The Evolution Conflict

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

  1. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    Kindest Regards, bob x!
    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.
     
  3. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    43
    tangentially related...

    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.
     
    Ahanu likes this.
  4. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!
    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.
     
  5. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    Kindest Regards, brucegdc!
    Thank you sincerely for the clarification.
     
  6. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    Sorry to be a pest, but I found something that might be interesting to add here:

    http://home.entouch.net/dmd/sweat.htm

    Greatly edited:
    [size=+1]"The Curse of a Big Head[/size]

    Copyright 1996 G.R. Morton. This can be freely copied and distributed if unaltered and no monetary charge is made.

    Genesis 3:16-21 (NIV) "To the woman he said, 'I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.' To Adam he said,

    'Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.' Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living. The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them."

    The brain, like that engine, can only be as big as the cooling system it has. If the brain overheats, the brain is ruined just like overheating a car engine will ruin it. In the brain the blood acts as the coolant. The brain has several emissary veins which go from the interior of the skull to the skin of the face. These veins are part of the "radiator" system. When a person is cold, blood flows from the cranium outward in these veins. But when a person exercises and becomes overheated, the blood flow reverses and blood flows into the cranium. The reason for this reversal is that the skin of the face (the brow included) acts as a radiator, cooling the blood which then enters the brain to cool that organ. Some of the veins are preserved in the skulls of extinct hominids (and man) in the form of emissary foramina (a foramina is a hole in the skull see Falk 1992 p. 153). Thus a record of the size and number of emissary foramina are preserved in ancient skulls for anthropologists to examine. Falk (1992, p. 159) notes:
    "It was beautiful. For the past two million years, the increase in frequencies of emissary foramina kept exact pace with the sharp increase in brain size in Homo. Clearly, the brain and the veins had evolved rapidly and together. I saw that Cabanac's letter was right and that I had unwittingly charted the evolution of a radiator for the brain in my earlier work on emissary foramina. As Anwander had said about my car, the engine can only be as big as the radiator can cool. Apparently, the same is true for heat-sensitive brains."

    But emissary veins are only part of the cooling mechanism in mankind. Sweat is the reason that the facial skin cools and the cooling of the skin cools the blood destined for the brain. What do we know about sweat?

    The human sweating system is unique among mammals. Bernard Campbell (1974, p. 280-282) describes the function of sweat glands:

    "The sweat glands fall into two groups: the apocrine and eccrine glands. The apocrine glands secrete the odorous component of sweat and are primarily scent glands that respond to stress or sexual stimulation. Before the development of artificial scents and deodorants, they no doubt played an important role in human society. In modern man these glands occur only in certain areas of the body, in particular in the armpits, the navel, the anal and genital areas, the nipples, and the ears. Surprisingly enough, glands in the armpits of man are more numerous per unit area than in any other animal. There is no doubt that the function of scent in sexual encounter is of the greatest importance even in the higher primates and man. "The eccrine glands, which are the source of sweat itself, have two functions in primates. Their original function was probably to moisten friction surfaces, such as the volar pads of hand and foot to improve the grip, prevent flaking of the horny layer of the skin, and assist tactile sensitivity. Glands serving that function are also found on the hairless surface of the prehensile tail of New World monkeys and on the knuckles of gorilla and chimpanzee hands, which they use in quadrupedal walking. Glands in these positions are under the control of the brain and adrenal bodies, and in modern man an experience of stress may produce sweaty palms.

    Now to tie up the final item, pain in childbirth. Among mammals there are two patterns of brain growth. The first pattern is called altriciality. In this pattern the animal is born helpless and extremely immature. The brains of altricial animals are usually half the size of the adult's, and double in size by adulthood. Because of this it takes lots of parental effort to raise the young. Animals following this pattern usually have litters and perform this care for multiple offspring at once. Cats, with their blind and helpless kittens are altricial. The other pattern is precocial. In this pattern the offspring are usually born single and from birth are able to get around quite well. Their brains are nearly adult size at birth. The are alert and all their organs are functioning. An example of this pattern is the horse, the wildebeest etc., where the young will run with the herds within minutes.

    "Humans are simply born too early in their development, at the time when their heads will still fit through their mothers' birth canals. As babies' brains grow, during this extrauterine year of fetal life, so do their bodies. About the time of the infant's first birthday, the period of fetal brain growth terminates, coinciding with the beginnings of speech and the mastery of erect posture and bipedal walking."
    This pattern of growth has huge implications. Every other primate doubles their brain weight from birth to adulthood. But due to the early birth of humans, we triple our brain's birth rate. Our last 12 month of fetal growth rate of the brain occurs outside the sensorially deprived womb. The vast quantities of sensory input during the first year of life affects the rate and nature of the neural connections. Because of this year of helplessness, parents must provide close physical and emotional support for the infant. Unlike chimp babies who can cling to their mother's fur, human infants cannot even hang on to mother in spite of having the hand reflex. The mother has no fur because she sweats and she sweats because of a big brain which is why she gives birth to her child early. This early birth then requires the mother to care for the infant and increases the bond between mother and child which partially makes us human.

    It is also intriguing to me that the ancient Hebrew writer would choose as a curse for man and woman, two different maledictions which can be caused by a single phenomenon--an increase in brain size. This single cause also would require the loss of hair and the subsequent need for clothing. There is no way that the Hebrew writer could have had the knowledge to purposefully construct this tale. Is this a fortuitous conjunction of statements or is it divine inspiration?"

    Any thoughts?
     
  7. Marsh

    Marsh Disagreeable By Nature

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    0
    One Adam or two?

    That's interesting. I don't know enough about linguistics to know whether it holds water or not, but it's interesting, especially considering that it may explain the skeletal remains that pre-date the Biblical time-line, depending on how long that seventh day really was.

    Just one question, though: The Genesis 2 account of the creation says that there was "no man to work the ground" before God created Adam. How can this be, if God had created a man and woman already before?
     
  8. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    Kindest Regards, Marsh!
    I wasn't there, so I cannot state with absolute certainty, but in my mind I believe the "6th day" creation are what we refer to commonly as "hunter-gatherers." The advent of agriculture is actually pretty recent, specifically in Mesopotamia, which is close enough geographically to the several sites suggested as possibly being Eden. The man Adam was created specifically to tend the Garden, there is a lot of subtle insight and wisdom to that when one considers it deeply on the many levels; physical, mental and spiritual. That wisdom is generally overlooked in today's teachings, at least in the Christian churches I have been in.
     
  9. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    7
    Some interesting points raised. :)
     
  10. Phi

    Phi New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    A woman's point of view...KJV

    While I realize this has little to do with evolution, and is a little off topic, nevertheless it does have a lot to do with the Adam & Eve story, so I thought I'd post it to see what you guys think.

    In the tradition mentioned it seems it all started when a serpent told Eve that she would not die if she ate the knowledge-fruit.
    In fact, she was not condemned to die, according to the text. She was
    1. Given the blessing of having children, albeit with "travail"(This was ever after considered a blessing insomuch as women begged God constantly throughout the old testament that they be fertile)

    Then punished by being
    2. Told that she would desire her husband (since this is a punishment, I must assume that she did not previously have desire for him in any sense of that word)
    3. Told that he would rule over her (since this is a punishment, apparently he had NOT ruled over her previously in the garden, no matter who was created first or how)
    Adam, the man, was
    1.Expelled from the garden
    2.Told he must work in the dust of the gorund
    3.Told that he would return to that dust (die)
    According to the words, Eve was not expelled from the garden. Her desire for her husband must have caused her to follow him, to her eventual demise.
    It seems that her sin was not so much eating the fruit herself as giving it to the man.
    One may wonder what the nature of this good- and-evil knowledge was that it was deadly to man but not to woman. (Perhaps it was safe for the nurturer but not for the warrior?
    Safe for the one whose nature it is to defend life, but dangerous to the one whose nature is to make war/take life? But I digress..)
    The serpent was not lying when he said that she would not die from the knowledge-fruit (God never condemned her to die)the serpent just failed to mention that Adam would.
    The enmity mentioned between the seeds of serpent and woman has oft been given as an allegorical reference to Christ, but if this is Eve's punishment and not Adam's, then is the Christ only of Eve's seed and not of Adam's?
    Perhaps the verse is dislocated and refers to enmity between the woman seed xx and the man seed xy?
    At any rate, this tale has been the genesis of the IDEA that woman is secondary to man, at least in our world, outside of paradise...
    From the information given one can safely conclude that while in Paradise, she
    1. Did not have man ruling her
    2. Had no desire for him
    3. Would not die from knowledge-fruit
    4. Did not bear children (travail or not)
    5. Was not banished from Paradise
    Comments?

    BTW:Even the Jewish G-d never said that he created woman to be lesser than man.
    Her punishment in the story is that she would have desire for her husband, resulting in his ruling over her.
    He did not say that her husband "should" rule her, merely that he would, for after Adam fell he no longer was able to be in complete obedience to the will of the Jewish god whose will was expressed in in the OT insofar as
    Eve/woman was concerned that she was his strength/support, not his servant/helper.
     
  11. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    Kindest Regards, Phi!

    I really wanted to take the time to provide some things to back me up, but I really haven't the time (other than this insomniac moment), so I am going to attempt this by winging it. Hope this works.
    Perhaps, but traditionally it is said that were it not for the fall, both Adam and Eve would have lived "forever" in the form they were created. After the fall, they were both then subject to death of the physical body.

    You have a very interesting take on this, well worth considering. I believe Genesis stated Eve was created as "an help meet" (old english of the KJV), meaning helpmate. At the very least, she was to be the companion of the man. I grant you she was created with "equal footing", and I also believe that was not supposed to be circumvented. Which is why Paul taught, "husbands, love your wives, even as your own flesh." Women in Judaic social custom, by my understanding, had far more property rights than they held under Christian social custom. And then there is "Go forth, be fruitful, and multiply." I don't recall offhand if that was previous to the fall or not, but if before, then I would be inclined to believe there was some "desire" inherent.

    *Something I have long pondered, stemming from old english custom (perhaps elsewhere as well, but it is english tradition I learned), "Mankind" includes women. A passing thought from this is that, in effect, poor Eve would get a double whammy, those "curses" given her specifically, as well as those of the "mankind."

    Ah, but Adam could have chosen not to taste of the forbidden knowledge. Instead, with full knowledge of the consequences, he chose to cast his lot with his mate. I find that rather romantic.

    It would be difficult indeed to ascertain precisely what knowledge was conveyed, but in my mind I see an explosive opening of the rational conscious mind, where previously this was not necessary as God provided and protected. Once they had the capacity, they were required to do for themselves. They lost the favor of grace, so to speak, in exchange for the ability to think.

    What the hey, this forum seems to encourage wild and extreme points of view, so I'll have a go at this. The serpent had legs, remember? He seduced Eve. The child born of the union was Cain, which is why Cain is not mentioned in the geneology of Adam in Genesis. This is supported by other passages, such as certain angels seeing "daughters of the earth, that they were fair, and they took them to be their wives," from which a race of giants (men of reknown) were born. This either continued or a second influx occured after the flood of Noah. Goliath was descended from this race of giants. Even in English history I have occasionally seen mention of Lord Cornwall enjoying the "sport" of hunting giants. I have also read long ago in a book by Lobsang Rampa (sp?) of mausoleum (for lack of a better term) deep in a cave in the Himalayas that contained the bodies of three giants. There is also a reference elsewhere in the Bible (I forget offhand where) referencing the iron bedstead of Og, and its extrordinarily large proportions, and that it was still in existence long after that King was dead.

    So, while giantism is occasionally a result of a medical condition, born out by medical science, if the Bible is to be taken at face value there were at one time a race of giants, and they stemmed from the union of "fallen angels" and humans. As for why there is no extent archeology to demonstrate this, I cannot say.

    You have a valid point in that it has been convoluted into that meaning in many societies, but I would emphasize not all. And since it is at the root of Judaism as well, given my understanding, I would humbly defer to someone of that faith to explain better than I. Until then, I am of the opinion that women in Jewish society hold a much more equal position than they have in others. I suppose it is valid that some cultures deemed it expedient to subjugate women to a lesser class, contary to my understanding of the proper place and role women are supposed to hold, but the motives are unclear in my mind.

    Right.
     
  12. Marsh

    Marsh Disagreeable By Nature

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am a little confused...

    I really don't understand your response, friend. I get what you are saying about the first Adam being a hunter-gatherer, and the second one being a farmer. This much makes sense: if the first Adam was a hunter-gatherer, he wouldn't have been, well, interested in tending the land, would he?

    But I'm somewhat perplexed by your statement about subtle insight and wisdom across physical, mental and spiritual levels. Will you explain this part to me? An example would be nice, to tell the truth.
     
  13. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    Kindest Regards, Marsh!

    Certainly, and with pleasure!

    Assuming one believes in the Biblical traditions, there are teachings and prevalent social norms about man's interaction with nature that I find contrary to the purpose of Adam's creation. In my view, man was not created to subdue, rape, pillage and plunder nature. "Dominion" over nature is not wanton destruction, it is the careful tending and nurturing. These are the mental and physical aspects (the thinking and the doing), and it can be carried forward to its conclusions.

    The spiritual aspects are best found when actually tending a garden. Assuming one is so inclined. As a "decendent" of Adam, one often has a love of the earth, and finds a certain joy in tending a garden. Obviously, this is not for everybody, but for those that enjoy tending a garden, there is a spiritual connection, an uplifting experience, that is found in few other places. The joy brought about by the smell of freshly tilled soil, the anticipation of planting time, the spark ignited by the first seeds germinating, the pride taken in the first ripened fruits, the satisfaction of the efforts of one's labors. Mind you, I am using words to describe things that must be experienced to be appreciated. These experiences are difficult to find anywhere else, especially in the fullness and complexity that tending a garden brings.
     
  14. Mohsin

    Mohsin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Firstly, there are some things that can be a little out of order in the earth's statistics but would still cause huge changes. The atmosphere(77% nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 1%Carbondioxyde) is well balanced as 1% increase in Oxygen will cause 70% increase in forest fire which will in turn further harm the atmosphere by not producing more Oxygen and the planet will overheat. Any decrease and there would be not enough oxygen for living beings. Same goes with carbondioxide as any increase will cause suffocation, any decrease and the plants will not be able to perform photosynthesis. Thus, everything on the whole is very well balanced.

    When concerning Adam(P.B.U.H), I reffered to a few scholors and it turns out that when Adam and Eve(P.B.U.T) when united on Earth by God, they gave birth to a pair of chidren (one male and one female). This process continued and the second time and there was again a pair. This happened probably because God wanted to populate the planet. God cammanded that the
    male of the first pair should marry the female of the second pair, the female of the first pair should marry the male of the second pair. Now, Cain (or Kabeel(remembered among Muslims)) was jealous of his brother and also wanted to marry his own pair woman(twin sister) because she was more beautiful. This decisioun was against the will of God. They offered an offering towards God and that of Cain was rejected. So he killed his brother. The process of Adam and Eve giving birth to pairs continued. This story is more acceptable then that of having two Adams or having the woman as a highly evolved animal. It is also in harmony with the Quran.
    _____________

    [4.1] O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, by Whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (to) the ties of relationship; surely Allah ever watches over you.
    _____________

    I hope this settles this discussion and we get back to the topic, 'The Theory of Evolution'.


    The study of archaeology has been a big blow to the thoery, like that of the development of science in the fields of genetics and biology. The fossil records show that life was indeed created as a whole and not in stages. Several hundred million years old skeletons of creatures are found similar to those present today. The skeletons or skulls presented by evolutionests are actully of apes and even a man skull with ape jaws(eg. the piltdown man). Again, for further information, reffer to the links
    http://www.harunyahya.com/evolutiondeceit04.php (sudden appearences of living creatures)
    and http://www.harunyahya.com/evolutiondeceit08.php (Evolution Forgeries).

    This theory cannot, by any means be accepted by the religious scriptures. It denies them clearly and in open terms. I will now briefly account to you how the extreme followers of this theory has not only rejected God, but also resorted to violance and conflict following scocial Darwinism.

    Everyone amoung you knows that Hitler used this thoery to claim that his race was supperior and should rule the world. He not only killed his enemies, but also among his own people killed the mentally and physically handicap people saying that the were a hindrance in the process of evolution. This theory was well accepted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who formed the Communist laws and used it as a base of their theory. It's followers, especially in Russia, by the hands of Lenin and Stalin caused nothing but destruction to humanity. They killed millions in their own lands by taking away the harvest and the people could do nothing but starve to death. Stalin's first important move was to take over the fields of the peasants who made up 80 percent of the population of Russia in the name of the state. In the name of this policy of collectivisation which was intended to do away with private property, all the Russian villagers' crops were collected by armed officials. As a result these was a terrible famine. Millions of women, children, and the elderly who could find nothing to eat ended their lives writhing in hunger. The death toll in the Caucasus alone was 1 million. They destroyed
    churches and mosques and even tried to ban the Quran but failed.
    The following rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates, gives some sense of the scale and gravity of the communal crimes.
    U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths
    China: 65 million deaths
    Vietnam: 1 million deaths
    North Korea: 2 million deaths
    Cambodia: 2 million deaths (about 1/3rd of its population)
    Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths
    Latin America: 150,000 deaths
    Africa: 1.7 million deaths
    Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths
    The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths
    The total approaches 100 million people killed.

    In present times, many anti-religious organizations and even a religion by the name of Satanism(the religion of Marlin Manson) follows this thoery so badly that they say that a man can rape, rob and do such immorality because man is an evolved animal and this is how wild animals behave. They fail to realize that animals too have mates and they follow their herds. Please reffer to this book for more details http://www.harunyahya.com/disaster1.php .


    Thus, I question again; since the theory of evolution is incorrect and have contradictions with both Quran and the Bible, thus conflicting religion, why do so many people believe in it? Why is it tought in schools and colleges (as a fact rather then a theory)? Why do many magazines and people of the scientific community defend this theory, and do you, being a religious person, believe in this thoery?
     
  15. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    The theory that it was once a single planet, but then "shattered", was popular in the 1830's (and still shows up in books), but it is far more likely that it never coalesced at all. All the planets coalesced from "planetesimal" belts of similar nature, but with a far larger number of these little bodies so that they had a greater chance of hitting each other. The asteroid belt is depleted because a "passing astronomic body", namely Jupiter, constantly disrupts the orbits, knocking many of the little bodies into different orbits (including the "Earth-grazers", and the meteors that eventually crash into us and the Moon and Mars and, of course, in more cases into the sun).
     
  16. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    43
    [​IMG]

    "•(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
    • (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
    • (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
    • (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
    • (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
    • (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
    • (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
    • (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
    • (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
    • (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
    • (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
    • (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
    • (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
    • (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern "

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
     
  17. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    43
    Namatse all,

    discussion of Evolution should probably be in the Science section of the site.. however, to facilitate discussion on this thread, i'll repost some information here:

    Evolution as Fact and Theory
    by Stephen Jay Gould

    Kirtley Mather, who died last year at age ninety, was a pillar of both science and Christian religion in America and one of my dearest friends. The difference of a half-century in our ages evaporated before our common interests. The most curious thing we shared was a battle we each fought at the same age. For Kirtley had gone to Tennessee with Clarence Darrow to testify for evolution at the Scopes trial of 1925. When I think that we are enmeshed again in the same struggle for one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of science, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

    According to idealized principles of scientific discourse, the arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions. Those outside the current debate may therefore be excused for suspecting that creationists have come up with something new, or that evolutionists have generated some serious internal trouble. But nothing has changed; the creationists have presented not a single new fact or argument. Darrow and Bryan were at least more entertaining than we lesser antagonists today. The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

    The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

    In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

    Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

    Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

    Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

    Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution. The fruitful theoretical debate that Darwin initiated has never ceased. From the 1940s through the 1960s, Darwin's own theory of natural selection did achieve a temporary hegemony that it never enjoyed in his lifetime. But renewed debate characterizes our decade, and, while no biologists questions the importance of natural selection, many doubt its ubiquity. In particular, many evolutionists argue that substantial amounts of genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through the populations at random. Others are challenging Darwin's linking of natural selection with gradual, imperceptible change through all intermediary degrees; they are arguing that most evolutionary events may occur far more rapidly than Darwin envisioned.

    Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is—and how else can I say it?—most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information might be explained in surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.

    Secondly, creationists claim that "the dogma of separate creations," as Darwin characterized it a century ago, is a scientific theory meriting equal time with evolution in high school biology curricula. But a popular viewpoint among philosophers of science belies this creationist argument. Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.

    The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters. Their brand of creationism, they claim, is "scientific" because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions. One does not become a scientist by the simple act of trying to falsify a rival and truly scientific system; one has to present an alternative system that also meets Popper's criterion — it too must be falsifiable in principle.
     
  18. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    43
    Moshin,

    do you have any sources besides Harun Yahya that refute Evolution? specifically, do you have any scientific sources that do so by a reputeable scientist? i'm sure that others besides myself would be happy to review the material.

    by the way... Catholics don't have a problem with evolution for the most part. Here's what the Pope has to say about it:

    "In his Encyclical Humani generis [1950], my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576). "

    "Taking into account the state of scientific research and the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.

    Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

    http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm
     
  19. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    Kindest Regards, Mohsin!
    I have heard this story before as well, but it doesn't jibe with Genesis.:) If I am not mistaken, this is the extra-Biblical story of Lillith. I will acccept that it is difficult to trace, Biblically, who the wives of the sons that continued after were (Seth, Enos, Cainan, etc...), but the Bible states emphatically that Cain married a woman from the land of Nod. Yes, Eve continued in labor when she gave birth to Cain, and Abel was the second son born at that time. Cain and Abel were twins. But if the sons continued marrying their sisters, there would be some serious inbreeding, and that would create some serious medical problems of its own.:(

    You are welcome to acknowledge the scholarship of your choice. What I have presented here pertaining to the
    Genesis story is taught by Dr. Arnold Murray, a very learned linguist and Biblical scholar. The extra material pertaining to giants, the folklore, is my research from a multitude of sources.

    On the one hand, I understand where you are coming from, and sympathize completely. On the other hand, the purpose of research is to get to the bottom of the story. Research that is slanted to a particular opinion is not research, it is propaganda.:)

    What I gain from S.J. Gould's punctuated equilibrium, is the possibility of a distinct interjection into the existing "humanity" that was already here. If evolution was indeed carried out in fits and starts, I see that as the possibility of an outside intervention, "the hand of God" as it were.:D

    I also think it interesting, some of the recent archeological information, showing that Cro-Magnon and Neandertal coexisted and cooperated, but were sufficiently genetically different that they could not (or did not?) interbreed. Yet both, according to evolutionary theory, stem from common ancestry. According to this line of thought, Cro-Magnon are our direct ancestors, while Neandertal died out. Neandertal became extinct despite having a larger brain, greater stature, and more collective and compounded tool-making and fire-making ability. Neandertal and Cro-Magnon both are believed to have been capable of speech, linguistic expression, art (such as the cave paintings), and religion (shamanic artifacts), dating back at minimum 10 thousand years, and according to some sources as much as 40-50 thousand years. All of this is from a multitude of sources researching sites throughout Europe, as well as China. Even if "rational thought" is used as the distinction between "man (ha-Adam)" and animal (Adam-whatever humanoid species predated), social organization, religion and rational thought have been around a very long time. In my thinking, ha-Adam was the first to have his conscious mind fully awakened (actually, Eve was the first). Until I see something that refutes this with anything close to solid evidence, this is the view I hold from my research.;)
     
  20. Nogodnomasters

    Nogodnomasters New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    1
    As to the theory of Creation stories, I have stated elsewhere, but will chime in again here. In the original Biblical text Eve was not mentioned by name. Adam simply had a wife. Adam was expelled and the woman was not. Adam then took a mortal wife. This is similar to a Babylonian tale.

    Lilith was considered to be the wife of Adam under Babylonian influence, but was never named or added to the Biblical text. Lilith from Babylon/Assyria "liltu" "a female demon." She appears as Lillake in a 2000 BCE Sumerian tablet where she dwells in the trunk of a willow tree.

    Under Hittite influence Eve was added to the text. She was placed before and after the expulsion to make it appear Adam had only one wife. The curses were added also. Eve or "Hawwah" is a Hebrew form of Heba, Hebat, Khebat -the goddess wife of the Hittite Storm god.

    The genealogy of Seth is also a document addition. In the original text Noah descended from Cain. As the texts became more important, this proved to be a phiolosophical problem so the text was added to (note the original text remained intact- so we have all kind of clues.)

    The generations of Seth was patterened after those of Cain (). Under Seth we have Enos (Enoch), Cainan (Cain), Mahalaliel (Methujael), Jared (Irad), Enoch (Enoch), Methuselah (Methasael) and Lamech (Lamech). It is apparent to those who can trace.

    The story of Seth is considered separate to those who subscribe to the document hypothesis.

    The irony of those who oppose evolution because it is "not scientific" turn around and hand me a book called the "Bible" which they claim is scientifically correct. On page 2 it has a talking snake.
     

Share This Page