Topic: Evolution and Monotheism Posted: 21-Feb-2006 at 02:43
The quotes you've all cited are all from the 1970s and 1980s. As I've mentioned earlier, Macro evolution theory was not consistentenly developed until recent times.
It is unquestionable that evolutionary theory has changed dramatically since then.
Since this post has evolved to the same eiscussion as that in the
"Genesis" thread. I'm closing this one to prevent redundency. Please
post in that thread.
Believe what you wish... but I suggest you to study the matter in depth and give authority to scientists (serious people) not to tele-preachers (Bible-sellers who would sell their own mother if that would give them money or power).
No Maju as everyone sees, I have addressed every question that was asked of me by any previous post. I have not run or had to make prejudicial statements as you did above. It seems you cannot support your position and so instead of doing that, you seek to use predudicial statements not true, for I don't agree or listen to tele evangelist preachers. However I am glad you made this post for I will give you a quote of a serious scientist who is disillusioned with the darwinian theory of macro evolution and who you define as a serious person and who does not agree with you. Quote:
Sren Lvtrup - evolutionist.
Sren Lvtrup does not adhere to the commonly promulgated Darwinian theory of evolution. He maintains that the logical consequence of any form of Darwinism "requires us to surrender our common sense". He claims that Darwinism is like the emperor's new clothes in the Hans Christian
Anderson tale - "nakedly false". New Scientist, October 15, 1988 p:66
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of
science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?" S. Lovtrup in
"Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth", Croom Helm: London, 1987 p:422; Quoted in New Scientist, October 15, 1988 p:66
It seems to me, due to this quotation, your belief in darwinian macro evolution is nothing more then blind faith, the very thing you accuse religioius people of doing. Instead of simply saying false prejucial statements, for I have done personal study, why not dear friend, Maju, consider the facts I have presented to you in our previous posts.
Believe what you wish... but I suggest you to study the matter in depth and give authority to scientists (serious people) not to tele-preachers (Bible-sellers who would sell their own mother if that would give them money or power).
^^^Great, now you just found out god isn't perfect and the universe is going to implode...
Hi SearchAndDestroy, God is perfect and as He wrote in the Bible, in Genesis 3:20, which is thousands of years old, all humanity is related to one original couple. As we know that original couple is Adam and Eve. Science through DNA studies, SearchAndDestroy, now confirms what the Word of God has always said. Science now agrees as it traces humanities ancestry to one original couple, Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve. These are facts that can't be disputed as anyone can check out the verse I cited in the Bible and do a search for the studies on DNA that confirm it. The previous theory, before this discovery as a result of DNA research, was that humanity arose from different groups in different parts of the world. This theory was advanced because of fossil discoveries and the interpretation of skulls and cranial size. However the fossil record does not support darwinian macro evolution. Here is a quote, Quote:
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.
If 'intelligent' design is so intelligent, then why do people have an appendix? It serves no function but can cause a lot of trouble. Evolution can explain the appendix as a redudant leftover of an organ that used to be useful in earlier stages of evoltion, but how can the existance such a 'stupid' organ be explained with intelligent design?
Hi hermano Mixcoatl, you may not be aware of the latest scientific advances in understanding functions of the so called "vestigial organs". It is unfortuanate universities continue to teach this in science classes, for I am sure they must be aware of the current discoveries. When the vestigial argument was originally made over 100 years ago, the uses of many organs were not understood. As you know many medical advances have occured since then and with those advances have come the understanding of the use of the supposed vestigial organs.This misused point, "vestigial organs" should be dropped as this is not a legitimate or factual point. Could darwinian macro evolutionists have misrepresented the facts to us? The understandings about these organs are a result of medical science and not creationistst ideaology as so many groundlessly say and the quote will clearly show that. Here are some quote,
The appendix has long been categorized as a useless vestigial organ, but this is totally inaccurate.
Since the 1960s it has been scientifically known that it has an important lymphatic and antibody
production function, as part of the bodys immune system. See Dr Jerry Bergman and Dr George Howes review of the
scientific literature in their book Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional, CRS Monograph Series No. 4, 1993
Still,Creationists have absolutely NO evidence or proof that a God created anything,except writings from books that were written years after their messenger or prophet's time.Evidence leans toward Evolution more than it does Creation,but evidence,however,is not proof.
Tianshu says creationists have No evidence, however, offers no evidence at all for what he is advancing. Apparently Tianshu is not aware of the honest assessments of Darwinian evolutionists regarding Macro evolution. These Darwinian evolutionist are disillusioned with the theory of Macro evolution. Here is a quotation from a renown evolutionist.
Pierre-Paul Grass
- distinguished evolutionist, Chair of Evolution (The Sorbonne, Paris),
and past-President (French Acadamie des Sciences).
Indeed, the best studies on evolution have been carried out
by biologists who are not blinded by doctrines and who observe facts coldly without considering
whether they agree or disagree with their theories. Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of
evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the
interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The
deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism,
purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."
Written by Pierre-Paul Grass in his book "Evolution of Living Organisms", Academic Press: New York, 1977 p:8..
As we can see men who know more about macro evolution then Tianshu and I, are disillusioned with the theory. Many people unfortunately choose to disregard the honest statements by disillusioned darwinian, macro evolutionist, and like Tianshu lapse into blind faith to continue to believe in a collapsing theory.
Originally posted by Vamun Tianshu
Fossil Records,Numbers,Facts and Figures,all those don't mean a damn thing when it comes to finding out what really had a hand in making us what we are today.
Tianshu is thowing what is supposely the support of evolution out of the window. It does not surprise me Tianshu says the fossil record, among other things does not matter, because the fossil record, among other things, in fact contradicts the theory of macro evolutionist and actually supports creationists. Tianshu has "blind faith". He does not need evidence or facts for his beliefs. Tianshu must agree with the above dillusioned darwinian macro evolutonist for like Tianshu, he finds there is no evidence for the myth of macro evolution? Tianshu must realize from the above quote in my previous post that the fossil record by another evolutionist, instead of supporting macro evolution, the fossils actually supports creationists or actually the Intelligent Design position. Here is the quote in question,Quote:
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 we see, Tianshu and I and this darwinian macro evolutionist agree that there is no evidence for darwin's theory of evolution. Instead the above quote shows the fossil record supports intelligent design as "species appear and disappear abruptly" That is what a creationist would expect to find in the fossil record. Yet Tianshu says there is "no evidence" for the creationist or intelligent design position?
Originally posted by Vamun Tianshu
Arguement will never change,it'll always be about the Quran,or the Bible,or the Torah,or whatever Religious Book they hold sacred
I have advanced a scientific point, and as all know who have been reading my posts, I have been advancing the evidence from DNA studies that say all men and women come from one original couple and we all know that is a scientific fact. How can Tianshu say I have not advanced a scientific point? I have also pointed out in this thread the fact that GENESIS 3:20 also says humanity came from one original couple. Thus science has confirmed what a book written thousands of years ago is true. Science now agrees with the Word of God, the Bible that all humanity came from one couple. Who would believe such a thing, before these DNA studies showed we are from one original couple? In fact the most popular theory, was that humanity resulted from separate populations in different areas. These conclusions were drawn as a result of fossil evidence and based on interpretations of skulls and cranial size. Who would believe that now, after these DNA studies today?
Originally posted by Vamun Tianshu
always quote from the book,but Evolutionists will always find something new to back them up.It seems a century old theory is gaining more ground than a two millenia old religion.Thats funny.
The problem with what Tianshu is saying here, is it is not true. In fact as I quoted Dr. Pierre-Paul Grasse above, they are saying the opposite of Tianshu and that the theory of macro evolution should be dropped. Maybe another quotation from a disillusioned darwinian evolutionist will help.
"I know that, at least in Paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences
interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual
data."
David Pilbeam in his article "Rearranging Our Family Tree" in Human Nature, June, 1978 p:45
I would Tianshu rather have a discussion on the facts in order to arrive at logical conclusions. www.bible.ca
If 'intelligent' design is so intelligent, then why do people have an
appendix? It serves no function but can cause a lot of trouble.
Evolution can explain the appendix as a redudant leftover of an organ
that used to be useful in earlier stages of evoltion, but how can the
existance such a 'stupid' organ be explained with intelligent design?
No, Macro evolution is not false. It is just that the models for macroevolution was not developed as clearly as those for "microevolution" for a while. Macroevolution is a more advanced concept to obsever than microevolution. Creationists have been using that fact that it did not develop coherently to falsely claim that it is not "real".
The pictures on the above website appear to all be Micro evolution. Certainly body shape whether in birds, foxes, rabbits or humans are all example of changes within the types represented. Here is a website that does not agree with the one cited, www.nmidnet.org
Has science shown that macroevolution is fact?>>
Science takes the position that macroevolution is undisputed fact and insists that it be taught as such in public schools.However, macroevolution has never been observed...not in the laboratory and not in the wild...and scientists plainly admit in the mainstream scientific literature that the microevolutionary process observed in living populations cannot explain the large scale biological changes and adaptations hypothesized to have taken place in the past.>>
Macroevolution may have taken place in the past as claimed, however, it has never been observed and because it has never been observed, there is no basis for claiming that it is fact and it should not be presented as such in public schools.
CLEARLY there a debate on issue however Intelligent Design has made inroads.
Joined: 15-Dec-2004
Location: Japan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 07:08
Still,Creationists have absolutely NO evidence or proof that a God created anything,except writings from books that were written years after their messenger or prophet's time.Evidence leans toward Evolution more than it does Creation,but evidence,however,is not proof.Creationists can say what they will,show us scriptures and writings,but those were all written by humans,and humans can lie,exaggerate,imagine,and dream.Fossil Records,Numbers,Facts and Figures,all those don't mean a damn thing when it comes to finding out what really had a hand in making us what we are today.Logic,and Irationality,what are they really?
A Creationist's Arguement will never change,it'll always be about the Quran,or the Bible,or the Torah,or whatever Religious Book they hold sacred,but the Quran doesn't contradict Evolution directly,so there is some comprimise there.They'll always quote from the book,but Evolutionists will always find something new to back them up.It seems a century old theory is gaining more ground than a two millenia old religion.Thats funny.
First micro-evolution is enough to explain macro-evolution, you just have to wait enough time.
How much time Maju? Micro evolution does not explain Macro evolution or we would have countless examples in domesticated animals through intensive breeding humanity has done. Can you give one example of a Macro change in any domesticated animal? Through intensive breeding programs in the laboratory and in farming can you give an example of even one macro evolutionary development?
Originally posted by Maju
Another thing, Cuauhtemoc: evolution is punctuated and accelerated by catastrophes. That explains very well, why the fossil record lacks some intermediate steps that presumably existed.
Maju, do you have any proof for punctuated equalibrium? Is that theory proposed because there is evidence for equalibruim? What castastrophy accelerated Macro evolution? Do you have any evidence for these statements? Again evolution is mere speculation and there is no evidence for equilibruim. it was a desparate attempt to explain the contradictions found in the fossil record that contradicts Macro evolution. In fact originally it was call the "hopeful monster"! However as we both know there is no example in the fossil record for punctuated equilibrium.
Originally posted by Maju
For instance, a future paleontologist that would study our era, would find lots of homo sapiens, cow, dog and sheep fossils... but wouldn't find many of the related species: chimpanzee, auroch, wolf or moufflon. Particularly chimpanzee and moufflon are much less likely to be found at all, because their natural niches are small, while humans and sheep live in virtually all the planet and in incredible numbers.
However as you the fossil record does not support and in fact contradicts Macro evolution. Your statements are your opinion. Here is a quotation from an Darwinian evolutionist who does not agree with your assessment of the fossil record.
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.
We recognise this darwinian evolutionist knows more then both you and I about the fossil record.
I am not asking, if evolution is correct or not. I am asking Why a religous person needs to argue over evolution. Why does the (possible) existance of evolution require a religous person to say "No it cannot be true"? Why did you even need to post that post? Why does it affect your faith? Why don't you say "God is so great, he creating beings in such a beautiful way"?
Thank you Omar for your question. The FIRST reason is because the
evidence for evolution is not scientific and does not exist. The SECOND
reason is that the Word of God says that humanity came from one couple
in Genesis 3:20, and science now agrees with God's word as a result of
DNA studies. So as you can see it affects faith because of what God
revealed as far as how He created humanity. God is great however there
is no evidence for Macro evolution and so it is not beautiful. The only
evidence we have is for Micro evolution as you know and I pointed out
in my post. Now that you see, please answer my points as you can see my
points clearly deal with the fact MACRO EVOLUTION is false. In fact did
you notice the quote of an Darwinian evolutionist who admits honestly
the fossil record does not support Macro evolution?
Evidently Omar not all Musloms agree with you, note this
site of Muslim Harun Yahya, he does not agree with
you on evolution and that it does not affect the faith of Islam.
So not all Muslims view as you do:
So evolution is at odds with Genesis in the bible? Do you have a quote?
I know not all muslims agree with evolution but why they don't is
completely beyond me. Nothing I have ever seen in Islam contradicts
evolution and there are a couple of ayats that could even be referring
to it.
No, Macro evolution is not false. It is just that the models for
macroevolution was not developed as clearly as those for
"microevolution" for a while. Macroevolution is a more advanced concept
to obsever than microevolution. Creationists have been using that fact
that it did not develop coherently to falsely claim that it is not "real".
Another thing, Cuauhtemoc: evolution is punctuated and accelerated by catastrophes. That explains very well, why the fossil record lacks some intermediate steps that presumably existed.
First the fossil record in incomplete (by definition), it only includes a tiny part of what once was alive and roaming over there. Second, only the most populous species are likely to be found - those transitional (sub)species that lived in small numbers in rare niches are not so likely to be found at all.
You must be reasonable about that.
For instance, a future paleontologist that would study our era, would find lots of homo sapiens, cow, dog and sheep fossils... but wouldn't find many of the related species: chimpanzee, auroch, wolf or moufflon. Particularly chimpanzee and moufflon are much less likely to be found at all, because their natural niches are small, while humans and sheep live in virtually all the planet and in incredible numbers.
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.
That's just rethoric.
First micro-evolution is enough to explain macro-evolution, you just have to wait enough time. Micro-evolution actually demonstrates macro-evolution, the same that satellites demonstrate Relativity. You don't need to directly observe everything: you create a model based in empirical observation and then you prove the model as far as you can. You cant go back to the past physically, you can't stay watching evolution for milennia or evos... but you can check other implications - and that proves the model.
Theories include propositions that may or not be demonstrated. If they are, then the theory is solid; if they aren't, the theory would remain a hypothesis; if they are shown false (and only then), the theory would be demonstrated false or imperfect...
... and a new theory would need to be built and reality-checked.
I am not asking, if evolution is correct or not. I am asking Why a religous person needs to argue over evolution. Why does the (possible) existance of evolution require a religous person to say "No it cannot be true"? Why did you even need to post that post? Why does it affect your faith? Why don't you say "God is so great, he creating beings in such a beautiful way"?
Thank you Omar for your question. The FIRST reason is because the evidence for evolution is not scientific and does not exist. The SECOND reason is that the Word of God says that humanity came from one couple in Genesis 3:20, and science now agrees with God's word as a result of DNA studies. So as you can see it affects faith because of what God revealed as far as how He created humanity. God is great however there is no evidence for Macro evolution and so it is not beautiful. The only evidence we have is for Micro evolution as you know and I pointed out in my post. Now that you see, please answer my points as you can see my points clearly deal with the fact MACRO EVOLUTION is false. In fact did you notice the quote of an Darwinian evolutionist who admits honestly the fossil record does not support Macro evolution?
Evidently Omar not all Musloms agree with you, note this site of Muslim Harun Yahya, he does not agree with you on evolution and that it does not affect the faith of Islam. So not all Muslims view as you do:
I am not asking, if evolution is correct or not.
I am asking Why a religous person needs to argue over evolution.
Why does the (possible) existance of evolution require a religous person to say "No it cannot be true"?
Why did you even need to post that post?
Why does it affect your faith?
Why don't you say "God is so great, he creating beings in such a beautiful way"?
My dear friend Omar, are you dealing with the points by saying why are you disputing evolution? The points made my friend speak for themselves. Can you answer them?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Evolution and Monotheism
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Topic: Evolution and Monotheism
! 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.
