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.
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!
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.