Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Topic: Evolution and Monotheism Posted: 19-Feb-2006 at 05:02 |
Why are you disputing evolution but?
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
Who would have believed humanity came from one women or man before this
discovery? The answer is no one! it is interesting since there was a
disregarded theory in an ancient book known as the BIBLE that said all
humans were decended from one pair and thus they named them Y
chromosome "Adam" and Mitochrondia "Eve"! What could they do with this
competing theory but give it grudging recognition? Obviously SCIENTISTS
recognise which is the more credible account of CREATION! As you must
know the theory advanced before this discovery was that humans evolved
from different groups and different parts of the world. Who would
dare endorse that theory today? |
Could you at least re-write this paragraph please? You must've posted the exact paragraph in 30 of your 32 posts.
|
|
Cuauhtemoc
Pretorian
Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
|
Posted: 19-Feb-2006 at 03:24 |
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
Micro and Macro evolution are terms used by creationists to fool people into rejecting evolution. In actuality, macroevolution is nearly universally accepted.
|
It is easy to see a distinction between both terms. In fact, I have a college textbook which uses both terms, Biology by Neil A. Campbell which is used in a non religious university. If a college textbook makes the distinction between Macro and Micro, why not deal with the reality of the differences, instead of simply dismiss a legitimate point? I clearly showed and anyone can see, there is a difference between the two terms. Thus the terms are clear and distinctive and I have a college textbook to support my position and the point made must stand if it can't be answered. Point2: The fossil record does not support Macro evolution as the quotation submitted by Osmanli indicats. A quotation that even an Darwinian evolutionist admits. OSMANLI wrote:
Below is a statement by an evolutionist:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.
Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56. | | I assume your agreeing with this statement made by a Darwinian evolutionist when he honestly admits that the fossil record does not conform to Darwin's theory, as as you did not mention in your response.
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
There are no problems with the DNA data to support "macroevolution." Its just fundamental groups who are promoting it. |
The DNA studies startled the scientific world, as the popular theory prior to the studies showing we come from one couple as in Genesis 3:20, was that humanity come from different populations and from different parts of the world. The evidence from DNA as we can see shows the theory derived and interpreted from fossil record incorectly, which a Darwinian evolutionist admits does not support macro evolution, as per the quote of Osmanli in his earlier post.
Edited by Cuauhtemoc
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Posted: 19-Feb-2006 at 02:44 |
Micro and Macro evolution are terms used by creationists to fool people
into rejecting evolution. In actuality, macroevolution is nearly
universally accepted by those who study evolution.
There are no problems with the DNA data to support "macroevolution." Its just fundamental groups who are promoting it.
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|
Cuauhtemoc
Pretorian
Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
|
Posted: 18-Feb-2006 at 22:34 |
There seems to be an assumption that Macro-evolution is a fact. POINT 1: Micro-evolution is the only type of evolution that has been observed. Micro-evolution are the changes within kinds that we observe in domesticated animals. As hard as it may be to believe, a Great Dane and a Chihuahua can be mated, however size is a problem ! Micro-evolution is why we have different types of dogs, horses, cows, pigeons, guppies, ect. Micro-evolution is also seen in nature, finches, iguanas, tortioses all found on the Galapagos islands. MICRO EVOLUTION is thus EMPIRICAL as it has been tested and observed. Macro evolution is NOT EMPIRICAL.
Originally posted by OSMANLI
Below is a statement by an evolutionist:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.
Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56. |
POINT 2:The fossil record has always been a problem for MACRO EVOLUTION, as the quote of the above Macro evolutionist shows regarding Darwin's theory. The fossil record as Osmanli correctly points out has ALWAYS been a problem for Macro-evolution, as missing links of living animals have never been found. In fact some "missing links" have been found, the coelacanth, however, this missing link was found ALIVE off of Africa. So much for the speculation in Macro evolution.
Originally posted by Maju
As I say, with genetics you can skip all that. |
POINT 3: DNA has and will continue to make problems for MACRO EVOLUTION too. Maju must be aware of the latest DNA studies which confirm the Bible, the WORD of GOD. However it is NOT surprising that a MACRO evolutionist, like Maju wants to skip the FOSSIL evidence that contradicts Darwin's theory of Macro-evolution. FACT 1: The Bible, thousands of years old, and it is, said all humans came from one couple! GENESIS 3:20 Thus the Bible, a document written by God stated a truth! All humans related to one original couple! FACT 2: DNA studies agree with the BIBLE and proves what it has always said! All humans related to original couple Adam and Eve. Who would have believed humanity came from one women or man before this discovery? The answer is no one! it is interesting since there was a disregarded theory in an ancient book known as the BIBLE that said all humans were decended from one pair and thus they named them Y chromosome "Adam" and Mitochrondia "Eve"! What could they do with this competing theory but give it grudging recognition? Obviously SCIENTISTS recognise which is the more credible account of CREATION! As you must know the theory advanced before this discovery was that humans evolved from different groups and different parts of the world. Who would dare endorse that theory today?
Edited by Cuauhtemoc
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Posted: 04-Feb-2006 at 00:10 |
Originally posted by TeldeIndus
Originally posted by Maju
Also, we know two things now: a/ evolution islargely puntuated: it doesn't happene gradually but by sudden jumps
|
Gradual speciation cannot account for historical events.
Rectangular speciation doesnt make any sense to me - you can prove
anything theoretically.
b/ most fossils just can't be found. It's a miracle that we can see some of them
|
I dont see why. It's too coincidental that you dont find any intermediate species fossils, only distinct ones. |
You do find many intermediate fossils, just not enough to satisfy the always challenging fundmentalist demand: "more, more".
Let's see that I am proving that Yellow and Red are related. You say:
"that's theory" I wnat an intermediate fossil. So I "discover" Orange.
But you say then, so what? Where is the intermediate fossil between
Orange and Yellow, and I discover Yelowish Orange... and so on.
Obviously posing a question is a lot easier than finding "the intermediate fossil".
Anyhow lots and lots of intermediate fossils have been found not just
for human species but for many others. We know a lot about evolution
now but you can remain beliveing whatever you prefer because there's
not enough emphasis in educating people.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Miller
Baron
Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 487
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 21:35 |
If someone believes in evolution as the system that sustains life on earth that does not means that he/she necessarily believed that no has put that system in place. The concepts of creator and evolution don't have a contradiction. The problem comes up when Christianity has specifics on how the world was created which may not support evolution
|
|
TeldeIndus
Earl
Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 19:20 |
Originally posted by Maju
Also, we know two things now: a/ evolution islargely puntuated: it doesn't happene gradually but by sudden jumps
|
Gradual speciation cannot account for historical events. Rectangular speciation doesnt make any sense to me - you can prove anything theoretically.
b/ most fossils just can't be found. It's a miracle that we can see some of them
|
I dont see why. It's too coincidental that you dont find any intermediate species fossils, only distinct ones.
Edited by TeldeIndus
|
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 18:57 |
Originally posted by Maju
Originally posted by R_AK47
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
What I don't understand, is
what the problem with evolution is. How does evolution have any affect
on anyones religous beliefs regardless of whether they are muslim,
christian, hindu etc. The way I understand it, is that because it exists, God must have meant it to exist.
|
Omar, for once I must agree with you. I have often wondered this
same thing. I've always thought that, if evolution does exist, then it
is a process that God uses for his purposes. I don't know why it has
become a science versus religion battle. Proving the existance of
evolution (I doubt the scientists have come even close to figuring it
out, if exists at all) does not mean that God does not exist. It
simply means that we now know a method he has used to create the life
forms we see today. Of course, I am speaking from a christian
standpoint.
|
It's become religion vs. science because some fundamentalists like
reality to adapt to their dreams... and, well... it seldom happens.
It's religious fanatics who attack science in the name of exactitude of
the Bible and things like that, it's religious fanatics who want
philosophy and tehology to be teached in science classes.
|
Well said R_AK47. What I would like to know, is why religous fantics see the need to dispute over the theory of evolution.
Originally posted by Osmanli
Evolution theory is just that, a THEORY.
|
Osmanli, you sound like the perfect person to answer my question. I
take it from that quote that you do not believe in the theory of
evolution. I would like to know from what religous stand point do you
have any reason to doubt the theory. Agreed it is only a theory but so it the Theory of Gravity. Religously how can you justify arguing with science?
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 14:04 |
Originally posted by OSMANLI
Evolution theory is just that, a THEORY. |
That's it: it is a scientific theory and not just the babbling of a monk in his hallucination.
Charles Darwin was a rasist. He claimed that the white race
is higher then all othersand that all other races are the inbetween of
Human's and Ape's. It led to evil ideologies such as Nazism and Fasism.
|
Learn before you talk.
So called "Social-Darwinism" and racism pre-date Darwin. You're mixing apples with elephants.
The missing link has yet to be found. |
Hundreds of "mising links" have been found.
Genetics allows us to prescind largely of fossils anyhow.
Below is a statement by an evolutionist:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil
record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's
geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of
Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear
and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist
argument that each species was created by God.
Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56. |
As I say, with genetics you can skip all that.
Also, we know two things now:
a/ evolution islargely puntuated: it doesn't happene gradually but by sudden jumps
b/ most fossils just can't be found. It's a miracle that we can see some of them
The following is by a creationist:
Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms
When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to
be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest
stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been
found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550
million years.
The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian
period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no
pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to
snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and
other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made
up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that
this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in
geological literature.
Most of the creatures in this layer have complex
systems have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes,
gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern
specimens. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of
trilobites is a wonder of design. David Raup, a professor of geology in
Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the trilobites 450
million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well
trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today".28
These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without
having any link or any transitional form between them and the
unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to
them.
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php |
So what?
It wasn't that way but, if it was that way, what? It is still totally different than how it's written in Genesis.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 13:53 |
Originally posted by OSMANLI
Evolution theory is just that, a THEORY.
Charles Darwin was a rasist. He claimed that the white race is higher then all others
|
Evidence?
|
|
OSMANLI
Colonel
Joined: 24-Nov-2004
Location: North Cyprus
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 740
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 13:29 |
Evolution theory is just that, a THEORY.
Charles Darwin was a rasist. He claimed that the white race is higher then all othersand that all other races are the inbetween of Human's and Ape's. It led to evil ideologies such as Nazism and Fasism.
The missing link has yet to be found.
Below is a statement by an evolutionist:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.
Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56.
The following is by a creationist:
Life Emerged on Earth Suddenly and in Complex Forms
When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously. The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.
The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors. The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.
Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens. For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of design. David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today".28
These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php
|
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 13:01 |
It's become religion vs. science because some fundamentalists like
reality to adapt to their dreams... and, well... it seldom happens.
It's religious fanatics who attack science in the name of exactitude of
the Bible and things like that, it's religious fanatics who want
philosophy and tehology to be teached in science classes.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
R_AK47
Baron
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 12:52 |
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
What I don't understand, is what the problem with evolution is. How does evolution have any affect on anyones religous beliefs regardless of whether they are muslim, christian, hindu etc. The way I understand it, is that because it exists, God must have meant it to exist.
|
Omar, for once I must agree with you. I have often wondered this same thing. I've always thought that, if evolution does exist, then it is a process that God uses for his purposes. I don't know why it has become a science versus religion battle. Proving the existance of evolution (I doubt the scientists have come even close to figuring it out, if exists at all) does not mean that God does not exist. It simply means that we now know a method he has used to create the life forms we see today. Of course, I am speaking from a christian standpoint.
Edited by R_AK47
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 01:20 |
Do you mean Iblis as in Satan or another Iblis?
If you mean in the Qu'ran the word has probably been translated to Satan or similar.
I've always considered the description of the embryo fairly free of interpretation.
|
|
Cezar
Chieftain
Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
|
Posted: 31-Jan-2006 at 06:11 |
Thanks for the links Omar. I must admit that I like Quran style rather than the Bible's. But that doesn't make it different. It's better written IMO and that's about all. Sorry I'm not getting any faith from it. To take a few words from whatever holy book and state that they are congruent with some scientific theory is pure interpretation. I could quote both the Quran and the Bible and consider the words as being at least hilarious. Keep your faith as long as you don't feel like hurting people because of it.
*BTW what happened to Iblis?
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Posted: 31-Jan-2006 at 04:58 |
Unfortunately I have not yet amassed enough books in one place to warp
the fabric for space-time so I do not have an entry into L-space.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Posted: 31-Jan-2006 at 04:17 |
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by Maju
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
Of course this means if an Ape is a Librarian and a senior faculty member in a certain university, he would count as a man.
|
This raises a most interesting question. There are no ape librarians obviously
|
Are you casting slurs on my avatar?
And sorry, Omar, while I personally appreciate your remark, if you go around calling the Librarian a man (as opposed to an ex-man) you are likely to have trouble reconnecting your head to your neck
|
I love your avatar. Although I can't recall an incident where anyone called the Librarian a man, most of the head reconnection incidents involve monkeys.
|
Of course that is more common. I'm just very careful about whom I meet when I'm wandering around the little piece of L-space that my cellar has turned into.
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 21:37 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by Maju
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
Of course this means if an Ape is a Librarian and a senior faculty member in a certain university, he would count as a man.
|
This raises a most interesting question. There are no ape librarians obviously
|
Are you casting slurs on my avatar?
And sorry, Omar, while I personally appreciate your remark, if you
go around calling the Librarian a man (as opposed to an ex-man) you are
likely to have trouble reconnecting your head to your neck |
I love your avatar. Although I can't recall an incident where anyone
called the Librarian a man, most of the head reconnection incidents
involve monkeys.
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 21:15 |
Originally posted by Cezar
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
In Islam I can't see any
problem, the Qu'ran has plenty of scientific facts in it and everyone
has turned out to be correct. I consider Evolution to be one of these,
although Maziar in the idoletry thread seems to disagree. |
Where can I find a copy of the Qu'ran? I would like to see for
myself how "scientific" it is. Is there a site where I could read the
Qu'ran?
I really doubt that it has plenty of "scientific facts". I
think it's as full as the Bible (OT, NT, whatever). Why are the islamic
fundamentalists not posting? Their christian counterparts seem to be
doing it. |
This looks like a good site, it has three english translations for reference
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
This is a site which links to many Islam and science type sites, I don't know how many are good or not.
http://www.ummah.net/directory/menu/science.html
This one looks Ok, its only on embryology though:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6377/Embryonic.html
ADDITION: This site was posted in another thread:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sci_quran.htm
Edited by Omar al Hashim
|
|
Maziar
Chieftain
Arteshbod
Joined: 06-Nov-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1155
|
Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 15:14 |
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
So tell us your arguement then, why did you change your faith? |
Oh, very difficult question and indeed difficult to answer. It hadn't happened in a one night, i has taken many years. But something is sure, i always had doubt, even on my childhood. I always had to hide my doubt, but now in Germany there is no reason to hide.
|
|