Ahhhh…It’s like throwing a window open and letting in some fresh air. 🙂

I did read onhe of the links you posted. And to reveal how intellectually
honest I am, I will acknowledge that you are right that evolution DOES
NOT explain the creation of life by the formation of the first living cell,
the word biogenesis deals with that question.. Despite being limited by
my high school education, I did know that.

I started to write my argument to this and realized it would probably not be
worth the effort.

Now that I’ve acknowledged my error, I would like to pick up from there…

So we’ve established that evolution does not explain the genesis of the
first living cell. But, then we agree that it takes over from there?

So it’s “Big Bang” or something like it that explains a process that would, like
lightning or snowflakes, bring about a process that even for a brief moment
would bring incredible order from randomness. Have you ever seen microscopic
pictures or a model of a living cell, I know you have. Why do I look at that
simple beginning of what later becomes an eye, a heart, or a brain and marvel
at just its complexity, and still so far from its potential!
Trevor, it can’t be explained by a process that screams for this kind of order to
happen in an environment that the 2nd Law governs. They can push back the
date of origin as far as you would like and it still won’t come anywhere close to
being probable.

At any rate we start at the beginning. This genesis of life, the first cell.
What event initiated it? No religious faith based explanations now!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/index.shtml

http://listverse.com/science/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/

All 3 say evolution doesn’t explain how life began. So where are all these
scientist who disagree with me, Dale? In fact, forget a few, you said
NO SCIENTIST WOULD AGREE with me. It looks like they all do so far.
How are you gonna justify this? Are you going to ignore this information
like all others I’ve posted for the past month? My guess is, probably.

Evolution = Fact
Processes of Evolution = Theory

These include processes such as Natural Selection and Genetic Drift.

Biological evolution does not address the origin of life; for that, see abiogenesis.
The two are commonly and mistakenly conflated. Evolution describes the changes
in gene frequencies that occur in populations of living organisms over time, and
thus, presupposes that life already exists. Evolution likewise says nothing about
cosmology, the Big Bang, or the origins of the universe.

Because “it’s widely believed” is not my reasoning for accepting
that things evolve. All of our observable evidence from all different
areas of science agree that things evolve. What other areas do you not
trust science in? Why aren’t you arguing the theory of relativity or gravity?
The only reason you and other extremists refuse to accept evolution is
because you believe your religion claims otherwise. That is not rational
thinking or critical thought. It is brainless submission. If you had never heard
of Christianity, you would not be questioning evolution. There is your fallacy.

Again, I don’t need to defend evolution. It has plenty going for it already. You, who have
stated that you have no more than a high school education, think you know the inner
workings of science and nature? You have no place to argue because you have no
where near the understanding to be able to do so. You are embarrassing yourself.

You are so full of yourself, you fail to keep your arguments and facts straight.

I did say evolution does not try to explain how life originated. THIS IS FACT.
Any reputable scientist would agree. For you to claim otherwise shows your
outright stupidity and lack of knowledge on this subject.

You use straw man after straw man, and I doubt you even realize it.

Seriously man, grab a dictionary, look up evolution.

You probably won’t, so here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

“In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of
organisms from one generation to the next. Though the changes produced
in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation

and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms. This
process can culminate in the emergence of new species. Indeed, the similarities
between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common
ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.”

Where in there does it say “…and here’s how life began”? It doesn’t. Imagine that!

I also suggest you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

Listen, one of the rules I established before discussing evolution was
that no religion could be used in the debate… You were the first who
brought your faith into the argument.
You did it again in your last post. You can’t defend you belief in evolution,
you simply have faith that it exists because “it is accepted by the scientific
community”…

Tell me Trevor, without using your last “proof”, give me one reason why you
believe evolution is true…. I don’t even know why I ask, during our last discussion on
it you said that It was a fact but did not necessarily explain the origins of life!

No scientist would agree with you on that! And yet you are so convinced!

You better start putting things to the test Trevor, I promise that if you
do you’ll run from this Deepak garbage!

Your “evidence” isn’t evidence at all, but opinion and belief.
You cannot prove a negative, and as I have told you, debating
me on the existence of evolution is meaningless. It is accepted
throughout the world and scientific community. Nothing you have
presented is new and enlightening. When Einstein proved Newton’s
theory of gravity wrong, he didn’t do away with the entire set of data, but
he showed a better way to explain how things worked using that data.
Our data shows that things can change over time. You reasoning for
why this happens is “God did it.” Not exactly the beacon of scientific thought,
don’t you think?

“If you take offense to it, it must have struck a chord of insecurity.
If you’re comfortable with your beliefs, there is no reason to ever
take offense.”

Does the light go on? I could have made this statement to you!
Are you insecure because you take offense to my “inflammatory
trolling”. I’m simply turning your argument against you here.

I continue to support my claims with evidence. I took you on on
your assertions about evolution being a fact. You proved yourself
to be speaking on something you know little or nothing about.
You eventially ended the discussion by deciding that I was the one
who had to prove it false, not you had to prove it true…..
Pretty classic tact of a person on the losing end of an argument..

Before you respond, let’s remember how it went….
You continually maintained evolution to be a fact. I disagreed and asked
for the evidence… You came back with no hard evidence and outdated ideas on
the theory which revealed that you don’t even understand where the theory
stands today…
You eventially did what I call the – jump up and down and scream- and then
told me I had the burden to prove otherwise!
It’s not my theory, It’s yours!
Anyway, I’m up to the task again if your so willing. I do suggest you read up
a bit before doing so..

Refer to my previous statement about how you have been discredited
every single time. You “believe” our viewpoint to be dangerous, yet you
can not show a single shred of evidence to support your claim. All you
have are extremist beliefs and superstitions.

You do not, however, and persist with the same delusional thinking time
and time again. Looking through your posts on various threads, almost
every single one is an attack on the author or the posters. It’s not a very
constructive way to go about things.

As you can see, no one is coming to your rescue or even defending you.
It is not because everyone here is ‘drinking the same kool-aid’, in fact there
are many differing views here that coexist without conflict. You are an extremist
that is determined on ‘informing’ everyone who isn’t an evangelical christian, just how
wrong they are.

Remember what site you are on, and why you keep coming back.

Your notdisagreeing with either of us? Well, I can tell you Trevor
and I are about as far apart as one can get from agreement. If you don’t
disagree with either of us, you have some serious logical issues to address.
Our views could not be more conficted = You’re conflicted!

Trevor, you better dislodge this hokum from your thought life
before you have nothing left to think with!
I mean that with no malice my friend….

You go beyond concept, that like Trevor says, when something is Truth, you do not need to
believe it, it merely IS. Facts and evidence do not even be put into play but you’re trying to draw
conclusions from information that is not even coming from Truth either way, you’ll never
Discover it unless you know the limitations of the mind. The mind only knows of knowledge at
the human level until it discovers its True Nature.

To argue whether your teaching is right or wrong, is ignorance, this does not come about from
love, but from darkness. We as humanity can’t possibly know or pin down the Absolute as the
Absolute is free from all perceptualisation or conceptualisation. If you want to believe in words,
thats fine, but i’ll take the constant over the fraction any day.

Words are only dopplegangers of the Truth (including these), you cannot find Truth through
second hand information but living with the question in that unknown.

Deepaks teaching isn’t something that changes the way christianity is seen but merely stating
that it goes beyond the word itself, you know, reading a little meister eckhart could help out with
that traditional sense the body has attached itself to.

This is what science has found through our observable findings.
I’m pretty sure I already explained this, so I’ll just give a quick
review. When you view the world under a microscope, everything
is just protons and electrons bouncing around in an open void.
With huge gaps and open spaces, energy is just flying around in
a seemingly formless way. It is our nervous system that senses
this energy and our brain decodes this to put it into solid form. The
very same way a TV converts info into a picture on your screen. It’s
just information flying through space, but your TV picks up on it, and
makes it into a solid visible object.

“If something is real, you don’t need to believe in it…

No, I don’t think it’s overly simplistic. Occam’s Razor holds that
the simplest explanation is the preferred one.

The rest of Deepak’s response goes on to say “if something is real,
you don’t need to believe in it, you just experience it.”

Everything I’ve listed we can experience. It is observable, and testable.

You can then conclude that my “world view” is based on facts and evidence.

Going back to the Christian topic. There is a difference between pointing out the
faults in a line of thinking, and intolerance. If you wish me to explain further, I will.

It is clearly counter to his teachings and as a Christian I take offense to it.

If you held my views wouldn’t you respond?

“If something is real, you don’t need to believe in it…”??

I would say this is overly simplistic……

Are you sure you haven’t contradicted this statement? Didn’t you tell
in a previous post that “everything is an illusion”? You went on to
explain using physics why you believed that?

You are entitled to your view on ther exchange. I disagree with your
statements and hold to my previous remarks.

He said “If something is real, you don’t need to believe in it…”

Now that I have completely dismantled your argument, I wonder what
you’ll come up with next.

I just spelled out the facts for you, and you’re calling ME a
spin artist? The guy was wrong. It’s on video here on this
site. You can’t ignore it. If you interpret what you saw as
speechlessness, it was probably at the lack of intelligence
displayed by the guy asking the question. That guy completely
missed the point, not Deepak. There was nothing for Deepak
to respond to. The very essence of the question was wrong.

Well I was a bit surprised to find this blog post littered with so much conflict.

Can I just point out that Jesus main and one of his most important commands is to Love others.
by arguing what view is right and wrong goes 100% against it. Arguing of individual ideals, and
concepts that you yourself cannot grasp as your own. Conflict does not breed love, and love
is not evident where hate is.

Rational mind? please, you have to know by now that the human mind built around fractions
of the truth cannot possibly be rational especially when the individual ego is involved (which
is seen through each person in this post.) Semantics? spirituality isn’t a game of semantics
nor is it a game of views, these are just purely egoic ignorance. (even my own individual ideas
that i may feel are mine are not mine at all, whos to say they are?) Humans are Irrational beings,
as long as you’re arguing a point, you are not aware of the Truth. Words a fractions of the Truth
but never can they be the full truth, you can’t get a whole out of a fraction, but the whole does
encompass the fraction.

All arguments are only based on some concept that you are those beliefs, why argue something
that you are beyond to begin with, why the striving to becoming something that you innately are?

“To lose your life you gain your life”, does Jesus not state this, that it isn’t about the individual ego
and to be fully bereft of the individual to be receptive to the Absolute?

I mean all this is a distortion of Truth but what I don’t understand is the conflict that has arisen.
The thought of being right or wrong is selfish, even being righteous and to think that this might be
some kind of charity, showing someone the “light” still comes from the sense of the ego wanting
to become something or to feel good about leading someone else, no matter what it fuels the
ego in selfishness, so drop conflict. Take the log out of your eyes before you can even think to
take out the speck in another.

No one is in a place to judgement. To judge and condemn another is to judge and condemn
yourself. Judgement and Condemnation do not come from love, and therefore goes against
Jesus teachings.

Whats so hard about that?

Trevor, I think you are missing the point.. Deepak is
the “enlightened one”…. He was speechless!

Sorry, no apologies forthcoming… I’ll let the reader decide.

This is a problem with semantics that was clearly lost on him and
you. Let me spell this out for you. He attempted to use the words
“belief” and “believe” interchangeably. This is where he is wrong.

In this context, “belief” was being used in the noun form:

be⋅lief
 
–noun

a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Now, in this context, “believe” was used in its verb form:

be⋅lieve

–verb

to have confidence in the truth of (a positive assertion)

Now, let me word this in a way that you might understand:

“You said that [religious faith] was a cover-up for insecurity,
do you [find that to be true?]”

Class time is over. Now do you see what a fool that guy was,
and those that cheered for him? It doesn’t take a college education
to understand this. This is Elementary School vocabulary.

I think you owe everyone here an apology for wasting our time with
your lack of knowledge and baseless insults.

“You said that belief was a cover-up for insecurity, do you believe that?”
Chopra answered, “Yes” to outbursts of laughter and applause. The joke
was totally lost on him…for someone with such a higher enlightenment
I would have expected more, but he repeatedly looked silly and revealed
the incredible short comings of his philosophical worldview.

you should have been there to see the “Deer in headlights” look on his face.
It was classic!

It’s fine for you to disagree with his views, but to claim they are destructive
is pure nonsense. I am holding you accountable to show me facts to back up
your claim. Until then, your words are meaningless vitriol. You clearly have very
little understanding of what these views are and what they mean. One group to
reference are Buddhists. Their views are very similar to Deepak’s, yet they are
one of the most peaceful groups on the planet. You don’t see Buddhists
starting holy wars, or condemning people for having different beliefs.
Come on man, you’re smarter than this.

And you, as his disciple portray your feelings very clearly. Look, let’s
not mince words here. You cannot hold to a relativistic view and tolerate
an absolute standard of moral values… I believe strongly that this is
a dangerous and destructive world view. I don’t know how many times
I have to say it but many people have died as direct result of believing
there is no one to answer to but themselves. I say that without accusing
anyone here of being that extreme, far from it.
What people believe has consequences. As an exercise, assume for a
moment that my view is correct. That as a result of man turning from
the laws set forth by his Creator, that the Killing Fields, Buchenwald,
the now millions of unborn children who never saw the light of day are
a direct consequence of that. People who believe that there are no moral
laws tend to make up their own, and history shows us that some people
who hold extreme views justify the most horrific deeds if it suits their
best interest.
To me, this argument is worthwhile.

Okay, the exercise is over, you can go back to thinking I’m the crazy one.

You are doing exactly what the people at Fox News do. You create chaos
so that you have something to be angry over.

You’re at war with yourself.

Most of my angst has been in response to Deepak’s rant in his article
criticizing Fox News and the those who watch it.
He preaches all this moral relativism and tolerance. Yet he clearly
despises Christians, well only Christians who believe in Christianity,
I’m here to defend against his attacks.
Sorry.

Not so fast. You can’t just skip over all that talk of fairy tales with that.

Where is your critical thinking, empirical evidence and rational thought now, Dale?

You push it all aside for faith.

Not good enough, sir. Not good enough.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but snakes do not talk. They lack the very
basics to produce speech. Your holy book is wrong within the first chapter.
I need not go any further if you can’t prove this.

Completely desist from defending your point of view. When you have no point to defend, you do not allow the birth of an argument.

If you haven’t noticed, nobody is listening to you. You attack everyone for making any comment
without realizing they aren’t talking to you. You come off as a crazy extremist. Wake up.

Trevor, I already know that you pick and choose which parts of
the Bible that you wish to agree with. Jesus was just a good ole boy
with lots of good advice, right?

The problem with your view is that their is no purpose. Heck, Deepak’s
going to have to produce a dictionary just to explain all these new words
he’s creating.

Let’s see who is making the ridiculous claims again?

And you say I make rediculous claims???
that’s a real laugher!

The one where I go around pointing out the ridiculous claims you make?

You got me, sir.

Snap out it Dale, You’ve fallen into Jebus’s trance!

Snap out of it Trevor, You’ve fallen into Deepak’s trance!

Critical thinking and Christianity do not mix, sir.

Critical thinking Christian = Oxymoron
Rational Christian = Oxymoron

Gosh, do you (or any other of Deepak’s lemmings) really think this is wise?

And you guys critisize conservatives for being brainwashed by Fox news!

Seems to me you folks are exposing your true colors here, aye?

What a beautiful reply to an interesting question!

All those “intellectuals” out there, please “feel” Deepak’s answers, not “think” about it.

I can relate to both the question and the answer from my own personal experience and realization. I had a similar problem as the questioner. When answer came to me, it took the form of the publication of a book of poetry, aptly titled “The Heart of the Mind” available online at http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/the-heart-of-the-mind/600599

Here is an excerpt from the back-cover of the book:

The poet in me started to rise when my Mind started to yield its way to my Heart. “Knowledge, when reaches its peak, melts into nothing but Love and Devotion,” declared the great Adi Shankaracharya. When the Mind has been saturated with its cravings for intellectual knowledge and cultured through the practice of Yoga, the resulting quiet and still Mind is the fertile ground for creative endeavors.

Furthermore, when the chattering Mind takes refuge at the home of the pulsating Heart, such Mind gets awakened by the pulse of the Heart. The Thinker then becomes a Feeler, a Poet.

From, “The Heart of the Mind” (http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/the-heart-of-the-mind/600599)