Dharmic Religions Only: Evolutionary Science and Hindu/Buddhist worldviews.

[kalyan]

I will call your bluff.

Please post the Vedic verse which taught us the numerical system.

Being an indian yourself, its a shame that you do not know this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_large_numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yajurveda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_mathematics

Except for the wiki pushing of dates of Vedas(Vedam was written in 5000 BC by Vedavyasa but it was passed orally from , the information in it is correct to my knowledge......Its already late here, So I would not go into details.

Without Bharat there is no MATHEMATICS and there is no world, Bharata varsha is considered as the mother of all civilizations..........

Pythogoras(Sulbha shastras), newton (calculus) ,fibonacci(work of Pingala), Trignometry (all aryabhatta) all stole from vedic scriptures.......Pingala was one another mathematician who brought down the concept of binary numbers first without whom there would not be any computers. The controlled media will all suppress this and you would not find the mention of them in official wiki pages

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Being an indian yourself, its a shame that you do not know this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_large_numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yajurveda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_mathematics

Except for the wiki pushing of dates of Vedas(Vedam was written in 5000 BC by Vedavyasa but it was passed orally from , the information in it is correct to my knowledge......Its already late here, So I would not go into details.

Nothing in any of those pages which shows the Vedic verse that teaches the numerical system. Still waiting....

Without Bharat there is no MATHEMATICS and there is no world, Bharata varsha is considered as the mother of all civilizations..........

Pythogoras(Sulbha shastras), newton (calculus) ,fibonacci(work of Pingala), Trignometry (all aryabhatta) all stole from vedic scriptures.......Pingala was one another mathematician who brought down the concept of binary numbers first without whom there would not be any computers. The controlled media will all suppress this and you would not find the mention of them in official wiki pages

Thanks for your admission that this babble is not official. No more time needs to be wasted on this junk

 

[kalyan]

Nothing in any of those pages which shows the Vedic verse that teaches the numerical system. Still waiting....

See again, do you want me to scan the yajurveda text and send it to you ....are you that naive....You have got to take that huge EGO of yours first to LEARN

If you want to spend your LIFE in DENIAL, well that's your problem!

 

[shivsomashekhar]

See again, do you want me to scan the yajurveda text and send it to you ....are you that naive....You have got to take that huge EGO of yours first to LEARN

In other words, you do not have a verse number.

And this is why I called your bluff. You really have no idea what you are talking about and you just proved it to everyone.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How did the others got numbers without Vedam - the Chinese, the Sumerians, the Egyptians?

 

[kalyan]

In other words, you do not have a verse number.

And this is why I called your bluff. You really have no idea what you are talking about and you just proved it to everyone.

With the kind of blog, that you maintain I don't feel any need to answer you.....Your mind is full of Brahmin hate for whatever reason unknown and it's waste of my time to argue with such a hatred filled personality.. Start to learn things with opening your mind, it's never too late!

 

[shivsomashekhar]

With the kind of blog, that you maintain I don't feel any need to answer you.....Your mind is full of Brahmin hate for whatever reason unknown and it's waste of my time to argue with such a hatred filled personality.. Start to learn things with opening your mind, it's never too late!

Lol, dude, you can badmouth me all you want. You tried to bluff people here about the Veda and instead got exposed.

Clean up the egg on your face

 

[shivsomashekhar]

How did the others got numbers without Vedam - the Chinese, the Sumerians, the Egyptians?

They stole the knowledge from the Veda

Soon @kalyan will be posting about the Wright brothers stealing Vimana secrets from the Atharvana Veda and Steve Jobs stealing iphone designs from the Sama Veda.

 

[निताइ dasa]

The Hare Krishnas are working backwards. Using the Bhagavatam tales as the basis, they are trying to find evidence and pick loopholes in established science in the hope that they can build an alternate paradigm, which validates the Bhagavatam tales. In all fairness, there is nothing wrong with the idea. However, the problem is that they are not open to the possibility that the hypothesis may be incorrect and that is where they deviate from the scientific method.

What I think you may be doing is applying a distorted epistemological standard to your arguments. You still haven't pointed out to me how evolution is supported by Pratyaksha. Until that can be done, taking Sabda version of creation is not a problem at all. I have already told you the flaws I personally have found in evolutionary theory, and how even the evidence presented by Sayak ji is not conclusive evidence for only evolution.

 

[kalyan]

Lol, dude, you can badmouth me all you want. You tried to bluff people here about the Veda and instead got exposed.

Clean up the egg on your face

are you delusional ? your cheap blog which has mistakes in each word is helping you neither I thought you only practice pseudo-advaita but you are much more

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have already told you the flaws I have found in evolutionary theory, and how even the evidence presented by Sayak ji is not conclusive evidence for only evolution.

Yeah, I will go with Michael Cremo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils: From late Miocene (7 - 5.3 million years ago) to Ötzi (5,300 years ago).

Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Toumai - Chad, Djurab Desert), Ötzi (as everyone knows Itlian Alps)

 

[निताइ dasa]

Yeah, I will go with Michael Cremo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils: From late Miocene (7 - 5.3 million years ago) to Ötzi (5,300 years ago).

Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Toumai - Chad, Djurab Desert), Ötzi (as everyone knows Itlian Alps)

Nice list. I am not disagreeing with these findings at all. My problem is that it is selective. It leaves a whole lot of evidence relating to Human fossil out and hence is providing a incomplete picture. Where is Reck's Skeleton? Where is Castenedolo's Skull? What about Javaman's thigh? Even looking at the Laetoli Footprints, Leaky in her report comments that "They looked so human, so modern, to be found in tuffs so old" (M. Leakey 1979, p. 452 National Geographic). That is why R.H Tuttle writes:

"Strictly on the basis of the morphology of the G prints, their makers could be classified as Homo sp. because they are so similar to those of Homo sapiens, but their early date would probably deter many palaeoanthropologists from accepting this assignment. I suspect that if the prints were undated, or if they had been given younger dates, most experts would probably accept them as having been made by Homo."

So these footprints can be interpreted as evidence of modern humans present millions of years ago. Yet is was rejected simply because it disagreed with preconceived conceptions of science.

 

[sayak83]

Nice list. I am not disagreeing with these findings at all. My problem is that it is selective. It leaves a whole lot of evidence relating to Human fossil out and hence is providing a incomplete picture. Where is Reck's Skeleton? Where is Castenedolo's Skull? What about Javaman's thigh? Even looking at the Laetoli Footprints, Leaky in her report commented that "They looked so human, so modern, to be found in tuffs so old" (M. Leakey 1979, p. 452 National Geographic). That is why R.H Tuttle writes:

"Strictly on the basis of the morphology of the G prints, their makers could be classified as Homo sp. because they are so similar to those of Homo sapiens, but their early date would probably deter many palaeoanthropologists from accepting this assignment. I suspect that if the prints were undated, or if they had been given younger dates, most experts would probably accept them as having been made by Homo."

So these footprints can be interpreted as evidence of modern humans present millions of years ago. Yet is was rejected simply because it disagreed with preconceived conceptions of science.

It seems that Mr. Cremo refers back to finds in late 18th and early 19th century when paleoanthropology was more akin to fortune hunting and hobby than any sort of science. I do not trust any findings or any conclusions made by anybody in human paleo-archaelogy before 1960, the only exception is when recent tests done by modern scientific methods have validated an old finding. Otherwise everything before 1960 is worthless, like alchemy of Newton's era is worthless to the science of chemistry.

 

[kalyan]

How did the others got numbers without Vedam - the Chinese, the Sumerians, the Egyptians?

do u invent AC current again and again.......? Why do I ever respond to these dumb questions

 

[निताइ dasa]

. I do not trust any findings or any conclusions made by anybody in human paleo-archaelogy before 1960, the only exception is when recent tests done by modern scientific methods have validated an old finding

Okay Sayakji you are fully entitled to that assertion. I personally don't believe that it is a valid refutation, because I think it issues a blanket statement over all archaeological and anthropological findings in the 18th and 19th century. It implies that archaeologists living at that time didn't know what they were doing. If this is the case, then we must also remove the all important findings from those 18th and early 19th century from modern textbooks. I strongly believe that something which claims to be "open-minded" like science must not be selective. If evidence is presented with goes against a dominant theory it must not be rejected simply because it goes the predominating theory. Like I have said before, evidence must make theory not the other way around. I really hope you understand my position (and why I have found these evidences convincing) because I don't really want to continue this arguing.

I really respect you and your knowledge on this matter and you are one of the only people on this thread who is actually presenting arguments and encouraging discussion instead of making this into a personal attack on others schools. I would like to thank you for that, and that is why I am continuing to post on this thread so we can come to a mutual understanding. As I have said there is a large scriptural reason why is reject evolution (by which I mean evolution from single cellular organisms to modern humans). However there is some evidence which does back us up, and that is what I am trying to present. As for the findings being verified, I find that for many cases Cremo goes through the verification of the artifacts via modern means (modern dating of Strata etc). Ultimately it is a personal decision, what evidence finally does convince one in the end.

 

[Aupmanyav]

(Thompson being Don Quixote and Cremo, his Sancho Panza )

I have to attend a marriage ceremony now, so Sayak will probably reply to your question. I will take over tomorrow.

 

[LuisDantas]

generalisation I am afraid.

I would say that is the least of your worries, far as relying on Cremo goes.

Why has Cremo been invited to speak at multiple archaeological conferences and lectures if his work has no credibility?

He hasn't really. I have been gracefully given some info on the matter:

If you look at Cremo's own website you will find many of these lectures and talks are not archaeology conferences made up of experts within the field. Most university hosted lectures which does not include endorsement of his views. If you attended university you know the difference between hosted and endorsed.

http://www.mcremo.com/lectures.html

Also if you look at those his memberships and list "conferences" you will find all are pay-4-membership without a requirement of any degree in some form of membership. You could join any if you wish. Hosting his talks is not an endorsement of his views.

http://www.e-a-a.org/memcats.htm
http://worldarch.org/
http://philsci.org/membership-page
http://hssonline.org/membership/subscriptions/

Also if you look here: http://www.ichschina2015.org/cms/Agendanew/1084.jhtml

Cremo is not listed as an official speaker nor was the conference even held in July, it was in August. How does one speak at a conference before the conference happens? Simple, he submitted his paper and it was rejected. He was not invited to speak. He is claiming credit for a paper submission as if was an endorsement but in the end it was rejected.

It seems to me that Cremo borrowed more than a single page of Abrahamic so-called "Creationists" when it comes to misinformation, spin and all-out lying.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Also if you look here: http://www.ichschina2015.org/cms/Agendanew/1084.jhtml

That link seems to be broken...so I can't confirm your claims (edit: link opened but I don't see the relevance sorry to Cremo, sorry. He spoke in 1997, in the 20th conference in Belgium. He doesn't claim to have spoken at the one you linked, in China). Certain papers of his like "The Later Discoveries of Boucher de Perthes at Moulin Quignon and Their Bearing on the Moulin Quignon Jaw Controversy" were accepted for presentation at the XXth International Congress of History of Science, at Liège, Belgium, 1997.

Also if you look at those his memberships and list "conferences" you will find all are pay-4-membership without a requirement of any degree in some form of membership. You could join any if you wish. Hosting his talks is not an endorsement of his views.

It doesn't say whether he has an associate membership (open to anyone) or full (open to professionals).

If you attended university you know the difference between hosted and endorsed.

Are you implying I haven't lol? That's not very nice.

 

[LuisDantas]

That link seems to be broken...

It just checked, and it is online. No mention of Cremo, as is to be expected.

so I can't confirm your claims, but certain papers of his like "The Later Discoveries of Boucher de Perthes at Moulin Quignon and Their Bearing on the Moulin Quignon Jaw Controversy" were accepted for presentation at the XXth International Congress of History of Science, at Liège, Belgium, 1997.

If you say so. I have wasted enough time on him already. I will just point out that it is not unusual to hear fringe ideas in the interests of renewal... yet nearly all of fringe is actually worthless, as expected.

(...)
Are you implying I haven't lol? That's not very nice.

I was quoting my source, although I don't think there is anything rude to that statement anyway.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I believe that kamma is related to natural selection in the animal and human realm.

How so? Kamma is about the consequences of wholesome and unwholesome behaviour, whereas natural selection is about how successfully organisms adapt to their environment. Adaptive behaviour isn't necessarily wholesome, and may well be unwholesome.