Evolution and Monotheism

 

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

 

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

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

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Why are you disputing evolution but?

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?

Edited by Cuauhtemoc

It just occurred to me to wonder why the title of the thread is 'Evolution and Monotheism'.

Do polytheists have any trouble accepting evolution? I don't see why any more than (like Omar) I can't see why monotheists would.

 

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc 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.

That's science.

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".

If you want to read more on macroevolution, here's a site for you:
http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/evolution/m acroevolution.html


Edited by Imperator Invictus

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc Originally posted by Omar al Hashim 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: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/

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.

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.

Edited by Vamun Tianshu

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?