The Evolution Conflict

Aupmanyav said:
I am very much religious but I am an atheist Hindu. Why so many people believe in it is because they have discriminating minds. They can see the difference between fiction and facts.
Click to expand...
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.

Aupmanyav said:
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. :)
Click to expand...
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?
 
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...
 
BigJoeNobody said:
1st Islam doesn't contradict evolution. As a matter in fact many ascribe many signs in the Quran that point to it.
Click to expand...
And only credits Allah for it without any rhyme or reason. :)
BigJoeNobody said:
.. how did anyone create, if there is no God. How can there be a God without a God.
Click to expand...
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).
BigJoeNobody said:
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?
Click to expand...
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:
wil said:
the Quran and science do not conflict with Quranists and Muslims... It doesn't work the other way around...
Click to expand...
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.

Aupmanyav said:
And only credits Allah for it without any rhyme or reason. :)
Click to expand...
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.

Namaste Jesus said:
One man's definition for not divine, another man's definition for divine and so it goes..... ;)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mohsin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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....
 
BigJoeNobody said:
Assuming he is the Creator, there is no reason to doubt his involvement.


He then manipulated that energy to create Quarks (Aup.: spelling corrected) and so on up to matter.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Richard Pickett said:
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....
Click to expand...
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.
 
Aupmanyav said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
BigJoeNobody said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Occam's Razor or 'Kalama Sutta' (the older and sharper version of Occam's Razor).

coyote.jpg

http://
 
Last edited:
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.
 
waggindraggin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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!
 
BigJoeNobody said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
waggindraggin said:
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, ...
Click to expand...
...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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top