The Evolution Conflict

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Mohsin, Mar 18, 2004.

  1. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Search, be your own guru.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    11
    It does. It was not the Christian God or Allah, it was Ahur Mazda, the Good Lord, who did all this. In reply Angra Mainyu created Charles Darwin and Georges Lemaître. :)
     
  2. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    120
    I'm going to assume Mohsin is long gone... but that being said, his analysis is flawed quite a bit. 1st Islam doesn't contradict evolution. As a matter in fact many ascribe many signs in the Quran that point to it.

    Then you go from Atheist to spiritually minded... how did anyone create, if there is no God. How can there be a God without a God. I'm not knocking your belief, you are welcome to it. But how do you define yourself as Hindu (Spiritual religion containing sects who believe 1 god many forms or multiple gods) The idea is completely weird to me. do you think somehow in the past someone attained something through practice that noone today can?
     
  3. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    20,731
    Likes Received:
    1,408
    BJN.... the Quran and science do not conflict with Quranists and Muslims... It doesn't work the other way around...

    Atheist Hindu? I don't know how many there are...but there are many an atheist Jew...
     
  4. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Search, be your own guru.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    11
    And only credits Allah for it without any rhyme or reason. :)
    As I said, I am an atheist, I do not accept the existence of any God or Goddess. I do not give credit of creation to any God. Actually I do not even believe in any creation. What we perceive is only a pattern, what evolution has made us perceive with our limited senses. What is there is just space/physical energy (these two being one and the same). The two appear simultaneously and spontaneously due to "Spontaneous Symmjetry Breaking" (Wikipedia has excellent articles on it. Check all links. Giving details not possible here).
    I understand. There is nothing mysterious about it. As perhaps you know, Hinduism allows its adherents to form their own opinions. Most as satisfied with many Gods and Goddesses, some believe in one Supreme entity. My personal belief takes the idea of one Supreme entity and takes away the "divine" in it to replace it with "Space/physical energy". So what all exists in the universe is this substrate, Brahman, and nothing else. This view is know as "Advaita" (non-duality). It is supported by our scriptures which say "Sarve khalu idam Brahman" (All things here are Brahman), whether it may be a living organism, a non-living thing, or what is not even a non-living thing (what scientists term as Dark Energy). Another famous line from our scriptures which you might have heard about is "Tat twam asi" (generally translated as 'Thou art that'). The idea destroys all philosophical problems that men have created for themselves.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2015
  5. Namaste Jesus

    Namaste Jesus Praise the Lord and Enjoy the Chai

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    3,024
    Likes Received:
    630
    One man's definition for not divine, another man's definition for divine and so it goes..... ;)
     
  6. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    120
    My apologies if I am incorrect in my assumption, but are you insinuating that the Quran's descriptions of some things is flawed? If so please explain. Or if you are saying that not everyone thinks the Quran has its signs correct, I will agree, except to add that I believe that is primarily because they haven't studied it.

    He sent his word that had signs that science is still in agreement with, even in things no man would have known (too much coincidence that they are all accurate). I would say that is a reason. Assuming he is the Creator, there is no reason to doubt his involvement.

    All this hinges on one's belief that the energy is controlled. That it was all created. If you do not assume these 2 things Divine/God(s) does not come into the picture. Aup seems to think all of this "Energy" always was. Perfectly fine. His view of permanent energy theory agrees with the idea of God in my opinion. He created all from none. In that opinion he created the energy Aup speaks of (dark energy, Subatomic energy, String Energy, whichever theory we are going with now) He then manipulated that energy to create Quasis (SP?) and so on up to matter. Arranged that matter with excessive energy in a Super Sun (Big Bang) then directed the big bang to create the other parts of matter needed to create planets and stars and asteroids, etc. On at least 1 planet he then brought life. A special planet with liquid water on its surface. That life was molded from single celled to monstrous Dinosaurs over millions of years. These dinosaurs established and weathered many atmospheric changes until it was ready for another evolutionary leap. A few million years later Humans show up. Here is where it gets complicated when talking from a strictly Biblical viewpoint. The first born HUMAN was called Adam (PBUH) (or at least thats the name that stuck) and from him God created Eve (PBUH). This would take a lot longer to explain A logical option for the congruence of Abrahamics in general. But the option is still there.

    I would say the difference in my view in comparison to most Atheists, I view God as not of this existence, but rather his first creation was Existence. Some say energy molded into what we have today by chance, I say it was designed and meticulously arranged.
     
  7. Richard Pickett

    Richard Pickett Tazdog

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    9
    If I were a follower of Islam I would perhaps believe what the Qur'an says. I am not however. As far as evolution goes we all evolve every day. We make a mistake we learn from it, that is a person evolving. This process continues throughout our life cycle. Such as the caterpillar evolves into a butterfly....
     
  8. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Search, be your own guru.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    11
    Why assume? I do not assume anything if there is no evidence for it. Bombs have proved that matter converts into energy, and a whole lot of it.
     
  9. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    120
    That isn't evolution. That is learning... Your second example is Metamorphosing... Evolution is an adaptation over generations to an environmental and/or constant mortal struggle. Body growing larger, more hair, fewer fingers, more fingers, etc on a DNA level.
     
  10. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    120
    I could answer that, but it would turn into more of a Islamic theory class than an IF discussion. Basically you don't give credit to anything beyond what can be observed. Which means you are eternally looking for an answer you cannot attain. Just my opinion obviously
     
  11. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Search, be your own guru.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    11
    That is not the case. What is observed gives very good reasons for both, what is mentioned as creation and evolution. All my questions have been answered by science. What few creases remain also will be removed in time. They are only a problem of detail and not of the theories.
     
  12. Richard Pickett

    Richard Pickett Tazdog

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    9
    That is of course your belief perhaps, though I personally do not share that belief.
     
  13. kiwimac

    kiwimac God is NOT about Fear

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would argue that evolutionary processes are ones that Ahura Mazda authored and continually upholds.
     
  14. Devils' Advocate

    Devils' Advocate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    2,086
    Likes Received:
    378
    Which is a popular religious theory nowadays. Evolution works on its own, but got kick started by a Divine Being. No way to prove that one way or the other.
     
  15. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Search, be your own guru.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occam's Razor or 'Kalama Sutta' (the older and sharper version of Occam's Razor).

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2015
  16. waggindraggin

    waggindraggin Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    8
    Natural selection is obvious. Evolution is based upon that. Here is natural selection: Small changes in DNA in the semen or egg cause a small change in the offspring, and many small changes can add into large changes by many life cycles. It is known that creatures with similarities have similar DNA, and it is known DNA determines what creatures look like. Those two astounding things do not appear to be mere coincidences. Some changes benefit the offspring and some do not. It is a matter of luck. It appears that changed DNA has caused changes in animal types. Evolution is not much different from natural selection and is natural selection accounted over many generations.
     
  17. BigJoeNobody

    BigJoeNobody Professional Argument Attractor

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,179
    Likes Received:
    120
    just to throw a wrench in the cog, how does this apply to the leap from single celled cloning organisms to multicelled, hypercomplex DNA. and beyond that, how does inert materials spring up to cause life, even on the most basic level. Not that I have a problem with your analysis, as it is a very plausible and likely option.
     
  18. Devils' Advocate

    Devils' Advocate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    2,086
    Likes Received:
    378
    All great questions. Of which most we still don't have the answers. Doesn't mean the answers are not there. We just haven't figured them out yet. And when we do we may end up having to rewrite most of the biological sciences! Or not. It sure will be fascinating if/when we can crack this particular nut!
     
    Aupmanyav likes this.
  19. waggindraggin

    waggindraggin Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    8
    Biogenesis of cells is a whole different subject from natural selection with DNA. We can observe natural selection among cells, but we cannot observe cell biogenesis. There are some good ideas about what might have caused cells but no conclusions. Cells as we see them today are very complex, so its hard to guess at what forms gave rise to them. If they were simpler and more stable, then guessing would be simpler; but cells are unstable and always changing. It is thought that perhaps cells eventually developed from a replicating protein which grew into a large population of replicating proteins. A single protein can be very complicated and can be formed by simple environmental events, and its possible to replicate some proteins using lab methods. Its unlikely that we will ever be able to determine exactly what came before cells, if anything; but its extremely unlikely that cells just accidentally appeared without any previous long process. They are just too complicated to pop out of nowhere, so thats why its thought that they developed from a protein or some other very easily made form.
     
  20. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    ...most commonly resulting in disease and deformity, debility and early death. Also obvious, the *usual* result of changes at a genetic level are processes such as cancer, anemia, childhood diabetes, muscular dystrophy, asthma, congenital heart disease, cystic fibrosis...and on and on, hardly conducive to "evolution" since unchecked by modern medicine these processes lead to premature death.

    So while changes at a genetic level *are* frequent, touting them to promote evolution is quite misleading. Far less than 1% of natural genetic changes account for anything that even begins to equate with evolution.

    And that isn't even taking into account epigenetics...the part of the puzzle everyone seems to ignore.

    Nature vs Nurture. :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2015

Share This Page