A REPLY TO ANDYA PRIMANDA
-
Indeed. And let's not forget Rumi in the 13th century
Rumi was an evolutionary thinker in the sense that he believed that the spirit after devolution from the divine Ego undergoes an evolutionary process by which it comes nearer and nearer to the same divine Ego. All matter in the universe obeys this law and this movement is due to an inbuilt urge (which Rumi calls "love" to evolve and seek enjoinment with the divinity from which it has emerged. Evolution into a human being from an animal is only one stage in this process. The doctrine of the Fall of Adam is reinterpreted as the devolution of the Ego from the universal ground of divinity and is a universal, cosmic phenomenon. This synthesis of evolution and creationism is a culmination of the ideas of Plotinus and of previous Muslim philosophers like Al Farabi. The French philosopher Henri Bergson's idea of life being creative and evolutionary is similar, though unlike Bergson, Rumi believes that there is a specific goal to the process the attainment of God. For Rumi, God is the ground as well as the goal of all existence."
I died as a mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was Man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as Man, to soar
With angels bless'd; but even from angelhood
I must pass on all except God doth perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,
I shall become what no mind e'er conceived.
Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existence
Proclaims in organ tones,
To Him we shall return.(From http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumi)
-
I don't believe in evolution. I think its a myth. It started good but after failing to find evidence it just kept going on and on because many scientist are atheist and can't let go. But I do not see any contradiction between evolution and faith in God. I just think its stupid and silly. This is a theory that has never been observed or shown how it can take place. They use words like NATURAL selection and RANDOM mutation. Yet they rely on assumptions that are scientifically impossible, like species acquiring new information on their genes or species being able to identify what characteristics are beneficial to them and this benefit remains constant for millions of years. Can you believe that? Its totally unrealistic.
All they have is simpler organisms appeared first on Earth and more complex oraganisms arrived later. They then try to use that to make science out of it. They try to connect the dots by saying simpler organism evolved to more complex oragnisms. Maybe, but what does that have to do with science.
Like Behe said, we must follow the evidence and not vice versa.
And of course my favorite
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMoQf5CG93c&feature=related
-
Peace "farida",
No way! You may share a common ancestor with apes but I certainly don't. nope
Please send me a photographic proof of your shared ancestry. '(JK- Your chromosome 2 is fused just like the rest of us. Did you watch tht video. If yes 1) What do you make of that fusion? 2) WHY are we humans BOTH phenotypically and genetically more similar to apes as compared to any other living creature in the world and theres no doubt tht apes already lived on earth long before humans came into the picture? GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Zidane",
- Just want to remind that it's probably of no real benefit to actually know how we were made - it doesn't make you a better person. So don't waste too much time/effort in it. Better to focus on how to do more good and less bad. It is these unclear and unbeneficial topics like this that cause lots of waste of time but no real moral benefit.
Peace,
Zidane.JK- Im sorry but ive to disagree. Evolution is very important in modern biology as it is this theory which enables us to produce vaccines and study many diseases and how to treat them in humans. Without the theory we cldnt make such predictions and we wldnt be able to study specific diseases in lower animals and how to derive a cure for them in humans. Furthermroe seeking the truth is very important for a true Muslim. It's all signs from GOD. I urge everyone to go out and discuss these things with biologists whor working in this area. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "bigmo",
I don't believe in evolution. I think its a myth. It started good but after failing to find evidence it just kept going on and on because many scientist are atheist and can't let go. But I do not see any contradiction between evolution and faith in God. I just think its stupid and silly. This is a theory that has never been observed or shown how it can take place. They use words like NATURAL selection and RANDOM mutation. Yet they rely on assumptions that are scientifically impossible, like species acquiring new information on their genes or species being able to identify what characteristics are beneficial to them and this benefit remains constant for millions of years. Can you believe that? Its totally unrealistic.
All they have is simpler organisms appeared first on Earth and more complex oraganisms arrived later. They then try to use that to make science out of it. They try to connect the dots by saying simpler organism evolved to more complex oragnisms. Maybe, but what does that have to do with science.
Like Behe said, we must follow the evidence and not vice versa.
And of course my favorite
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMoQf5CG93c&feature=related
JK- First of all Behe beleives in ape-men evolution and common descent as a whole. He just claims that the very first cells werre IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Promotion_of_irreducible_complexity_and_intelligent_design
Secondly regarding Dawkins being stumped THTS A MISREPRESENTATION AT BEST AND A LIE AT WORST by the creationists. Here go check this out on information increase
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsP0qSkCHbk
HERES the entire article where Dawkins clearly explains all of his views in detail
http//www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
I quote the first para here from Dawkins himself
"In September 1997, I(R. Dawkins) allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
Also watch this video on how evo can increase in information
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg
I urge u once again Bigmo u need to do a lot of reserach as uve been lied to just as ive been. The creationists propaganda is all over the place but theyr getting exposed every day. GOD Bless! -
Peace "farida",
Islam's evolutionary legacy
As we celebrate Darwin, let's not forget the unsung champions of evolution from the Muslim world....?Instead, if today's young scientists could just take a peek into the history of science in Islamic cultures, they would see a respectable tradition of thinking, debate and argument on the origins of life and the evolution of species.?
http//www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/27/islam-religion-evolution-science
peace
JK- the link you cited actually mentions tht early Islamic scholars indeed beleived in evolution and one species transforming into another/speciation. Ibn Khaldoon mentions this even more clearly i.e. mankind arose from the world of apes ALTHOUGH they made a serious miostake in claiming that the animals sprung at a certain point from vegetation whereas we know now tht tht sepration occured very early whilst there were still cells(eukaryotes) in the water. Thts when the plant and animal kingdom split. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "tanty",
Harun Yahya is perhaps one of the greatest and most successful deceivers of all time. Here is a youtube video where R. Dawkins HIMSELF DEBUNKS THAT SHARLATAN
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L5TD3nwXXA&feature=channel_page
And here are more vids debunking tht lying mouth HY whom i once believed in
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HXTKw2-mEs
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgOwejDLJjQ
I hope youll get out of this propaganda soon. GOD Bless! -
Arguments against evolution theories
Pierre Paul Grass? is the former president of the French Academy of Sciences and author of the book Evolution of Living Organisms. As he writes
Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. . . .The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.After setting out the impossibility of random mutations having met all the needs of the living world, Grass? goes on to say There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.
Prof. Derek Ager, who is the former president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (and head of the department of geology and oceanography at University College of Swansea)
It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student . . . have now been debunked.Dr. Robert Milikan is a Nobel Prize winner and renowned evolutionist
The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove.Dr. Lewis Thomas, the author of Lives of a Cell
Biology needs a better word than error for the driving force in evolution. . . . I cannot make my peace with the randomness doctrine; I cannot abide the notion of purposelessness and blind chance in nature. And yet I do not know what to put in its place for the quieting of my mind.Jerry Coyne is of the Chicago University Evolution and Ecology Department
We conclude?unexpectedly?that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.H. S. Lipson, the British physicist
I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example).I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin?s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.Gregory Alan Pesely is Professor of Philosophy
One would immediately reject any lexicographer who tried to define a word by the same word, or a thinker who merely restated his proposition, or any other instance of gross redundancy; yet no one seems scandalized that men of science should be satisfied with a major principle which is no more than a tautology.Dr. Colin Patterson is an evolutionist paleontologist and curator of London?s Natural History Museum, editor of the museum?s journal and author of the book Evolution
Now, one of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view?well, let?s callt non-evolutionary?was last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years, I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That was quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long. . . So for the last few weeks, I?ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.The question is this ?Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true? Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?? I tried this question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago? a very prestigious body of evolutionists?and all I got there was silence for a long time. But eventually one person said, ?I do know one thing?it ought not to be taught in high school.?
Dr. Albert Fleischman, zoologist at the University of Erlangen
The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.W. R. Thompson is Head of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in - Ottawa
This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unableto define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.E. O. Wiley of City University of New York?s, Ichthyology Department and the American Museum of Natural History, expresses his thoughts on Norman Macbeth?s book Darwin Retried
Macbeth suggests that we try to look at evolution with new eyes, that we admit to the public, and, if needed, to ourselves, that we have misgivings about Darwinism, and the synthetic theory, that we open debate.Roger Lewin is a well-known evolutionist science writer and former editor of New Scientist magazine
Our intelligence, our reflective consciousness, our extreme technological facility, our complex spoken language, our sense of moral and ethical values?each of these is apparently sufficient to set us apart from nature . . . this gap is an ?embarrassment,? something to be explained away.Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, is a Swedish geneticist and Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint.Paul Lemoine, a former Director of the National Museum of Natural History at Paris
The theories of evolution in which our student youth was cradled constitute a dogma that all the world continues to teach. But each in his own specialty, zoologist or botanist, comes to the conclusion that none of the available explanations is adequate. . . . The result of this summary is that the theory of evolution is impossible.Norman Macbeth, a Harvard-trained lawyer, has made the study of Darwinian theory his avocation for many years
Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.Prof. Cemal Yldrm, a Turkish evolutionist, is Professor of Philosophy at Middle East Technical University and visiting scholar at California State University in Northridge
No scientist, whether be Darwinist or neo-Darwinist, can suggest the notion that the theory of evolution is proven.
That?s right, evolution theory is not proven. -
Peace "tanty",
Are all these professors you quoted all secular or evangelical creation "scisntists"? You need to be very careful with this and just putting up a laudry list of scisntists DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACTS. Since the early Twentieth Century, evolution deniers have been fond of creating lists of "scientists" who do not accept evolution. This tactic is an attempt to give the erroneous impression that, among scientists in general, support for evolution is in decline or that evolution is a "theory in crisis." Have you ever heard about "Project Steve"? It is a parody of these lists conducted by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Read this please
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
http//ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve
GOD Bless! -
Peace "tanty",
Are all these professors you quoted all secular or evangelical creation "scisntists"? You need to be very careful with this and just putting up a laudry list of scisntists DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACTS. Since the early Twentieth Century, evolution deniers have been fond of creating lists of "scientists" who do not accept evolution. This tactic is an attempt to give the erroneous impression that, among scientists in general, support for evolution is in decline or that evolution is a "theory in crisis." Have you ever heard about "Project Steve"? It is a parody of these lists conducted by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Read this please
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
http//ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve
GOD Bless!Yup tanty, beware of "the "Conspiracist Scisntists" tempt
-
Peace "tanty",
Salaam,
I will say the same to both of you JK and Farida.
Beware of scientists who don't believe that GOD is exist!
JK- About 40% scientists beleive in GOD and almost all of those accept evolution. They consider evolution is a Divinely guided process. Get rid of this propaganda that evolution=atheism. Infact as i pointed out many times eoltuion makes the pt of there being only one GOD even stronger. Project Steve is there just to counter creationists arguments that there are so many "scientists" who support creation and hence it must be true otherwise there is a whole load of evidece ive shown repeatedly in support of evolution AND NONE in support of creationism. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "farida",
Yup tanty, beware of "the "Conspiracist Scisntists" tempt
JK- Did you even get what Project Steve's about. It was there to show that despite creatinists claim that there are alot of scienstists in favor of creationism theres a hell lot more scientists supporting evolution JUST BY THE NAME STEVE AND VARIANTS THEREOF which make up only about 1% of the total scientists. Do you get it now? And then on top of it youll see that even Michael Behe, the most prominent advocate of ID, also accepts common descent just claining that the first cells were directly designed by GOD and also that almost all if not all creation scientists come from a religious, ESPECIALLY EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN, background and did not arrive at their conclusions from a secular approach. That is very telling indeed. GOD Bless!
-
Peace again "tanty" and all those who still deny evolution,
One of the most prominet Quran Alone Muslims, our bro Edip Yuksel fully accepts the theory of evolution at the same time has completely exposed that Sharlatan Harun Yahya, who is the most prominent figure amongst creationism in sunni "islam". If not anything else at least that should be extremely telling to you. If you want to ask Edip about the details i can give you his mobile no so that you can call him up and discuss it with him directly. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "tanty",
May i ask you a few questions then? Do you believe that Edip Yuksel, Andya Primanda and many other bros on this forum who all accept evolution and that it is a Divinely guided process are all deceived and/or unbelievers? Have you ever heard about "theistic evolution"? If not please look it up on wiki. As i mentioned earlier about 40% of scientists beleive in GOD and the majority amongst them accept evolution. Do you believe those are all deceived or worse intentionally lying to us with their evidence? Can you tell me why we as humans are overall most similar to apes and monkeys MORE THAN any other animal, although apes and monkeys arived on this planet before us? If GOD had created us separately then why would He choose a certain living creature as a prototype and not select the best features out of every animal and provide us therewith? YET we see weve basically all features of apes and on those modofications have occurred. Besides that theres the chromosme fusion site at our chromosme 2 which shows exactly how wer genetically linked to apes and i had provided the video. Then theres been cases where TRUE TAIL found in monkeys has been reactivated in some human babies, NATURALLY reactivated
http//talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2
Why would GOD make it look genetically as if we evolved from apes if we didnt? Does GOD deceive us? These are just some pts to ponder on. GOD Bless! -
Peace "tanty",
May i ask you a few questions then? Do you believe that Edip Yuksel, Andya Primanda and many other bros on this forum who all accept evolution and that it is a Divinely guided process are all deceived and/or unbelievers? Have you ever heard about "theistic evolution"? If not please look it up on wiki. As i mentioned earlier about 40% of scientists beleive in GOD and the majority amongst them accept evolution. Do you believe those are all deceived or worse intentionally lying to us with their evidence? Can you tell me why we as humans are overall most similar to apes and monkeys MORE THAN any other animal, although apes and monkeys arived on this planet before us? If GOD had created us separately then why would He choose a certain living creature as a prototype and not select the best features out of every animal and provide us therewith? YET we see weve basically all features of apes and on those modofications have occurred. Besides that theres the chromosme fusion site at our chromosme 2 which shows exactly how wer genetically linked to apes and i had provided the video. Then theres been cases where TRUE TAIL found in monkeys has been reactivated in some human babies, NATURALLY reactivated
http//talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2
Why would GOD make it look genetically as if we evolved from apes if we didnt? Does GOD deceive us? These are just some pts to ponder on. GOD Bless!Peace
Believing that the theory of evolution was created by god while at the same time believing that everything was created by chance is a contradiction. but yes, someone can believe in god and at the same time believe in the theory of evolution, but that does not increase the validity of the theory. Actually someone can believe in God and the same time believe in superstitions and fairy tales. So the conclusion is yes, someone can believe in god and at the same time follow falsehood. Both christian creationists and evolutionists are following falsehood.
-
Peace again "tanty" and all those who still deny evolution,
One of the most prominet Quran Alone Muslims, our bro Edip Yuksel fully accepts the theory of evolution at the same time has completely exposed that Sharlatan Harun Yahya, who is the most prominent figure amongst creationism in sunni "islam". If not anything else at least that should be extremely telling to you. If you want to ask Edip about the details i can give you his mobile no so that you can call him up and discuss it with him directly. GOD Bless!
By that logic, Muhammad Asadi is also a prominet Quran alone muslim. His articles has contributed much to Islam based on Quran alone and he has a very impressive understanding of the Quran. And guess what, he does not believe in the evolution theory. He has have written solid arguments against the falsehood of the theory.
You can read his article about the evolution-theory below.
Evolution by natural selection, is it a fact?
http//www.rationalreality.com/
-
Peace,
Let's make it simple
Evolution is a natural system working within the universal framework, even a chaotic system as evolution is directed on the macro-result level as the laws of nature makes it go into one direction, which is adaption towards progress. The laws of nature are clearly designed, evolution thus is a system that is based on a designed system.
There is no doubt that, even in the crude form, the hypothesis of an intelligent designer
applied to the laws of nature is far superior then the designer considered in the previous
section (of his book referring to creationists red.), who violates the laws of nature from time to time by working
miracles in evolutionary history. Design-by-laws is incomparably more intelligent than
design-by-miracles. If I were an omnipotent being who wanted to make an inhabited
Universe like ours, and I could achieve this simply by conjuring up what I wanted when I
wanted it, I wouldnt regard my activities as very clever.
But to select a set of laws that,
without nay periodic fixing up and micromanagment, can bring a Universe into being
and bring about self-organisation, self-complexification and self-assembly of life and
conciousness-well, that looks very clever indeed! So the intelligentdesign beloved of the
Intelligent Design movement strikes me as not very intelligent at all, in contrast to a
designer of laws of nature which by themselves have such astonishing creative ability
without the need for intervention and miracles.Intelligent design of the laws does not
conflict with science, because it accepts that the whole Universe runs itself according
to physical laws, and that everything that happens in the Universe has a natural
explanation. There are no miracles other than the miracle of nature itself. You dont
even need a miracle to bring the Universe into existence in the first place, because the
big bang may be brought within to explain the origin of the Universe from nothing, or by
assuming something like eternal inflation. The designer-of-laws is responsible for the
Universe, and might be thought of as upholding its existence at every moment, but does
not tinker with its day to day operation. The type of God I am describing comes close, I
think, to what many scholarly theologians-and for that matter quite a few scientists profess
to believe in. -
Peace "david_k"
Peace
Believing that the theory of evolution was created by god while at the same time believing that everything was created by chance is a contradiction. but yes, someone can believe in god and at the same time believe in the theory of evolution, but that does not increase the validity of the theory. Actually someone can believe in God and the same time believe in superstitions and fairy tales. So the conclusion is yes, someone can believe in god and at the same time follow falsehood. Both christian creationists and evolutionists are following falsehood.
JK- Evolution does NOT say that everything is cerated by chance. Yes mutations are cosnidered to be random BUT natural selection is anything but random. Youve got to rid yourself of this confusion. Also the mutations occur within fixed chemical laws. Theistic evolutionists state that it is GOD who setup the laws of the universe at the beginning so that all lviing things would evolve in it inclduing us so He is the creator of everything and He used evolution as a mechanism. ALSO ive provided more than enough evidence to support the fact that we share a common ancestor with apes. Now it's upto you to look at it, study it carefully and then decide especially the chromosme fusion. GOD Bless!