I think you missed this link in some other thread.. But I was shocked how some people actually believe in this and those people were shocked that this theory is not taught in Egyptian school
posted
adam and eve is naturally more plausible? what about hans christian andersen...now that's the "truth"!!
Posts: 1516 | From: Cairo | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigmund Freud [1856-1939] Austrian physician and pioneer psychoanalyst
"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."
"In the long run, nothing can withstand reason and experience, and the contradiction religion offers to both is palpable."
"The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life."
"The idea of God was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind." A History of God
Posts: 1516 | From: Cairo | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
I just briefly glanced at that website, but there is a huge error that is immediately apparent.
This website thinks that the theory of Evolution means "that life is the product of an uncontrolled, purposeless process of coincidence."
But that is not what Darwin proposed at all.
Instead, he theorized that things changed over time due to *natural selection.* The weak died out and the strong survived. We have evolved to be smarter, healthier, stronger, and longer-lived. We have adapted to arctic climates as well as tropical ones. You only need to look at the different races to see how humans have adapted to their geological locations.
To me, nothing in Darwin's theory refutes the existence of God. In fact, it only strengthens my belief in God because nothing so vastly complex and perfect could happen, in my opinion, by chance. Who else but an all-knowing God could create such genetic complexities that permit us to change over time, specifically to keep the human race alive in the face of changing earthly conditions?
In the Bible, Adam was created by God out of dirt. In the Qur'an, he was created by God out of clay. The human body has the same salt-to-water ratio as the ocean. And we require minerals found in the earth to survive...copper, manganese, calcium, iron, zinc, selenium, nickel. Just like clay.
Is it so hard to conceive that God knows all from the beginning and the end? That evolution over time was His plan all along?
Darwin says in the Origin of the Species, "I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
Who breathed the life into this form?
In the *Descent of Man,* Darwin argued that all men were the same species, regardless of race. Which is something Islam teaches us as well. Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Natural Selection The concept of natural selection was the basis of Darwinism. This assertion is stressed even in the title of the book in which Darwin proposed his theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection… Natural selection is based on the assumption that in nature there is a constant struggle for survival. It favors organisms with traits that best enable them to cope with.....
A Struggle for Survival? The essential assumption of the theory of natural selection holds that there is a fierce struggle for survival in nature, and every living thing cares only for itself. At the time Darwin proposed this theory, the ideas of Thomas Malthus, the British classical economist, were an important 21 influence on him. Malthus maintained that human beings were inevitably in a constant struggle for survival, basing his views on the fact that population, DARWINISM REFUTED
I dont knwo what bit you read ... you should download the book "forExpert"...
quote: Further research, however, revealed that there was no struggle for life in nature as Darwin had postulated. As a result of extensive research into animal groups in the 1960s and 1970s, V. C. Wynne-Edwards, a British zoologist, concluded that living things balance their population in an interesting way, which prevents competition for food.
Animal groups were simply managing their population on the basis of their food resources. Population was regulated not by elimination of the weak through factors like epidemics or starvation, but by instinctive control mechanisms.
In other words, animals controlled their numbers not by fierce competition, as Darwin suggested, but by limiting reproduction.8
Even plants exhibited examples of population control, which invalidated Darwin's suggestion of selection by means of competition. The botanist A. D. Bradshaw's observations indicated
-------------------- -- here... [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0955020700/qid%3D1133898517/026-7853042-0414807= Recommended...![/url] Posts: 2457 | From: U | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't think there is a fierce struggle for survival now?
From the book,
"I should premise that I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large and metaphorical sense, including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny. Two canine animals in a time of dearth, may be truly said to struggle with each other which shall get food and live. But a plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle for life against the drought, though more proplerly it should be said to be dependent on the moisture."
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
This website thinks that the theory of Evolution means "that life is the product of an uncontrolled, purposeless process of coincidence."
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snoozin: From the Creation book...
This website thinks that the theory of Evolution means "that life is the product of an uncontrolled, purposeless process of coincidence."
The website is not dedicated to refute Darwin....
What you said sounds like the "big bang theory"
and which Creation book?? this one...?
quote: Tell Me About The Creation (For Beginners) Darwin's theory of evolution maintained that all living beings emerged as a result of chance and thus denied Creation.
Keeeping to the topic of how Silly Darwin's theory is.... This book/link is the on to read/see:
the full book is availbile online... the actual book is very good to keep in your/a libaray, very good quality;) but you have to buy it...
Posts: 2457 | From: U | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by K7: The website is not dedicated to refute Darwin....
I'm the one who is confused, then. If the website is not dedicated to refuting Darwin, why is the page called *Refutation of Darwinism?*
What
quote:Originally posted by K7: you said sounds like the "big bang theory"
Somewhat. But big bang theory deals with creation of the universe while evolutionism deals with the changes in living organisms over time.
I've read some of these pages on all the books. But it seems like the writer either doesn't really understand the theory of evolution or he's trying to intentionally mislead the reader.
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ernst Mayr (evolutionary biologist, and originator of the Biological Species Concept) summarizes Darwin's theories :
... I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:
-Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time. -Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth. -Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species. -Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type. -Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation.
Posts: 817 | From: Egypt | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darwin believed all biological creatures evolved through the result of natural processes of change. Re-read Snoozins example because she hits it right on the nose. Darwin saw it as a variation within species that provided some individuals with characteristics that allowed them a better chance for surivial under differnt conditions. In other words, through genetics and natural selection we've evolved by the stronger genes being passed through us. Cultures and people change as conditions change. It's not that we're better, but better adapted. For instance, we cannot go and live in Siberia or Alaska and expect to survive in the same conditions as an eskimo. Why? Because an Eskimo has a barrell chest and have what is call "brown fat" which is a higher lipid fat, all this specifically to keep warm. So they as a species have adapted to their environment and have evolved through natural selection passing on their strong genes making each generation better adjusted and adapted than the next. Where as an eskimo wouldn't be able to survive in Africa. People embraced this same theory when applied to animals and plants so why can't it be appled to humans as well? We're all biological creatures on this earth. If you look back in the history of the earth, humans, plants and animals have changed dramitically, we have evolved. If we didn't, we would still be using stone tools and living more primitive. I believe some people are terrified by the modern scientific perspective and retreat to creationism. Saying that I quote John Ray, a seventeenth-century scientist and clergyman... " Those who scorn and decry knowledge should remember that it is knowledge that makes us men, superior to the animals and lower than the angels, that makes us capable of virtue and happiness such as animals and the irrational cannot attain."
K7, how about instead of reading a website dedicated to refuting Darwin theories actually read Darwins theories with the open mind to maybe understand it, even if you don't believe.
Posts: 1063 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KeepinItReal: K7, how about instead of reading a website dedicated to refuting Darwin theories actually read Darwins theories with the open mind to maybe understand it, even if you don't believe.
well said KIR
can i Quote you next time i see someone bashing Islam? Posts: 817 | From: Egypt | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Humanized: can i Quote you next time i see someone bashing Islam?
LOL! The problem is Islam is often very difficult for us Westerners to understand. Evolution is a cake walk compared to some of the more esoteric aspects of Islam. Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm the one who is confused, then. If the website is not dedicated to refuting Darwin, why is the page called *Refutation of Darwinism?*
only that page is, infact just a selection of those online books...
quote: I've read some of these pages on all the books. But it seems like the writer either doesn't really understand the theory of evolution or he's trying to intentionally mislead the reader.
His book are internationally published, and is very well known....
You have to be open minded,,,i understand this can be difficult especaily of how many ever years u spent in the american? national education curicculem,,,it can threating to accept another perspecitve...
but Elhamduliha, you made it to Islaam, im sure you can go further, inshAllah
keepitreal:
quote: K7, how about instead of reading a website dedicated to refuting Darwin theories actually read Darwins theories with the open mind to maybe understand it, even if you don't believe.
I was thinking of the same thing...but thought why waste time... Can you kindlt save me some time and provide me some of your sources....
Cheers;)
-------------------- -- here... [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0955020700/qid%3D1133898517/026-7853042-0414807= Recommended...![/url] Posts: 2457 | From: U | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anytime!! I believe we all should learn about one another and ask questions. It's easier to cast judgement and negativity than allow ourselves to be open to learn something new and different. That's the beauty of cultures and religions, they're different and complex.....but with that they are unique and beautiful. Posts: 1063 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Humanized: can i Quote you next time i see someone bashing Islam?
LOL! The problem is Islam is often very difficult for us Westerners to understand. Evolution is a cake walk compared to some of the more esoteric aspects of Islam.
And with the clicking, came the ticking , of the aspect that was no more esoteric Posts: 817 | From: Egypt | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by K7: I was thinking of the same thing...but thought why waste time... Can you kindlt save me some time and provide me some of your sources....
Cheers;)
You bet!! These books give indepth insight into Darwin and his theories and the physical anthropology book shows the physical evidence. It's not soley based upon only Darwin, but also other people throughout history and a few of their theories as well. It leaves room to make your own judgement.
-The Past in Perspective by Kenneth L. Feder
-Physical Anthropology- by Mcgraw-Hill
Posts: 1063 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by K7: I dont really have the time or the money to go and buy books....sorry
any relevant websites? There must be a book/website the website written by darwin him self... or an explaination or sumthing..
You can get *The Origin of Species* and *The Descent of Man* in the libraries. My copies were $7.99 USD each.
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by K7: I dont really have the time or the money to go and buy books....sorry
any relevant websites? There must be a book/website the website written by darwin him self... or an explaination or sumthing..
You can get *The Origin of Species* and *The Descent of Man* in the libraries. My copies were $7.99 USD each.
Oh yes, those are excellent books. Seriously, K7 if you want to learn about Darwin's theories you'll need to read a book from library. When I went looking for a website for you to read, they barely touch the surface.
Posts: 1063 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by K7: is darwin/whoever saying that humans and monkeys? are the same specieces
No, that is a common misperception. Most people think he said we were descended from ape..
He never said this, but what his arguments implied was that man is more like a cousin to the apes, not descended from them. "Animals may partake from our common origin in one ancestor...we may be all netted together."
It was society at the time that grasped onto the idea of monkeys, and his theory of evolution was nicknamed *the monkey theory* even though monkeys are not really singled out in his book.
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by K7: I have touched upoin it in my science classes...
Anyway I decided to re-read what you wrote in more depth...[long "mono-tonous" thread on ES really put me off ]
Everything you said I agree, and it is basic science...
quote: If you look back in the history of the earth, humans, plants and animals have changed dramitically, we have evolved
Ok in this case I think the words "evolotion" and "adaptation" are being used too loosely...and 'interchaning-ly'
now I agree with Adaptation, which what is what you said.... but "evoloution" where did that come from.....
I beleive that it wasnt actually Darwin himself who said Humans were Apes/chimpanzee /wateva...or was it
Where did this idea come from.... again i agreee to this:
quote: Darwin saw it as a variation within species
but "evolution" between species is darwin/whoever saying that humans and monkeys? are the same specieces
I am saying through adaptation we have evolved, as in human culture. Evolution is defined as a "gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form" where is adaptation is to "conform oneself to new or different conditions." For instance, archaeologists have found man-made stone tools which provides clear evidence that human culture has evolved. If we didn't then archaeologists should have found buried railways and electrical telegraphs. It's saying we survive through adaptation-through adaptation we learn new skills for survival-we pass those skills to our children-our children learn adaptation and new skills and pass it on making it clear we are continually evolving. Does that make more sense? I'm sorry, I can see where I didn't make that point clear. Posts: 1063 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So do you suppurt neo-darwinsim and what is that?
quote: Anyone who seeks an answer to the question of how living things, including himself, came into existence, will encounter two distinct explanations. The first is "creation," the idea that all living things came into existence as a consequence of an intelligent design. The second explanation is the theory of "evolution," which asserts that living things are not the products of an intelligent design, but of coincidental causes and natural processes. A
Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes.
Despite having its roots in ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was first brought to the attention of the scientific world in the nineteenth century. The most thoroughly considered view of evolution was expressed by the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, in his Zoological Philosophy (1809).
This evolutionary model of Lamarck's was invalidated by the discovery of the laws of genetic inheritance.
However, the evolutionary theory formulated by another natural scientist who lived a couple of generations after Lamarck proved to be more influential. This natural scientist was Charles Robert Darwin, and the theory he formulated is known as "Darwinism."
However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, which disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."2 Advocates of the theory of evolution refused to accept Pasteur's findings for a long time. However, as scientific progress revealed the complex structure of the cell, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse.
The Efforts of Neo-Darwinism A group of scientists who were determined to reconcile Darwinism with the science of genetics, in one way or another, came together at a meeting organized by the Geological Society of America in 1941. After long discussion, they agreed on ways to create a new interpretation of Darwinism and over the next few years, specialists produced a synthesis of their fields into a revised theory of evolution.
The concept of "random mutation" was supposed to provide the answer to the question of the origin of the advantageous variations which caused living organisms to evolve according to Darwin's theory— a phenomenon that Darwin himself was unable to explain, but simply tried to side-step by referring to Lamarck. The Geological Society of America group named this new theory, which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin's natural selection thesis, the "synthetic theory of evolution" or the "modern synthesis." In a short time, this theory came to be known as "neo-Darwinism" and its supporters as "neo-Darwinists."
So are you a neo-darwinist? The term darwinsim seems quite different from darwin himself Darwins thesis was incomplete so either your following an incomplete theroy, or yu follow the neo-darwinsims, which tried to "fill in the gaps".
-------------------- -- here... [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0955020700/qid%3D1133898517/026-7853042-0414807= Recommended...![/url] Posts: 2457 | From: U | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, this is Darwins theory and me trying to explain it by examples. He even refers specifically to the findings of man made stone tools as evidence of evolution. I'm not filling in any gaps. I feel my examples are accurate.
Posts: 1063 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who Knows? We have arguments over what happened 50 years ago much less 3 billion. The truth is, we just don't know and may never. Not having the answers is what drives humans crazy.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KeepinItReal: No, this is Darwins theory and me trying to explain it by examples. He even refers specifically to the findings of man made stone tools as evidence of evolution. I'm not filling in any gaps. I feel my examples are accurate.
He only collected stuffs, that's all.......
it was later on people coined the term darwinism and made a whole load of assumption....
what the differnce between adaptation and evolution?
You must be a neo-Darwinismist Posts: 2457 | From: U | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by K7: [QUOTE]He only collected stuffs, that's all.......
it was later on people coined the term darwinism and made a whole load of assumption....
what the differnce between adaptation and evolution?
You must be a neo-Darwinismist
AH! Darwin did not ONLY collect stuff on his voyage on the Beagle ship. How can label me a neo-Darwinist when you haven't even read a book his own! He's written 3 books on this alone!!!! I can see where this is going and I'm not going to continue to argue with you when you haven't even read any of his books yet. Read them for yourself. No interenet site is going to be enough to draw a conclusion from, read his own words. This is a circular argument in which until you read his book, it will remain so. Here are the 3 books he wrote:
-The Descent of Man -The Origin of Species -The Voyage of the Beagle
ALL written by Charles Darwin himself. If you want to know his theories read these books. It will be more beneficial to you than me trying to explain it. You can't argue with a book.
Posts: 1063 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed I believe it did. I am open to learn and I will read this book as well as you read one that I recommend. Deal? Then we shall discuss this with an open mind and understanding of both our sides. I do respect you and your opinions. No hard feelings right!?! Posts: 1063 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic