discussion on the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

[cre]

Evolution is considered to be a scientific fact in the scientific community. There have been no papers in decades that have been published or submitted for publication in any scientifc journal that doubt the fact of evolution. So from the point of view of the field and discipline of science, there is absolutely no controversy, disagreement or doubt about the fact of evolution. That's just the way it is.

 

Well said.

 

Evolution is a pretty cut and dry issue

 

Either

 

A. you are a rational human being with an education and believe evolutionary theory because 99.9% of educators and scientists do (because its what happend)

 

or

 

B. you are an irational nutjob theist trying to "debunk" modern science to support bronze age myth

[Dawood]

what are they teaching kids in school these days? You all better be glad I'm not your pops.

I'd son you quick and put an oldschool whoop-ass on all of you for that snot-nose ingratitude and high, mighty self righteousness.

 

Evolution is in no way a cut and dry issue. Even Darwin himself criticised it later on.

From where do you get this "99.9 % of educators" figure from?

I think you made it up to add false credibility to your post.

 

Look, beleive whatever you want, but don't shove it down my throat as FACT

when there is evidence (for those who open their eyes to see it) that states otherwise.

[the.crooked]

The problem, Dawood, is that the evidence that points to the contrary is usually a variant of a psuedo-scientific pursuit. ID is a language game. It is merely parading an argument to ignorance around as contemporary scientific procedure.

 

Again I think there is a disconnect here between someone outside the scientific community and the general views possessed there in. Theory, fact, and truth have very hard ties and ambiguities within the process of trying to choose and decide what in fact is anyone of those given titles. That is to say it is easy to prey upon those things in science that are considered true, for systemic to the scientific process itself is the ability to change and accomodate new theory. Or for sake of this argument, new truth. We seek to consistently and constantly refine our models of the world as to more and more accurately describe and account for the emperical experience we live in. This is where science as tautology is subject to ambiguous and non-scientific objections, such as yours to evolution. You find no problem in denying the truth of evolution for fact that as a concept in a given ideological structure, it accounts in itself for the possibility of its failure. On the other-hand your objection is in a realm where there is little to no room for assured counter-objection. The existential nature of your objection, eg Creation a la God, is too far abstracted and incomparable from the emperical idea you are objecting to for one to argue against it in the terms of the latter. The former then automatically takes a truth value that is much more stable and thus seemingly stronger than that of the original emperical statement, eg evolution. Thus you will always gain the ideological advantage in this discussion for the terms we speak on are never equal in a spectrum of the inherit truth a given concept may have. Or thats how I see it. Basically you win.

 

Also, you always pull evolution to a referrence of monkey to man. I think maybe you are missing the major intent of evolutionists to date. It is not a theory that dictates that we as a species strictly come from monkey's. What it suggests is that somewhere in the random mutations that did accomodate human life there was a familiar base, a pattern at the bottom that we share with other animals that reflect some of the same physiological and sociological characteristics.

 

Namely that of other primates. Your right, there was no one there to confirm or deny categorically all the implications of evolutionary theory. But, neither was anyone to date, alive when Muhammed or any of the other prophets were around, so the logic goes both ways. You can categorically deny that there is an inherit truth value to the theory of evolution, because yes, it is a theory, but the same can and should be said of the possible inherit truth of religion as well. You rely on the same sort of belief in causal relations that any rigorous scientist does to validify what they come to see as a repeated pattern within nature or experimentation.

 

I think as far as evolution being a cut and dry issue, one interesting thing comes to mind about the overarching confirmation of evolutionary theory we are beginning to see. There is a perspective in the discussion of philosophy of science that might shed some light on this issue. Namely when discussing the existence of non-observable entities, some people suggest that when the scientific community can use the information about a given non-observable entity as a tool to learn about another given non-observable entity, that is when it is confirmed in terms of its existence. That the believed causal designates of a given entity can help us to gain other emperical information about another given entity is what determines when something can be considered to exist. This is parallel to how I feel about evolution lately. That we use the concept of evolution to not only learn about other processes relating not at all to biology or zooology but also to create in such non related fields is what assures some sort of validity about it to me.

 

Look to computer programming and other things that rely heavily on the creation of new code and programs based in the random production and mutations of coding through evolutionary algorithms. Also there are many projects going on right now that are acting as a visual representation of the possibility of random mutation providing such flourishing possibilities in terms of actual varying species. I think mam's or someone else provided a link to the Electric Sheep project in the babble or somewhere else a while ago. Thousands of CPU's all over the world contributing processor space towards the continual propogation of ephemeral virtual beings. Every fifteen minutes or so a new species within the context of the algorithms being accessed and used by computers all over the world, is born. I am not sure how many have been created to date, but it is astonoshing the uniqeness and ubiquity of the individuality among the different visual species.

 

I think it is also important to grasp the reason for objection within the scientific community towards evolution, if at all. Again it comes down to one's core fundamental beliefs. You are right, there are many scientists who believe in creation, but it doesn't make them anymore right about it than you or I. Just because a person believes a certain thing that their work may or may not reflect does nothing to assure the truth of their beliefs and values. Specifically to Darwin, one should look to the process through which his theory was suggested and thus used in the scientific community to understand why he may have had some reservations about his own theory later in life. Most notably was that the book he released it in was just that, a book. The scientific community has manny avenues by which information is either peer reviewed or goes through some sort of uniform procedure to get published and acknowledged within said community. When someone publishes a book to the masses, it bypasses those avenues and deny's itself the usual private process through which most contemporary scientific discovery is analyzed. It opens itself up to the public without being subject to the intervention of the community by which the book was written in terms of. That is to say, it didn't matter how the scientific community judged his theory, it was no longer theirs to judge. It became a matter of public discussion and thus is subject to the usual fanatacism, desecration, misinterpretation, etc that goes along with such an ideological fate. All of this to point out that as a scientific theory, there will always be a bit of controversy following evolution from the point of its inception (ironic yes) to whatever day it may ring true till. You do it a disservice though, but subjecting it to some of the objections you do, because you are merely playing of the controversial nature of the theory alone. Its relation to public thought, theology, and epistemology, are what you are judging rather than speaking to it in its own terms.

 

 

wow that was a lot. I am back at school, and aparently the verbosity reflects it. Fuckin weed and academics.

[the.crooked]

Does anyone ever think about how interesting it would be to read a book that is just a collection of discussions between people online, about any given topic?

 

A couple years ago I saw a book that was a teenage novel that was written from the perspectives of two people conversing on AIM. I thought it was a pretty cool idea, but I was thinking more in terms of some of the discussions that go on here. There are a lot of really knowledgable people here, in some form or fashion, and some really good thoughts are thrown around. Has anyone seen a book like this before?

 

 

iono, I just always think it would be sort of cool.

[the.crooked]

"You do it a disservice though, but subjecting it to some of the objections you do, because you are merely playing of the controversial nature of the theory alone. Its relation to public thought, theology, and epistemology, are what you are judging rather than speaking to it in its own terms."

 

should read:

 

You do it a disservice though, by subjecting it to some of the objections you do. You are merely playing off the controversial nature of the theory alone. Rather than speaking to the theory in its own terms, you change the issue away from what the theory says but rather what some say about the theory.

[Dawood]

yeah, crooked, I feel like I'm reading your homework.

I'll get back at'cha though......peace.

[cre]

Look, beleive whatever you want, but don't shove it down my throat as FACT

when there is evidence (for those who open their eyes to see it) that states otherwise.

 

Hahahaha, ok nutcase.

[Dawood]

ok, let me clarify for those of you that either just jumped in or didn't read all the discussions. I believe in Evolution to a degree. I just don't beleive that humans evolved from primates nor that life created itself.

[cre]

So in other words you don't believe in evolution at all. Keep fighting the modern science and reality to support those theist myths! you can do it buddy!

[russell jones]

sorry it took so long for me to reply to this russel, I look at it , then I sigh and say, I'll get back to that because it's such a redundant debate, but here goes, When we speak about evolution, we have to make it clear exactly what we are talking about. There is no doubt in my mond that a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly for example, or that a seed eventually evolves into a vegetable. But when we talk about human beings and the origins of mankind it becomes more tricky than just blanketing the whole conversation with "evolution is a fact and that's that". The scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact, yes, but to what extent? Nobody was there to witness the fabled evolutionary process from monkey to man, so It is , IN FACT a theory that some scientists have agreed upon based upon what evidence they've collected thus far. Many more scientists than a few beleive in creation, so to say that the scientific community is in agreement that people were once monkeys is as inaccurate and false as the pilt down man......

 

 

Thanks for the long and thoughtful answer. I think the biggest problem with this debate may be some fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of the scientific community's views towards evolution, which I will try to clear up. Remember also, I was speaking within the field and discipline of science, not philosophy or theology. I am saying nothing about "truth" only about scientific fact.

Firstly, when you speak of a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, you are speaking of metamorphasis, not evolution. Evolution deals strictly with inheretance, one organism does not evolve over its lifetime.

 

Secondly, you may remember the Scientific American article that I posted a while back, "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense." Number 12 explains that in fact, speciation has been observed in some plants and insects. Plants, insects and humans are all made of DNA, we are the same stuff.

 

While it is true that many scientists believe in creationism, they have not published any papers in peer review journals on that subject. In other words, individual scientists can delude themselves, but peer review guarantees that the whole community cannot be deluded.

 

Not all scientists agree that no Creator exists and that we as human beings are the product of random chance. In 1972 the California State Board of Education asked NASA director Wernher von Braun, who has been called the father of the American space program, for his thoughts on the origin of the universe, life and the human race. Here's how he responded: "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design . . .

 

Let me reverse the argument to show you the fallacy of the reasoning. "Not all theologins agree that the Creator exists and some believe that we as human beings are the product of random chance." Therefore there is no God, and evolutions is truth! Wrong, that's not how that works.

 

The theory of evolution does not concern itself with the existance or non-existance of a creator being. It only concerns itself with the material world. God, as you have stated many times, is separate from the material world.

 

As for Wernher von Braun, let him write a paper on intelligent design and publish it in a peer reviewed journal. Otherwise, he is speaking of philosophy or theology, not science.

 

 

 

"To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?

 

 

Two problems with this. First off, evolution is not merely chance. It works according to a mechanism called natural selection. Genes that enable an organism to produce more children are "selected" for. So it is not random, survival drives the changes of a species over time.

 

Secondly, the idea of the eye and the brain being too complex, is an old and bunk argument. It is easily refuted by 8 and 14 from "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense."

 

 

"What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him?" (Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, 1997, pp. 159-160).

 

There is a very simple answer to this. Electrons are part of our physical world and have been proven to exist in our physical world. God is not part of our physical world and cannot be proven to exist, from a scientific point of view.

 

Many educated people accept the theory of evolution. But is it true? Curiously enough, our existence as humans is one of the best arguments against it. According to evolutionary theory, the traits that offer the greatest advantage for survival are passed from generation to generation. Yet human reproduction itself argues powerfully against this fundamental premise of evolution.

 

If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?

 

Let's take it a step further. If humans are the result of evolution continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant?

 

Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet, among humans, an infant is utterly helpless—not for days but for up to several years after birth.

 

A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival.

 

If evolution is true, and humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, why does a process as basic as human reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true?

 

Regrettably, such obvious flaws in the theory are too often overlooked.

 

 

There are a couple of problems with this argument, and they reflect a basic misunderstanding of science. The first is the statement, "If evolution is true, and humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process." Humans are not considered to be the pinnacle of anything as far as evolution is concerned. Evolution concerns itself with survival, it doesn't care how clever you are. From the point of view of evolution, a cockroach would be closer to the pinnacle than humans most probably, because they are able to survive in more conditions than we are, and have been around for much longer than us.

 

Secondly, it easy to see why sexual reproduction is an advantage over asexual reproduction. An organism that reproduces asexually only has the genes of the original organism. That means that over time the species must wait for random mutations to take on new genes that could enhance survival. A sexually producing organism can enhance the gene pool by mating with a different organism, to produce offspring with genes from both. In a way, this could actually make a species evolve much more slowly, but it tends to damp harmful mutations in a population.

 

Thirdly, the long maturation of human beings over a lifetime allowed our huge brains, which over the course of human evolution, helped our ancestors to survive more easily in those particular environments. Evolution does not pick perfect solutions, it merely selects from the available gene pool. Also, remember, we as a species are still evolving. Also, our ancestors of the past 10 million years or so evolved into other creatures, such as chimps. We did not evolve from modern day chimps, we simply have a common ancestor. We have evolved since that common ancestor, as have they.

 

 

Even Charles Darwin, whose theories about evolution took the world by storm, had second thoughts. In his later years he reflected on what he had started: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them" (William Federer, America's God and Country, 1996, p. 199, emphasis added).

 

This statement actually works for my argument. I think Darwin is commenting that one should not confuse religion with science, which is exactly what many of these quotes do.

 

Taken on another tack, Darwin did have doubts about his theory, as well he should have, since it had not been proven. If he knew about DNA, however, I am sure he would have felt vindicated in the scientific truth of his theory.

 

Now, almost a century and a half after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, we can see where his thinking has led. In Europe in particular, belief in a personal God has plummeted. In the United States, court decisions have interpreted constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion as freedom from religion—effectively banning public expression of religious beliefs and denying the country's rich religious heritage.

 

Meanwhile, the world languishes in the sorrow and suffering resulting from rejecting absolute moral standards. With no absolute standards, we have no reason to care what happens to our fellowman. We should seek only our personal gain regardless of the cost to others—acting exactly as evolutionary theory says we should.

 

Could man create a religion with no god? The widespread acceptance of evolution shows that we have done just that. The Bible teaches us that God created man. Evolution teaches us that man created God.

 

If God created man we have no right to ignore Him. If man created God we can easily ignore Him. What man has made he can do away with. Thus we are free to act as though God doesn't exist, free to dismiss the Bible, free to determine for ourselves what is right and wrong and how we will choose to live.

 

Which is the myth, God or evolution? Louis Bounoure, director of France's Strasbourg Zoological Museum and professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg, stated: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" (Federer, p. 61).

 

Professor Bounoure, though right about evolution, was wrong about one thing. Rather than being useless, evolution is quite useful if one wants to reject the idea of God.

 

 

First off, look up the orgin of the quote from Bounoure. It is actually bogus.

 

Secondly, this part of the argument has nothing to do with what I said. I said that science does not doubt the fact of evolution. I said nothing about the existence or non-existence of God or its moral implications.

 

However, I will make this argument, and I think it is a good one. Who "languishes in the sorrow and suffering resulting from rejecting absolute moral standards?" Is it the Europeans, whose "belief in a personal God has plummeted?"

I would venture to say that Europeans have the highest standard of living on the planet, and are relatively free from some of the suffering that inflicts the rest of the world.

 

Also, I do not understand something, and let me pose this question to you. Why believe in the scientific truth of some scientific theories, and not others, even though both may be equally accepted? For instance, you do believe in atomic theory don't you? If not you would have a lot of trouble explaining the bomb.

[the.crooked]

Dawood. It is no homework. I just read a lot more here, and the reading I do is dense, so sometimes I end up writing in roundabout ways because of it.

 

Lookin forward to the reply.

 

 

quality post russel.

[Dawood]

ok, you win, threads over....I gotta go pray now.

[the.crooked]

who was that too? i hope you didnt think i was trying to curtail your want to reply.

[MAR]

theres no reason why religion and science cant agree. I heard a great lecture about the bible and evolution. Basicly proving that they can coexist. Sure there are some points of contention but they seem to mesh together nicely.

 

edit: heres somethign from wiki which gives a nice little overveiw of what I was refering to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_evolution

[russell jones]

I totally agree with you MAR. Genesis does not need to be taken literally, it was probably intended to be symbolic. Most catholics believe in evolution and don't take the timetable of Genesis as literal fact. Evolution and belief in the Bible only contradict each other if one takes the bible literally.

[russell jones]

ok, you win, threads over....I gotta go pray now.

 

 

I didn't want to stop the thread. It's been keeping me sharp.

[Dawood]

nah, the thread goes on , with or without me, I'm only one person. I was just joking.

 

Mar, how can the scriptures continue to be re-interpreted according to the desires of the people? Didn't Moses explain it to you? What was sufficient for Moses should be sufficient for us, but we make things difficult on ourselves by splitting atoms and digging to deep, thus we become confused in our own findings and go astray from what was originally intended and proven to me beneficial to us.

 

lost in interpretations.

[Dawood]

BBC’s Evolution of The Human Brain Error

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

We begin with the Name of Allaah

 

 

 

This part of the documentary The Human Body, prepared by BBC and broadcast on the NTV channel on November 6, 2002, dealt with the human brain. In this documentary, the information provided about the brain was supplemented with the usual evolutionist propaganda clichés, and the complexity in the human brain was described as a “miracle of evolution.”

 

Saying that Chance Created Millions of Miracles is Really Excessively Stupid

 

A great deal of information has so far been provided about birth and The Human Body in the NTV documentary The Human Body. One of the most frequently repeated phrases in the programme is “this is a miracle of evolution.” NTV speaks of evolution as something conscious, which knows what it is doing, makes plans and flawlessly organizes inanimate objects and atoms, and the channel is perhaps not fully aware of the kind of significance underlying this logic.

 

“The miracle of evolution” means “the miracle of chance,” since according to the theory of evolution all living things emerged by inanimate substances organizing themselves as the result of coincidences. According to this claim, atoms such as carbon, phosphate, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen gave rise to proteins, cells, bacteria, fish, birds, starfish, dolphins, leopards, elephants, bees, ants, roses, oranges, eagles, lions, the human brain, the human heart, the human hand, which still cannot be replicated with all our present-day technology, the eyes, and man himself, who thinks, takes decisions, reads, understands what he reads, and feels joy, sorrow and excitement, and all this by chance. Every one of these complex and flawless structures and features is a miracle, and there are an infinite number of miracles in the universe. There is no doubt that to claim that all these came about by chance is “absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin, the architect of the theory of evolution, realised this and made the following confession about the eye, just one of these countless complex structures:

 

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. (1)

 

In order to better understand how stupid it is to maintain that all living things and all the structures and organs in them came about by chance it will be sufficient to recall just a few of the features of the brain, the subject of the NTV documentary.

 

An adult's brain contains some 10 billion neurons (nerve cells). Neurons have projections called “axon” and “dendrite,” and by means of these, the neurons are interconnected. Thanks to these connections, known as synapses, one neuron is able to send messages to another. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the famous biochemist Michael Denton states that the number of connections between neurons is in the region of 1 quadrillion (1015 or 1,000,000,000,000,000). He then goes on to say:

 

It is hard to imagine the multitude that 1015 represents. Take half of the United States, which is 1 million square miles, and imagine it being covered by forest, with 10,000 trees per square mile. On each of the 10,000 trees, which are on each of the one million square miles, there are 100,000 leaves. That's how many connections are crammed inside your brain. (2)

 

Every one of these countless and interlinked connections in the brain, an organ so small it fits into the human skull, has been created in exactly the form required and for a specific purpose. Thanks to these connections, the result of the superior design in Allah's creation, we are able to perform various functions at the same time with no confusion arising. For example, you can listen to music at the same time as reading these words, while also sipping a cup of coffee. At the same time, moreover, your brain regulates you heartbeat, allows you to breathe by carefully keeping the oxygen levels in your blood at a fixed rate, regulates your body temperature, calculates which of your muscles in your hand need to contract, and by how much, in order for you to lift your cup to your lips without spilling it, and also performs detailed calculations necessary for your sense of balance to allow you to remain on your feet, and it does all this without your being aware of it. Hundreds of different functions like these are carried out by the brain in the most perfect manner right throughout our lives. Yet we are quite unaware of all these calculations going on in it.

 

An article called “Computing from the Brain” in New Scientist magazine drew the following analogy regarding the brain's extraordinary performance capability:

 

In crude terms, the human brain is a natural computer composed of 10 to 100 billion neurons, each of which connects to about 10,000 others, and all of which function in parallel. …Neuronal systems take about 100 processing steps to perform a complex task of vision or speech which would take an electronic computer billions of processing steps. (3)

 

As we have seen, the human brain possesses far superior features to computers produced by the most highly advanced technology. Yet for some reason evolutionists, who accept that computers could never come about by the chance combination of such substances as silicon, wire and glass, refuse to accept that the human brain, so far superior to any computer, could not have come about by chance combinations of atoms such as nitrogen, carbon and oxygen. They harbour not the slightest doubts in fact, or at least choose to give that impression. The fact is, however, in the same way that designers, engineers, a technical team, materials in the right quantity and of the right quality and expert knowledge are necessary for the construction of a computer, so the same thing applies to the brain. Yet not all of these are to be found in nature. In order for the materials in nature to give rise to birds, fish, horses, flowers and human beings of all races it is clear that they need the existence of a superior Creator, possessed of infinite knowledge, wisdom and power, and a flawless design capability. That creator is Allah, the Lord of all men, who created all the worlds from nothing.

 

There is no Mechanism in Nature Which Could Turn

the Ape Brain into a Human One

 

A classical evolutionist claim was repeated on the NTV documentary, in which it was suggested that the brains of our ape-like ancestors turned into the human brain over a period of some 2.5 million years. An analogy was drawn: The brain capacity of our ape-like ancestors was compared to a small Fiat car engine, and that of modern man to a much more developed sports car engine.

 

In fact, this comparison undermines the evolutionists' own thesis. Everyone knows that no car engine could turn into another; more highly develop one, as the result of chance. Not even in trillions of years, let alone 2.5 million. In fact, under the laws of physics, it will age and wear, rot, and eventually fall apart. In order for such an engine to emerge, a designer possessing the knowledge and ability to develop it is essential.

 

Furthermore, there is an important fact that even evolutionist scientists are forced to admit: The only difference between the ape and human brains is not just a question of capacity and size. Materialists attempt to reduce all human characteristics, and thus the functioning of the brain, to matter. Yet it is today agreed that the features of the human soul cannot be reduced to matter. Man's ability to speak, think, decide, plan, his desires and wishes, his artistic and aesthetic abilities, his ability to possess ideologies, to produce ideas and to dream, and the virtues of love, loyalty and friendship are not the product of the functioning of the brain. The human soul is something beyond matter, and that on its own is a challenge to materialism.

 

In his book The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain, the evolutionist neurologist and brain surgeon Dr. Wilder Penfield is forced many times to admit that the human soul cannot be accounted for in terms of the functioning of the brain. Some of these confessions read:

 

Throughout my own scientific career, I, like other scientists, struggled to prove that brain accounts for the mind… Now, perhaps, the time has come when we may profitably consider the evidence as it stands, and ask the question… which is the more reasonable of the two hypotheses: that man's being is based on one element, or on two [brain and spirit]? (4)

 

Here is the meeting of the mind and brain. It is not to be accounted for by any neuronal mechanisms that I can discover… Since every man must adopt for himself, without the help of science, his way of life and his personal religion, I have long had my own private beliefs. What a thrill it is than to discover that the scientist too can legitimately believe in the existence of spirit. (5)

 

Therefore, comparing the ape brain to that of man avails the evolutionists not at all, since it is clear that no mechanism in nature can give man the characteristics which make him human. It is Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, Who gives man his soul, creates him out of nothing and makes him different from all other living things by breathing that soul into him.

 

An Important But Ignored Subject: IT IS NOT THE EYE WHICH SEES

 

Although an important scientific truth is expressed in the BBC documentary, that truth is not emphasized in the way it should be. The documentary says: “Our eyes are only a window. It is our brain which sees around us. The eye merely forms the first stage.”

 

This phrase, which one encounters in biology textbooks right from middle school, is actually very important, containing as it does a secret which can entirely alter a person's way of looking at the world.

 

People imagine they see the world with their eyes. The fact is, however, that the eyes and the cells which comprise them are merely responsible for turning the light reaching them from the outside, via chemical processes, into electrical signals. These electrical signals later arrive at the visual center at the back of the brain, which is where the image we see takes shape. For instance, someone reading these lines at this moment sees them in the visual center in the back of his brain. In other words, it is not actually the eyes which see. So, who is it that sees the image in the visual center and reads these words? Who is it that watches with excitement, joy or sorrow the bright, colorful three-dimensional image which forms within the darkness of the brain?

 

The same thing also applies to the senses of hearing, taste, smell and touch. Even as one listens to one favorite song it is not ones ears which are doing the hearing. Their task is merely to collect sound waves. The cells in the ears turn the sound waves reaching them into electrical signals and forward them to the hearing center in the brain. That favorite song is then heard there. You hear the voice of your best friend in your brain. But who is it that hears these sounds within the dark confines of the brain, enjoying the melody and rhythm?

 

The answer to these questions shows that every thinking human being possesses a soul. Another important point revealed by this scientific fact is this: Everything we see, hear and touch throughout our lives is perceived in our brains. In other words, we can never actually see or touch the originals of things. What we are always in contact with is perceptions in the brain, and it is impossible ever to have direct experience of these objects by means of these perceptions. For that reason everyone, even in a crowded room, is actually watching the perceptions in his brain, and is essentially alone.

 

We may consider our dreams in order to arrive at a better understanding of this. Someone who dreams of holding a conference in a packed hall is actually lying in bed alone. The image of the conference forms within his brain. It is impossible for that person to realize he is dreaming until he wakes up, and he remains convinced that he is attending a real conference.

 

The German psychiatry professor Hoimar Von Ditfurth explains how we can never see the outside world:

 

No matter how we put the argument, the result doesn't change. What stands before us in full shape and what our eyes view is not the "world". It is only its image, a resemblance, a projection whose association with the original is open to discussion. 6

 

Someone who exercises his mind a little will grasp this concept, which reveals the true nature of the life of this world and helps one realize just how hollow and meaningless the passions and desires aimed at this world truly are. The money in someone's wallet, the yacht he buys for millions of dollars, his holding company and his new model car are all images which form within his brain. That individual can never touch or see the originals of these. All he perceives is images forming at the back of his brain. This is a scientific fact. The responsibility of all people of reason and good conscience is to grasp this concept before “waking from sleep,” in other words before dying, and not to be deceived by becoming caught up in the life of this world.

 

Conclusion

 

Characteristics peculiar to human beings, such as thinking, taking pleasure, having ideas, and feeling love, compassion, nostalgia, affection, joy, sorrow, happiness and excitement, cannot be accounted for from a materialist and Darwinist perspective. These believe that all living things emerged by chance from inanimate matter, and are totally unable to explain how it is that inanimate objects should one day have begun to possess the capacity for thought, decision-making, having ideas and artistic and aesthetic taste. BBC should not be taken in by the impressive images in its documentaries, prepared as they are with a materialist and Darwinist mindset, and should not ignore the unscientific, irrational and illogical claims made in these programs.

 

1 - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 75.

2 - Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 330.

3 - Michael Recce and Philip Treleavan, "Computing from the Brain," New Scientist, Vol. 118, No. 1614 (May 26, 1988), p. 61

4 - Wilder Penfield, The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p.80

5 - Wilder Penfield, The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. xiii

6 - Hoimar von Ditfurth, Der Geist Fiel Nicht Vom Himmel (The Spirit Did Not Fall From The Sky), p. 256

[cre]

 

Conclusion

 

Characteristics peculiar to human beings, such as thinking, taking pleasure, having ideas, and feeling love, compassion, nostalgia, affection, joy, sorrow, happiness and excitement, cannot be accounted for from a materialist and Darwinist perspective.

 

Of course how can all of the rational world be so blind! the answer must be the magic spaceman of theism! that is the only option!

[MAR]

 

Mar, how can the scriptures continue to be re-interpreted according to the desires of the people?

 

I dunno you tell me. Isnt that what happened with Islam?

[russell jones]

In fact, this comparison undermines the evolutionists' own thesis. Everyone knows that no car engine could turn into another; more highly develop one, as the result of chance. Not even in trillions of years, let alone 2.5 million. In fact, under the laws of physics, it will age and wear, rot, and eventually fall apart. In order for such an engine to emerge, a designer possessing the knowledge and ability to develop it is essential.

 

Furthermore, there is an important fact that even evolutionist scientists are forced to admit: The only difference between the ape and human brains is not just a question of capacity and size. Materialists attempt to reduce all human characteristics, and thus the functioning of the brain, to matter. Yet it is today agreed that the features of the human soul cannot be reduced to matter. Man's ability to speak, think, decide, plan, his desires and wishes, his artistic and aesthetic abilities, his ability to possess ideologies, to produce ideas and to dream, and the virtues of love, loyalty and friendship are not the product of the functioning of the brain. The human soul is something beyond matter, and that on its own is a challenge to materialism.

 

This is a very loose use of the word "fact," since it does not deal with facts at all.

 

from Webster's

"1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION

2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING

3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>

4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>

5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality"

 

Number 5 is how the word is used. There is no objective reality to a human soul.

 

 

The car engine analogy is riduculous, since it does not relate to evolution at all. An individual organism does not evolve, a species evolves. Car engines don't have children.

 

Have you read the Scientific American article that I posted, "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"? All of the "scientific" arguments made in your post are easily refuted. Here's the link again, it doesn't take a long time to read.

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&ref=sciam

 

 

Also, look at the dates on the writer's references. We're not talking about anything cutting edge here.

[russell jones]

nah, the thread goes on , with or without me, I'm only one person. I was just joking.

 

Mar, how can the scriptures continue to be re-interpreted according to the desires of the people?

 

 

The scriptures were most likely orginally intended to be interpreted. It's not a matter of re-interpretation. Do you think that the writers of Genesis intended us to believe that people lived to be 900 years old? By the way, I know that Moses is the legendary writer of the first five books of the bible, but biblical scholarship breaks those books into two separate traditions in Judaism.

 

Also, I should mention that some books of the bible were definitely intended to be taken literally, such as Deuteronomy. It lists very specific rules and laws that everyone must live by. Do you think all these anti-evolutionists follow the laws against usury? How about the laws dealing with slaves, and mutliple wives? Do you think they sequester their wives in a tent when they are on their period? Do they eat pork? Do they mix dairy with meat? Why believe Genesis, an obivously poetic and allegoric story, and not follow the very specific literal laws of Deuteronomy?

 

Question for you Dawood, does the Koran have a creation story?

[MAR]

russell's on point.

 

although the book of genesis can be taken literally, its gets very complicated. How long is a day? Before the sun was created a day could have well been a millenium or millions of years. Its says in some kabalistic texts that a hundred years goes by like a second to G-d (which doesnt mean to say that he doesnt pay attention to everything).

 

Most of the book of Genesis I take literally, including the longer lives, but the creation is not something you can just take at face value. But even if you do, its not too much of a strech to say that G-d created man by evolving a previously created species. G-d could have just changed an animal to fit his design, which was in the image of himself. Furthermore, if you learn a bit of kaballah you discover that the difference between man and animal is that man has a soul (nefesh) and a life force (ruach). Animals only have the latter. The difference between man and animal could very well be just his soul.

[Dawood]

The scriptures were most likely orginally intended to be interpreted. It's not a matter of re-interpretation. Do you think that the writers of Genesis intended us to believe that people lived to be 900 years old? By the way, I know that Moses is the legendary writer of the first five books of the bible, but biblical scholarship breaks those books into two separate traditions in Judaism.

 

Also, I should mention that some books of the bible were definitely intended to be taken literally, such as Deuteronomy. It lists very specific rules and laws that everyone must live by. Do you think all these anti-evolutionists follow the laws against usury? How about the laws dealing with slaves, and mutliple wives? Do you think they sequester their wives in a tent when they are on their period? Do they eat pork? Do they mix dairy with meat? Why believe Genesis, an obivously poetic and allegoric story, and not follow the very specific literal laws of Deuteronomy?

 

Question for you Dawood, does the Koran have a creation story?

 

 

Ok, then if the scriptures were meant to be interpreted , then who do you think has the ability to interpret something that is supposed to be God's word?

Who is the one that can fulfill that task except the one who was given the message such as a prophet or a messenger of God?

 

Me, personally, I don't believe in the bible nor do I disbelieve in the Bible because in the Quran it confirms that the scriptures from the prophets sent before were indeed the truth, but that man has corrupted the rexts and that the quran in protected from corruption.. I do however , believe in the Quran literally, and that is how the prophet Muhammad interpreted it. There are many points of clarification and the interpretation of the quran is a whole science, but the Quran cannot be interpreted in a different way or have different meanings than what the prophet Muhammad explained to his compainions, otherwise it would be a different religion (like what the christians of today follow) They definately don't follow the teachings of christ.

 

Yes, the Quran has many stories of creation and I beleive in them literally.

I'll post some later...

[Dawood]

but first.....

 

more food for thought.

 

The concept of a Supreme Creator of the universe has been something, which the western world has been trying to prove or refute now for thousands of years. However, only in the past 200 years have the creme de la creme of western intellectuals, come to the conclusion that a God/Creator of the universe is and has been a figment of mans imagination. This conclusion was formed as a reaction to the beliefs and practices of Christianity, which was a major force in European life at this time. Beliefs such as that of the Trinity [1] and the divine nature of Jesus Christ, were so complicated to understand - even for the elite of the church - that eventually the idea of a supreme and perfect creator (which Christianity had distorted) was replaced by many new theories which tried to explain how mankind came about and developed. Many different theories were introduced to the western world, but one common trait, which they all shared, was that there was no Supreme force, which governed the universe.

 

So where does Islam come into all of this? Islam [2] is the one way of life, the one religion which until now has not been challenged successfully by any philosopher, atheist or intellectual. Rather the case has been the exact opposite and there have been thousands, if not millions, of so-called 'atheists' who have reverted back to Islam. So how does Islam explain the existence of this Supreme Creator?

 

 

 

The Natural Way

 

Allaah says in his final revelation, the Qur'aan:

 

"Therefore turn your face steadfastly towards the true faith, away from all that which is false, in accordance with the Pure nature with which Allaah has Created people. Let there be no altering in the laws of Allaah's Creation. This is surely the true religion, but most people do not know it."

(Surah Ar-Rum 30:30)

 

The pure nature which is mentioned in this verse is probably the most convincing proof of a divine creator to any sincere seeker of truth. Which person can deny (atheist or otherwise) that when he/she is in dire trouble, when life is about to be taken away from them, when the pressures are unbearable - that then do they turn to that force above the skies. How many times are we confronted by a scenario in which the words: "Please God help me, and I promise that Iwill always pray to you and be good." roll off our tongues with such sincerity? Every time something bad happens, words such as these come out of the people's mouths. Yet as soon as the harm is removed the very same people beseeching the help of their creator, turn away:

 

"And whatever of blessings and good things you have, it is from Allaah. Then, when harm touches you, unto him you cry aloud for help. Yet no sooner does he remove your ills then some of you set up partners to their lord."

(Surah An-Nahl 16:53-54)

 

This pure nature which every human is born with is known as the Fitrah in the Arabic language. Every human being, man or woman is born with this natural instinct to recognise the Creator and turn to Him. This is proved by the hadeeth[5] of the last messenger to mankind Muhammed (s.a.w.) who said: "Every child is born upon the pure fitra, it is only his parents that later turn him into a Jew, a Christian, or a Magian.[6]"[7]

 

In fact if humans were not influenced by their societal pressures then their belief in the Creator would be distinct and clearly visible. But unfortunately this is not the case, and there exists in all non-Muslim societies a clear trend to distort the nature of human beings. One of the ways in which this is done in western societies is through the education system and its institutions. Western education is based around a whole body of secular thought which has no place for a Creator. In science lessons kids are taught that we are the ancestors of monkeys and apes and that this implies that we came about by pure chance.[8] In subjects such as psychology and sociology we are taught that religion is a tool of the privileged few who oppress the downtrodden majority.[9] This form of education has also unfortunately influenced the Muslims, and we find it very common nowadays to see the likes of the 'Abdullaah's' and the 'Fatima's' of western society proclaiming that they do not believe in God.

 

 

 

The Beauty of creation

 

Allaah says in the Qur'aan:

 

"Verily in the creation of the heavens and the earth, in the alternation of night and day, in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of the people, in the water which Allaah sends down from the skies reviving with it the dead earth and dispersing over it all kinds of beasts, in the change of the winds, and in the clouds that run their appointed courses between heaven and earth: In all of this, indeed there are signs for people of understanding."

(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:164)

 

 

 

SubhaanAllaah![ 11] How beautiful and accurate this verse is. Is it not true that when we look at the world around us we see such beauty and craftsmanship. Surely such excellence could not have come about by chance. Everything in this world and universe runs on a set course and pattern, so how is it possible then, that by pure chance everything in this universe was created with such skill and precision?

 

The wonders of nature are absolutely astounding, the wind, the rain, the hail and the snow were all products of chance, then why is it that mankind, with all his technological know how, cannot even divert the softest of breezes which blows through the trees in summer? The answer is obvious. All these natural elements are aspects of Allaah's Creation and he alone can control and manipulate them as he wills.

 

In fact the Creation of Allaah is so perfect that even if we try to detect a fault in it, then we will not succeed:

 

"Blessed he He to Whom all sovereignty belongs; He has power over all things. He Who Created death and life that He may test which of you is best in deed. He is the Almighty, the Oft-forgiving. He Who Created the seven heavens one above another. You can see no fault in the Creation of the Bestower of Mercy. Turn up your eyes: Can you detect a single flaw? Look once more, and yet again: Your sight will in the end grow humbled and weary."

(Surah Al-Mulk 67:1-4)

 

It is not just the seas, the mountains, the rivers and the skies which are a proof for the existence of our Creator, but also ourselves. Allaah says in the Qur'aan:

 

"On the earth are signs visible to all who have faith with certainty, just as there are signs within your ownselves. Will you then not see?"

(Surah Adh-Dhariyat 51:20-21)

 

The variety of humanity is indeed amazing, black and white, tall and short, fat and thin, good and evil, man and woman etc. etc. How many times have we considered the complex makeup of our bodies both physical and mental and found it to be completely beyond belief. It is known that if the intestines of a human being were taken out of the body, they would be so long that they could cover the entire area of a tennis court!

 

But when we think about these long intestines being inside of us, it astounds and amazes us. The human brain is thought to be more powerful that any mainframe computer on earth, whilst the eye is said to be more complex and structured then any telescope invented by man. The human mind is something which is still undiscovered by psychologists and psychiatrists, and the nature of our dreams and thoughts is something which these people will probably never unravel. So we should ask ourselves, is it still possible for such a complex being such as ourselves, to be a mere product of chance, or rather, are we products of a supreme and skillful creator, who has shown us that he really is Al-Khaliq? [14]

 

Yet despite our complicated and intricate makeup, our comparison to the Creator is not even possible. Mankind with his level of technology has gained the impression that he is the most supreme being in this universe. Yet when we look at examples of western society we see that these same humans who claim such superiority, cannot even maintain basic standards of hygiene! Washing the body-parts after urinating or excreting has almost become a sin for many people in the west, yet at the same time these people are the very same who claim technological advancement! Maybe if they believed in a Creator, the basics of life would perchance return to them, just as they have returned to the Muslims.

 

The proofs for the existence of a creator are so numerous that it would take us a very long time to go through every single one. So finally we should remember, that the creation of humanity was neither an accident, nor a development from monkey to man. Rather it was the creation of Allaah the Most High, the Most Perfect, who reminds us of the stupidity of those who claim that He did not create us:

 

"Were they created of nothing? or were they perchance, their own creators? or did they create the heavens and the earth? surely they have no firm belief."

(Surah At-Tur 52:35-36)

[Dawood]

http://www.angelfire.com/on/ummiby1/adam.html

 

story of Adam in the quran.

[MAR]

Ok, then if the scriptures were meant to be interpreted , then who do you think has the ability to interpret something that is supposed to be God's word?

A Rabbi or someone with alot knowlage of the torah/bible. Thats the beauty of Judaism, when it comes to things that are not laws they are open to interpretation and no one oppinion is right. Sometimes, there is a thing called missora, which means we have an accepted oppinion thats been passed down orally.

 

 

Me, personally, I don't believe in the bible nor do I disbelieve in the Bible because in the Quran it confirms that the scriptures from the prophets sent before were indeed the truth, but that man has corrupted the texts and that the quran in protected from corruption..

How does the quran know better than the Jews who have been studying it for millenia? Through prophecy? Whats missing/changed? To me it sounds rather convenient...You do know that over this period of time that nothing has changed old documents (pre-mohhamed) back this up.

 

But what bothers me most about all religions that stem from judaism is that they change the torah and the religion even though it states explictly that this is the law forever and it shall not be changed.

[Dawood]

A Rabbi or someone with alot knowlage of the torah/bible. Thats the beauty of Judaism, when it comes to things that are not laws they are open to interpretation and no one oppinion is right. Sometimes, there is a thing called missora, which means we have an accepted oppinion thats been passed down orally.

 

 

 

How does the quran know better than the Jews who have been studying it for millenia? Through prophecy? Whats missing/changed? To me it sounds rather convenient...You do know that over this period of time that nothing has changed old documents (pre-mohhamed) back this up.

 

But what bothers me most about all religions that stem from judaism is that they change the torah and the religion even though it states explictly that this is the law forever and it shall not be changed.

 

Adee bin Haatim heard the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) reciting the verse,

"They (the Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and monks to be their lords besides Allaah."

[

at-Tawbah

(9): 31]

Upon which I said, "indeed we did not worship them." [The Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam)] said, "did they not make unlawful that which Allaah made lawful and so you too did the same? [Did they not] make lawful what Allaah made unlawful and so you too did the same?" I replied, "verily." He said, "this then was the worship of them."

Allah knows best and the rabbis do not....

[russell jones]

http://www.angelfire.com/on/ummiby1/adam.html

 

story of Adam in the quran.

 

Very interesting. I like how the Quran does not put the blame for eating from the tree of knowledge squarely on Eve, like the book of Genesis.

 

The Quran seems very non-linear and poetic, would I be right in saying that?

 

Speaking of creation stories, here's one of my favorites, from the Iroquois peoples.

 

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_12.html

[russell jones]

I just realized something, Dawood. If you take the Quran literally, does that mean that you believe that the universe is only about 6,000 years old? Evolution is one thing, but it would take some serious mental gymnastics and rationalization to buy into the idea of a young earth!