Lawrence Krauss said "science is incompatible with the doctrine of every single organized religion. It is not incompatible with Deism.” He is saying that if there is a God, it's deism.
Perry

Lawrence Krauss is a dunce. He has no idea of what philosophy is and doesn't even know science is lame.

I recently asked Scientist Lawrence Krauss what Einstein meant by saying, "science without religion is lame;.."
He replied, it is not clear what he meant by that.
My question is, if a scientist can't understand what Einstein says, who can?

I don't know why Lawrence Krauss couldn't answer your question when Einstein himself tells us what he meant. Einstein explains:

"Religion and science go together. As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth. Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God."

In other words, there should never be conflict between science and religion. Deists accept evolution. But any religion without science (Darwin) is blind. Your religion is blind. If you have to reject the findings of science because of your religion, that is a sign of it being a blind religion.

Perry

The problem with the world is, the stupid don't know they are stupid. It is the reason you are quoting the ignorant in support of your religion?

"Your religion is blind"
Should I take the word of a dumb-ass or a genius?
"We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." Albert Einstein

I'm so glad I don't need to rely on widely debunked misattributed quotes to support my religion. Take it from a genius!

"It is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists." Einstein

Let it sink in. Einstein is telling you that unless your religion accepts the science of evolution, your religion is blind. Get it?

If I ever get it, I'll be a dumb-ass like you.

Now take it directly from one of the originators of the Physical Evolution Theory, Dr. A. R. Wallace himself who was the first to strike down the Social Evolution Theory. He rightly affirmed that: "The Veda admittedly the oldest book in the library of mankind contains the essential teachings of the most advanced religious thinkers and is a vast system of religious teachings which are pure and lofty."

He further wrote in "Social Environment and Moral Progress," strongly refuting the social and moral evolution theory:
"In the earliest records which have come down to us from the past, we find ample indications that accepted standard of morality and the conduct resulting from these were in no degree inferior to those which prevail today, though in some respects, they were different from ours. The wonderful collection of hymns known as the Vedas are a vast system of religious teachings as pure and lofty as those of the finest portions of the Hebrew Scriptures. Its authors were fully our equals in their conception of the universe and the Deity expressed in the finest poetic language."

"In it (Veda) we find many of the essential teachings of the most advanced religious thinkers." "We must admit that the mind which conceived and expressed inappropriate language, such ideas as are everywhere present in those Vedic hymns, could not have been inferior to those of the best of our religious teachers and poets to our Milton, Shakespeare, and Tennyson."

Your use of the Wallace quote here reflects a complete misunderstanding of Wallace. He is just comparing ancient religions and texts. Nowhere does he deny the science of evolution. He was against racism based on pseudoscience called social Darwinism. In other words, he rejected the wrong understanding of Darwinism called social Darwinism. Social evolution and biological evolution are two different things.

Wallace accepted evolution because he also co-authored on the origin of species with Darwin. Here is further proof that Wallace did not deny the scientific theory of evolution in an interview -

Mr. Dury: "Were you not an intimate of Darwin?"
Wallace: "Yes, we were good friends, and had a great deal of correspondence. I have more than one hundred letters from him."
Mr. Dury: "Did you not lend him valuable aid in working out the origin of species?"
Wallace: "I had the honor of helping in that important discovery."
Mr. Dury: "Do you still believe in the evolution theory?"
Wallace: "More than ever. The longer a man lives and studies the more he is convinced of the truth."

You're reading but like all *******s you don't have the ******* brains to even think a little.

Mr. Dury interview would have been the same if he was interviewing me as an atheist.

Wallace: "More than ever. The longer a man lives and studies the more he is convinced of the truth."

Like me as an atheist, he did use his longer life to finally figure out (research) that man had to be taught (acquired knowledge) and that human civilization did emerge from a civilized state and not that of savagery.

"He is just comparing ancient religions and texts."
Wallace: "In the earliest records which have come down to us from the past, we find ample indications that accepted standard of morality and the conduct resulting from these were in no degree inferior to those which prevail today, though in some respects, they were different from ours. (different meant it was higher)
The Vedas are almost 4 million years old so who was around then to argue for evolution?

Again as I've told you so many times before, evolution is a breach of natural laws where progression is always downward (from civilized to uncivilized/new to old).

Evolution is the most highly corroborated theory in science. It’s literally more corroborated than gravity. There’s more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity. This is a fact that cannot be denied. You just can’t deny it. There’s just so much evidence for it. The problem is that you’ve been lied to and you don’t actually research anything. It’s a lack of knowledge on your part. You just don’t bother to look it up. If you were to bother to read, do more research, you'd conclude as I do.



All living things evolve and develop through time. We as human beings evolve and develop from infants to adults. Darwin merely observed a process people knew since time immemorial. Aristotle knew very well that organisms grow and develop (such as an acorn evolving into an oak tree).

"Evolution is a breach of natural laws where progression is always downward"
I disagree. I think evolution is part of the natural law that requires change. In my view, evolution is sideways. It's sideways, it's not up. It's not like evolution is making things better or worse, it's just making things different. So, it's not saying all the animals should be evolving worse. No, the animals are just evolving. They’re not evolving for better or for worse. It's not like there’s a force making them do better or worse. They’re just changing and, sometimes they change for beneficial ways and sometimes they change for non-beneficial ways.

Regarding Wallace, you haven't a clue. Wallace was just using the example of the Vedas (along with other examples) to argue that ancient morality was not inferior to ours. Nowhere did he say their morality was "higher." You put words in Wallace's mouth. Lastly, Wallace did accept evolution (how can you even think otherwise?).

I'm like a bee trying to convince a fly (you), honey taste better than sh*t.
You can f*ck off now. Bye!

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Mark Twain

"The truth has no defense against a fool determined to believe a lie." Mark Twain

Let it sink in. Evolution is the most highly corroborated theory in science. It’s literally more corroborated than gravity. There’s more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.



No, it doesn't violate natural laws. Progression is always downward is not a law, and is not true. There is no such natural law that says things go downward. Evolution does not violate the law because it doesn't suggest that everything becomes more ordered over time. It's not like evolution is making things better or worse, it's just making things different. Thus, evolution is part of the natural law and evolution is sideways, not up.

Well if you insist there is no difference between a backward illiterate savage and an educated person, what else can be done to change that.
When **** is the only thing you tasted all your life how can you argue in favor of the taste of honey?

Where did you see that I said such nonsense? I didn't say there's no difference. I said evolution is the most highly corroborated theory in science and that it doesn't violate natural laws. Progression is always downward is not a law, and is not true. Evolution isn't making things better or worse, it's just making things different. Evolution is sideways, not up

You and I have been at this for a very long time and neither of us will change.
I've everything to show about myself, my world and my philosophy from the very beginning of creation and even before that.
https://www.vjsingh.info/index.html
https://www.vjsingh.info/nature.html
https://www.vjsingh.info/evorel.html
https://www.vjsingh.info/dayanan.htm
https://www.vjsingh.info/creation.html

You on the other hand, have nothing to match it, and that shows who is the idiot here.
"Only the wisest and the stupidest men will never change." Confucius
Bye

You didn't respond to anything I wrote about evolution. Do you think you're the first one to try to debunk it? So many people fought against it. So many people tried to prove it to be incorrect. You just can’t beat it. Every time you try to come up with a new theory that goes against it, it was proven to be untrue. It’s very hard to deny. There’s just so much evidence for it. You can’t deny it. When are you going to realize that you've been lied to?



What do you have to show except for books written by nobody knows who, nor when, nor where. You have no originals. But all the stars in the Heavens bear eternal evidence to the truth of Deism. What have you still to offer against the pure and moral religion of deism, in support of your idolatry, and pretended revelation? Now, you cannot prove a single article of your religion to be true. Do it, if you can.

"Do it, if you can."
A wise man once said, "Bees don't waste their time explaining to flies that honey is better than ****."