The Evolution Conflict

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Mohsin

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.

I quite agree - it is a great shame that lessons on the history of science tend to visits the ancient Greek rationalists - and then jump to the Western minds of the Renaissance, completely missing out the very significant contribution by Islam inbetween. Whether we're talking about theoretical issues, such as algebra, or practical issues, such as the Arabic technique of grounding glass lenses for those first proper telescopes, the contribution by Islam was considerable.

Originally Posted by Mohsin

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.

What individual members may or may not believe here is no great concern - so long as everybody is civil then we're happy.

As for discussing criticisms of the Theory of Evolution itself - rather than referencing entire works elsewhere, you may find it makes for easier discussion if you could pull one point at a time from the sources referenced? Simply to help push the discussion more easily.

Originally Posted by Mohsin

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?

There are many interpretations of the Creation events in Genesis, certainly within Christianity itself. With the Bible not having been written in English, some Christians certainly take the view that there is ample room to read the account as allegory, rather than literal.

Originally Posted by Mohsin

Now, to keep the argument continued, I have a recorded interview of Richard Dawkins.

Heh, some might say he has become to modern science what Jerry Falwell has become to Christianity.

Originally Posted by Mohsin

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.

There are certainly clear issues the theory has yet to be able to successfully address. These are not small issues either, but fundamental to the theory itself. However, IMO this is as much to do with our lack of understanding of genetics itself. Unfortunately, it has to be said, some of the strongest proponents of evolutionary theory are either completely blind to these issues, or else ridicule the field of socio-biology itself with trite and meaningless answers that do nothing but help caricature evolution itself as a concept.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by 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.

Namaste Shih Yo Chi,

the last data that i had on this was something like 14.6 billion years ago.

personally, i think that the Rapid Inflationary Theory, the so called "Big Bang", isn't a very complete theory given the discoveries of Quantum Mechanics. i'm rather favorably disposed to Dr. Hawkings No Boundary Proposal coupled with the Anthropic principle. we still have to wait for all the data from COBE to be analyzed, with what we've seen so far, some of the predictions of the proposal have been verified.

[Phi]

Vajradhara: A quick aside:
I cannot resist, with my love of word play:
In the no boundary proposal, it seems natural to adopt the principle of p-brane democracy. All p-branes are created equal.
I completely agree, I simply spell it differently.

[Phi]

I makes me chuckle that after all the hoopla, a "Higher Consciousness" ordering the universe seems to be currently taking a front seat in quantum cosmology.
After all the argument against there being a God, after all those people chose to think of science as God, now the high honchos of science are saying, yes there must be God after all.
They cannot explain the orderliness of the universe with their mathmatics, you see.
I shouldn't concern myself overmuch with the current theories. Unless you find them fun to consider and/or are a physicist yourself. Some new information may come from them that will lead to other theories, which will lead to still others. Knowledge may be gained.
But in the end of it, rational thought (left-brain alone) can never reach an ultimate truth. Much less prove one, for provability is weaker than truth.
So, GUT and TOE will never be realized by rational thought and provable theory.
Reread Godel.

[Mohsin]

The Big Bang theory is the most acceptable thoery about the creation of the universe. There are enough scientific facts to prove this theory or the most of it, and the claims againt it are not very strong. Please reffer to the following link to know more about it. http://harunyahya.com/create02.php

I have observed that there is a line between science and religion among many people, especially with Christians(no offence). This may have been due to the fact that many scientest were rejected and some even killed by the Church and Christian missioneries(correct me if I am wrong). One must concider that Allah(the allmighty God) is the greatest Scientest of all.

Allah(the all mighty God) says in the Holy Quran,
________________

[2.164] Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that Allah sends down from the cloud, then gives life with it to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between the heaven and the earth, there are signs for a people who understand.

________________

Thus Allah(the all mighty God) had made everything in a way that the people may learn from it and submit their will to Him.


As I said, and pointed out by several other people, 'as the development in science continues, so does the complexity and the need for a Creator increases'. I would like you to think about the complexity of the planet Earth. It is like a speck of dust when compared to the entire universe.

In a book 'THE CREATOR AND THE COSMOS', the auther Hugh Ross(PH.D.) wrote some statics about this planet.

1: Surface gravity;
If stronger: the atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
If weaker: the planet's atmosphere would lose too much water.

2: Thickness of the crust;
If thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
If thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.

3: Rotation period;
If longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
If shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too high.

4: Ozone level in the Atmosphere;
If greater: surface temperature would be too low.
If less: surface temperatures would be too high; and there would be too much ultravoilet radiation at the surface.

5: Seismic Activity;
If greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.
If less: nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoffs) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift.

I addition to this, the inclanation of the earth, the geograghy of the earth, the rotation period of the earth, the atmosphere(77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% carbondioxide) of the earth, it's mass, it's distance from the sun, these and more stats show that this planet has been espacially created with great concideration. Do not forget water which is a key element of life. A great miracle of water is that its density decreases below four degree centigrade and ice thus floats on water maintaining the marine life in the polar and cold regions of the earth. Does it not show that there is a Creator with infinite knowledge and wisdom who has made this planet sutible for life. This all could not have been created just by chance.


The Quran also tells us that Allah(the all mighty God) had created this planet suitable for us.
______________

'It is God Who made the earth a stable home for you and the sky a dome, and formed you, giving you the best of forms, and provided you with good and wholesome things. That is God, your Lord. Blessed be God, the Lord of all the worlds.' (Quran, 40:64)

______________

Originally Posted by I, Brian

There are certainly clear issues the theory has yet to be able to successfully address. These are not small issues either, but fundamental to the theory itself. However, IMO this is as much to do with our lack of understanding of genetics itself. Unfortunately, it has to be said, some of the strongest proponents of evolutionary theory are either completely blind to these issues, or else ridicule the field of socio-biology itself with trite and meaningless answers that do nothing but help caricature evolution itself as a concept.

Although my actual questions are still left unanswered, I believe that I have made the believers of the theory of evolution accept that the theory has got some flaws and cannot account for many issues. If any argument would have been made for it's support, I would have asked another question as I have a long list of them.

I have also observed that many people are being materialistic(I could not think of any other word) and have asked about the afterlife and the eternal life. Let me tell you that God has created everything and can destroy everything. One cannot imagine God's power and wisdom. No good argument about souls can be given as no good experiment on the soul can be made. If God has created us with such great care and wisdom, can He not creat us again.

The Holy Qur'an says in Surah Qiyamah, Ch. No. 75, Verse No. 3 and 4..
____________

'The unbelievers ask, that how will Allah (SWT) be able to reassemble our bones’. Allah says… ‘We can not only reassemble the bones, We can even reconstruct in perfect order the very finger tips’.

____________
Here is another miracle of the Holy Quran. It is referring to the finger printing method, which was discovered by Sir Francis Gold in 1880, and he said that - ‘No two finger prints, of two individuals are equal even in a million people’.

[Kaldayen]

Hi again Mohsin,

With the amazing quantity of planets in the universe, dont you think it's just normal to have one (at least) that has all those 5 caracteristics? As for the atmosphere, many lifeforms don't need those proportions (just think of everything that lives in water). If our atmosphere had had more oxygen, humans could have evolved accordingly.

You say that all the fossil record that have been found are fake or are monkey skulls, etc... well, as a student in archaeology, you'll understand I have some trouble accepting your opinion. Everyday, we find more and more information in accord with the theory of evolution.

That said, accepting the theory of evolution doesn't mean that one doesn't believe in some kind of superior power or that we draw a line between the two. It doesn't even mean we don't believe in the Bible or the Quran. It just mean we interpret it differently than you do.

Although my actual questions are still left unanswered, I believe that I have made the believers of the theory of evolution accept that the theory has got some flaws and cannot account for many issues.

Every theory has flaws, that's why scientists can keep on studying That's also why we're debating of the flaws of evolutionism and those of creationism.

[Marsh]

Here's a couple of interesting passages from Genesis chapter 4 (just after Cain killed Abel):

13-14: Cain said to the LORD, 'My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.'

At the time the population of the earth consisted of: Adam, Eve, Cain. Who was going to find and kill Cain? Certainly not his own parents! But let's continue:

17: Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.

Now, the only woman on the face of the earth was Eve, but Cain took a wife. Where did this wife come from? This is a pretty big question to go unanswered, isn't it?

Can both be true? Can it be true that God created Adam as the first of a species called "man," and from Adam created a female counterpart named "woman," but at the same time there was already another species on the earth, similar to Adam and Eve in appearance, and compatible for reproduction (just like certain dogs and certain wolves can mate and have offspring)? After all, God created the "beasts of the earth" before he created mankind. Just a thought.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Marsh!

Originally Posted by Marsh

Here's a couple of interesting passages from Genesis chapter 4 (just after Cain killed Abel):

13-14: Cain said to the LORD, 'My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.'

At the time the population of the earth consisted of: Adam, Eve, Cain. Who was going to find and kill Cain? Certainly not his own parents! But let's continue:

17: Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.

Now, the only woman on the face of the earth was Eve, but Cain took a wife. Where did this wife come from? This is a pretty big question to go unanswered, isn't it?

Can both be true? Can it be true that God created Adam as the first of a species called "man," and from Adam created a female counterpart named "woman," but at the same time there was already another species on the earth, similar to Adam and Eve in appearance, and compatible for reproduction (just like certain dogs and certain wolves can mate and have offspring)? After all, God created the "beasts of the earth" before he created mankind. Just a thought.

This is better understood when considers that there were two "Adams." The sixth day creation of "Adam" (man; male and female), and the eighth day creation of "ha-Adam", (the man Adam, with the article). "The man Adam" was he who was made for the garden, and the Bible is the story of the descendents of he and Eve. Cain has an interesting geneology, Adam is not his daddy. Cain married from among the daughters of the sixth day creation dwelling in the land of Nod, East of Eden.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Phi!

Originally Posted by Phi

I makes me chuckle that after all the hoopla, a "Higher Consciousness" ordering the universe seems to be currently taking a front seat in quantum cosmology.
After all the argument against there being a God, after all those people chose to think of science as God, now the high honchos of science are saying, yes there must be God after all.
They cannot explain the orderliness of the universe with their mathmatics, you see.
I shouldn't concern myself overmuch with the current theories. Unless you find them fun to consider and/or are a physicist yourself. Some new information may come from them that will lead to other theories, which will lead to still others. Knowledge may be gained.
But in the end of it, rational thought (left-brain alone) can never reach an ultimate truth. Much less prove one, for provability is weaker than truth.
So, GUT and TOE will never be realized by rational thought and provable theory.
Reread Godel.

Overall I emphatically agree. Couple of questions tho', GUT?, and while I understand Godel to be a writer, which tome is it to which you refer?

[brucegdc]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Phi!
Overall I emphatically agree. Couple of questions tho', GUT?, and while I understand Godel to be a writer, which tome is it to which you refer?

GUT - Grand Unified/Unification Theory, I would assume.
I also assume he's referring to Godel the mathematician, best known for proving that no system sufficiently complex to model the natural numbers can be both complete and correct.

[bob x]

Mohsin lists "the inclanation of the earth, the geograghy of the earth, the rotation period of the earth, the atmosphere(77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% carbondioxide) of the earth, it's mass, it's distance from the sun" as factors which he believes had to be exactly as they are in order for there to be life. Actually, the inclination of the earth, the geography of the earth, the rotation period of the earth, and the atmospheric composition were all radically different earlier in the geologic history, and life adapted then to the conditions that existed then.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, bob x!

Originally Posted by bob x

Mohsin lists "the inclanation of the earth, the geograghy of the earth, the rotation period of the earth, the atmosphere(77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% carbondioxide) of the earth, it's mass, it's distance from the sun" as factors which he believes had to be exactly as they are in order for there to be life. Actually, the inclination of the earth, the geography of the earth, the rotation period of the earth, and the atmospheric composition were all radically different earlier in the geologic history, and life adapted then to the conditions that existed then.

Point taken about conditions being markedly different in earlier epochs, yet one could argue that there is a very small and finite window in which a planet must operate to sustain and support life. Only pointed out towards the term "radically", as mercury or pluto could arguably be termed radically different in their operating parameters, and neither of which supports life as we know it.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

according to the Spirit and Rover on Mars... it turns out that Mars most likely had a salty ocean where those "blueberries" have been found. not that they were formed when water evaporated, rather, they were formed in the water itself.

quite interesting, really, to consider that Mars once had water.... one can only imagine of the vast amount of world system in our galaxy alone the probability that life exists on another planet is not nearly as remote as many would like to believe.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

according to the Spirit and Rover on Mars... it turns out that Mars most likely had a salty ocean where those "blueberries" have been found. not that they were formed when water evaporated, rather, they were formed in the water itself.

quite interesting, really, to consider that Mars once had water.... one can only imagine of the vast amount of world system in our galaxy alone the probability that life exists on another planet is not nearly as remote as many would like to believe.

Yes, it is an interesting finding. And Mars would seem to be the nearest candidate for sustainable conditions. I have also heard intriguing possibilities concerning Europa. Even so, I believed the discussion to have focused on life as we know it, carbon based and with the parameters for development to a scale and position similar to our own. For some reason, distance from the sun, lack of atmosphere or who knows?, Mars is no longer suitable. Europa may have the ingredients trapped in its ice, but again there are limitations imposed upon possible development because of the nature of that moon's parameters.

An aside, I do think the asteroid belt is interesting. A planet between Mars and Jupiter that shattered. One concept I heard presented long ago was that a passing astronomic body interrupted its course. I wish I had a reference, because it was posited by "science," but I read that many years ago in grade school. And the astronomic body was presumed to be the Earth. In fairness, I have heard many suppositions about the asteroid belt since, but that one has always stuck in my mind.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, brucegdc!

Originally Posted by brucegdc

GUT - Grand Unified/Unification Theory, I would assume.
I also assume he's referring to Godel the mathematician, best known for proving that no system sufficiently complex to model the natural numbers can be both complete and correct.

Thank you sincerely for the clarification.