Raisins_72 Posted May 28 Author Report Posted May 28 21 minutes ago, rational said: poni nuvve post cheyyi search chesi what is 1:50:4 verse according the one fully preserved recension of rigveda. aa sloka ee sloka match avthundi emo choodam. You didn’t understand my point - that calculation was based on Sayana’s commentary who was a scholar in 14th century. Since you are saying it’s not found in the current version , we don’t know if Sayana has a different version at his time ! There are tons of information we’ve lost over the period which is an undeniable fact. Quote
Raisins_72 Posted May 28 Author Report Posted May 28 19 minutes ago, rational said: The formulas for calculating distance doesnt change based on present or ancient times. Its the misrepresentation of the units that will make the calculation wrong. So you mean to say it’s exactly the same modern science formulas that were used in the ancient times ? Quote
11_MohanReddy Posted May 28 Report Posted May 28 20 minutes ago, Raisins_72 said: So you mean to say it’s exactly the same modern science formulas that were used in the ancient times ? This is what we mean. 7 hours ago, 11_MohanReddy said: Yes, we will believe that Adam was the first person on Earth but refuse to believe that dasavatharam refers to evolution like that of Darwin's theory of evolution because we want to question the logical fallacy in varaha avataram lifting the Earth 1 Quote
rational Posted May 28 Report Posted May 28 14 minutes ago, Raisins_72 said: So you mean to say it’s exactly the same modern science formulas that were used in the ancient times ? Clearly not because modern science doesnt multiply distance with time to get distance. the fundamental formula for distance is same it is speed multiplied by time. the end result unit doesnt have time, if you apply this formula for any calculations it will give you the same accurate answer in meter,,km, etc not in meters seconds, years hours etc . The interpretation done by gollapudi is wrong because he is multiplying time with distance. You cant apply that formula to any practical calculations. if his version of formula is right it should definetly work in present scenario which it doesnt. Quote
rational Posted May 28 Report Posted May 28 28 minutes ago, 11_MohanReddy said: This is what we mean. Did i say i believe in stupid adam and eve story. this is called labeling. Go and see my previous posts on chirstianity i dont even believe jesus existed Quote
rational Posted May 28 Report Posted May 28 53 minutes ago, Raisins_72 said: You didn’t understand my point - that calculation was based on Sayana’s commentary who was a scholar in 14th century. Since you are saying it’s not found in the current version , we don’t know if Sayana has a different version at his time ! There are tons of information we’ve lost over the period which is an undeniable fact. Neither we dont know if it is the same version i posted. who will be the judge to whether we lost it or not. who calculated based on sayanas commentary?? Quote
11_MohanReddy Posted May 28 Report Posted May 28 15 minutes ago, rational said: Did i say i believe in stupid adam and eve story. this is called labeling. Go and see my previous posts on chirstianity i dont even believe jesus existed I didn't say what you believe in or not. I am merely pointing out the logical fallacy that you are arguing about. Quote
Raisins_72 Posted May 28 Author Report Posted May 28 17 minutes ago, rational said: Neither we dont know if it is the same version i posted. who will be the judge to whether we lost it or not. who calculated based on sayanas commentary?? Who will be the judge to say everything that modern science is 100% accurate ? who will be the judge in Galileo’s view on earth ? Lost it - there are 100’s of proofs that we’ve lost so much over the time anna, if you believe nothing is lost then who will be the judge to prove that’s correct ? Until Dwaraka found recently, ppl said it’s a mythological story and nothing is real - they’ve found several things under the sea an archaeologically dated to somewhere 5000yrs ago ! the judge: answer is simply “future” ! Quote
Raisins_72 Posted May 28 Author Report Posted May 28 18 minutes ago, rational said: Neither we dont know if it is the same version i posted. Could be - would you or I be able to prove it either of our story 😃😃 ? No, right ? I am just saying it could be a likely possibility ! Quote
rational Posted May 28 Report Posted May 28 27 minutes ago, 11_MohanReddy said: I didn't say what you believe in or not. I am merely pointing out the logical fallacy that you are arguing about. there is no logical fallacy here i will be arguing in the same way if it is posted about bible. Quote
11_MohanReddy Posted May 28 Report Posted May 28 7 minutes ago, rational said: there is no logical fallacy here i will be arguing in the same way if it is posted about bible. The logical fallacy is pointing out lifting the Earth as a negation to believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Quote
rational Posted May 28 Report Posted May 28 21 minutes ago, Raisins_72 said: Who will be the judge to say everything that modern science is 100% accurate ? who will be the judge in Galileo’s view on earth ? Lost it - there are 100’s of proofs that we’ve lost so much over the time anna, if you believe nothing is lost then who will be the judge to prove that’s correct ? Until Dwaraka found recently, ppl said it’s a mythological story and nothing is real - they’ve found several things under the sea an archaeologically dated to somewhere 5000yrs ago ! the judge: answer is simply “future” ! Science is more about thriving for accuracy, but if it finds illogical explanations it corrects itself and move forward. it doesnt stuck with old formulas if something doesnt add up logically it will discard just like time multiplied by distance equals to distance. explanations should survive rigorous measurements, experiments, reproducibility. if certain formula is proposed it should survive the reproducibility regarding any scenario if doesnt those fomulas will be discarded. They are many theories formulas that were discarded. Quote
rational Posted May 28 Report Posted May 28 18 minutes ago, 11_MohanReddy said: The logical fallacy is pointing out lifting the Earth as a negation to believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. did i point out?? Quote
11_MohanReddy Posted May 28 Report Posted May 28 Just now, rational said: did i point out?? It is an analogy of what you pointed out in TS's post. Quote
rational Posted May 28 Report Posted May 28 Just now, 11_MohanReddy said: It is an analogy of what you pointed out in TS's post. where?? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.