The Evolution Conflict

[Handmaiden07]

Originally Posted by Phi

Thank you, Handmaiden, for explaining scientific theory to me. As a scientist, I am surely in need of that instruction. No offense.

None taken, but I don't think I was replying to you in specific! I'm sorry if it seemed that way.

HM07

[Mohsin]

Originally Posted by Kaldayen

Mohsin,

What is your opinion about all the skeletons and fossiles that are discovered each day in Africa (i.e in the Rift Valley), which are, by many methods, dated to up to 4,2 millions of years. Archaelogists clearly claim that they belong to an earlier stage of human evolution. They can even classify them in different stages (australopitecus, paranthropus, homo, etc.).

You ask us how peole can deny the Quran's and the Bible's texts but you don't say how you can deny those scientificaly proven "facts".

If your argument is that one is holy scriptures and the others are human theories, then I must answer that both were written by men and thus, could be equally flawed.

Kal

Please reffer to the link about the second book, and you will come to know how the bones presented had been an act of forgery. Most of the time, an ape's jaw, a man's skull. http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution08.php and a few other page of this book deals with this topic.

In the verses that I quoted, one was
________

[22.5] O people! if you are in doubt about the raising, then surely We created you from dust, then from a small seed, then from a clot, then from a lump of flesh, complete in make and incomplete, that We may make clear to you; and We cause what We please to stay in the wombs till an appointed time, then We bring you forth as babies, then that you may attain your maturity; and of you is he who is caused to die, and of you is he who is brought back to the worst part of life, so that after having knowledge he does not know anything; and you see the earth sterile land, but when We send down on it the water, it stirs and swells and brings forth of every kind a beautiful herbage.

_________

This verse was also pointed out by Shih Yo Chi as proving toward the theory. I would like to point out a miracle of Quran here. The Quran has spoken about the stages of development of the human body in the mother's womb. There are several verses which deal with the field of embryology and it is in complete harmony with the modern science. The seed is reffering towards the sperm and ova, which after fertalization forms a clot of flesh and the then clings to the mother's womb. It does not say that earlier there was a seed which evolved into a clot of flesh in outside of the mother's body to form new species. This is the development inside the mother's womb. This verse is a miracle as there were no microscopes and electron microscopes when the Quran was revealed that could have been used to know these stages of development. The creation from dust is used to indicate that one of the elemenet of the human body is dust, just like water, just like seed or sperm which has also been mentioned in the Quran.

Many people have said about the spiritual and physical evolution. I have no objection as a man grows old, but still remains a man, not into a process in which he becomes something into his next evolutinary state as Darwin's thoery claims.

To those who think that Quran is not true and a handiwork of man, please reffer to the following links.
http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php several scientific miracales are mentioned here. http://www.irf.net/irf/download/index.htm download the lecture 'Is Quran God's word', also 'Quran and Modern Science, Conlict or Conciliation'. These refer to many aspects and deals with many alligations againt the Quran.

I am sorry Vajradhara if any of my actions offended you in any aspect. I will e-mail them about your concern myself. I wanted you again to look for the scientific facts about the fall of the theory. Surely Harun Yahya is not working alone, he might have started the organization and a team probable researchs, but you should refer to the facts, their authenticity rather then the qualification of the auther.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Before anything else, I want to declare that I believe in God.

(This is getting to be like having to say that you are against international terrorism, before you express an honest opinion against Bush's invasion war on Iraq.)


On evolution vs. God's direct creation, my suggestion is that since adherents of God's direct creation are, I am sure, well versed in all the authoritative religious texts and explanations and defenses of direct creation, I think they owe it also to their faculty of curiosity, to spend one year reading everything they can get their hands on about evolution: the idea, the discovery, and the explanations.


I had a classmate once in my school days who would not eat pig's brain or beef brain, because it's not healthy. Every so often I had animal brain in my lunchbox. One day he could not contain his curiosity any longer, so he asked me whether I was suffering any unhealthy effects from eating brain matter.

"Do you see me any worse for eating brain matter?" I asked him in return. As a matter of fact I was slightly bigger, tougher, and definitely more rough in sports than him -- that shows also in my posts; and unlike him I practically never missed any classes owing to sickness.

"Tell you what," I challenged him, "you eat my lunch and I eat yours; let's see if you will get sick."

Overcome by curiosity, he took the challenge, and learned to appreciate brain food.


So, my good friend, Mohsin and all adherents of direct creation, take some very good quality time to study evolution from the research masters of evolution; and if at the end of the day, you still can't see any merit in evolution, then you are entitled to remain in the credal privilege of religion: not to accept evolution -- invoking some kind of intellectual First Amendment.

Susma Rio Sep

[bananabrain]

i kind of agree with both handmaiden and phi - i don't think the two of you actually disagree! science works by hypothesis-disproof - thus "in the absence of evidence that a given theory is correct, this theory should be accepted as the best explanation we have" i think is the way i'd put it. not, necessarily quite the same thing as "truth" - which i believe is a philosophical term which everyone needs to understand properly. it is a subtle distinction and when scientists start banging on about having the truth and religious people start banging on about the same, i want to bang their heads together. if you want to disprove evolution, do so using the tools that the theory of evolution used, otherwise it's apples and oranges. gravity is also a theory backed up by a certain amount of empirical evidence. you are welcome to not believe it, of course, but wear a *really* thick jumper. personally, i don't see the point of this type of debate and, with all due respect to mohsin, i don't believe the ToE is incompatible with either the Torah or the Qur'an - and although i am not a muslim theologian, there are plenty of muslim theologians of my acquaintance that would maintain the same.

of course, when people try and take the text literally, yes, you're going to run into problems, like "who did cain marry?" for starters. however, i don't believe it's productive to try and spend a lot of time reconciling completely different *systems*, let alone individual points of view. it's not so much apples-and-oranges as it is apples-and-spreadsheets. piling up a group of quotes isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

The point I was making is that while much about evolution appears to be correct, it should not be accepted as a "fact," but rather as a premise toward further study. Scientists who are involved in related disciplines do see this distinction (except of course for those who have a personal interest in maintaining status quo at all costs: their current grants are based upon it) Again I say when scientific theories become dogma, science suffers.

hear, hear! can we put this up on a big sign in front of richard dawkins' house? heh.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Phi]

Since this topic is all about beginnings, perhps it would be a good idea to research the beginnings of Darwin's theory, "The Voyage of the Beagle."
This treatise contains a concise and accurate description of the credentials of Darwin and his "colleagues", most of whom were not scientists at all!

Which just goes to show that many good and valid scientific boons can come from very bad beginnings. How many better and more valid scientific boons might, then, come from good beginnings?

It further illustrates my point that when theories become dogma, science suffers.

This treatise is by a Christian writer, who gives some Christian opinions, but the facts of the history are concise and correct.
http://www.online-literature.com/darwin/voyage_beagle/

[I, Brian]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Mohsin - there was a danger of my causing offence, and I am glad to see you didn't take it so.

I think you really indicated the crux of the matter in a later post with the statement:

Originally Posted by Mohsin

My question still remains that as the theory is contradicting religion, should it be accepted?

Certainly science is not about "Truth": simply probabilities and possibilities to be tested. Religious texts, on the other hand, often have far deeper levels to it than may always be immediately discernible. Ultimately, where science and religion are perceived to conflict, a person may accept whichever perception suits their worldview and life experience better.

As for these comments:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Ah Brian, the Arabia you speak of was before Islam. And it was more the Persians than the Arabs. Arabs were nomadic in nature, and the Persians built the great cities. Kind of like calling a Iranian or an Afghan an Arab...fighting words.

No offence intended. I was actually referencing about Islam, particularly under the Abbasid Caliphate. A principle difference is that Persians studied astrology, whereas the Abbasid Muslim scholars studied astronomy. The distinction is quite sublime.

Originally Posted by Phi

Since this topic is all about beginnings, perhps it would be a good idea to research the beginnings of Darwin's theory, "The Voyage of the Beagle."
This treatise contains a concise and accurate description of the credentials of Darwin and his "colleagues", most of whom were not scientists at all!

I have read about half of a certain book I think is named "Voyage of the Beagle" and written by Charles Darwin himself. It's a rather long-in-the-tooth book and not written to support his theories - it's more of a general musing and collection of observations. I can't say I found it particularly interesting, either, excepting for a couple of observations of oceanic phenomena, which is why it was only half-read.

[Phi]

I have read about half of a certain book I think is named "Voyage of the Beagle" and written by Charles Darwin himself. It's a rather long-in-the-tooth book and not written to support his theories - it's more of a general musing and collection of observations. I can't say I found it particularly interesting, either, excepting for a couple of observations of oceanic phenomena, which is why it was only half-read.[/quote]

Exactly so, and that is in itself telling... But the site I gave is rather interesting and does give a brief summary of facts regarding the history of the beginnings of the Theory of Evolution, and the credentials of the persons involved in its genesis. It's well worth a quick scanning to see what I mean. And may well enlighten some who did not know about it.

[Phi]

Brian, I should have said:
The treatise I refer to is on the page of the site itself, not in the book by Darwin.

[Phi]

Originally Posted by Phi

I have read about half of a certain book I think is named "Voyage of the Beagle" and written by Charles Darwin himself. It's a rather long-in-the-tooth book and not written to support his theories - it's more of a general musing and collection of observations. I can't say I found it particularly interesting, either, excepting for a couple of observations of oceanic phenomena, which is why it was only half-read.

Exactly so, and that is in itself telling... But the site I gave is rather interesting and does give a brief summary of facts regarding the history of the beginnings of the Theory of Evolution, and the credentials of the persons involved in its genesis. It's well worth a quick scanning to see what I mean. And may well enlighten some who did not know about it.

[Phi]

Sorry for the duplicate post I did this by error as I learn to use the site. This one stayed on as if it had not been posted, so I thought I had forgotten to submit. Others have disappeared somehow... I will get the hang of this soon, though, I'm sure.

[Mohsin]

I appreciate your efforts Brian. As an administrator you have done well to keep a good, friendly and thoughtful environment. I do not agree completely when you say that science is not about truth as many theories have been proved correct and others incorrect. For example, the Big Bang theory. With the advancement of time, this theory has been proved true while many other theories about the origin of the universe have been proved incorrect. The creation and origin of universe from a single point have also been proved by the Holy Quran and the Bible also testifies that the universe indeed had a creation. I may sound like a person who wants to keep science and religion together and that is exactly what I am trying to do. After I read articals about the scientific miracles of the Holy Quran and verifing them by myself, my view got stronger.

I saw a three part feature lenght documentry by PBS.org that showed the contrabutions of the Muslims in the field of science. The time in which they discovered and invented so many things was actually incradible. The darkages that were mentioned by the Europians were only for the Europians as the Muslims were very advanced in the field of science. These statements were carried out by the professors of the Harward university and I am not claiming them myself.


The purpose for me to start this thread was not only because I am against the Theory of Evolution and I have sufficient evidance to support my claim, biggest one being religion. I also wanted to know whether the Christions and even Jews for that matter hold their religious scriptures dearer or the theory of evolution which contradicts with it. To my astonishment, nobody defended the verses of the Holy Bible. No offence to anyone, but I am seriously disappointed. What if a person wants to be a Christian and you give him a copy of the Holy Bible, he will ask you about this contradiction when he will read that Adam(P.B.U.H) was the first man created by God and was sent to earth as a punishment for the mistake Adam and Eve(P.B.U.T) commited. What will you tell him? Will you say that the Bible is wrong? Will you say that God have made an error(God forbidding)? What impact will it have on the person?


Now, to keep the argument continued, I have a recorded interview of Richard Dawkins. By the advancement of science especially in the field of genetics and biology, natural selection as a mean for evolution became hard to defend. The complex sturcture of the DNA was not even imaginable under a simple microscope that was present in the time when Darwin proposed this theory. So the scientests resorted to a new concept called mutation. When Richard Dawkin was asked that if he could account for or present any positive affects of mutation, he was speechless. He could not say even a single word. This is because the radioactive rays damage the valuable data from the DNA and a creature becomes a freak of nature. A picture of cow was shown which had an extra leg(moreover like a lump of uncontrolable flesh) near its head.

Many people who support the thoery have been unable to explain the unusual nature, structure and capabilites of many living beings present in the nature. If the evolutionests claim chance for changes, what were the chances for the creation of an eye. Those who know the complex structure of the eye would also know that millions of reations take place from taking the image on the retina to the brain in which it appears invertly.This all happens in less then 20th of a second. It is obvious that an uncompleted eye would be useless. How can any supporter of the theory account for this? This is just one of the many answers which are left unanswered.

[Phi]

Originally Posted by Mohsin

I appreciate your efforts Brian. As an administrator you have done well to keep a good, friendly and thoughtful environment. I do not agree completely when you say that science is not about truth as many theories have been proved correct and others incorrect. For example, the Big Bang theory. With the advancement of time, this theory has been proved true while many other theories about the origin of the universe have been proved incorrect. The creation and origin of universe from a single point have also been proved by the Holy Quran and the Bible also testifies that the universe indeed had a creation. I may sound like a person who wants to keep science and religion together and that is exactly what I am trying to do. After I read articals about the scientific miracles of the Holy Quran and verifing them by myself, my view got stronger.

I saw a three part feature lenght documentry by PBS.org that showed the contrabutions of the Muslims in the field of science. The time in which they discovered and invented so many things was actually incradible. The darkages that were mentioned by the Europians were only for the Europians as the Muslims were very advanced in the field of science. These statements were carried out by the professors of the Harward university and I am not claiming them myself.


The purpose for me to start this thread was not only because I am against the Theory of Evolution and I have sufficient evidance to support my claim, biggest one being religion. I also wanted to know whether the Christions and even Jews for that matter hold their religious scriptures dearer or the theory of evolution which contradicts with it. To my astonishment, nobody defended the verses of the Holy Bible. No offence to anyone, but I am seriously disappointed. What if a person wants to be a Christian and you give him a copy of the Holy Bible, he will ask you about this contradiction when he will read that Adam(P.B.U.H) was the first man created by God and was sent to earth as a punishment for the mistake Adam and Eve(P.B.U.T) commited. What will you tell him? Will you say that the Bible is wrong? Will you say that God have made an error(God forbidding)? What impact will it have on the person?


Now, to keep the argument continued, I have a recorded interview of Richard Dawkins. By the advancement of science especially in the field of genetics and biology, natural selection as a mean for evolution became hard to defend. The complex sturcture of the DNA was not even imaginable under a simple microscope that was present in the time when Darwin proposed this theory. So the scientests resorted to a new concept called mutation. When Richard Dawkin was asked that if he could account for or present any positive affects of mutation, he was speechless. He could not say even a single word. This is because the radioactive rays damage the valuable data from the DNA and a creature becomes a freak of nature. A picture of cow was shown which had an extra leg(moreover like a lump of uncontrolable flesh) near its head.

Many people who support the thoery have been unable to explain the unusual nature, structure and capabilites of many living beings present in the nature. If the evolutionests claim chance for changes, what were the chances for the creation of an eye. Those who know the complex structure of the eye would also know that millions of reations take place from taking the image on the retina to the brain in which it appears invertly.This all happens in less then 20th of a second. It is obvious that an uncompleted eye would be useless. How can any supporter of the theory account for this? This is just one of the many answers which are left unanswered.

Good post, IMHO, because you are beyond either/or thinking, and taking a more appropriate whole-brained approach to your thinking. I congratulate you! ( But who am I to judge when congrats are due anyway?)

My question is rather philosophical, and directed to those who believe in "Big Bang" with no G-d involved:
How can there be a "bang" with no ear to hear it?

[Mohsin]

I am qoting from a lecture of IRF

A verse of the Holy Qur'an from Surah Al-Anbiya, Ch. No. 21, Verse No. 30, which says. ‘Do not the unbelievers see the heavens and the earth were joined together, and We clove them asunder?’

This verse of the Holy Qur'an speaks about the Big Bang Theory, in a nutshell. Imagine, what we came to know today, the Holy Qur'an mentions 1400 years ago.

And the Qur'an also says in Surah Fussilat, Ch. No. 41, verse 11, that… ‘Moreover, in His design He comprehended the sky, and it had been smoke. And He said to it and the earth, come ye together willingly or unwillingly, and they said we come together in willing obedience’

The Arabic word used here is ‘Dukhan’, which means ‘Smoke’. If you ask a scientist, he will tell you that the, universe before it was formed, the celestial matter, it was in the state of ‘gas’, and the Arabic word ‘Dukhan’ which means Smoke, is more scientifically correct than mere ‘gas’. And according to Stephen Hawkins, who is a very famous scientist, he said - ‘the discovery of bridges of matter in the space, is the biggest discovery of this century which gives us indisputable evidence of the creation of the universe and the Big Bang Theory’

The Quran thus verifies The Big Bang theory. I do not even care what a non believer of God states as it was the theory earlier that universe was from infinite time and will last till infinite time. It was mainly because the athiests were dening creation. You must keep in mind that a thing that begins must end. Both the Quran and Bible states about the end of the universe and the Judgement day!

[Phi]

Originally Posted by Mohsin

I am qoting from a lecture of IRF

A verse of the Holy Qur'an from Surah Al-Anbiya, Ch. No. 21, Verse No. 30, which says. ‘Do not the unbelievers see the heavens and the earth were joined together, and We clove them asunder?’

This verse of the Holy Qur'an speaks about the Big Bang Theory, in a nutshell. Imagine, what we came to know today, the Holy Qur'an mentions 1400 years ago.

And the Qur'an also says in Surah Fussilat, Ch. No. 41, verse 11, that… ‘Moreover, in His design He comprehended the sky, and it had been smoke. And He said to it and the earth, come ye together willingly or unwillingly, and they said we come together in willing obedience’

The Arabic word used here is ‘Dukhan’, which means ‘Smoke’. If you ask a scientist, he will tell you that the, universe before it was formed, the celestial matter, it was in the state of ‘gas’, and the Arabic word ‘Dukhan’ which means Smoke, is more scientifically correct than mere ‘gas’. And according to Stephen Hawkins, who is a very famous scientist, he said - ‘the discovery of bridges of matter in the space, is the biggest discovery of this century which gives us indisputable evidence of the creation of the universe and the Big Bang Theory’

The Quran thus verifies The Big Bang theory. I do not even care what a non believer of God states as it was the theory earlier that universe was from infinite time and will last till infinite time. It was mainly because the athiests were dening creation. You must keep in mind that a thing that begins must end. Both the Quran and Bible states about the end of the universe and the Judgement day!

I have read both books with great interest. While every thing that begins must end as you say,(like our bodies) also something that is eternal has neither ending nor beginning. this is said in both.
A scientist would put the words differently but the meaning similar, by saying that energy cannot be created nor destroyed (although it's form can change.)
So how, then, can one who believes in God, believe in an eternal life that has a beginning? (I do not mean any offense, believing as I do that the "energy form" that is our soul came from and returns to the Orignator of all things.)
Both books speak about an end of the world in graphic and dramatic terms.
But both also speak of eternity, and that the world will "be remade" to continue in another better form after "the end." So from this, I must conclude that the "world ending" that is spoken of is an "age ending" rather than a "place ending" per se.
Although according to the descriptions much damage and destruction to "place" would be done in the ending of the old and the coming of the new world.
I hope I have not offended in what I say, as I do not see great disagreement in our thinking on these particular things, and respect your right to your views, even where they may differ from mine.

[Shih Yo Chi]

Mohsin, I must admit that I'm having difficulty understanding your perception of creation, my fault, not yours. Could you help me out by explaining your position. I'm curious since you accept the big bang (which to me is on much shakier scientific ground that evolution is), do you accept the current scientific estimate for the time of the big bang? Isn't is something like 5 billion years ago? I'd really like to understand and appreciate your beliefs. Any other creationists, I'd like to hear from you as well. I'm thinking that my perception of what you belive is different than your beliefs.

Just an aside on the big bang. Doesn't the bulk of the scientific proof for the big bang lie in the "red shift" from light from distant galaxies? I've always felt that "rapid expansion is the only thing we know of that can do that" was a fairly weak hypothesis waiting to supplanted by some new discovery. Forgive me if I've grossly misstated this.