any physical law.
Vj ~ You boast of all knowledge emanating from natural laws and you don't know s-h-i-t about these laws.

Says the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Additionally, the Greeks felt that humans were perfectly capable of understanding the universe.

No, you don't know s-h-i-t about these laws. The world works according to the laws of nature. One of these laws is the law of gradual development. It is part of nature that everything in this world develops gradually. Just as a flower sprouts in steps and not by leaps, so to do humans evolve, gradually.

Says the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Additionally, the Greeks felt that humans were perfectly capable of understanding the universe.
Vj ~ We (aryas) were "perfectly capable", since the beginning of creation (3.8 million years ago). What you think about that dumb-a-s-s?

No, you don't know s-h-i-t about these laws.
Vj ~ How come you don't know the first civilization and first language?

One of these laws is the law of gradual development.
Vj ~ Evolution a breach of natural laws:
The theory of natural selection is indicative of nature's imperfections. According to it nature is still improving. This theory points out the absence in nature at present of the best forms that it will produce in the future.
Progression is always downward, a law.

so to do humans evolve, gradually.
Vj ~ Are you saying the human race (in the beginning) were stupid(barbaric) and now we've become civilized?

"3.8 million years ago"
Sources, please.

I don’t know what “progression is always downward” means. It isn’t a law of physics. The earth is not a closed system. It receives energy from the sun which is constantly pumping energy into the system. Therefore, there is entropy. So no, no violation of the 2nd law. "Progression is always downward" is not a physical law, and "downward" is not a concept in physics. I don't understand at all what that is even supposed to mean.

"3.8 million years ago"
Sources, please.
Vj ~ You don't need a source, you need brains that work (desire). The idea that I've to keep reaping myself is because of your stupidity. It is a sensible person who enters a debate who would make the necessary preparations of providing the source.

I don’t know what “progression is always downward” means.
Vj ~ Of course you don't know, how could you without a source knowledge?

It isn’t a law of physics.
Vj ~ I know, it is a law of nature,

I don't understand at all what that is even supposed to mean.
Vj ~ And neither me nor God can change that.

"Only the wisest and the stupidest of men never change." Confucius

Someone who wants to make a claim needs to bring evidence for it. No evidence, then the claim is worthless. Bring sources.

You can’t use meaningless phrases like “progression is always downward” as it is not a natural law, and "downward" is not a concept in physics. Neither life nor evolution violates any physical law.

No, you don't. A law of physics is a law of nature, dumb-a-s-s. Can anyone be this stupid?

This is not a correct characterization of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The second law says: "IN A CLOSED SYSTEM entropy tends to decrease or remain constant unless work is done." You have a large number of misunderstandings and you are mixing many unrelated concepts together. If you honestly are interested in learning (instead of just confirming your biases) - if I can quote a source, and you'll agree that it says just that, and not what you want it to say, then fine, we can talk.

Someone who wants to make a claim needs to bring evidence for it. No evidence, then the claim is worthless. Bring sources.
Vj ~ Again I must stress, without desire for truth "evidence" or "source" is useless.

You can’t use meaningless phrases like “progression is always downward” as it is not a natural law,
Vj ~ Says who, a dumb-a-s-s without a source?

and "downward" is not a concept in physics.
Vj ~ All things finite (created) decays and finally dissolved is progression downwards a law!

Neither life nor evolution violates any physical law.
Vj ~ How would an id-i-o-t know?


No, you don't. A law of physics is a law of nature, dumb-a-s-s. Can anyone be this stupid?
Vj ~ A dumb-a-s-s and the stupid are tne ones who don't have a source knowledge.

You have a large number of misunderstandings and you are mixing many unrelated concepts together.
Vj ~ Only the concept of Einstein makes sense to me.
"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein