Discussion in 'Science and the Universe' started by SufiPhilosophy, Apr 17, 2021.
So in a science forum we should leave them behind and focus on the science ... mmmm?
Perhaps .. but it's connected. You don't believe in a literal Adam & Eve.
You have been swayed by the ToE.
I've asked you before .. what prophets from the OT DO you believe in?
..and you haven't answered. You don't have to, of course.
My full paragraph (as much a memory jog as anything):
"Having said that, there are transitional creatures to be found in the fossil record. So it is a bit of a "push me - pull you" argument. The safe zone for the evolutionists is to say it takes so long that we cannot show how it works, but it clearly works as evidenced by the fossil record. I see a wee bit of cop out there, not sure I can put my thought into words, but these tend to be the same people who produce the long list of "evidence of speciation" that ultimately isn't."
The gist of what I was getting at is that there are those...and in general I do not believe they are in the field of biology proper...who espouse ToE as unassailable, "Gospel" as it were. As a result of the Scopes Trial Stateside years ago it appears there is an entrenched warfare of sorts between opposing camps, loosely ToE vs Creationism (and variants like Intelligent Design).
I think when the ardent fundy ToE folks get any legitimate challenge, they have a short list of "go to" defenses, starting with ad hominem (sure sign they have weak arguments), failing that they retreat to long lists of "references" supporting their side in the hope the "opponent" won't bother and they will come out smelling like a rose (sound familiar?).
When those don't work, they can always point to the fossil record and say "see, there's proof, it just takes so long we can't show it in real time." And if it happened, no matter how slim the chances, it is possible. While clearly the fossil record shows many creatures no longer alive, there have been a few that were thought lost only to be rediscovered (the Coelacanth is a curious one, showing way back in the fossil record but to my knowledge not any more recent fossils, yet we know (now) that they still exist.
So either something is off with our view of the fossil record, or Coelacanths are particularly clever little fish. I don't think here is the time or place to go into anomalous fossil stratigraphy, it is irrelevant to the current discussion and isn't a significant hiccup to worry about regarding ToE. But retreating to a safe space of "it just takes so long so we are unable to actually show you how it really is" is a fall back defensive position many ToE defenders resort to.
I've kicked that idea around a time or two, I'm not conversant well enough to offer a studied opinion. It is possible, but if you are asking can I tie directly to a known extinction event, I really can't say that. The Cambrian Explosion, which Gould and a partner wrote a book about, goes back way before the dinosaurs as I understand, so we are talking millions of years after Abiogenesis, but still quite early in the history of life on the planet.
The other instances are only alluded to in my reading without any depth, so I really don't have anything more meaningful to add in that regard. I suppose I could do a quick read, but I spent what moments of free time this afternoon at work looking back into Homo Naledi (the find in South Africa I mentioned) and Homo Denisova.
I don't. Any alternative "theories" passed around at this point are generally considered pseudo-science, though there are occasional tid bits (even a blind pig finds a truffle now and then). In my experience most "alt theories" at this point are primarily religious with an axe to grind (like Harun Yaya and various Christian based groups) and mostly a response to the ongoing Scopes battle, any genuine science getting funding is focused solely and only on ToE without any dissenting opinions. Someone closer to the field might have better knowledge, mine is self directed study.
Naturally, the ToE includes an evolutionary explanation as regards the brain being responsible for our
intelligence and consciousness.
It assumes that, just as we have physically evolved from an ape, that our "superior" intelligence has
I say "superior" in inverted commas, because I think that many human beings don't show any kind of superiority
to other creatures. They often behave worse than other creatures, imo.
This is just yet another example how the sprawling theory of evolution seeks to undermine faith.
It seeks to show that a soul [ as in soul "blown in" by Almighty God ] is pure fiction.
I don't know the situation. But she was a lab animal, and sadly that is the fate of many lab animals. And that is a moral dilemma of science, and since it is considered unethical and immoral to experiment on humans, certain animals suffer indignities as the subjects of experiments. At least in her case, she was allowed to live a life, many lab animals don't get that privilege. I am too soft hearted, I could not do some of the things done to animals in the name of research, but without the research there are so many things we would not understand.
Perhaps, but then it cannot be called "science." Science is not only proved, is it *also* disproved. To be legitimate science, what you experience - under what conditions, what situations, what external and internal augmentations - I should be able to do myself. If you have a specific experience, I should be able *scientifically* to recreate that exact same experience. If not, it is not science.
True, but this is the goal of religion, not science. Personal experience is subjective. The goal of science is objective. Subjective is individual, personal, focused. Objective is true for all, regardless of skin color, education, religion, economic background or any other consideration that may separate us as human beings. Objective is true for all of creation, not just a focused view.
Philosophically I have no argument. But this is not science, not even close.
Yet, if you look around, we have doppelgangers. I agree, probably not *exactly* alike, but sufficiently alike to cause one to sit up and take notice. When the genome stuff was all coming to the fore, there was talk of millions of genes. Turns out, most of them are what is referred to as "junk DNA." The sections that matter are only about 10K genes, regardless of the species. So with only 10K genes to vary, the number of combinations is a lot more limited than the "millions of genes" would let on.
Years ago we had a male nurse who did CPR training, who looked so much like one of our doctors in training that I mistook them for each other on more than one occasion. Finally I got the opportunity to introduce them to each other, and I was floored by how much they looked alike, but they had no familial connection.
I don't think so. It hasn't consumed me, I know to retain my critical thinking ability. But then I apply that to everything in my world, including religion.
Why would it?
I know this wasn't directed to me, but it is something I long struggled with.
First, in Genesis, there are two "Creations of Man." You are welcome to read it and follow along so I am not making this up. There is the 6th day creation of "Adam" (without the article), meaning "man of red earth or clay." G-d rested on the 7th day. On the 8th day G-d created "ha-Adam" (the man Adam, with the article). Two distinct Creations. No small wonder when Cain was driven away for murdering his brother, he went to the East, to the land of Nod, and found a wife among the people there. Also, the word translated as "day," as I am given to understand, also translates as "time." As in the first time, the second time, etc...no hard and fast reference to how long it actually took. Notice the earth was formed before the sun and moon. I'm not sure how that could even be possible and still stay within the laws of Nature that G-d created.
Not trying to be antagonistic, and I can certainly get into trouble equally with my Christian brothers and sisters, and my Jewish kin as well. Genesis isn't the first religious text. The Vedas are older. More importantly to this discussion, the Flood story of Noah (and variants of this name) are widespread throughout the Levant and Mesopotamia, even among tribes we might now consider to be Pagan. So at least portions of the early Jewish Bible have their roots in Pagan antiquity.
This is all "history," by definition it means writing. But we have so much of human pre-history, easy to find, not invented or make believe. A little difficult to decipher perhaps...because they did not have writing as we understand it...but they had no less colorful and fulfilling lives.
It is too easy to dismiss these ancestors as devils, or wayward people destroyed in the Flood, or any other excuse to conveniently write them off...but they were G-d's Creation every bit as much as you and I.
Genetics is leading us to reconsider some thoughts, and equally I am cautious because I know how people - especially people not actually involved - get carried away with applying rudimentary knowledge. It was long taught that Gracile Humans (Cro Magnon) wandered out of Africa and slaughtered the Neandertals and took over the joint (Europe). Come to find out that's not accurate at all...Neandertal was "mated" out of existence. Same with Denisovans on the other side of the world.
That is its nature..
The philosopher of mind Daniel Dennett, in his 1995 book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, developed the idea of a Darwinian process, involving variation, selection and retention, as a generic algorithm that is substrate-neutral and could be applied to many fields of knowledge outside of biology.
In agreement with Dennett's prediction, over the past decades the Darwinian perspective has spread ever more widely, in particular across the social sciences as the foundation for numerous schools of study including memetics, evolutionary economics, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary anthropology, neural Darwinism, and evolutionary linguistics. Researchers have postulated Darwinian processes as operating at the foundations of physics, cosmology and chemistry via the theories of quantum Darwinism, observation selection effects and cosmological natural selection.
- wiki -
I'm not at all comfortable with it. It is a specific way of thinking, which tends to assume the non-existence of a Creator.
Of course, I'm not saying that things don't evolve. Just that people get carried away by it.
I know, but I don't consider Genesis to be accurate. Why would I?
I have the Qur'an .. and furthermore, my Christian "hat" also tells me that there was corruption going on regards
scribes and pharisees etc.
..and of course, Genesis is derived from the oldest scrolls in the Bible.
Re. homo habilis, homo erectus etc.
I would say that it is only an assumption, that they eventually evolved into homo sapiens, and no clear timeframe
for when they became distinct from other creatures.
All creatures have souls, but only mankind have a human one. The ToE has no soul at all
OK, but taken literally this is no reason to dismiss ToE. Books...that would include religious books...have no soul either, at least not in the sense you mean here.
Trust me on this. If you are going to slander the scribes and the Pharisees, I don't care whether you're wearing your Christian "hat", your Muslim "hat", or your John Wayne cowboy "hat". It will get very unpleasant here very, very quickly.
I see. I'm not seeking unpleasantness.
Check out the wiki article ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis
It is a fact that there are dicrepancies between Genesis and the Qur'an.
One most obvious one, is that Abraham, peace be with him, saw in a dream to
sacrifice Isaac .. or was it Ishmael?
..and so on.
It doesn't really matter to me WHICH son it was.
G-d knows best why the accounts differ. It is very sad that somebody has made
something up .. whoever actually did it.
Of course .. the Qur'an could be all lies .. but I haven't found this to be the case
Eugenics long predated this. As I understand, Darwin's cousin put forward "Social Darwinism" which became known as Eugenics, and through a wee bit of sleight of hand, the Nazis twisted it into the Holocaust.
Any person can get carried away with a large number of things. Most thoughtful folks I've ever discussed the subject with who said they actually worked in the field, either believed in G-d (maybe not my particular interpretation...), or made a point to say that Science at no time dismisses G-d. Science cannot confirm nor deny something it cannot measure. A lot of armchair wannabees want to use Science to beat believers over the head, but that only confirms to me they don't have a clue what they are talking about.
Back to Stephen J Gould, he wrote an awesome short book Rocks of Ages, wherein he discusses the "magesteria" of science and religion. The magisteria of Science addresses questions of "how." The magisteria of Religion addresses questions of "why." That is why when discussing between the two, folks with incomplete understanding talk past each other, neither side wishes to hear what the other has to say. They might as well be speaking two different languages. Did I mention Gould was an atheist, writing an apology for Religion?
I know what you mean.
..but I have come across the "Dawkins worshippers" on my other forum, and they are convinced that
the ToE is complete fact in all its aspects, and that it practically disproves the existence of the Abrahamic God.
I have seen the opposite attitude as well. Evolution is totally wrong etc.
I'm so glad that I have the Qur'an
It doesn't teach that evolution is wrong. It states that Almighty God is the Evolver.
We are also taught to use the intelligence we were given, and to beware the tricks of satan.
he only seeks to mislead and destroy our faith through envy.
[ satan can present in many ways, and particularly through disbelief ]
I'm not attacking atheists,
but I am attacking those that seek to keep others away from righteousness and enlightenment.
With all due respect, I understood Muslims respected and accepted the first part of Genesis, up to the story of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. So this statement seems a little out of place to me.
When it comes to archaic humans, I can agree the timelines given are guesses at best, especially when some of the folks in the field get a little fast and loose with who goes where and when. I've used the example before, as recently as 1968 when the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was being written and made (Arthur C Clarke basically wrote the book and screenplay almost at the same time, and modified the screenplay a bit at Kubrick's request due to filming concerns - like substituting Jupiter for Saturn as originally in the book), the dawn of man was thought to be about 1 Million years before present +/-. The use of tools alone has been pushed so much farther back than that already. I seem to recall the Australopith "Lucy" as what is now considered the dawn of humanity, and something like 2.5 million years bp. But I agree with you that so much of this is conjecture, and the dating methods, while they do seem to give a measure to go by, are not hard and fast like a calendar or a yardstick. They are a bit ambiguous, and frankly the institutions are not above "fudging" their findings to conform to the establishment timeline. But this is the politics that permeates the industry of Science (see Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" to see what I mean).
The earliest time that life forms first appeared on Earth is at least 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years, or even 4.41 billion years - not long after the oceans formed 4.5 billion years ago, and after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago. The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks.
So, the question of truth or untruth does not even arise. If it is falsehood, it does not matter.
But life was bacterial for the first 1.5 billion years. The 'quantum leap' from prokaryote to eukaryote is an interesting story.
Separate names with a comma.