|
Post by vkaul1 on Jun 4, 2011 17:37:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Jun 6, 2011 0:44:10 GMT -6
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tfogZpxnFgI did not know Genghis Khan is also conceived of virgin birth Now how do we view CM's birth. Is it also virgin birth of Saci Mata? He demolishes the idea of moral Jesus using CS Lewis's words. Also he says that the charm of the story of Jesus has nothing to do with its ontological reality, which is most probably untrue as all ancient myths have a virgin birth. Coming back to the question, how do we view the birth of CM, Advaita Acarya and Nityananda, is it a virgin birth for all three? And what about the reality of the story? Same questions we have asked before, but in this video Hitchens does make some good points. You are the only CV scholar alive to even consider the purvapaksin with some respect and thought Thanks for being there Nitai ji.
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Jun 6, 2011 2:07:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 7, 2011 19:20:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 7, 2011 19:36:19 GMT -6
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tfogZpxnFgI did not know Genghis Khan is also conceived of virgin birth Now how do we view CM's birth. Is it also virgin birth of Saci Mata? He demolishes the idea of moral Jesus using CS Lewis's words. Also he says that the charm of the story of Jesus has nothing to do with its ontological reality, which is most probably untrue as all ancient myths have a virgin birth. Coming back to the question, how do we view the birth of CM, Advaita Acarya and Nityananda, is it a virgin birth for all three? And what about the reality of the story? Same questions we have asked before, but in this video Hitchens does make some good points. You are the only CV scholar alive to even consider the purvapaksin with some respect and thought Thanks for being there Nitai ji. It is rather funny, isn't it? This necessity for a virgin birth. It is not quite as bad in Hinduism as it is in Christianity, but there is nevertheless a real disgust for the womb and for sex. The divine cannot have come through the womb or had anything to do with real sex, let alone have been born because of it. It must be a mind to mind transmission or something like that. It is an extension of a dominant disgust with the body and the products of the body. Is there anyone in the Mahabharata, for instance, who has a normal birth? One of my fellow students at university did his dissertation on this odd phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Jun 8, 2011 10:03:01 GMT -6
Malati ji, DE is not complete theory and many people are debating it, but the basic structure provided by Darwinian (random mutation + natural selection + continental drift) framework is very powerful and is being still used. Now there are details that are to be filled in, but I don't think DE is as obsolete as you think. Even the people whom you quoted opposing DE don't oppose it in the way you are speaking about. At the same time, I also have heard of evolutionary psychologists that are treated with disdain by many evolutionary experts. So there is some merit to you points. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.htmlAt the same time use of entropy does not really help . Please read the link above. "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics." This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder. However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature? The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
It is unlikely that Puranic creationism is going to be proved by science, if that is the alternative. Can Puranic creationism be observed in the laboratory?
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Jun 9, 2011 20:00:41 GMT -6
Why bother trying to explain anything to Malati? She has already admitted (in another discussion) that she speaks of these things as a hobby, and is clearly uninterested in properly educating herself about the subject(s). So I thought it was a waste of time.
She clearly reads a lot of articles on the Net, but I think she is simply regurgitating them on this forum seemingly without an understanding of what she has read and how to parse it properly. What really disturbs me, though, is that she seizes on any little thing that appears to confirm her beliefs. She is not interested in learning what science is all about, but is really only interested in seeking validation for her beliefs. Why bother with ideologists?
|
|