Please Tell Me Karma Exists

[KarenBravo]

We can't prove that the Spaghetti Monster lives on Neptune, but, I give your aliens messing with our DNA the same credence as most rational people would.

[mataus101]

dont get upset daoyao, according to karma its true.

its not my belief, karma has been twisted by people, they say the men will suffer.

people who see the men suffer will not know why they are suffering, they will not know its there karma, and they will say oh the poor men.

just like we do with the dogs, however before the beating perhaps the dogs did something to bring on the karma that caused there death.

im just saying that according to many peoples twisted views on karma, they fail to realise that under there view, the dog would have bought it on itself.

[KarenBravo]

The idea of Karma has been a very convenient excuse for non-intervention; to explain inequities between people and to justify that status quo. You can pretty much substitute the word "Karma" with "God's Will", which was the way the Christian church could also excuse non-intervention, inequities and the status quo.

[daoyai]

We can't prove that the Spaghetti Monster lives on Neptune, but, I give your aliens messing with our DNA the same credence as most rational people would.

I am a Pastafarian, I worship the spagetti monster, it lives inside me.

[GentlemanJim]

In life, good things happen to many people and bad things also happen to many people. When good things happen to good people we say 'oooh! it's karma', and when bad things happen to bad people we say 'oooh! it's karma', when in reality it is just probability.

[mahtin]

The boiling point of water varies according to many things try boiling water at the top of Everest, its not fixed also water has no Karma.............. as does anything else if that helps keep it back on topic

Water has no karma?

Pity the poor tap water.

[mataus101]

karma is more like every action having a reaction.

you behave a certain way you will most likely get the same in return.

if i walk up to a man and slap him, he will react, thats karma, holwever over the years it became more magical as people with no hope look for hope in magical things to feel they have hope.

Edited January 3, 2012 by metisdead
Font reset.

[Moonrakers]

University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University College London,

University of Edinburgh, Imperial College London all teach evolution and not an alternative theory.

And? So what? They all recommended leaches at the time leaches were a cure all.

Paleontology - the earth science that studies fossil organisms and related remains. It is taught at 99% of the universities in the world and explains the changes in organisms through evolution. There is no debate about evolution. You can’t graduate from college taking a natural science course and debate evolution. You would flunk the course. It is like saying 2 plus 2 don’t equal 4 and expecting to pass 2nd grade arithmetic.

The boiling point of water is not debated anymore. It is not the theory of the boiling point of water. I’ll grant you that at some point in time someone probably debated the boiling point of water but not now. Maybe there are some tribes in the Amazon who are debating the boiling point of water today but to debate evolution falls in the same relative scientific level as relying on Amazon tribesmen for your scientific knowledge.

Maybe someday someplace a spaceship will discover an old guy with a perverse sense of humor who actually created the earth. Of course that is a possibility and that old guy may be also able to change the boiling point of water; who knows. Seems to me a bit silly to hold out hope at this point in time that he will be found. Universities are the repository of scientific knowledge and they have not debated evolution in my 65 years of life experience.

2 points here.

1.99%of universities throughout history have said that something is fact and later proven wrong. On the whole they are repeater of knowledge institutions.

2.I am not debating evolution but universities say it is only Darwin's model and I am saying that we can not, as the universities do, dismiss ancient texts that say aliens tinkered with our DNA along the way. We do not know exactly HOW we evolved.

1. Your point is?.........

2. What ancient texts say aliens tinkered with DNA? What supporting evidence is there? Why do you say we don't know how we evolved?

[F1fanatic]

Karma is the 'Eastern' version of miracles in the West.

Much as we would LOVE to believe in it - logical thinking points out too many flaws...

[BookMan]

So we're back to the 'missing link'...

Don't misunderstand me - until there is 'proof', I treat everything as a theory. I only draw the line at creationists unless (something I've vaguely wondered about), 'god' chose something like evolution as a way of creating us?

That sounds like you are having your feet in both camps

[BookMan]

2 points here.

1.99%of universities throughout history have said that something is fact and later proven wrong. On the whole they are repeater of knowledge institutions.

2.I am not debating evolution but universities say it is only Darwin's model and I am saying that we can not, as the universities do, dismiss ancient texts that say aliens tinkered with our DNA along the way. We do not know exactly HOW we evolved.

1. Your point is?.........

2. What ancient texts say aliens tinkered with DNA? What supporting evidence is there? Why do you say we don't know how we evolved?

I too would be interested in the actual ancient texts. I hope they are not Top Secret ones.

[F1fanatic]

So we're back to the 'missing link'...

Don't misunderstand me - until there is 'proof', I treat everything as a theory. I only draw the line at creationists unless (something I've vaguely wondered about), 'god' chose something like evolution as a way of creating us?

That sounds like you are having your feet in both camps

Yes ! I have no 'belief' in any theory and, if there is a 'god', I would want nothing to do with him/it.

I prefer facts.

[BookMan]

So we're back to the 'missing link'...

Don't misunderstand me - until there is 'proof', I treat everything as a theory. I only draw the line at creationists unless (something I've vaguely wondered about), 'god' chose something like evolution as a way of creating us?

That sounds like you are having your feet in both camps

Yes ! I have no 'belief' in any theory and, if there is a 'god', I would want nothing to do with him/it.

I prefer facts.

That's fair enough, u know what u want.

[bangkaew]

1. Your point is?.........

2. What ancient texts say aliens tinkered with DNA? What supporting evidence is there? Why do you say we don't know how we evolved?

Babylon, sumer, Egyptian, sanskrit, zulu legend and no doubt more. No evidence. We evolve to this day, no doubt partly due to Darwinian model but we don't know what else causes it. Take the African Eve common ancestor. What was her mother if not human? homo-erectus? Well that is a jump. If it was only survival of the fittest then there would be a gradual merge in fossil remains, part homo-e, part human. Also, why didn't other homo-e's evolve in to humans? That would mean we did not have a common human ancestor, but a common homo-e ancestor or before that. Or did the first few humans kill all the homo-es?

[bangkaew]

2 points here.

1.99%of universities throughout history have said that something is fact and later proven wrong. On the whole they are repeater of knowledge institutions.

2.I am not debating evolution but universities say it is only Darwin's model and I am saying that we can not, as the universities do, dismiss ancient texts that say aliens tinkered with our DNA along the way. We do not know exactly HOW we evolved.

1. Your point is?.........

2. What ancient texts say aliens tinkered with DNA? What supporting evidence is there? Why do you say we don't know how we evolved?

I too would be interested in the actual ancient texts. I hope they are not Top Secret ones.

read Zachariah Sitchen and Graham Hancock finger-prints of the gods.

[Moonrakers]

If it was only survival of the fittest then there would be a gradual merge in fossil remains, part homo-e, part human.

There is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

It's all there. Ignoring the evidence WILL NOT make it go away.

[Moonrakers]

1. Your point is?.........

2. What ancient texts say aliens tinkered with DNA? What supporting evidence is there? Why do you say we don't know how we evolved?

Babylon, sumer, Egyptian, sanskrit, zulu legend and no doubt more. No evidence.

They do not make references to aliens. These conspiracy nut job theories are actually something that interests me so I have read about them.

They make references to things that some people have decided to interpret as references to aliens. Often by people that are trying to sell books.

As you say there is no evidence. Why on Earth should something without evidence be taught in universities?

Edited January 3, 2012 by Moonrakers

[Moonrakers]

1. Your point is?.........

2. What ancient texts say aliens tinkered with DNA? What supporting evidence is there? Why do you say we don't know how we evolved?

Also, why didn't other homo-e's evolve in to humans? That would mean we did not have a common human ancestor, but a common homo-e ancestor or before that. Or did the first few humans kill all the homo-es?

You are again demonstrating a misunderstanding of evolution.

You also seem unaware that humans lived side by side with neanderthals, which we did share a common ancestor with.

IN fact, neanderthals were human. Just a different species of human. IT'S ALL THERE

Edited January 3, 2012 by Moonrakers

[KarenBravo]

Just because all human kind evolved from one female does not mean she was the only one. There were probably hundreds of female humans that existed that long ago, it just means that most of the exclusive progeny of the other females have died out. It doesn't mean that many humans don't have DNA from those other females as well.

We have recently discovered that there was mating between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals which explains why our immune system is what it is.

Edited January 3, 2012 by KarenBravo

[BookMan]

2 points here.

1.99%of universities throughout history have said that something is fact and later proven wrong. On the whole they are repeater of knowledge institutions.

2.I am not debating evolution but universities say it is only Darwin's model and I am saying that we can not, as the universities do, dismiss ancient texts that say aliens tinkered with our DNA along the way. We do not know exactly HOW we evolved.

1. Your point is?.........

2. What ancient texts say aliens tinkered with DNA? What supporting evidence is there? Why do you say we don't know how we evolved?

I too would be interested in the actual ancient texts. I hope they are not Top Secret ones.

read Zachariah Sitchen and Graham Hancock finger-prints of the gods.

It would save me a lot of time and reading if u just told me.

[Moonrakers]

It would save me a lot of time and reading if u just told me.

Think David Icke and you are not far off

[kerryk]

So we're back to the 'missing link'...

Don't misunderstand me - until there is 'proof', I treat everything as a theory. I only draw the line at creationists unless (something I've vaguely wondered about), 'god' chose something like evolution as a way of creating us?

That sounds like you are having your feet in both camps

Yes ! I have no 'belief' in any theory and, if there is a 'god', I would want nothing to do with him/it.

I prefer facts.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. A scientific theory will never become a scientific law. A theory does not change into a law with more and better evidence. In other words a theory will always be a theory. This is not the everyday definition of theory and the one that I think you are using. Hence we have a failure to communicate.

Perhaps you should be discussing Darwin’s five laws of evolution if you want to discuss evolution. Did the theory of relativity disprove Newton's laws of motion? A thorough discussion of this might help understand the difference between a theory and a law. So, in summary academics and scientists are using one definition and you are using another. You are not wrong and neither are they but you are talking about two different things.

[bangkaew]

Just because all human kind evolved from one female does not mean she was the only one. There were probably hundreds of female humans that existed that long ago, it just means that most of the exclusive progeny of the other females have died out. It doesn't mean that many humans don't have DNA from those other females as well.

We have recently discovered that there was mating between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals which explains why our immune system is what it is.

thanks. That has actually explained it!

[BookMan]

So we're back to the 'missing link'...

Don't misunderstand me - until there is 'proof', I treat everything as a theory. I only draw the line at creationists unless (something I've vaguely wondered about), 'god' chose something like evolution as a way of creating us?

That sounds like you are having your feet in both camps

Yes ! I have no 'belief' in any theory and, if there is a 'god', I would want nothing to do with him/it.

I prefer facts.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. A scientific theory will never become a scientific law. A theory does not change into a law with more and better evidence. In other words a theory will always be a theory. This is not the everyday definition of theory and the one that I think you are using. Hence we have a failure to communicate.

Perhaps you should be discussing Darwin’s five laws of evolution if you want to discuss evolution. Did the theory of relativity disprove Newton's laws of motion? A thorough discussion of this might help understand the difference between a theory and a law. So, in summary academics and scientists are using one definition and you are using another. You are not wrong and neither are they but you are talking about two different things.

Wouldn't some theories become scientific law over time or having had more proof being offered?

[bangkaew]

It would save me a lot of time and reading if u just told me.

Think David Icke and you are not far off

I don't think it is fair to compare Graham hand to David Icke!

[ludditeman]

It would save me a lot of time and reading if u just told me.

Think David Icke and you are not far off

I don't think it is fair to compare Graham hand to David Icke!

I knew David Icke when he was a sports reporter, great guy!

[bangkaew]

--------

Edited January 3, 2012 by bangkaew

[bangkaew]

---------

Edited January 3, 2012 by bangkaew

[BookMan]

It would save me a lot of time and reading if u just told me.

Think David Icke and you are not far off

ohhhh.... well his website makes for entertaining browsing anwyay! Reptilian..hmmm

[KarenBravo]

It seems to me that a scientific "Law" deals with one simple thing ie.

Laws of motion.

Boyles Law.

Theories describe processes that are more complex that may include certain scientific laws, such as the general theory of relativity which as has the law which states the speed of light.

To me a law is like an atom and a theory is like a molecule (if that makes any sense) that can be composed of laws.

Of course, I could be wrong.