Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Year Cycle

Classic posts chosen by the admins of xBKChat.com and the users of this website
  • Message
  • Author
Offline
User avatar

Roy

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2013

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post11 Jan 2013

ex-l wrote:I don't think it is fair or accurate to suggest that science is developing to "avoid" the idea life has always existed? I don't think that has been a motivating principle.

To be fair, most scientists aren't aware of the teachings of RajYoga, so you may be right. However, when we look at the Big Bang theory, it does have its similarities with the teaching of RajYoga. Father Shiv has taught us through His chariots(Ram and Krishna), that He creates us in His own image... i.e. every 5000 years, He comes to teach us that we are points of spiritual light, just as He is. So it is a re-creation through knowledge, and then expansion takes place over time, as more souls become aware of this truth(as far as i, and other BKs-PBKs are concerned). In the same way, Scientists propose that from a tiny point of hugely concentrated physical energy, the universe was created and expanded.

There is also the subject of Darwinism, and the theory of how human beings were once monkeys... Is this also perhaps just a reflection of what happens in the Confluence Age, when Ram's monkey army eventually become Deities, or perfect human beings?
ex-l wrote:I know the PBKs have a slightly more complex version of "Creation" from the BKs version including deep friezes and heavy rains ... but does it address all the controversies completely?

No, it doesn't broach the subject in detail as far as i know, of things like light getting back to its source, and space probes that have been sent into space, getting back to earth. I however, am fully confident that these things have very simple explanations. I am of the view as i have expressed before, that once the soul becomes pure, energy re-configures itself to it original starting point, a bit like pressing a re-set switch on a computer programme or something... but i cannot explain these issues in terms of what we currently understand as the laws of physics.
ex-l wrote:A comedian and a scientist discuss religion ... "I know people who stopped believing in God because pets were not allowed" ... Richard Dawkins & Ricky Gervais. A more serious discussion with Dawkins on the origin of life is here.

Funnily enough i watched this a few days ago. Ricky Gervais is a bright bloke, and has obviously spent time researching these things. I watched another video in which he was discussing similar matters with Karl Pilkington, and again showed that he had done his research... But when he was describing to Karl, how life has developed from pond slime; i have to say it was very unconvincing, and karl did not appear that impressed either! :D
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9844
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post12 Jan 2013

Roy wrote:To be fair, most scientists aren't aware of the teachings of RajYoga ...

The idea we were discussing was that "life always existed" which is an older and wider belief that those of the BKs. I'd guess most scientists working the area would be aware of similar Hindu and Buddhist ideas and, of course, there are many excellent scientists from Hindu and Buddhist backgrounds. But I would agree with you if you were to say Western science has correlations to the Biblical story which is far close to a Big Bang creation than the BKs. As you write, creates us in His own image is straight out of the Bible, not Gyan.

What science is concerned about is what it can see, measure and have evidence for and there is evidence of an rapid expansion etc. They cannot what happens in the earliest moments or beforehand yet (nor what is in the future).
There is also the subject of Darwinism, and the theory of how human beings were once monkeys ...

No, the theory states we have a common ancestor which lived roughly 14 million years ago. Monkeys are not hominidae and are on a separate branch from us.
Ricky Gervais is a bright bloke ...

He's a comedian. I put it on for a joke. Actually, I prefer comedians to gurus these days.

You have not done the Advanced Knowledge course yet, have you? It does go further than the BKs' version of creation but still falls short of explaining anything.

On a scale of 1 to 100, if 'the actual truth' was 1, the description of the Big Bang bit, within its limit, would be about 2 or 3 ... the probability of the BK/PBK version have any merit would be off the scale at the other end.

But, let's discuss the history of 2,500 years ago when the BKs believe the dinosaurs lived. There are clear historical records from Egypt to China at least going back to before that time which show or prove that life on earth was quite different from how the BKs say it was.

Can any BK/PBK or their god explain any of those?
Offline
User avatar

Roy

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2013

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post12 Jan 2013

ex-l wrote:The idea we were discussing was that "life always existed" which is an older and wider belief that those of the BKs. I'd guess most scientists working the area would be aware of similar Hindu and Buddhist ideas and, of course, there are many excellent scientists from Hindu and Buddhist backgrounds.

Good point, I hadn't taken that into account ... so I actually feel more comfortable with my original claim. :D
ex-l wrote:But I would agree with you if you were to say Western science has correlations to the Biblical story which is far close to a Big Bang creation than the BKs. As you write, creates us in His own image is straight out of the Bible, not Gyan.

But I would claim that at least some of the Bible is a remembrance of the Confluence Age; and that the belief that God created us in His own image, is a remembrance of the teachings of Godfather Shiv, that take place within it. Same as with the Big Bang theory ... it may be influenced by the the Bible, but the Bible was influenced by what takes place in the Confluence Age.
ex-l wrote:What science is concerned about is what it can see, measure and have evidence for and there is evidence of an rapid expansion etc. They cannot what happens in the earliest moments or beforehand yet (nor what is in the future).

What evidence is that? There is a theory for it, and mathematical equations have been put forward, which are now being challenged by other mathematicians. Are you referring to the cosmic microwave background radiation? I don't don't feel that is any proof of a Big Bang at all. Just as the redshift theory proving that the universe is expanding, also appears to be bogus with new evidence coming to the fore.
ex-l wrote:No, the theory states we have a common ancestor which lived roughly 14 million years ago. Monkeys are not hominidae and are on a separate branch from us.

That's just semantics IMO ... we are supposed to have a common "monkey-like" origin. I would claim that these supposed different stages of development, are animals and humans exposed to powerful earth radiation, during the semi cataclysm that occurred 2500 years ago, at the end of the Silver Age, which caused mutations; including the huge size of the dinosaurs, that quickly died-out because they were probably sterile.
ex-l wrote:He's a comedian. I put it on for a joke. Actually, I prefer comedians to gurus these days.

I know who Ricky Gervais is, I don't live in a cave! :D My point was he speaks eloquently about most things and is an intelligent guy ... but even he with his communication skills, couldn't make the idea of us emerging from pond slime seem even remotely feasible.
ex-l wrote:You have not done the Advanced Knowledge course yet, have you? It does go further than the BKs' version of creation but still falls short of explaining anything.

Yes, I have studied the Advanced Knowledge course on the internet, albeit quite a while ago ... and I could do with going through it many more times to be honest ... but I am fairly clued-up about the nuclear winter that ensues, after the heavy rains, caused by the large amount of vapour created by the boiling oceans. I feel it explains a lot, apart from the points I touched upon ... What things are you referring to? Remember there are going to be massive earthquakes all over the world, including the seabed, that is going to create a totally new landscape; and what is not burned and melted by the nuclear explosions, is going to buried or burned by the magma that escapes through the earth's crust. The sea levels are going to rise with the melting ice caps, and torrential rain; there aren't going to many dead corpses lying around ... they'll either be destroyed or submerged in the sea, to become fossil fuel that you now run you car on ... Only Bharat will remain above the sea.
ex-l wrote:On a scale of 1 to 100, if 'the actual truth' was 1, the description of the Big Bang bit, within its limit, would be about 2 or 3 ... the probability of the BK/PBK version have any merit would be off the scale at the other end.

I, of course, wouldn't agree with this for the reasons I have stated before ... I wouldn't even score the Big Bang theory 100 on your scale, as I believe it's just a fairy tale and will never be proven; and the same goes for Darwinism. It appears we are just going to have to agree to disagree, until absolute proof emerges. You put your faith in human scientists, I put my faith in Godfather Shiv.
ex-l wrote:But, let's discuss the history of 2,500 years ago when the BKs believe the dinosaurs lived. There are clear historical records from Egypt to China at least going back to before that time which show or prove that life on earth was quite different from how the BKs say it was.

That's if we are to believe in the accuracy of the dating process used to explain these things. I saw a programme a few years ago, that disputed the timelines that conventional history put forward for the Eygyptian Pharaohs, and claimed they should be overlapping and much more compressed than conventional historians would have us believe. It appears to be all about interpretations and bias. There is only one being who is unbiased IMO, and that is God! There can only be one being who sees everything clearly, because he remains on the outside looking in; a detached observer ... Everyone else is just guessing for the most part.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9844
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post12 Jan 2013

Roy wrote:monkey-like ... pond slime ... fairy tale. You put your faith in human scientists, I put my faith in Godfather Shiv.

Fine, you made your position clear. I don't think you are presenting current scientific understanding or exploration, or even the nature of science, honestly. Although it may be a joke to a Creationists, there is no "pond slime" model of evolution. In fact, at present there is no universally accepted model.

Science (which we remember means "knowledge", real knowledge, not The Knowledge™) largely works by removing what it can demonstrate to be obviously not true. Theory, test, refine. Look at the real miracles it has continued to produce in our lives ... and all medieval religions can do is suppress in order to control.

What I wrote is that I don't make lifestyle decisions, nor choose my friends, on the basis of the science of the origins of life. The origins of life or the Universe has no immediate relevance to me, and is beyond my influence and control.

I would have to reject adherence to any cult that proposed such extraordinary beliefs without some evidence and explanation for them, and encourage others to do so. To think and question. I made the mistake of "suspending my disbelief" and falling for a magic show once in my life.

It might be helpful for us to imagine the state of mind, level of education and awareness of the world that the Om Mandli inmates had in the 1930s when these beliefs were unquestionably set in stone for the religion. They have never been questioned or develop since ... if you are a BK or PBK, you must unquestionably believe as some kind of badge of honour to prove your adherence.

Would you follow a cult of old ladies and their flattering courtesans who have not a clue in the world about how anything they believe actually happens ... especially when it is *proven* that what they predict will happen does not and they go about hiding it, denying it and changing it retrospectively?

I suppose at the time it was just an intellectual separating device to divide BKism and it followers from Hinduism or the Vedantic tradition with its long cycles of time.

Come on ... the whole thing was just dreamed up by some uneducated shopkeeper in the backwaters of India, who probably know nothing of dinosaurs, pyramids or ancient China, but who because he has made a million could indulge in his repressed Hindu fantasies of being Krishna surrounded by his adoring gopis.

Is it not time the BK evolved?
Offline
User avatar

Roy

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2013

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post13 Jan 2013

ex-l wrote:Come on ... the whole thing was just dreamed up by some uneducated shopkeeper in the backwaters of India, who probably know nothing of dinosaurs, pyramids or ancient China, but who because he has made a million could indulge in his repressed Hindu fantasies of being Krishna surrounded by his adoring gopis.

Well, this is one opinion, and I can understand why you and others feel this way. It is a challenge to believe this was the beginning of God's revelation to the world ... But these scenes were a distraction from what was really happening at this time which was that Godfather Shiv had entered Prajapita, and clarified Dada Lekhraj's visions through him but only a few souls truly recognised what was going on; the majority were attracted by visions and the charismatic qualities of Dada Lekhraj, aka Brahma Baba Krishna, whom they believed to be God Krishna or Prajapati God Brahma. There was little knowledge, and plenty of Bhakti taking place. This was the basis for the beliefs in the Copper Age of the broad drama, that Krishna is the God of the Gita, as this was the beginning of the shooting in the Confluence Age, of this belief.
Fine, you made your position clear. I don't think you are presenting current scientific understanding or exploration, or even the nature of science, honestly. Although it may be a joke to a Creationists, there is no "pond slime" model of evolution. In fact, at present there is no universally accepted model.

But is not this what is being taught in schools and widely believed by most atheists, not to mention many scientists, at least publicly. I don't feel truth will emerge from the mainstream scientists, as they aren't capable of truly independent thinking ... it will be more independently minded souls, who want to find truth for truth's sake, who haven't gotten caught up in the game, of name and fame.
I would have to reject adherence to any cult that proposed such extraordinary beliefs without some evidence and explanation for them, and encourage others to do so. To think and question. I made the mistake of "suspending my disbelief" and falling for a magic show once in my life.

I, personally, never did ... I always felt The Knowledge made sense and had a solid foundation in reality ... I couldn't have moved forward if I did not ... I couldn't remain if this wasn't the case now. I have a bias towards what I consider logical thought ... I am not a devotional type of soul ... knowledge and understanding have to come first with me.
It might be helpful for us to imagine the state of mind, level of education and awareness of the world that the Om Mandli inmates had in the 1930s when these beliefs were unquestionably set in stone for the religion. They have never been questioned or develop since ... if you are a BK or PBK, you must unquestionably believe as some kind of badge of honour to prove your adherence..

If you don't believe, you cannot truly remain as a rajyogi, and this is what has happened in the BKIVV ... souls who don't really believe, pretending that they do, and running a religious organisation they claim is headed by God.
Would you follow a cult of old ladies and their flattering courtesans who have not a clue in the world about how anything they believe actually happens ... especially when it is *proven* that what they predict will happen does not and they go about hiding it, denying it and changing it retrospectively?

No, I couldn't last in such an environment but I never really got that caught up in all of this to be honest. I was always somewhat on the outside, and following my own BK guru, who had what I consider a much better grasp of The Knowledge than the Dadis ever did, or will have. I wasn't aware of the failed predictions until more recently ... but now I study AK independently, and feel I have the truth about why all this is playing out the way it is.
Is it not time the BK evolved?

They cannot evolve, the majority are caught up in ignorance and falsity. The Dadis are living their dream with all their nice buldings and comforts, and thousands of adoring worshippers ... Nothing will change until the truth finally emerges in such a way, that it can no longer be denied.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9844
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post13 Jan 2013

Just for Clearernow's benefit, I'll translate. The PBKs believe that the BKs' God Shiva has now possessed a former BK in India called Virendra Dev Dixit and is speaking through him, not the BKs' psychic medium Gulzar. "God" is mostly clarifying the confusion, failed predictions and so on he created speaking through Lekhraj Kirpalani ... although he is also adding some more new ones. They call this "Advanced Knowledge".

This new medium, they believe, was the business partner of Lekhraj Kirpalani in his previous life ... although the facts do not support that ... and the individual through which God Shiva first spoken to Lekhraj Kirpalani. For all the BKs avoided openness and toleration towards other religions, the BKs loath Virendra Dev Dixit, banished him from the BKWSU, persecute the PBKs and refuse to consider God might speaking through him.
Roy wrote:I am merely posting my opinions or beliefs, I cannot prove them ... I am posting an alternative viewpoint

Do you think everyone's "alternative view" is of equal weight or value to another individuals, or the scientific one?

Do you think that just 'having an idea' makes it as good as or better than others, or is there some process by which it become proven?

I think I found the video you mentioned but there's no mention of "pond slime" in it. That appears to be a misrepresentation of both the science and Ricky Gervais. It's comedy but I did learn how we "share 70% of our DNA with slugs" ... that most of the hard work had been done by the time we evolved that far. From that, I also learned that our DNA is still changing and evolving.

The study of genes and DNA has taken over from the 19th Century study of bones Creationists make such a meal over.
Scientists looked at the DNA of two families that each consisted of mother, Father, and child. What they found was that one child had 35 new mutations and the other had 49. This compares favorably with a study done in 2010 that looked at a mother, Father and two children and found 70 new mutations.

Figuring this out was not an easy process. They had to look at the over 6 billion letters of DNA for each person over and over again (22 times!) to rule out any technical mistakes. Then they had to figure out which changes happened between generations and which just happened in some of the child's cells or for technical lab reasons. This is many fewer than scientists previously thought. And if this result holds up, it will affect scientists' estimates of how long human evolution took.

To figure out how long it has been since two species shared a common ancestor, scientists compare their DNA. They figure out how many changes there are and then divide that by the number of changes per generation.

Previous results suggested that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor around 5 million years ago. Using the new numbers, it looks like 7 million is a more likely number. This second number is actually consistent with more recent fossil evidence. But it is not set in stone either.

treeolife.jpg
The Tree
Offline
User avatar

Roy

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2013

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post13 Jan 2013

ex-l wrote:Do you think everyone's "alternative view" is of equal weight or value to another individuals, or the scientific one?... Do you think that just 'having an idea' makes it as good as or better than others, or is there some process by which it become proven?

I am finding these questions quite tough to answer, so I am going to take my time with them and get back to you in a few days.
I think I found the video you mentioned but there's no mention of "pond slime" in it. That appears to be a misrepresentation of both the science and Ricky Gervais. It's comedy but I did learn how we "share 70% of our DNA with slugs" ... that most of the hard work had been done by the time we evolved that far. From that, I also learned that our DNA is still changing and evolving.

You are right, there is no mention of pond slime in this video, but I did get that description from some video I watched around the same time as this one. I must have mixed them up. I still hold to the claim that Ricky's description of the origins of life comes across as totally lame, despite me having respect for him as an intelligent individual.

If a cell was to somehow miraculously come into being, it would have to be able to absorb nutrients, and be able to replicate itself to survive. Again, the chances of this are so incredibly unlikely, and the process itself so unfathomable, when you consider what is necessary in order to have a fully functioning cell, even of the simplest kind, then for me, this theory has no value at all. So if you don't or cannot believe we have always been here; then there's always the belief that God Himself created physical life, but I don't buy this either.

IMO, science will never be able to prove that life came into being through pure random chance, that defies all probability; and only God Himself, can in fact reveal the truth about our, and this universe's origins.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9844
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post13 Jan 2013

Roy wrote:I am finding these questions quite tough to answer ...

Sorry about that, but BKinfo is "not as easy as going to your aunty's house".

I am concerned about your negative portray of all scientists. Does the BK/PBK model not pose the same questions, "how and where does it all come from in the first place?"

I think these are more pertinent questions because, using a simple common sense which is far beyond the abilities original BKs, in order for all the molecules of the space exploration devices to be returned to their original position under the earth, the *entire universe* must ... MUST ... be destroyed and regenerated. Even *if* the BK/PBK model is close to correct, Lekhraj Kirpalani's and the unquestioned BKWSU version is a kid's fairy story version.

Is not the BK/PBK model just a mental plug to stop the mind asking questions?
clearernow wrote:If I had not experienced the presence of God in my daily life and depended on that experience to be through a physical form, I would never have taken this path

So, you do mean "the god of the BKs", as asked earlier, but living outside of the BKWSU and its daily disciplines?

Here's a real 'evil, arrogant' scientist who is working in this area and a bit of his story ...

Offline
User avatar

Roy

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2013

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post13 Jan 2013

ex-l wrote:Sorry about that, but BKinfo is "not as easy as going to your aunty's house".

That's true! :D
ex-l wrote:I am concerned about your negative portray of all scientists."

I don't feel all scientists are bad, nor am I saying saying scientists are bad people simply because they're scientists ... But I feel that as in all walks of life; people tend to protect their vested interests at times ... We protect ourselves when we feel threatened in some way. This is understandable, but it can be dishonest too. I don't have a problem with scientists posing their questions, and looking for the truth, even when I believe they are way off track ... I just have a problem when they protect themselves dishonestly from contrary evidence, that may threaten their theories or positions of authority (sound familiar?). As always, it's the people in power, the big personalities that are most likely to fall into this trap.
ex-l wrote:Does the BK/PBK model not pose the same questions, "how and where does it all come from in the first place?"

There Murli tells us we have always been here, and always will be, by telling us we have done all this innumerable times in the past, and will do so innumerable times in the future ... i.e. the drama cycle is eternal. This implies that it was never created, and can never be destroyed; just like we are told about energy in physics ... there can only be transformation from one form to another. In the drama cycle, the soul is transformed from positive/pure to negative/impure, and then back again in an eternal repeating pattern. A one-off creation point of all this is not possible is it ... because doesn't logic tell us that you cannot create something out of nothing? Even the Big Bang theory is dependent on a tiny compressed point of energy, that couldn't have simply come from nowhere.

There always has to be something in existence to create from, so eternity as a concept has to be an intrinsic part of the theory to make any sense, IMO. The Big Bang Theory and evolution of life on earth though, asks us to ignore the very important point, that the probability of all this coming together by chance is virtually zero ... and the thought that biological life could somehow spontaneously emerge from lightning striking a few chemicals is totally preposterous to me, so that only leaves God doing the creation thing; but then He still has to be eternal because who created Him?
ex-l wrote:I think these are more pertinent questions because, using a simple common sense which is far beyond the abilities original BKs, in order for all the molecules of the space exploration devices to be returned to their original position under the earth, the *entire universe* must ... MUST ... be destroyed and regenerated. Even *if* the BK/PBK model is close to correct, Lekhraj Kirpalani's and the unquestioned BKWSU version is a kid's fairy story version... Is not the BK/PBK model just a mental plug to stop the mind asking questions?

Yes, the universe on some level is destroyed and regenerated; but that doesn't mean obliterated out of existence. The earth is going to have nuclear bombs exploding all over its surface, but it won't be blown apart completely. It will simply re-organise itself and become re-balanced, just as the whole universe will. The sun itself has to become regenerated, as it has lost much energy in the form of heat and light converting its hydrogen into helium but, for now, I cannot explain in scientific terms (not helped by the fact I am not a scientist) how this will be reversed but I do believe that this is is possible.
Offline

bkti-pit

Independent, free thinking BK

  • Posts: 504
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2007

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post13 Jan 2013

Thanks for that video ex-l. Pretty cool and fascinating but it underlines the fact that we know very little, that the scientific theories about human origins are based on fragments, not to mention that, despite the fact that it is an extraordinary discovery, it does not explain or prove the evolutionary process by which those bones would come from an ancestor of today's Homo Sapiens.

I am not saying that there is no logic in their theories but it bothers me when it is publicly presented as scientific facts.

I am not a scientist but I studied science in college and university. I dropped out after my first year in university because I realized it was not going to take me to the future I had envisioned for myself. It was enough however for me to discover, with disappointment, that some of the things we were taught did no resist investigation. I did confront my teachers on a couple of those and they ended up admitting that I was right but that what they had presented remained as an established scientific truth, the same way a BK could be forced to admit that everyone of their Baba's predictions so far turned out to be wrong but would keep affirming that he cannot be wrong because he is God.

One aspect I questioned was carbon 14 dating. Granted that this was over 40 years ago and that much progress will have been made in science since then regarding dating processes, to this day I have not found satisfactory answers to my questions on carbon 14 dating. There seems to always remain an act of faith in explaining how it works. Anyone who can dispel my doubts please contact me.

If we know so little about humanoids, which science believe to be relatively recent in the history of the universe, if there is still so much unknown about the fundamental nature of life and matter surrounding us and of which we partake here and now, how can we possibly pretend that we know what happened thousands of light years away and billions of years ago?

Despite remarkable efforts from scientists, the fact is that we know very little and I think a little humility and restraint in presenting their theories would be more scientific.

Therefore, based on my incomplete scientific background and my own logic inquisitiveness I doubted the official theories of the Big Bang and Darwinism long before I met the BKs. I am of the opinion, as others have expressed here, that Big Bang theories and "Let there be light" Creationism belong to the same clan. As far as I know, neither offers an explanation about how the material universe can pop up from nothingness.

I was seduced by the BK concept of "God is eternal, the soul is eternal and matter is eternal", particularly because the God and soul part matched the meditation experience I already had beforehand. I am not saying that the meditation experience proves anything but I thought that the BK concept was a valid and sensible explanation for it and that the concept of matter being eternal was fascinating as it resolved the issue of it having to be created out of nothing.

Now that i have let go of all BK beliefs, I still consider that the concept of matter being eternal is more reasonable than that of creation out of nothing. I doubt it could ever be proven but wouldn't it be interesting if science was willing to get off its ruts and give some thoughtful consideration to alternative concepts?

It is worth noticing that the video above illustrates that interesting discoveries can be made when we begin exploring outside the beaten path.
Offline

bkti-pit

Independent, free thinking BK

  • Posts: 504
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2007

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post13 Jan 2013

They had to look at the over 6 billion letters of DNA for each person over and over again (22 times!) to rule out any technical mistakes.

This is astonishing, considering that if examining one single letter of DNA required only a second it would take that person 190 years to examine the 6 billion of them only once!!!

Do they have anything to support their claim?
To figure out how long it has been since two species shared a common ancestor, scientists compare their DNA. They figure out how many changes there are and then divide that by the number of changes per generation.

That is if we knew what the average number of changes per generation is. I do not think that two or three samples within the last 100 years could be considered undoubtedly representative of what has been happening over millions of years.

Let's suppose that it is humanely or technically possible to examine 22 times the 6 billion letters of the DNA of one person and those of his or her child and then reasonably asses that there were 35, 49 or 70 mutations. The child was still a human, right? Well, at what point would there be enough mutations or what specific mutations would be responsible for the child to be of a different species? And then, what are the odds for that child to find a mate of the same species?

I think it requires as much of an act of faith to believe in such stories than it takes to believe in religious stories.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9844
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post14 Jan 2013

bkti-pit wrote:Do they have anything to support their claim?

It's from the 1000 Genome Project and it includes all of the academic powerhouses on the planet and a vast amount of 'super' and distributed computing power.

Variation in genome-wide mutation rates within and between human families, Nature Genetics 43, 712–714 (2011).
And then, what are the odds for that child to find a mate of the same species?

I think it requires as much of an act of faith to believe in such stories than it takes to believe in religious stories.

Or hundreds of millions dollar of investments, and the best minds in the field?

Here's an introduction to its interesting work.

Incidentally, yes, I read another study that prove even today people tend to find and mate with members of their own genetic group, even quite miraculously so.

I'll stick to my guns ... which is that for 99.9% of people neither the religionist fairy stories nor the scientific understanding has any relevance and should not be used as grounds to join a gang or feel superior over others. However, the scientific journey is providing us with far, far, far more practical benefits from solving crimes, to wiping out disease and pre-identifying life threatening conditions ... whereas the religionists would still have us slaughtering bulls or reading the entrails of owls to divine the secrets of the universe. Or speaking to dead millionaire shop keepers.

For me, "miracles" are things like; dentistry, reading glasses, cleft palate operations and, above all, sanitation engineering.

Whereas Hinduism invented human toilet emptying castes, science invented the flushing toilet. I know which one I would lay my bets on solving the rest of the problems.

The response of religion seems merely to shout louder, close their eyes tighter and stick their fingers deeper into their ears. They have the money, they can do their own research but don't ... and it still won't cure diseases, suffering or even invent a better toilet seat.

Why don't the BKs get together with the Christians and prove which is right, 5,000 or 6,000 years? They won't because its not about what is right ... religion is not what it says it is, religionists don't even care about their own facts as the BKs prove. Religion is just about how to get people to believe and how to keep them believing whilst you milk them for their time, money and energy.
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9844
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post14 Jan 2013

Roy wrote:I don't have a problem with scientists posing their questions, and looking for the truth, even when i believe they are way off track... I just have a problem when they protect themselves dishonestly from contrary evidence, that may threaten their theories or positions of authority

I posted a lecture by Jay Lakhani which I thought would interest you. In the fourth part he talks about Hindus' relationship with science, Darwinism and mentions the Big Bang. In the last part, he touches on the "hard problem" of consciousness and science's relationships with it. He is both a theoretical physicist and a teacher of "esoteric Hinduism", and admits physics is the most arrogant of sciences.

Interestingly, he says, "Hindus have no problems with Darwinism but they have a problem with Dawkins ... they can accept human evolution out of the animal world (living things) but not human evolution out of non-living things", which is basically where you have your primary problem (... how does a living thing arise out of a non-living thing).

In one of the earlier chapters, he briefly defined the difference between living things and non-living things which I found helpful and will research.

I think that I would modify your statement about scientist to low ranking scientists or people with a little scientific knowledge, who are often not working in science or at a very uninteresting level of it, as there are pleasantly high minded and decent scientists too. However, a) I think the exaggerated dichotomy or view you present is a little out of date now, and b) one should humbly accept their frustration with us and our low level of scientific understanding.

Like I said to buttonslammer, we don't realise just how little we don't know and how incapable of judging perspective we are because of it. We are still at a child-like level of understanding.

At the most basic physical level, and let's be honest, Dadi Janki probably has little understanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics, the BK model still has two difficulties,
    a) How and when was the starting point of the "It always existed" existence, e.g. how did its design in all its wonderful ways arise (the BK god claims he designed none of it and was never involved with it)? and
    b) How and where does the physical energy required to take existence back to 'Year 0' re-enter the equation from, (supposing we have enough magic pixies to put it all back together with)?
I am making a joke because once I was told by a BK that deities flew around in their flying machines cleaning everything up.
Offline

bkti-pit

Independent, free thinking BK

  • Posts: 504
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2007

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post15 Jan 2013

ex-l,

I do not dispute that not everything in science requires a leap of faith and that it has produced and continues to produce useful results. Do not misinterpret me, I am glad of the progress of science and that it helped demystify some of the religious non-sense.

Religious beliefs or practices however also have positive effects. When a yogi sits in Yoga for instance, connects with God in whichever way and experiences bliss, if that brings him joy and peace and clarity of mind and makes him a better person, more caring, more loving, and if it has a positive effect on people around him, that to me is a useful result.

Clearernow was honest enough to acknowledge that it does not prove God albeit it does not matter to him or her because he or she is satisfied with the results; it works!

Similarly, science works. It produces results, indisputable and remarkable results, but that is not enough in my opinion to support some of the fantastic claims it makes. How many scientists are humble and honest enough to say so?

Just last week I came across two such claims in the news. One was about a stone found in South Africa that they claim is a 2.1 billion years old meteorite coming from Mars. Leaving the dating issue aside, wouldn't it have been more accurate to say something like, "Since it is quite different from what we usually find on Earth and is strikingly similar to some of the stuff found on Mars so far, we BELIEVE that it could be a meteorite originating from Mars"? Because really, what do we know?

We have barely scratched a few spots on the 14.4 million square kilometres of the Mars surface and how much have we sampled of the countless other planets and asteroids out there? And how much is yet to be discovered even right here on Earth? 18,000 new living species were discovered in the year 2011. Can we be so sure that this type of rock is nowhere be found somewhere on Earth? I think it is unfortunate that such claims are spreading unchecked into the public space and that so many blindly accept it.

I checked the links you provided on the genome project. I suspected that computers had been used to examine the billions of letters of DNA and thank you for providing the links.

One of the articles you were referring to states
These observations suggest considerable variation in mutation rates within and between families.

It supports what I said about the unreliability of using a sample of only 2 or 3 individuals and projecting it over millions of years as if it would undoubtedly remain constant over such a long period of time. How can we tell?

As I said yesterday, a little restraint in making such claims would be sensible and I'd appreciate if some bright scientific minds were open enough to bring the concept of matter being eternal into their equations.
Offline
User avatar

Roy

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2013

Re: Why I Cannot Believe in the Brahma Kumaris' 5,000 Years

Post15 Jan 2013

ex-l wrote:I posted a lecture by Jay Lakhani which I thought would interest you. In the fourth part he talks about Hindus' relationship with science, Darwinism and mentions the Big Bang. In the last part, he touches on the "hard problem" of consciousness and science's relationships with it. He is both a theoretical physicist and a teacher of "esoteric Hinduism", and admits physics is the most arrogant of sciences.

Thank you, I'll take a look.
PreviousNext

Return to Classic Posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests