Evolution « PKPolitics Discuss

PKPolitics Discuss » Faith and Religion

Evolution

(148 posts)

12 3 Next »

gv
Member

http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/alien-life-forms/page/3#post-205222

Continued from original discussion above

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 10:35 #
LifeH2O
Member

SS One thing in science is that sometimes the most accepted theories come out to be false or something else in future, there is always a chance.
Till now Darwin's theory is accepted with some ammendments. On going research proved that evolution is happening.
It is not only you who is against the point that the simplest life form was just a result of some random accidents.
What you are now, at this moment while reading this, what do you think, are you 'created' or 'evoluted' to this age, undertanding etc.?

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 10:38 #
shafiq12
member

gv and life h20

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Now can i ask both of u who have great common abilities like Gorilla (gv) and champozies (life h20) What is Common descent.

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 11:35 #
gv
Member

@ss

first of all its chimpanzee not champozie.

secondly what part of 'evolution over millions of years' did you not understand.

Do you not understand what it means when new species branch off from old species over millions of years.

Yes a common ancestor exists for all mammals according to darwinism and evolution but that does not mean an ancestor which humans share 100% DNA with. Also that common ancestor goes back a million or so years before the estimated appeareance of homo sapiens

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 11:38 #
dildar
Member

gv

wouldn't be it better if you and life struck your head into a hard concrete wall instead of arguing with this jahil....

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 13:01 #
gv
Member

@dildar

:) :) :)

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 13:03 #
toamin
member

lolzz.. a theory that itself has been subject to continuous 'evolution' since its inception :)

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 13:57 #
LifeH2O
Member

" a theory that itself has been subject to continuous 'evolution' since its inception "
A Fact about all scientific Facts

@super soldier
"Now can i ask both of u "
How dare u ask anyone while u yourself hesitate to ask and love to keep your answers secret

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 15:00 #
toamin
member

not a fact, just a theory.. some more points to ponder upon-

2- The sources of proof given for the theory essentially rely on retro-fitting the supposed evidence to the theory i.e. the theory states evolution occurred from a common ancestor, and then study of fossils and homologies is used to indicate that indeed the theory is correct and evolution does occur. But equally we could state there is a creator who created the amazing diversity of life and also the similarities between species – in fact this is more plausible. Thus fossils and homologies would just as much, if not more, support this ‘theory’ of a Creator.

3- If species are continually mutating, never constant, why do we find several of the same, certain prehistoric creatures, but never any that appear to be in transition? Why do palaeontologists find lots of dinosaurs but never where dinosaurs come from, nor what they turned into?

4- In Darwin's own words, 'Why, if species have descended by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?' It is an excellent question, which he answers himself, 'I can give no satisfactory answer.'

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 15:10 #
gv
Member

@salam

the answer to your point 3 and 4 (at least the one made by modern darwinists) is time.

2) as i keep repeating ad nauseum belief in darwinism does not negate belief in a supreme creator being.

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 15:13 #
LifeH2O
Member

@salam
Theory is part of a question about our existence. Just like a common ancestor, there exist the theory of big bang. A common point from which all this universe started.

Those transitions are known as lost links of chain of evolution.

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 15:21 #
toamin
member

@gv

but then "what is time" i guess answer to this question is also in 'evolution' :)

Yet another problem in using the fossil record as evidence for evolution is that under closer examination, it appears to be a proof for exactly the opposite argument – i.e. creation. For example, one of the oldest strata of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years. The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period seemed to emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record – there appeared to be no ancestors, although in relatively recent times palaeontologists believe fossils have been found dating from the preceding Vendian (or Ediacaran) period. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates.

This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.

“A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth's Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world's first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today”.

And one of the most vociferous advocates for atheism and evolution in today’s age, Richard Dawkins, comments “the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear.

It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists”.

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 15:24 #
gv
Member

@salam

I think we are arguing at cross purposes here. All i am saying is that is considerable evidence which points towards the evolution of man from a common ancestor shared with apes, other mammals and if you go far back enough with microbes.

How the first complex organisms appeared on this earth- i dont know whether God started the big bang - whether they were planted there aliens or however it all began.. many theories exist about the beginning of life on earth but all of them are poorly evidenced... evolution of species however appears to have sufficient evidence behind it..

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 15:28 #
toamin
member

"evolution of species however appears to have sufficient evidence behind it.."

no, that is what they claim..

they try "retro fitting" approach to describe as mentioned in point#1 which can be used in either direction and by any theory-

proponents of this theory establish few 'mechanics of evolution' such as mutation, migration, genetic drift, natural selection) they define each of the mechanism with examples and then comes their "big bang" established in air... smoke & mirror presentation full of complex terms, examples, theories, etc. etc.

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 15:34 #
LifeH2O
Member

they try "retro fitting" approach

Same do the creationists

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 15:35 #
toamin
member

you got the point Lifeh2o

thanks-

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 15:36 #
nota
Member

It's simple guys: SecLibs "evolved" as per Darwin, the rest of us were created :-P

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 17:21 #
shafiq12
member

gv and life h20

I think u both believe in God
Please answer my simple question regarding ur process of evolution
1. Were we created or did we evolve randomly?
2.Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents?

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 18:24 #
LifeH2O
Member

"Please answer my simple question regarding ur process of evolution"
How can u ask questions while you always keep your answers secret.

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 22:46 #
gv
Member

@ss

i chose to believe that evolution is the creator's doing. i.e. god as the prime mover began the universe/life and evolution is part of his plan.

i.e. god is complex and therefore does not create like you and i conceptualise creation (i.e. because human will build something using his mind/hands some humans expect that god is also sitting in some celestial factory building and designing living beings)

Posted 1 year ago on 24 Jan 2011 23:24 #
toamin
member

i think purpose of 'evolution' is to identify key processes, define them scientifically and then use them to develop new tools-

key processes identified in evolution that i mentioned above are established scientifically, so it is useless to debate if "fossils are credible" or "natural selection" or "mutation" etc. are scientific evidence or not..

problem happens when "evolutionist" put together these processes to "fill in the blanks" where things can not be established scientifically..

they take an evidence and "retrofit" it or do reverse engineering with a lot of assumptions to give picture of what happened-

study of biology or chemistry is pure technical study, but when it lands into "philosophical horizons" of how big bang happened or how everything is result of "evolution" then that is where debates churn in..

so better we narrow down this vast & vague subject to smaller objects and then discuss..

by default this debates falls into "evolutionist vs creationists".. but then "evolutionists" here are saying they are believers of The Creator.. lolzz.. so what is the point then?

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 4:01 #
shafiq12
member

gv

i chose to believe that evolution is the creator's doing. i.e. god as the prime mover began the universe/life and evolution is part of his plan.

I have problem how do u agree with darwin theory which is fake science. U never explain it but u try to put new theories.
one of the good is example is how a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this happen the evolutionist are failed to answer. This is one of flaw of evolutionary theory. Why would bird evolve a wing. Do u think that this is happening according to law of creator. It just a theory. Do u think Penguin will evolve it wings when it is brought in the Plains of Pakistan, totally illogical.Will Penguin learn to fly in the India. My friend would u kindly explain it. Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing.The theory evolution create any idea that everything is creator of itself. Like the how bird evolve wings. Like the competition between best of species etc. It's nothing but ignorance

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 6:10 #
LifeH2O
Member

@salam
"evolutionists here are saying they are believers of The Creator"
Because a 'creationist' is saying that they are not the believers.

@SS
"Why would bird evolve a wing" Because they needed it

" Penguin will evolve it wings when it is brought in the Plains of Pakistan"
Yes, but it will take so many years. If you take the penguine to pakistan it will die. Penguine will change itself gradually according to gradual changes in environment.
Did you read my post that a lizard is shifting from eggs to live birth?
Do you know becterias change themself and evolve very effitiently to spread more?

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 8:28 #
gv
Member

@salam

you know considering your belief is God and islam is also based on pure faith and no evidence its funny you're so quick to condemn 'retrofitting' as you put it.

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 9:00 #
toamin
member

hello gv

that is your claim that it is "pure faith".. for me it is based on rational proof, aren't you getting little personal here :)

lifeh20

you can't be keeping one foot in "evolution theory" and other in "creation belief".. pick one :)

Did Adam AS transform from an animal (na'uzobillah) or was he Created?

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 9:24 #
gv
Member

@salam

i apologise. not my intention.. my point being that everyone has their beliefs in how the world began/operates.. no one has any hard proof though

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 9:28 #
shafiq12
member

Did you read my post that a lizard is shifting from eggs to live birth?
Do you know becterias change themself and evolve very effitiently to spread more? .

Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 9:33 #
shafiq12
member

salam

I already tried to explain but there minds are not fully developed to understand what i am talking. They are just showing pure childish thinking. They even didn't know what they are talking.

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 9:36 #
toamin
member

gv

i apologise. not my intention.. my point being that everyone has their beliefs in how the world began/operates.. no one has any hard proof though

thanks for concluding this never ending debate nicely..

it is all about beliefs.. one vs other.. problem happens when one party starts to claim that their belief is "scientific" and others' are "blind"..

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 9:41 #
gv
Member

@salam lets also agree that there is a lot more hard (fossilised) evidence towards the evolution of species than creationism

though i agree with you that this evidence is not conclusive.

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 9:43 #
toamin
member

yes.. fossils evidences are there and they only prove existence of older species, these evidences can be used by either theory.. also let us not forget the Cambrian Explosion fossil evidence :)

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 9:51 #
hkbajwa
Member

What i don't understand is how anybody in this day and age can claim that this universe was created in one magical swoop.

Those who consider evolution to be a "myth"... well pray tell how did life originate on this planet and how did mankind come to be??

I think we need your side of the story before this discussion will go anywhere.

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 10:10 #
toamin
member

@pray tell.. lagta hay taza taza paracha ko parha ker ayen hain :)

i think you misunderstood the debate here, no one is saying that universe was created in one magical swoop..

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 10:56 #
hkbajwa
Member

@ Salam

Ok what then are the objections to evolution??

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 11:01 #
toamin
member

hkbajwa

Why don't you follow the thread, or do you expect someone to spoon feed you?

http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/evolution#post-205301
http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/evolution#post-205307
http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/evolution#post-205311
http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/evolution#post-205454

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 11:10 #
LifeH2O
Member

@salam
"Did Adam AS transform from an animal (na'uzobillah) or was he Created? "
Here is another point of view in that matter

Ignore the titles in this video, they are not my intention
start listening at 03:20

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 13:16 #
toamin
member

lifeh20

now we are drifting into qadiyyani & munkar-e-hadith debate..

i hope you are not an ahmadi-

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 13:44 #
Faarigh Jazbati
member

Dear All

I am waiting this pkp thread to evolve into facebook page. That would be the point when I may take evolution theory seriously. :-P

FJ

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 13:55 #
LifeH2O
Member

@salam No, not at all, also not any offense was intended, i already cleared that. It was just to show how evolution theory is also justified by Quran using other interpretations. Every one interpret it differently

Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jan 2011 16:58 #
toamin
member

good-

as i mentioned before, evolution theory is not just about the processes that they define scientifically, it is about applying these processes with guess work with a lot of assumptions, plus there are no hard evidences that can establish that oak trees, fish, human, lizard etc all came from same root-

also it is a complete package, more of a philosophical view point than a scientific process

what surprises me that you and gv on one hand believe in The Almighty Creator while on the other hand are also a proponent of the evolution theory.. how strange.. Creationists believing in Theory of Evolution!

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Jan 2011 2:22 #
hkbajwa
Member

@ Salam

How are Creationism and Evolution mutually exclusive??

Creationism is about WHO created mankind... Evolution is about HOW man was created.

Apples and Oranges my friend... they cannot be compared, but work great together in a fruit chaat no??

I actually think creationism plugs the biggest hole in evolutionary theory that states that evolution is one big fluke.

If one considers evolution the tool whereby the Creator caused Man to be, wouldn't that be the perfect merging of empirical evidence (although not 100% conclusive) and faith??

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Jan 2011 5:35 #
shafiq12
member

bajwa

Creationism Believe in Intelligent Design while Evolutionist Believe in Natural Selection

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Jan 2011 5:45 #
LifeH2O
Member

How are Creationism and Evolution mutually exclusive??

Creationism is about WHO created mankind... Evolution is about HOW man was created.

Exactly. And expands not to man only, but also to other life forms as well.
If evolution is a 'theory' same is the 'creationism' apart from religious descriptions.
If you can find flaws in evolution, with a critical eye you will find the same with creationism. @salam talk about no evidiences of evolition, how many 'evidiences'are there for creation.

If both groups don't fight like shia sunni (or two molvis), they can be explained together very well.

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Jan 2011 6:06 #
sasherwani
Members

Lucman should be a bit more respectful to his guests even if he disagrees with them.

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Jan 2011 6:18 #
hkbajwa
Member

@ SS

Get out of your "ism" vs "ism" thinking. Creationism and evolution are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

believing that evolution is the method of man's creation DOES NOT EXCLUDE the role of the Creator in the creation of man. It simply brings the PROCESS of the creation of Man out of the magical realm into the realm of science.

I believe Allah created Man. I do NOT believe he did that by creating clay figurines and "breathing" life into them and HEY PRESTO Adam was created.

I believe Allah created a universe so complex and intricate that its natural processes inevitably led to the evolution of Man. So Allah created Man through evolution. Simple concept and perfectly acceptable scientifically and theologically.

Like i said.. Creationism is about WHO IS BEHIND the creation of Man. Evolution is about HOW the Creator created man. They are perspectives about two entirely different things.

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Jan 2011 7:12 #
shafiq12
member

bajwa

there are two views available.

1.those who explain the universe from a materialist point of view,
2. those who see that God made the universe out of nothing, namely, the truth of creation.

Theory of evolution begins with materialist philosophy, Now what is materialist philosophy i.e he universe consists of matter and that matter is the only thing that exists. Therefore, matter has existed for all time and no other power rules over it.Materialists believe that blind coincidence caused the universe to shape itself and life to come about by gradually evolving from non-living substances,
Simply In other words, all living things in the world emerged as the result of natural influences and chance.
Now to the come to creation view: creation stands in opposition to the theory of evolution. According to the creationist view, matter has not existed for all time and therefore is controlled. God created matter out of nothing and gave it order. All things, living as well as non-living, came into being by God's creation. The amazing design, calculation, equilibrium, and order seen in the universe and in living things are clear evidence of this.

Modern science demonstrates the invalidity of the materialist-evolutionist claim and confirms creation. Contrary to the theory of evolution, all the proofs of creation that surround us show that chance had no role in the universe's coming into existence. Every detail that emerges as we observe the sky, Earth, and all living things is intended as evidence of God's great power and wisdom.

Please
http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/alien-life-forms/page/2#post-204599

I believe Allah created Man. I do NOT believe he did that by creating clay figurines and "breathing" life into them and HEY PRESTO Adam was created.

The base of theory of evolution is exact and opposite to the theory of creation. How can you agree with two theories at the same time?.

Suppose i say
2+2= 5 ( you say i agreed with theory)

than i say
2+2=5 (you say agree with theory)

than u say
2+2=4 you say i disagree with it)

Similary some people say, "i believe in Darwinism and i also believe in Allah, How is this possible.

If you say that i disagree with theory of evolution / darwanims but i agree with evolution than that statement is correct?

Similarly some people say I agree with Darwinism and I also believe in Allah. That statement is not correct because Darnism support materialist approach?

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Jan 2011 7:55 #
hkbajwa
Member

@ SS

Have i said anything about darwinism?? No i haven't. because i do not have to believe the secular perspective of darwin's theory to accept the scientific validity of evolution.

Like i said. get over the "ism" vs "ism". It's totally irrelevant.

I say Allah created man through evolution. can you explain to me how that is not possible??

I BELIEVE IN A CREATOR. Hence i am a CREATIONIST. I BELIEVE EVOLUTION IS THE PROCESS OF CREATION. Hence i am an EVOLUTIONIST. How the heck do you get to the conclusion that one cannot be both??

You have constantly through this thread tried to establish that one cannot believe both. As several other members have already tried to explain to you, the two are not mutually exclusive.

You have completely failed to explain how an acceptance of evolution automatically implies a denial of Allah as the Creator.

Fact is that THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.. Simple as that.

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Jan 2011 8:01 #
toamin
member

lifeh20

for me there are more RATIONAL evidences to support Creation theory than there are "scientific evidences" to support evolution hypothesis-

what amuses me here is that we have Creationists who are acting as proponents of Evolution theory...

this means that as creationist you guys reject fundamental blocks/theme/philosophy behind theory of evolution, but accept the scientific processes such as fossil evidences, mutation, natural selection etc..

these evidences can be used by any theorist, it is not necessary that only a believer of "evolution" accepts these processes..

if i don't believe in "black hole" theory, that doesn't mean i reject "physics"??

or if i reject theory of relativity, does that mean i am not a scientist?

theory of evolution tries to explain how things evolved themselves without any divine design-

so either we accept divine intention behind creation or we accept that no it is just "evolution" as explained by the theory-

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Jan 2011 8:09 #
hkbajwa
Member

@ Salam

the theory of evolution tries to explain how things evolved ACCORDING TO A PROCESS rather than by instantaneous magic.

The theory of evolution challenges religious dogma that God created clay figurines and breathed life into them. It does not deny the existence of a Creator nor does it deny divine involvement in the process of evolution.

sure many evolutionists are atheists anyway, and don't believe in a Creator AT ALL, but what does that have to do with the theory.

Back when Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, religious people unequivocally agreed that Adam was created as a "complete package". They completely denied the possibility that any other process could have been involved. As a result the theory of evolution become the antithesis of church dogma. Since religion did not allow for any other possibility than the "complete package by divine magic" the Darwinian response was to say that evolution could have happened without the involvement of a Creator.

HOWEVER we must look at these things through the knowledge and understanding of an additional 200 years. In the past 200 years we have found more and more scientists that believe in God, but also believe in evolution. How is that possible?

Well it's possible because mankind has realized that an acceptance of evolution is NOT a denial of the divine.

the theory of evolution tries to explain how things evolved WITHOUT MAGIC. In its essence it does not concern itself with WHO or WHAT created the laws of evolution. It concerns itself only with describing and defining the PROCESS.

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Jan 2011 9:16 #
toamin
member

hkbajwa

before you give me "philosophical lecture" on purpose of evolution theory, have you bothered to read above the links I suggested you to review before commenting??

if you think you are too busy to review the thread, then why waste others time by making them repeat?? ?

Posted 1 year ago on 26 Jan 2011 9:21 #

RSS feed for this topic

12 3 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

PKPolitics Discuss

PKPolitics Discuss » Faith and Religion

Evolution

Reply »

Welcome Guest

About This Topic

Tags