I accept the theory of evolution as true, because I have studied it, and I see how it explains theory

The science of evolution must conform to the laws of nature. A dim or no understanding of these laws isn’t enough to lend validation to the theory.

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

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.

It astounds me that you can believe that progression is always downward. The evidence against that claim is overwhelming. Only someone who is committed for emotional reasons to a religious point of view can believe that to be true. And of course, someone with that commitment would deny evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is true.

VJ doesn’t understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that’s why he interprets it in the Christian sense. He’s not a scientist, but an f’n loser.

You’re astounded due to lack of understanding of the functions of natural laws which you have failed to respond to. Christians also claim they have “overwhelming evidence” Jesus rose from the dead. But just as resurrection of the dead is a breach to natural laws, the same goes for your theory.

Here is another: “The knowledge given by another cannot be called instinctive. What is instinctive is natural, it can neither increase or decrease nor can it help any one to make any progress, since the savages also possess this instinctive knowledge and yet they have not made any progress. The acquired knowledge alone is the cause of progress. All of us during our childhood did not possess accurate knowledge of right and wrong, virtue and vice, but after having studied under our learned teachers, we were enabled to distinguish between right and wrong, virtue and vice. Hence it is wrong to hold that instinctive knowledge is all-sufficient.” Swami Dayanand

VJ doesn’t understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Vj ~ And what dumb ass would try to understand the "Second law" (man made) rather than the first law (of nature)?

that’s why he interprets it in the Christian sense.
Vj ~ It is not even close to Christianity. Resurrection of the dead, virgin birth and all other miracles are a breach to natural laws.

I guess I'm dealing with a retard here. "Savages"? Is that what your Swami thought of the rest of the human race? You're an f'n racist, bigoted fool who doesn't even know how to ********** if he tried. Who couldn't spell his own name if his life depended on it. You think we humans could not know right from wrong? Maybe you don't, maybe you're so gad **** done you had to be taught it, but I can be morally astute without your fantasy friend.

You also misunderstand my point - Christians, like yourself, misinterpret the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you f' idiot. It's not about "everything declines," no, moron. You're also that dimwitted that you think man created such natural laws? You've got to be ****ting me! ******* retard here, everyone.

No, I am astounded that you can claim there is a “natural law” that “progression is always downward”, which is clearly contradicted by observations that are easy to make every day. From my perspective, you are trapped in a kind of mysticism that is disconnected from reality.

As for the quote about “instinctive knowledge”, I don’t see why you provide it, because if anything it contradicts your statement that progress is always downwards. Yes, acquired knowledge is progress. I never said anything about instinctive knowledge. But I guess you seem to think that evolution cannot cause progress in instinctive knowledge. That is also demonstrably false. The rate of progress in instinctive knowledge is very slow, but it is not zero, and it is certainly not negative.

VJ, you're ******* retarded, it's hard for me to believe you know much of anything when you fail to know the simple, such as the basics of world religion, philosophy, or even 4th grade science. You really believe the Second Law of Thermodynamics is on your side? Like any Christian Creationist, you take it out of context. True, all tangible things are in constant decay, but does evolution contradict that, since man's getting better in his environment? No, you're an idiot. You don't understand it. Only in a closed system, the amount of entropy, which is no longer available to do work, will actually decrease. The key thing is: the concept of a closed system. For example, if you have a source of heat in a closed box, with no way to escape (or additional added), it'll dissipate. But the earth isn't a closed system, ****tard! You might have noticed that if you walked out of your Temple and raced around the lot outside at noon, because there's this giant thing up in the sky called.. "the sun"... which is beating energy down to earth, all the time. But no, you're a moron, and morons don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Now remember, this Law DOES NOT say anything in particular about how a system behaves when it's getting constant energy, and if you want to "pretend" that the Law somehow prevents evolution from happening, all power to you, but you'll always look like an idiot, so it's better you say nothing more than prove yourself otherwise.

Plus, if you want to believe evolution's in stark contradiction to this Law, you have to also believe that just standing up and walking around is also prevented by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is simply because in a closed system, people tend to reach equilibrium with their environment, meaning to say, they reach the same state as the world around them which is a condition termed "dead." So are you dead, VJ? No, then how do you get your energy to keep going at 101? You eat, sleep, get sunlight, fresh air, etc. So the whole principle of constant decay, which you misunderstand, doesn't apply to evolution because there's energy coming in to the earth from the sun, constantly.

Go take Science 101 at my friend's Harvard class, you moron. I can't believe you're that **** stupid. God! Can God be so dumb to make dumb people? They mirror him, at least some of us!

Perhaps you've got to evolve to a smarter man, VJ, too bad I just can't do it for ya. You see, I'd slap you for your awarding stupidity, but that'd be animal abuse I guess.

Also note that you never bothered to answer my challenge: if your god can do anything, can he be stupid, like you?

Well, VJ, I'll give you that, religion can be comforting, at least to those who believe in fairy world where they get visited by 72 virgins bopping their eyes out (which, by the way, supports no known evidence)... but if it makes you feel better to rest your head on your pillow at night, and think to yourself, well, if I die, at least there's a better place!... What can I do for ya? You see, religion causes terror, because they pull this crap out of their arses, they can make it say whatever they want it to. Do you want a list? Most wars, the Crusades, witch burnings, 9/11, etc. And you can make a home for the shelter and do all the good religion does without magic, my friend. But I don't want you to cite me the evil regimes of Hitler and Stalin, they were the gods, and Fascism and Communism, the great faiths. Therefore, what evil has atheism rally done? I;ll tell ya, nothing. These 'holy' texts of yours, they advocated slavery, and believe me, there's no "good" slavery. These stupid, mindless texts say that if a woman has sex before her wedding night, she'll be stoned to death. You think that's some higher sense of morel virtue, something you want to live up to VJ? Your Veda is responsible for the mass incarceration of many Indians, hating gay people, treating women as second-class citizens, and executing people for blasphemy, as well as denying basic, fundamental science, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Should I go on? Way to go, VJ. Applauds all over, monkey-man. Like all "great men" of faith, you're delusional. But who am I to tell ya to go make real friends in the real world? If you want to be shy and play with yourself at home with you imaginary friend behind ya, go on right ahead.

Just don't tell my kids they can't ********** because a booming voice said so some billion years ago. It's all hogwash from start to finish.

VJ, we all know I can't argue against Intelligent Design scientifically, but I'll just point out to you the fact that if you choose to worship a loving, caring god, you have to admit he has no morals; about 180,000 years ago, a massive eruption took place in Indonesia, overnight, almost all "creation" - so-to-speak - was wiped out, with humanity, as a whole, barley surviving on a slim margin. You see, the design argument is really weak and stupid, this is partly because its unfalsifiable, and everyone knows that evidence which is unfalsifiable is no evidence. That's not science, that's belief. You are free, however, to believe that this god - who made everything by design - was content in killing, for billions upon billions of years, his creation - leading up to man for god knows why. This being a conscious, as well as a deliberate choice, in putting himself through the trouble of doing such. 99% of all species went extinct during that cataclysmic event 180,000 years ago, and you're telling me god had no better way of dealing with it? That he needed to kill off almost the entire human race - which was in Africa at this time - with as little as 30,000 survivors? We're talking about the whole human race here, VJ, wake up, and he did that all for what? Can a means justify an end? This god, who knows the future, created all these creatures knowing full well he'd destroy them in the end, is now revered upon as some brilliant designer? I think he plainly just ****ed it up, plain and simple, Again, you can believe in god, doing justice through evil. Personally, I can't. That's my argument against design. And it's fair for me to assume you have no counter-argument in this sphere - you can't.

The feeble state of mind cannot comprehend the most abstruse science of the divine. A child is born pure and innocent as the child ages he/she loses that purity and innocence . The purpose of acquired knowledge (true) is to maintain that purity and innocence to the end.

Similarly, first human civilisation were the most knowledgeable (wisest) and from there, it was downwards to a primitive state (backwardness). We may have made progress in science and technology but when it comes to true philosophy, where progress and destruction are measured according the laws of nature, we are still 99.99% still backwards.

Also natural laws call for an event in nature to be steady. It simply means that if a man evolved from a chimpanzee and there are still chimpanzees around the event should be a continuing process.
Einstein spoke of a dim understanding it simply means there are more to know of natural laws.

Camel - I guess I'm dealing with a retard here. "Savages"?
Vj ~ Well, according to your theory we were all savages (uncivilised) before we became civilised.

Is that what your Swami thought of the rest of the human race?
Vj ~ And what did the theory of evolution thought of the human race? That they evolved from apes and the reason they still look like apes.

You're an f'n racist, bigoted fool
Vj ~ So are those who foster the science of evolution. Have any idea why they were left behind?

It's not about "everything declines," no, moron. You're also that dimwitted that you think man created such natural laws?
Vj ~ The laws of nature, which you know nothing about, are uncreated and it dictates progression to always downward.
You can take your Second Law of Thermodynamics and shove it up your a-s-s! It is irrelevant to the wise.

Perhaps you've got to evolve to a smarter man, VJ, too bad I just can't do it for ya
Vj ~ How are you smarter when you don't know anything of my philosophy and worst you don't know how it all began.

Also note that you never bothered to answer my challenge: if your god can do anything, can he be stupid, like you?
Vj ~ I did dumbas-s! I said if I answer in the affirmative, how would you know if He is or not?

VJ, we all know I can't argue against Intelligent Design scientifically,
Vj ~ So why are you here?

Ya, I can't comprehend your pseudoscience of the divine because its bull. So if you're innocent, you'll understand truth? No, I know many innocent people, they're not that smart.

So you're "cocksure", VJ, that evolution didn't happen? Let's think why that might be. Is it because you've studied the evidence? NO, IT'S BECAUSE A ******* BOOK OF YOUR'S SAYS NO! Oh!!!! That comes as a shock, but not to me. I deal with your type allllll the time. You're so sure your god's book's right, you must try and discredit all the evidence which science has proven, independent of one another, to make your mythology valid. What a shame. What bias. What stupidity.

As far as natural laws are concerned, evolution happened. It's natural.

Your Swami was a silly person, though he had enough wits to lie about **** and make money with it, like telling little kids like you, fairy tales.

P.S., ya, I'll keep my Second Law of Thermodynamics, something the evidence shows exists, while you keep your imaginary gods, who don't exist. Good day!

You know, I stopped grading finals for this horse****!

But one question for you, VJ, if god asked you to rape a child, say he said that in his "Holy" book of his, would you do it? Don't think of morality here, don't say you wouldn't, be honest. If your god asked you to rape a child, he's god, after all, would you?

So you're "cocksure", VJ, that evolution didn't happen?
Vj ~ Just as "cocksure" as you are, it happened. Both of us can't be stupid and that my friend leaves you in deep shi-t. As I have the eternal laws of nature, which you know nothing of, to support my argument.

NO, IT'S BECAUSE A ******* BOOK OF YOUR'S SAYS NO! Oh!!!!
Vj ~ Its a book and you're a professor, shouldn't curiosity to read it lead a 'brilliant' mind that way? Especially when it is the source of all knowledge known to mankind.

and discredit all the evidence which science has proven
Vj ~ Again dumb ass, "science without religion is lame....." Einstein. And whatever evidence is given, it must confirm to the laws of nature.

As far as natural laws are concerned, evolution happened. It's natural.
Vj ~ That would depend on how much you understand the functions of natural laws, unless you think Einstein was stupid.
"We see the universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein.

Your Swami was a silly person,
Vj ~ But unlike you, he was free of doubts.

Don't think of morality here, don't say you wouldn't, be honest. If your god asked you to rape a child, he's god, after all, would you?
Vj ~ It is the same as saying, can God say or do anything stupid?
And my answer, remains the same.
If I answer in affirmative, how would you know if I'm right?

The little boy says we can't both be stupid, because he knows I caught him being "cocksure", haha! Well, I'll stick to science and natural laws, I'll stick to evolution and the Big Bang, I'll stick to all the Independent studies for the past centuries since the Enlightenment... and you, VJ, can stick to ya "mee...meee.. holy book!" I debunked your ass, showed you what the Second Law of Thermodynamics was all about, if you still don't understand it, you must be full-time stupid, 24/7. Your mom made a mistake having you.

You have no arguments against me, as you only resort to quotes about science being lame without religion, which you don't understand anyway. And you know what, VJ? Einstein and Newton and all the great scientists who believe in faith were just a product of their time. Had they lived today, they'd be aghast at the stupidity of your ****ty book written by guys who thought the world was flat. You know a great "law" your book teaches? Caste system. You know what that means? It means someone born of wedlock, for instance, is impure, and can't even touch a priest. "But don't worry," they say, "if you live a good life, in the next one, you'll be like me!" Ya right. Bull ****. That's great for keeping the rich rich and the poor poor and YOU fell for it!

Okay, let's say you do answer in the affirmative, it doesn't matter if you're right or not, this is just a play on words, dummy. If your god allows the rape of children, he's a ****ed up god. If you say no, he doesn't, then you're not being honest with yourself. either way, you loose, fktard. I don't care how you answer, my question wasn't meant to have a right answer, but to show how idiotic you are and how you'd do whatever god says. And if you'd refuse him, he couldn't be god then.

Jesus! I have to explain everything to a five year old. Didn't you get that? You're that dumb?

Your mom made a mistake having you.
Vj ~ Glad you brought it up! How did the first ape "mom" brought forth a human"according to your "Second Law of Thermodynamics"?

You have no arguments against me,
Vj ~ Think again ape-boy! How would you know, by your own admission, you know nothing of my philosophy and you have no idea of how it all began?

If you say no, he doesn't, then you're not being honest with yourself. either way, you loose, fktard.
Vj ~ It seems even a "fktard" is ahead of you!
"I know nothing of your philosophy" and "I have no idea of how it all began", does this not ring a bell, dumb ass?

I don't care how you answer, my question wasn't meant to have a right answer,
Vj ~ It is the same when it comes to the science of evolution! It doesn't have to make sense, because your science, which is lame, is enough.
Can you even tell me which language first evolved?

Oh my god, the Second Law of Thermodynamics really has nothing to do with evolution per se. And I answered your question on the evolution of language long ago; I see we're going in circles with you really having no good arguments, so we're practically wasting our time then.

Oh my god, the Second Law of Thermodynamics really has nothing to do with evolution per se.
Vj ~ I know, it is a man-made law which only existed for the time scientists came up with it about two hundred years ago.

And I answered your question on the evolution of language long ago;
Vj ~ So what was it Latin, French, Spanish, Hindi, Greek, Egyptian, etc.?

I see we're going in circles with you really having no good arguments, so we're practically wasting our time then.
Vj ~ What else is expected dumb ass, when you know nothing of my faith and and you don't know how it all began?

Reasoning only goes so far and it goes absolutely nowhere without the correct knowledge and that you've have no interest in.

I really only have one thing to say now: the Second Law of Thermodynamics isn't man-made. The law exists in spite of it's human construct as a means to understand it. Akin to making a ruler, the inch exists, but we've made the necessary materials regarding how, when, and why to measure it, to suit our own purposes.

Your holy book, however, does not exist on that same plain. It was written in an attempt to understand the world, true, but, being by its very nature a human creation, does not merit that same standard of natural law. You see, VJ, any holy text, whether it is believed or not, is the work of human hands; outside of nature, it doesn't exist. You don't need the gods to understand the universe, but you need the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I know we're going several layers deep into natural philosophy, but bear with me here.

I really only have one thing to say now: the Second Law of Thermodynamics isn't man-made
Vj ~ According to the science of evolution, man evolved from ape and everything (language, laws, purpose, etc.) came into being through man. So tell me dumb ass how are they not all man-made?

Your holy book, however, does not exist on that same plain.
Vj ~ Of course it doesn't! Man had to be taught and as far back as we can go into history there were institutions of learning and until now it is the same and so it will continue to be into the future. It is revealed knowledge (Vedas) which brought civility to the human race by teaching us ethics and morals, all branches of science and more important, matter (its origin) and nature.

It was written in an attempt to understand the world, true, but, being by its very nature a human creation, does not merit that same standard of natural law.
Vj ~ So what merit could the theory of evolution hold when even Einstein had only a dim understanding of it.
"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

You see, VJ, any holy text, whether it is believed or not, is the work of human hands;
Vj ~ You're displaying your ignorance here. You don't know anything of my philosophy and how it all began, but you're "cocksure" it is man-made. I can only feel pity for the students in your classroom.
You're reading alright, but when it comes to thinking you're a clown.
"The greatest torture in the world for most people is to think." Luther Burbank

Einstein's understanding of the universe doesn't affect evolution. You insult human intelligence by saying we had to be taught morals by god, that we couldn't learn them on our own. Lastly, you'll never understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it's why you now believe it to be man-made.

One last parting question, VJ: how come you loved that law and used it time and time again to disprove evolution, and cited it as natural law when you've now turned 180 degrees around and call it man-made when it doesn't support your position?

Einstein's understanding of the universe doesn't affect evolution.
Vj ~ Of course it does! He is saying a dim understanding isn't enough to validate a theory whether it be theological or scientific.

Here is what a true scholar of the Vedas said,
"But there is another prejudice which is cherished by many scholars evidently under the impression of its being a well-recognized scientific doctrine. It is that in the ruder stages of civilisation, when the laws of nature are little known and but little understood, when mankind has not enough of the experience of the world, strict methods of correct reasoning are very seldom observed." Swami Dayanand

Albert Einstein agrees with the above - "We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

You insult human intelligence by saying we had to be taught morals by god, that we couldn't learn them on our own.
Vj ~ Morality (evil and good) is inherent in matter, the material cause of the universe, but the practice of ethics & morals (as per divine instructions) has a purpose and if you don't have one you're blind. You're the reason why a child has to suffer and not God.

"There is no turpitude in drinking wine, eating meat, committing adultery, entertaining erroneous views, etc. for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstinence bring great rewards." Manu

Lastly, you'll never understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it's why you now believe it to be man-made.
Vj ~ All I have to understand is that the earliest of human civilization (as per the science of evolution) didn't know anything about it and it was a latter invention.
On the other hand, the laws nature is eternal, it is the cause of this creation, the ones before and will continue for future creations.

One last parting question, VJ: how come you loved that law and used it time and time again to disprove evolution, and cited it as natural law when you've now turned 180 degrees around and call it man-made when it doesn't support your position?
Vj ~ My arguing on behalf of the immutable laws of nature which is always existing and you, for some 2nd law of thermodynamics which came about sometime after some ape brought forth a human. Got it! You don't know shi-t about natural laws. It is as simple as that.
At the very least, Einstein was honest enough to declare is understanding to be dim, while you, an arrogant dumb ass, think you're smarter than him.

Well, let's just study that for a moment. Religion was our first apprehension of the universe, but it failed. It failed. Period. It talks about mysteries and bull like that. Its not science, but if that's what you want to call it, have a good day. Seriously, have a good day. I have no further use of you.

So what was Einstein's point? He thought the code of the universe - if they'd even be a code - wasn't designed by god so that we could be sitting here chatting it over today. To say there's a god is to lie. Let's pretend that we're not going to die. Let's pretend evolution didn't happen so that we can protect our silly books written by cavemen in an age when everyone thought the world was flat. Yes, we have a dim understanding of the universe, so why say you know God did it? That doesn't seem like a "dim" understanding, does it? Your theory is ridiculous. Mine, evolution, is backed by scientific discovery. With me, I don't have to worry about my morals coming from some big daddy in the sky. You do. You, and you alone, wish to be a slave. You want to be told what to do, by a tyrant up in the sky, by a celestial north Korea. Well, good you. I want no part of it.

Yes, you don't understand Einstein. but even if he did secretly harbor thoughts of God, even so, you can't say with full muster that he rejected evolution. That's absurd. Perhaps one of the greatest scientific discoveries in the past few centuries. And Einstein, you say, rejected it. What stupidity from you. this is the make-up of all theists.

Then you admit that your thankful for a god. Well, I'm glad for you, because you're too dumb otherwise. You have no choice - you have to get your morals from God. So be it. Is "evil" and "good" living entities, then? Of course not, this is for children. They didn't decide to exist, we made them. Me, you, all of us, the human race - we decided what was good, and what was wrong. Evil and good are constructs, of human invention. I won't argue this point again.

But worst of all, you blame me for child suffering. What lunacy. Really, this is sad. Is this your best argument? so please explain again, how my atheism hurts children? I'd like to know. Because in all truth, VJ, religion has had people do more evil, in the name of some nameless, invisible god, then secularism or scientific discovery. Don't play foolish, VJ, you know I'm right. And don't say we can't find morals without god, we already have.

so you say evolution was an invention? Where did you get that from? Well, we discovered gravity later, bio-mechanics, quantum physics, should I go on? VJ, are all these later human inventions? You see what you're doing? Your dismissing all scientific discovery of the past half thousand years, in support of an obnoxious faith, which teaches caste system and the gods. If god exists, I thank him you're not in charge of the world's education system.

Now, let's test your theory, VJ. I will personally pay for a real scientist to look through our work, and judge for himself if indeed the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a man-made invention (aside from being a human construct, the law would always exist regardless if we ever recognized it or not). He will tell us - better yet, I'll pay for multiple men - and THEY will tell us whose right and wrong. We'll see if indeed this law is natural. Remember, I'll hire real scientists, men who've made this their life's work. guess in advance who'll be proved the fool? Just guess, eh? Save me the bills, VJ. Just admit it now. And perhaps the only reason I know more science than Einstein, which I don't, I'm not a physicists, is because I live a few generations after him. Oh, and by the way, Einstein believed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. How's 'em apples? feeling, VJ, are you feeling the cold now, ha!

Note: Though we are few, only the Aryas have the monopoly on truth.
Religion was our first apprehension of the universe, but it failed. It failed. Period.
Vj ~ That would mean, you've suddenly come to know all about my philosophy and "how it all began".

To say there's a god is to lie.
Vj ~ And to say my God is a lie, is even a bigger lie.

Yes, we have a dim understanding of the universe, so why say you know God did it?
Vj ~ Simply put, Aryas, which you know nothing about, are the only ones who have thorough understanding of the universe and the laws (nature and karma) governing it.

Mine, evolution, is backed by scientific discovery.
Vj ~ Scientific theories keep changing, it has been for centuries now, so what is, isn't a guarantee of what it would be in the future. Again, I must stress all scientific theories, must conform to the immutable laws of nature and the same goes for theological theories also.

I don't have to worry about my morals coming from some big daddy in the sky. You do.
Vj ~ I'm not the one worried about children suffering or the planet and its inhabitants going to the dogs.

Then you admit that your thankful for a god.
Vj ~ Who else can I be thankful to? I readily know a dumb ass when confronted by one.

Evil and good are constructs, of human invention.
Vj ~ So why does an unintelligent child who is incapable of constructing "evil and good" suffers?

so please explain again, how my atheism hurts children?
Vj ~ Belief in a false God or no God is a sin, the cause of pain and suffering of any kind, young or old. So wherever there is hopelessness of the worst kind you (godlessness) are the cause.

"The sin of worshiping a false God is equal to the commission of a thousand crimes." Swami Dayanand.

so you say evolution was an invention? Where did you get that from?
Vj ~ An idiot by the name of Charles Darwin!

If god exists, I thank him you're not in charge of the world's education system.
Vj ~ In other words, you're happy you're an idiot who doesn't give a shi-t about children's suffering?

Well, we discovered gravity later,
Vj ~ The fixedness of the Sun, the motion of the earth, of fixed and moving stars, the planetary systems, of the moons, of earthquakes and hurricanes and many countless branches of sciences can be incontrovertible be proven by the many branches of Vedic philosophy. Even the discovery of the law of gravitation of which many credited Sir Isaac Newton becomes contradicted when many Vedic verses deal with the law of gravitation, thousands of years earlier.

These are not recent inventions my friend, we had full knowledge of them from the very beginning of creation (1.9 billion years ago).

I will personally pay for a real scientist to look through our work,
Vj ~ Why you've to that idio-t, when Einstein already did it for free?
"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
"We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made."

(aside from being a human construct, the law would always exist regardless if we ever recognized it or not).
Vj ~ Only revealed knowledge can validate what is eternal (always exist)! Something always exist because we're always conscious of it, beginning with the very first civilization.
Christians, Jews and Muslims all claim to have revealed knowledge also, but don't know what their God was doing before this creation. Enough to prove you the fool!

Oh, and by the way, Einstein believed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Vj ~ Of course, who wouldn't with only a dim understanding of natural laws?

So these Aryans are really the only people on earth who know the secrets of the universe? You can try more pot with that, VJ. Here, add some salt on the side, it'll make your stomach feel better.

Then you say you're not worried about the health of children, such is the teaching of faith! Is this what faith has done? I'm a Secularist, and I care more about the health of the young, the old, the mean, than you. Atheists give more charity than people of faith, no wonder. People of faith preach all the things we atheists actually do. Wonderful. The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning. And yes, science can change, that's what makes its science. Your holy texts can't, that's why we must do away with them. Again, me, being an atheist, doesn't harm children. Your teachings do.

Last thing here, what was your god doing before creation, why did he decide to create anyone, and why is he going to destroy it all and rebuild again? You have no more answers than any Jew, Christian, and Muslim. Stop the foolishness. It's time to grow up and face death; it comes to us all, you're not going to avoid it.

So these Aryans are really the only people on earth who know the secrets of the universe?
Vj ~ And what's wrong with that, aren't atheists claiming to be "the only people on earth" who know the secrets of evolution?

Then you say you're not worried about the health of children, such is the teaching of faith! Is this what faith has done?
Vj ~ What's wrong about teaching, prevention is better than cure?

And yes, science can change, that's what makes its science. Your holy texts can't, that's why we must do away with them.
Vj ~ My text can't change because truth is one the same for all in all ages. If it changes, as science does, it is not truth, which is an injustice.

Again, me, being an atheist, doesn't harm children. Your teachings do.
Vj ~ My wisdom right now dictates, you are a clear case of some kind of travesty to come.
"The sin of worshiping a false God (or a no god) is equal to the commission of a thousand crimes." Swami Dayanand.

Last thing here, what was your god doing before creation, why did he decide to create anyone, and why is he going to destroy it all and rebuild again?
Vj ~ As I kept saying, but your dumb ass brain isn't connecting. The universe is govern by two eternal laws (nature and karma) and not God. He is not above these laws to breach them.
Whatever is created is finite and must come to an end, a law and whatever is uncreated, exists forever. We build houses, cars, etc. and though we know they will all come to an end at sometime, we still continue to build again and again because the purpose exists. It is the same with creation.

You have no more answers than any Jew, Christian, and Muslim.
Vj ~ That's the qualification of being "intelligent" you're displaying right now. It is only superior to fools who are cocksure.
By now you should recognize how useful Bertrand Russell is to this debate. If not, you are still where you started, full of doubts.

and face death; it comes to us all, you're not going to avoid it.
Vj ~ I don't want to avoid it, for I know I'm heading into far more civilized world, and at first, as a very healthy child.

VJ, I don't claim the monopoly on truth. I don't say that evolution happened, it's not written in any holy book of mine. We discovered it, blatantly, on accident. No one made it up even if they tried. Unlike you, VJ, I don't claim to know how the universe came about, or what its purpose was or is, or what happens to you after you die, or what's the purpose of life, nor even why you're here.

Answering all that sounds like knowing truth pretty well, I think. I don't claim knowledge on any of that, so you're shooting yourself in the foot. You claim to know all that, well, good for you, but it won't work for me, nor billions of others who refuse your "version" of truth. Seriously, you're dependent on god, he's like a daddy for you, and you never learned to set yourself free and live a little.

Then you say you wish to prevent the suffering of children. How so? By telling them that they have to kill others who don't worship their god, or ask them to convert others on pain of death? Do you think no one knew rape and murder were bad until god told them so? So that we went around killing each other until god decided to come down and tell us one day, "bad news, guys, rape is wrong." Really? You insult our intelligence, VJ.

Now, to march forward with your silly arguments: So is truth the same for everyone, for all time, VJ? Do you like your burgers with cheese? I do. That's my truth. All burgers must have cheese. Is your truth for all families to have at least one daughter? Mine isn't. Does your truth give you the right to cheat on your wife, mine doesn't. See, we all have a different "truth," and what makes your truth any better than Hitler's? Nothing, really. We decide what's right and wrong, and go by that, but who's to say what's really true or right? We do our best, but we're human. Whereas science changes based on new discoveries, your holy book doesn't, in fact, it can't. It has to stay stagnate, lest you allow "divine revelation" the opt for change, which can't, because its supposedly god's word. So what happens when we discover that the world isn't flat? Did your god suddenly go "opps! I should have thought of that one!" Stop acting like a child. As far as Swami Dayanand saying the worship of no god is equal to a thousand crimes, that's utter bull ****. So your going to tell me we should put people in jail, for life, or even execute them, for worshiping a different god, since it equates with murder? I thank myself that I'm not living in the country you'd call Utopia.

Regarding Mr. Russell's quote, again, I ask you, if you're so "cocksure" your god exists, you're an idiot. No one can use his quote. No one. I'm not cocksure god doesn't exist, my senses tell me he doesn't, and unless I experience a drugged invasion of the mind, where I "fall" for god, I'll believe. But again, I'd have to be drugged up. This is indeed the case, that's how your people started your faith. They got drugged, and wow, they sure had a great time. The priests then made **** sure they used these texts they've created, and manipulated them to serve their agenda. Wonderful, so much for the "greatness" of religion, eh?

You say the universe is governed by two laws. Natural laws and karma. Can you test karma? Can you predict with it? Can you disprove the theory? No, then it isn't science, it's faith, but you fell for the fairy tale which controls your life like a Voodoo Doll in the hands of your real oppressors, the rich, using religion to exploit the poor. If your god isn't above such laws, he cannot be god. Who created them, and if not himself, why call him master of the universe? At least the Abrahamic faiths have answers to that one, your faith's even worse. So let's say your god views us like a car, as you say. The first time we get a dint, he'll just throw us out? Some nice god, if you ask me.

Last thing, VJ. So you're heading to a new world someday, where you're prepared to worship a celestial dictator for all eternity, right? Well, you don't have to go anywhere, we already have one for you here: it's called North Korea, have fun. I'll get you a ticket right away, and like heaven, there's no return trip, so you'd better not tire of worshiping him all day long. Good luck, you're going to need it.

Again, VJ, if I saw god, I'd ask him what's been keeping him this whole time, and what made him the Prim Mover, did he just notice it one day? Also, what made him inclined to make man at the point of time your book says, if he's always eternal, how are we even to comprehend "eternal"?

VJ, you only reject evolution because it's nowhere to be found in your holy text, but if it was, would you still reject it? Of course no. but that's a problem for you.Because if you're brutally honest with yourself, you've just rejected the very essence of science, that being the study of nature, not the reliance on some holy book. Your book's a close-minded edifice, without deduction.

Now I challenge you to find me one explicit verse which talks about gravity. Just one. Why am I so sure you won't be bale to do this? Simple. Because it doesn't exist. Any verse you could pull from your ass would be an observation, not a scientific equation explaining the "nature" of gravity, or why it exists and how it works. It's just pure common sense, VJ, to note in some book that we keep to our feet and we're not floating around the place, that doesn't take a scientist to figure that one out. The Bible makes such references too, but you sure won't believe it to be divinely inspired, would you? Therefore, I promise you, out of all the millions of verses you could pull from, there is not one verse which clearly explains Newton's Law of Gravitation prior to the 17th century. Friends, what's the use of this guy making himself a larger fool each time?

And just to make matters worse for you, the equation from your book would have to look like this:

F=G{frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}

In other words, word alone, however subtle, cannot explain it. We need math. We need numbers.

And just to make matters worse for you, the equation from your book would have to look like this:

F=G{frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}

In other words, word alone, however subtle, cannot explain it. We need math. We need numbers.
Vj ~ Instead of writing all that lengthy bull-shi-t, the last two sentences would've sufficed. And where do you think that had its origin?
"We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." Albert Einstein


Now I challenge you to find me one explicit verse which talks about gravity. Just one.
Vj ~ This leaves me to wonder if the above doesn't bring out anything positive from you, what would you do with a verse from the Vedas on gravity?

What would I do if you gave me a verse, I don’t know, *** on it.

What do you think, dimwit retard? Debunk it for what it is, horse****.

By the way, you didn’t answer my question at all, rather, you worked around it. Answer it, or your Vedas are full of ****ty cum.

What would I do if you gave me a verse, I don’t know, *** on it.
Vj ~ I know that! What else could it be, when you're full of it?

By the way, you didn’t answer my question at all, rather, you worked around it. Answer it, or your Vedas are full of ****ty cum.
Vj ~ There you go man, good luck!
स॒मु॒द्राद॑र्ण॒वादधि॑ संवत्स॒रोऽअ॑जायत।
आ॒होरा॒त्राणि॑ वि॒दध॒ध्दिश्व॑स्य मिष॒तो॥ व॒शी॥२॥
Don't be perplexed that's how the equation look like from the Vedas.

I don’t read Sanskrit, is this a way for you to sneak around my challenge, since I can’t read it, you can make it say whatever you want? Translate to English.

I don’t read Sanskrit, is this a way for you to sneak around my challenge, since I can’t read it, you can make it say whatever you want?
Vj ~ That's my point my friend, no one outside the Vedic realm of learning isn't ready for what the Vedas have to say. Its a process which begins with a functional intellect which you have already acquired being an atheist. The next step a discriminating intellect which is acquired when that reasoning is guided by the correct knowledge. I don't know Sanskrit either, it the reason why the teachings of the last reformer is necessary to move on.

But the mantra is saying according to him, at the time of creation when the solar system came together the planets start to rotate and revolve and thus the concept of time, gravity, etc. began to take hold.

VJ, what’s “correct knowledge”? The mantra was merely good observation of the planets and a good guess at how it all started. Nothing more; there’s not enough in that verse to fit an equation in words.

VJ, what’s “correct knowledge”?
Vj ~ The Caucasian mind set is very prejudicial to begin with. In religion, the first inhabitants were all Caucasian and so were their God, and when the science of evolution theory came up, it was not until natural selection elevated the human race to Caucasian they again took the credit for civility of the human race.
But the idea of one cohabiting with one's kindred (incest) showed how ignorant both parties were even at the time when they claim to be civilized.

Here is Briefly, the whole truth, if you care to peruse.

"The Indian mind set is very prejudicial to begin with. In religion, the first inhabitants were all Indian and so were their God, and when the science of evolution theory came up, it was not until natural selection elevated the human race to Indian they again took the credit for civility of the human race.

But the idea of one cohabiting with one's kindred (incest) showed how ignorant both parties were even at the time when they claim to be civilized."

******* racist bigot. That's all I have to say. You can rundown the West, but the whole world has adopted our clothing, our custom, our values, dimwit. The West practically rules the world, as we always have.

And I will have no further dealings with you, your mind is lost to reality, to reason. You live in a fairy tale where science can be distorted, reason apprehended, and faith in humanity, gutted.

So F'CK OFF!

******

I will no longer respond to your threads. I have a friend, he's Asian, and also an atheist. Perhaps he can make some quality time with you? We'll see, but I don't care about this site.

Finished! I feel young again.

Finished! I feel young again.
Vj ~ And all because of me! Thank you!

I feel young each time I leave behind an idiot. Bite on that one!

I feel young each time I leave behind an idiot. Bite on that one!
Vj ~ Not much for this "idiot" to bite on, Camel. How are you better off still full of doubts? Even Bertrand Russell would have a problem with you.

...And Bertrand Russell was an atheist, so I guess he's stupid too, VJ. Goodbye.

...And Bertrand Russell was an atheist, so I guess he's stupid too, VJ.
Vj ~ No, he is like you full of doubts. You see, its karma, some are only capable of achieving so much and to know more will require desire and determination.

Goodbye.
Vj ~ You've said it so many times before, why is it you just can't leave? Perhaps there is a desire!

Yes, it’s sexual, moron. No, I have no further interest debating a religious fool who only uses 10% of his brain.

Yes, it’s sexual, moron.
Vj ~ Alas, you're a fag!

No, I have no further interest debating a religious fool who only uses 10% of his brain.
Vj ~ You won't know, but that's all I need to use on one full of doubts. I'm a genius really, its enough to chase you away.

PS
Congratulations! You lasted a lot longer that your friend Masato.

Did I? Never said I was a fag, I was just kidding, but you’re too **** dumb to get that.

Never said I was a fag,
Vj ~ Even if you are, there is nothing wrong with it. You get to march in the Gay Pride Parade and celebrate Gay Pride week.