Cont...........



NOBEL PRIZE FOR AN ASS



Dr. Singh. Some scientists hope that in the future they will be able to make babies in test tubes.


Srila Prabhupada. Test tubes?


Dr. Singh. Yes, they intend to combine male and female elements in biological laboratories.


Srila Prabhupada. If they begin with living entities, what is the purpose of the test tube? It is only a place for combination, but so is the womb. Where is the credit for the scientists if this is already being done in nature's test tube?


Karandhara. It is already being done by nature, but when some scientist does it, people will give him the Nobel Prize.


Srila Prabhupada. Yes, that is stated in Srimad-Bhagavatam: sva-vid-varahostra-kharaih samstutah purusah pasuh.[4] This verse indicates that those who praise men who are like animals are no better than dogs, hogs, camels and asses. Sva means "dog," vid-varaha means "stool-eating hog," ustra means "camel," and khara means "ass." If the Nobel Prize is given to a scientist who is a rascal, the men on the committee who give him that prize are no better than dogs, hogs, camels and asses. We don't accept them as human beings. One animal is praised by another animal. Where is the credit in that? If the men on the committee are no better than animals, anyone who receives the Nobel Prize in science is fool number one, because animals are praising him, not human beings.


Dr. Singh. For some scientists, the Nobel Prize is the ultimate.


Srila Prabhupada. They are rascals. They are speaking nonsense, and because they are juggling words, others are being misled.


Brahmananda Swami. Nobel is the person who invented dynamite.


Srila Prabhupada. He has created great misfortune, and he has left his money for creating further misfortune. [Laughter.]


Brahmananda Swami. The Gita says that demoniac people perform acts meant to destroy the world.


Srila Prabhupada. Yes. Ugra-karmanah ksayaya jagato 'hitah (Bg. 16.9). They perform acts meant for inauspiciousness and the destruction of the world.





THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LIVING AND THE NONE LIVING



[Srila Prabhupada points at a dead tree with his cane.]


Srila Prabhupada. Formerly leaves and twigs were growing from this tree. Now they are not. How would the scientists explain this?


Karandhara. They would say the tree's chemical composition has changed.


Srila Prabhupada. To prove that theory, they must be able to inject the proper chemicals to make branches and leaves grow again. The scientific method includes observation, hypothesis and then demonstration. Then it is perfect. But the scientists cannot actually demonstrate in their laboratories that life comes from matter. They simply observe and then speak nonsense. They are like children. In our childhood, we observed a gramophone box and thought that within the box was a man singing, an electric man. We thought there must have been an electric man or some kind of ghost in it. [Laughter.]


Dr. Singh. One of the popular questions that arises when we start studying biology is "What is the difference between a living organism and that which is not living?" The textbooks say that the chief characteristics that distinguish the two are that a living being can move and reproduce, whereas dead matter can do neither. But the books never talk about the nature of the soul or about the consciousness of the living entity.


Srila Prabhupada. But consciousness is the primary indication that life is present. Only because of consciousness can a living being move and reproduce. Because a person is conscious, he thinks of marrying, and begetting children. And the original consciousness is described in the Vedas: tad aiksata bahu syam (Chandogya Upanisad 6.2.3). This means that God, the original conscious being, said, "I shall become many." Without consciousness, there is no possibility of by-products.





THE INDIVIDUAL LIVING FORCE



Srila Prabhupada. The gardeners supply water to the green trees, so why don't they supply water to this dead tree and make it green?


Dr. Singh. From experience they know that it will not grow.


Srila Prabhupada. Then what is the element that is lacking? Scientists say that chemicals are the cause of life, but all the chemicals that were present when the tree was alive are still there. And these chemicals are still supporting the lives of many living entities such as microbes and insects. So they cannot say that life energy is lacking in the body of the tree. The life energy is there.


Dr. Singh. But what about the life energy of the tree itself?


Srila Prabhupada. Yes, that is the difference. The living force is individual, and the particular individual living entity that was the tree has left. This must be the case, since all the chemicals necessary to support life are still there, yet the tree is dead. Here is another example. Suppose I am living in an apartment, and then I leave it. I am gone, but many other living entities remain there--ants, spiders and so forth. So it is not true that simply because I have left the apartment, it can no longer accommodate life. Other living entities are still living there. It is simply that I--an individual living being--have left. The chemicals in the tree are like the apartment: they are simply the environment for the individual force--the soul--to act through. And the soul is an individual. I am an individual, and therefore I may leave the apartment. Similarly, the microbes are also individuals; they have individual consciousness. If they are moving in one direction but are somehow blocked, they think, "Let me go the other way." They have personality.


Karandhara. But in a dead body there is no personality.


Srila Prabhupada. This indicates that the individual soul has left that body. The soul has left, and therefore the tree does not grow.





MINIMUM WORDS MAXIMUM SOLUTION



Srila Prabhupada. The individual soul is never lost. He does not die, nor is he born. He simply changes from one body to another, just as one changes garments. This is perfect science.


Dr. Singh. But why don't scientists accept this?


Srila Prabhupada. They are not nice men. They are rascals. They are not even gentlemen. Under appropriate circumstances, gentlemen will have some shyness or some shame. But these men are shameless. They cannot properly answer our challenges, yet they shamelessly claim that they are scientists and that they will create life. They are not even gentlemen. At least I regard them like that. A gentleman will be ashamed to speak nonsense


Dr. Singh. They do not think before they speak.


Srila Prabhupada. That means that they are not human beings. A human being thinks twice before saying anything. Krsna makes the presence of life within the body so easy to understand. He says:



dehino 'smin yatha dehe
kaumaram yauvanam jara
tatha dehantara-praptir
dhiras tatra na muhyati



["As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change." (Bg. 2.13)] In these two lines, Krsna solves the whole biological problem. That is knowledge. Minimum words, maximum solution. Volumes of books expounding nonsense have no meaning. Materialistic scientists are like croaking frogs: ka-ka-ka, ka-ka-ka. [Srila Prabhupada imitates the sound of a croaking frog, and the others laugh.] The frogs are thinking, "Oh, we are talking very nicely," but the result is that the snake finds them and says, "Oh, here is a nice frog!" [Srila Prabhupada imitates the sound of a snake eating a frog.] Bup! Finished. When death comes, everything is finished. The materialistic scientists are croaking--ka-ka-ka--but when death comes, their scientific industry is finished, and they become dogs, cats or something like that.





* THE HARE KRISHNA SAINT TORTURED AND POISONED TO DEATH BY HIS JUDAS DISCIPLES


http://members.lycos.co.uk/prabhupa...sp_poisoned.htm







* MATERIALISTIC SCIENTISTS EXPOSED BY THE HARE KRISHNA SAINT



http://members.lycos.co.uk/spexpose/








* WHAT IS KRISHNA CONCIOUSNESS?



http://members.lycos.co.uk/prabhupa..._kc/what_kc.htm







* PRABHUPADA Your ever well wisher



http://members.lycos.co.uk/prabhupada1/

eh, you wouldn't happen to have the cliff notes version. Or just summarise in a few sentences....

Oh goody, another religious debate.

I'm going to try to avoid a point by point rebuttal of everything written there (I'm sure that someone will take you up on that challenge though - Mr Opus, where are you?) and say this:

That entire conversation portrays a stance consisting of little more than ancient, heavily recycled ID arguments and narrow-minded, psuedo-religious obfuscation. Look at this point for starters:

quote:

Srila Prabhupada. And I say to them, "If life originated from chemicals, and if your science is so advanced, then why can't you create life bio chemically in your laboratories?" [...] Srila Prabhupada. What is this nonsense? If they cannot prove that life arises from matter in the present, how do they know life arose this way in the past?

The intimation here appears to be that if something can not be absolutely demonstrated or replicated in a laboratory environment (irrespective of the quality and quantity of empirical evidence supporting the theory) then the theory is likely to be false. Firstly, we should not expect to be able to replicate the non-theistic origin of life in the laboratory environment as:

a) We cannot be absolutely certain of the conditions under which life originated (due to the time-span involved) which makes the replication of this environment in a laboratory environment very difficult.
b) It took a long time for life to develop under such conditions, so we shouldn't expect to be able to produce life quickly in a laboratory simulating pre-historic Earth. The progression of sugar molecule, to a primordial enzyme, to an amino acid, to something we might call "life" is a slow one - one that probably took hundereds of millions of years at least - so why does this guy demand that the process be replicated instantly, in a smaller, far less ideal envirnoment, before his very eyes?

All of this aside, why doesn't he apply the same degree of skepticism or the same burden's of proof to his own beliefs? Take this for instance:

quote:

We can easily prove that life begins from life. And the original life is Krsna. That also can be proven.

Krsna is the origin of life then is he? And this can be proven (because he certainly didn't supply any proof after making the assertion)? Has he been able to replicate this deity in a laboratory? If not, then - by his own criteria - the entire theory is worthless, is it not?

Similarly:

quote:

Srila Prabhupada. The individual soul is never lost. He does not die, nor is he born. He simply changes from one body to another, just as one changes garments. This is perfect science.

The theory that disembodied souls are jumping from body to body constitutes perfect sceince does it? Discounting the logical absurdity of reincarnation (I'd be happy to present these criticisms if you so wish), there is literally no empirical evidence for this transcorporeal swap and go. Without empirical evidence, by tautological necessity, this isn't science.

Once again, I can only offer the challenge he has offered scientists: can you reproduce this is a laboratory? If not, then how can he accept this theory and dismiss the scientific theories concerning biogenesis?

quote:

Srila Prabhupada. Then what is the element that is lacking? Scientists say that chemicals are the cause of life, but all the chemicals that were present when the tree was alive are still there. And these chemicals are still supporting the lives of many living entities such as microbes and insects. So they cannot say that life energy is lacking in the body of the tree. The life energy is there.

Death doesn't have anything to do with chemicals, it has to do with the cessation of one (or more) vital biological processes. If you slit your wrists, for instance, you aren't dying because your soul - rather coincidentally, I might add - decided to take flight at that exact instant, or because your chemical make-up has changed in some way - you're dying because you're losing blood, which in turn is needed to fuel most parts of your body. At some point you will lose consciousness, then - not long after - you will be clinically dead. Now here, Mr. Prabhupada is quite correct: the chemical structure of the deceased has not changed and if the "missing chemicals" (namely the blood) were to be restored and the vital processes restarted by trained medics (via CPR, those electric shock machines etc.) then you may well be revived, assuming these necessary steps were undertaken soon after "death". But once again, it's a question of process, not of chemistry.

If these processes (heart-beat, adequate blood-flow, brain activity etc.) had not been restored in time, then death would have been permanent. Without the blood there to transfer oxygen and vital nutrients to all parts of the body, cells begin to die. Once this begins to happen, the highly delicate biological balance necessary for life dissipates and revival (until we find some way to restore life to each individual cell simultaneously) is quite impossible. The point is, though, here - as with the "dead tree" alluded to in the interview - we die not because our chemical make-up has changed, but rather because vital processes (for whatever reason) have ceased. We cannot revive the dead tree - regardless of its chemical integrity - for the simple reason that, with the vital processes stopped, irreversible entropy has set in. It is no more. It has ceased to be. This is an ex-tree.

More to add later if someone doesn't beat me to it.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Moti

Seriously man, I usually don't like to pass up the chance to tear another ID argument to pieces, but if you can't even present it in a form that's readable then why should I bother. I'll just go ahead and say it's a load of crap.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

You've posted a lot here about Prabhupada and the Hare Krishnas. Admittedly, I don't know very much about this religion, nor do I know much about this high Saint.

But the part that does interest me, however, is his "interview" in regards to evolution. He covered a number of topics, and I'm wondering why you posted this information? Are you a Hare Krishna yourself? Furthermore, do you agree with Prabhupada's criticism of evolution?

Lastly, do you know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis? Because apparently, in Prabhupada's divine wisdom, he seemingly does not.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Oh goody, another religious debate. I'm going to try to avoid a point by point rebuttal of everything written there (I'm sure that someone will take you up on that challenge though - Mr Opus, where are you?) and say this:

Right behind ya, sir.


Wait, that sounded kinda funny. Oh nevermind.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

The main points of the interview for those who don't want to read through the entire post:

• If life began naturally, why can't this process be replicated in a laboratory?
  
• It is irrational to suggest that life may be produced via such means in the future as it provides no practical support for the present day theory.
  
• Life cannot emerge from non-living matter. Life can only emerge from life and Krsna is the original life force.
  
• Scientists create "babies in test tubes" only to win the Nobel Prize.
  
• Scientists are "rascals" and create misfortune.
  
• The "life-force" is all that separates living matter from non-living matter.
  
• All life has a "soul" and an semi-autonomous, directed "consciousness".
  
• Death is the point at which the soul leaves the body.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You've posted a lot here about Prabhupada and the Hare Krishnas. Admittedly, I don't know very much about this religion, nor do I know much about this high Saint. But the part that does interest me, however, is his "interview" in regards to evolution. He covered a number of topics, and I'm wondering why you posted this information? Are you a Hare Krishna yourself? Furthermore, do you agree with Prabhupada's criticism of evolution? Lastly, do you know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis? Because apparently, in Prabhupada's divine wisdom, he seemingly does not.

Are you aware of the process of evolution described in the Vedas?

Srila Prabhupada: We accept evolution, but not that the forms of the species are changing. The bodies are all already there, but the soul is evolving by changing bodies and by transmigrating from one body to another. I have evolved from my childhood body to my adult body, and now my childhood body is extinct. But there are many other children. Similarly, all the species are now existing simultaneously, and they were all there in the past.
For example, if you are traveling in a train, you find first class, second class, third class; they are all existing. If you pay a higher fare and enter the first-class carriage, you cannot say, "Now the first class is created." It was always existing. So the defect of the evolutionists is that they have no information of the soul. The soul is evolving, transmigrating, from one compartment to another compartment, simply changing place. The Padma Purana says that there are 8,400,000 species of life, and the soul evolves through them. This evolutionary process we accept: the soul evolves from aquatics to plants, to insects, to birds, to animals, and then to the human forms. But all these forms are already there. They do not change. One does not become extinct and another survive. All of them are existing simultaneously.
Devotee: But Darwin says there are many species, like dinosaurs, that are seen to be extinct.
Srila Prabhupada: What has he seen? He is not so powerful that he can see everywhere or everything. His power to see is limited, and by that limited power he cannot conclude that one species is extinct. That is not possible. No scientist will accept that. After all, all the senses by which you gather knowledge are limited, so how can you say this is finished or that is extinct? You cannot see. You cannot search out.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The main points of the interview for those who don't want to read through the entire post: If life began naturally, why can't this process be replicated in a laboratory? It is irrational to suggest that life may be produced via such means in the future as it provides no practical support for the present day theory. Life cannot emerge from non-living matter. Life can only emerge from life and Krsna is the original life force. Scientists create "babies in test tubes" only to win the Nobel Prize. Scientists are "rascals" and create misfortune. The "life-force" is all that separates living matter from non-living matter. All life has a "soul" and an semi-autonomous, directed "consciousness". Death is the point at which the soul leaves the body. Have at it.

Now why'd ya have to go and do his homework for him? Damnit, half the fun is having these folks try to interpret their misguided posts in the first place!!!

You no fun. Me no likey.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The point is, though, here - as with the "dead tree" alluded to in the interview - we die not because our chemical make-up has changed, but rather because vital processes (for whatever reason) have ceased. We cannot revive the dead tree - regardless of its chemical integrity - for the simple reason that, with the vital processes stopped, irreversible entropy has set in. It is no more. It has ceased to be. This is an ex-tree. More to add later if someone doesn't beat me to it.

So what is the process that has stopped that makes the body "dead". That you do not know

quote:

Originally posted by Moti Are you aware of the process of evolution described in the Vedas? Srila Prabhupada: We accept evolution, but not that the forms of the species are changing. The bodies are all already there, but the soul is evolving by changing bodies and by transmigrating from one body to another. I have evolved from my childhood body to my adult body, and now my childhood body is extinct. But there are many other children. Similarly, all the species are now existing simultaneously, and they were all there in the past. For example, if you are traveling in a train, you find first class, second class, third class; they are all existing. If you pay a higher fare and enter the first-class carriage, you cannot say, "Now the first class is created." It was always existing. So the defect of the evolutionists is that they have no information of the soul. The soul is evolving, transmigrating, from one compartment to another compartment, simply changing place. The Padma Purana says that there are 8,400,000 species of life, and the soul evolves through them. This evolutionary process we accept: the soul evolves from aquatics to plants, to insects, to birds, to animals, and then to the human forms. But all these forms are already there. They do not change. One does not become extinct and another survive. All of them are existing simultaneously. Devotee: But Darwin says there are many species, like dinosaurs, that are seen to be extinct. Srila Prabhupada: What has he seen? He is not so powerful that he can see everywhere or everything. His power to see is limited, and by that limited power he cannot conclude that one species is extinct. That is not possible. No scientist will accept that. After all, all the senses by which you gather knowledge are limited, so how can you say this is finished or that is extinct? You cannot see. You cannot search out.

Okay, enough already. This is NOT an argument against evolution - it's just some weird "interpretation" of evolution. If you want to believe it, that's fine, but you're presenting no hard evidence or logical reasoning here whatsoever.

Edit: actually I'm reading through these posts in more detail now and they really don't seem to have any logical flow or argument at all. The "interviewer" is obviously either a member of the same denomination or just woefully ignorant to ask the "questions" he asks.

The whole thing reminds me of a political protest - whenever the "protestee" tries to say something in defense, the protester just contradicts and babbles on and on but seems to have no real knowledge of the subject matter. It's just load after load of unfounded speculation and personal opinion.

Sorry to be so harsh, but I just don't see why I should try to argue logically against a premise - a "proof" - that has no rationale or scientific merit whatsoever. There's nothing to argue with - it's nothing more than a lot of personal opinion and a misguided "talk to the hand" approach to modern science.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Last edited by DigiNut on Mar-29-2004 at 18:03