|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What does the fossil record show? |
| Dinosaurs once walked the earth alongside people! |
|
17% |
[ 13 ] |
| God planted the fossils to test our faith! |
|
4% |
[ 3 ] |
| There were multiple successive creations before the current one. |
|
6% |
[ 5 ] |
| Those fossils are a giant hoax! |
|
2% |
[ 2 ] |
| I don't know but evolution ain't the answer anyway! |
|
10% |
[ 8 ] |
| [Insert personal wacko theory here] |
|
4% |
[ 3 ] |
| It proves evolution of course! |
|
54% |
[ 40 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 74 |
|
| Author |
Message |
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| Rteacher wrote: |
| narrow-minded, hard-core atheists and impersonalists, who are puffed-up with false ego... |
They won't stay that way forever. The problem is when the person cannot make the transition despite soul's urging because of arrogance and intransigence. |
Welcome back, missed you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
All right, ED209. All right, mindmetoo.
From this point forward, we will believe that there is scientific evidence for the soul.
arjuna says so, so it must be true. |
Well since you're an arrogant atheist I guess I have to believe you're right.
There, we didn't stay 'that way' forever. Who needs evidence when you have the tradition of fear, ignorance and superstition? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
We didn't say there WASN'T scientific evidence for the soul,
we merely asked what that evidence was. |
I cannot answer your question to your satisfaction.
I am not trying to be funny, but I think the only proper
answer to your question would be another question:
Who is asking the question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
Who is asking the question? |
I really don't know any more, anyway there is nothing that leads me to believe a soul exists, what is there that leads you to believe there is one(in plain English, please)?
*maybe start a thread in the off topic forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
Who is asking the question? |
I really don't know any more, anyway there is nothing that leads me to believe a soul exists, what is there that leads you to believe there is one(in plain English, please)?
*maybe start a thread in the off topic forum. |
We cannot answer the question through a discussion. But of course we can engage in a discussion about the soul, after first acknowledging the "existence" of such. I would think a discussion in jest would be more appropriate than a serious one. How can souls be engaged in a serious discussion attempting to ascertain their own existence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
Who is asking the question? |
I really don't know any more, anyway there is nothing that leads me to believe a soul exists, what is there that leads you to believe there is one(in plain English, please)?
*maybe start a thread in the off topic forum. |
A new topic has been entered in the off-topic forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| People who ignorantly identify life and consciousness with matter don't really have a clue what life is, and their material science is essentially negative science - or nescience... |
What do you mean by "don't have a clue"?
| Quote: |
| Because God's illusory energy is so much greater than they are, the more they think they are making progress in their exploitation of nature, the further they get from the Ablsolute Truth, and the more implicated they get in the complexities of karma... |
That's your religious conviction. So what?
| Quote: |
| Even on a material level. anyone who thinks that there is only one scientific method has a poor fund of knowledge... |
You think there's another one? Clue us in!
| Quote: |
| "Arjuna's" more broadminded, philosophical approach has no appeal to narrow-minded, hard-core atheists and impersonalists, who are puffed-up with false ego... |
Golly, you're madder than a wet hen. Yes, sorry, I don't believe what you believe therefore I must be suffering from a puffed up false ego. Pot. Kettle. Black. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
Who is asking the question? |
I really don't know any more, anyway there is nothing that leads me to believe a soul exists, what is there that leads you to believe there is one(in plain English, please)?
*maybe start a thread in the off topic forum. |
A new topic has been entered in the off-topic forum. |
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=87437
That might help. Went looking for an obvious topic like "Is the soul real?"
I thought on that thread, however, you were going to provide evidence. I guess not.
Anyway, I asked you to define and clarify a few things (ie what do you mean by "science rejects"). I guess you're happy to wave your hands about than offer actual specifics.
| Quote: |
You keep dragging up this "rejected" term without giving me a good example or even a good definition. You talking a priori rejection? I know in my heart of hearts this simply isn't true so I'm simply not going to look at your data. There are certainly scientists in the world who think like that and I would not want to see that being the dominant position in science.
Or are we talking this kind of rejection: Someone claims there is a pony that farts rainbows and offers no evidence. One might claim science rejects the notion it is a fact until proven otherwise. A good scientist would say "well, sure it totally lacks biologic plausibility but I won't 100% rule it out. I'm not going to spend my grant money chasing it down. But bring me your evidence." |
| Quote: |
Many claim auras have a measurable effect. Do you agree or disagree? If yes, then it can be tested by science and a good scientist would not reject such a claim. (Do see my note about looking and looking and looking and what becomes the safe money bet.) Is there any good evidence for this effect (tested under proper controlled conditions, with a stage magicians involved in the protocols)? Randi, of course, as $1 million that says if you can show the effect you get the cash.
|
| Quote: |
| Define "practical". Science's boundary is if it can be measured objectively, it is amenable to the process of science. What's the issue here? |
| Quote: |
| That's a rather broad generalization about the decades of scientific work of evolutionary science. What would be an example of huffing and puffing? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
My harsh tone was in response to the post made by "nateum", which struck me as excessively arrogant and narrow-minded in its assertions that there can be only one perspective on science and only one scientific method.
A more broadminded view would be that real science should entail understanding the distinction between a material body and the living force within the body.
The material body undergoes basic changes according to laws of nature and eventually dies, while the ever-existing living force enters and leaves material bodies according to its karma and desires.
The science of the soul, outlined by Krishna in Bhagavad-gita, is more subtle - and more important - than material science, which deals with bodies completely controlled by material nature.
Only by purifying our consciousness through a devotional process (some form of bhakti yoga...) can we realize our existence beyond the material body and really see things as they are - in absolute perspective...
Rather than dismissing Vedic spiritual science as another superstitious, sentimental religion, material scientists should try to learn from it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
arjuna, do you see what I mean?
Even when the topic of the thread is science, Rteacher talks about Hinduism.
We have asked him over and over to give us something which scientists can measure,
but he continues right on, starting at the period, comma, or semicolon where he left off.
Rteacher, should Hinduism be written into writings about science and not writings about yacht racing or brickmasonry?
What's the difference?
Last edited by tomato on Thu May 17, 2007 4:25 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hindu or Hinduism is not a precise term, and encompasses many different belief systems ranging from monotheism to atheism, dualism to monism, personalism to impersonalism.
However, the original religion of ancient India, referred to as sanatana dharma (or varnashrama dharma) does constitute a veritable science of the eternal essential nature and constitutional position of every living being - which is ultimately more beneficial than any discovery that is within the purview of material science.
There can be no ultimate benefit derived from making "safe bet" assumptions about the real nature of existence based only on empirical evidence derived from transitory material phenomena...
Here's a pretty concise (and I think fairly accurate for the most part) summary of "Hinduism" presented by the Cambridge University "Hindu Cultural Society"...http://www.cuhcs.org.uk/info.faq.php#caste
Last edited by Rteacher on Thu May 17, 2007 11:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
| No one (among Earth scientists) has an answer to the origin of life. That is a more significant question than whether there is evolution or not. |
So why don't you start another thread on the origins of life? And by the way how do you account for the fossil record? |
The fossil record is evidence for the existence of the organisms in the fossils. The fossil record does not prove that one species changed into another species. That belief is blind faith in chance. Furthermore, fossil records do not offer any explanation of the mechanism of change, assuming such change is factual. |
We're going in circles here. You're telling me that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution, but you're not answering my question, which is where did all these different organisms come from?
We can talk about the mechanism of change all day but first you have to accept that there has actually been a lot of change, and give your best guess as to why that is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
| No one (among Earth scientists) has an answer to the origin of life. That is a more significant question than whether there is evolution or not. |
So why don't you start another thread on the origins of life? And by the way how do you account for the fossil record? |
The fossil record is evidence for the existence of the organisms in the fossils. The fossil record does not prove that one species changed into another species. That belief is blind faith in chance. Furthermore, fossil records do not offer any explanation of the mechanism of change, assuming such change is factual. |
We're going in circles here. You're telling me that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution, but you're not answering my question, which is where did all these different organisms come from?
We can talk about the mechanism of change all day but first you have to accept that there has actually been a lot of change, and give your best guess as to why that is. |
He's got it ass backwards, like many of his ideas of science and of evolution (for example claiming evolution is only about random chance, forgetting it's random chance plus selective pressure) The fossil record does not explain the mechanisms. The mechanism is hypothesized, predicts what kinds of fossils we should find, what earth age we should find them, and roughly where we should find them. The fossil record is simply a line of evidence to support the proposed mechanism. A good fit lends support. A bad fit means you need to find another mechanism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All right then, should sanatana dharma be written into writings about science and not writings about yacht racing or brickmasonry?
What's the difference? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
