Evolution & God

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't think they knew much about the information bearing properties of DNA way back then, so they used ambiguous terms.

Again, I don't think "life changes over time" or "germs exist" are difficult concepts to explain, even in the time it was written.

plus, it's not meant to be a science book - it's about refining our character/personality to be loving/charitable/kind/hard-working/honest etc. etc....

If that's the case, then people shouldn't be making claims like "hey, look, the Bible/Qur'an says THIS about evolution - it totally foretold it!" in the first place.

like saying some history book about George Washington is false because it didn't include the recipe for his mother's apple pie - just because the recipe isn't there doesn't mean his mom didn't make apple pie....

Unless you're going to claim that the particular history book you're talking about was made by a magical being and contains prophecies about the future that relay important information way ahead of time - like the OP claims.

 

[McBell]

So explain to us what it means in the way you want it to be other than the origin of the creation and the later one.

give us your own explanation so we can believe that the verse can mean anything else,(magical sentence)

Unlike some, I do not pretend to know...

However, to present a verse completely out of context and claim that it means something that one would not get out of it without the preconceived notion is nothing more than the Forer Effect.

 

[Ignite]

This is nothing more than using the Forer Effect to get the verse to say what you want the verse to say.

I completely agree. I remember when a friend of mine showed me a verse in the Quran that said the world was egg shaped. I went and looked into the analysis of this on Quran.com. It said that the word Durya was translated as flat for many centuries. It recently was changed to have double meaning, the second being egg-shaped.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

i am assuming that evolution is caused by a natural selection without any interruptions
by a third power such as what we called god or whatever,my questions are

1 - Who created or how it could be produced the first cell as the first ancestor
for all living organisms out of nothing.

The best answer we can give right now is "we don't know". The leading theory is abiogenesis (which I strongly recomment looking in to), but it's still very much in it's infancy.

2 - who controlled the process of evolution,the nature did choose the bird to fly
or the bird itself chose to fly or booth agreed to do so,in the first case, the nature
is unconscious and got no mind to think for evolving a wing for the bird in order to
fly ,so that is impossible,the second case,the bird itself started to make wings,that
is also impossible that the bird will think and manage to create his own wings ,what
a clever bird and a good designer,so we got in booth cases an impossible results,and
in logic off + off never equal on or false + false never equal true so impossible + impossible
will never equal possible.

This is basic evolutionary biology. Nothing "decided" that birds should grow wings, or anything like that. Nature simply selects (unconsciously) from the mutations available, and those who develop the skeletal structure to support wings, then from those who have the beginnings of proto-wings, etc. etc. etc.. It's a very long process, and I suggest some additional reading on the subject is necesarry:

Origin of avian flight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3- human and chimpanzee have one common ancestor,so who is the first ancestor
for human and chimpanzee,was he look more to chimpanzees or to humans,did
the nature chose some to be chimpanzees and monkeys...etc and the others to
be humans,the nature is unconscious and can not manage to produce from a common
ancestor,a clever human being able to think and invent plus the ability to talk in a different
way than all other mammals ,so that is impossible case,do the ancestor divide himself to
human and chimpanzee by his choice,that is also impossible ,the same results in logic,
both false results will never equal true.

You need to stop baselessly asserting that certain things are "impossible". There's no reason to suggest that human functions such as cognition and speech are anything other than the result of our natural evolution.

 

[Thief]

How is that clear or, again, anything to do witgh evolution? Where's the explanation? Where's the process?

Um, anyone? Considering the volumes of religious, supposedly divinely-inspired, texts that exist out there, you'd think he'd include it in at least one.

So God couldn't have explained these things before we discovered them ourselves? How difficult would it have been for God to just include a bit in one of his books that said "hey, there's these tiny little creatures that get into your body and can make you ill".

So God lied, then? For no reason whatsoever?

Considering he was supposedly relaying the truth of our existence, I don't think he'd have to stretch it any to mention that life changes over time, or that germs exist. I fail to see why that would have been a problem for anyone at the time, considering that they had no problems believing the nonsenical fairytale about the garden of eden.

Your entire post was one assumption after another.
Especially that last one.
(In all fairness, most items of belief are that much.)

When expressing any idea...you have to consider who you are talking to.

As I pointed out, and you mentioned it again....somethings require seeing to believe.
Believe in small things floating around in your body?
Sure we believe.
But explain that to people who know little more than tending sheep.

Mose could ask....what is Man?...how is this made?
I am not carved of wood...chiseled of stone....cast of metal.....
What is Man made of?

Of course the answer is....
'...You are made of dust. Dust you are. Dust you will be....'

Prove it?....cut the man and let him bleed.
As the blood dries and crumbles....there is the proof.

But to demonstrate the chemistry and the form?
To reveal the genetics and the handiwork therein?
No...that would be far too much for the moment at hand.

Genesis wasn't really about us.
Genesis was about God....introducing Himself....as Creator.

I suspect a need to choose what was said.
And that choosing will, of course.....confuse some people.

 

[johnhanks]

When expressing any idea...you have to consider who you are talking to.

If you are god, and you have created the mind of the person you are talking to, it should not be hard to make that mind capable of receiving any idea you wish. The suggestion that god had to wait several millennia for humans to invent the microscope before letting them realise there were harmful organisms too small to see is a cop-out of the first order.

 

[FearGod]

I completely agree. I remember when a friend of mine showed me a verse in the Quran that said the world was egg shaped. I went and looked into the analysis of this on Quran.com. It said that the word Durya was translated as flat for many centuries. It recently was changed to have double meaning, the second being egg-shaped.

i am sorry,but you are not telling the truth here and i dont know what is your purpose of that or what you gain from it,remeber that all of us will die one
day and face god,fear god on what are you talking about him,God of Adam,
God of Abraham,God of me and you,it is just my advice to you and it is of
course it is up to you to think about my advice as a friend ,
God bless you and quide you

 

[Thief]

If you are god, and you have created the mind of the person you are talking to, it should not be hard to make that mind capable of receiving any idea you wish. The suggestion that god had to wait several millennia for humans to invent the microscope before letting them realise there were harmful organisms too small to see is a cop-out of the first order.

And creating an equal intellect from the very beginning....
is little more than casting your own reflection.
Talking to an echo.

And you actually think it's not entertaining, watching Man sort it out?

And yes, the human eye can't see such things.
If you tell a shepherd such things...what's he going to do about it?
Sit and worry?

 

[FearGod]

The best answer we can give right now is "we don't know". The leading theory is abiogenesis (which I strongly recomment looking in to), but it's still very much in it's infancy..

abiogenesis contradict biogenesis


This is basic evolutionary biology. Nothing "decided" that birds should grow wings, or anything like that. Nature simply selects (unconsciously) from the mutations available, and those who develop the skeletal structure to support wings, then from those who have the beginnings of proto-wings, etc. etc. etc.. It's a very long process, and I suggest some additional reading on the subject is necesarry:

So your logic as follow
No decision was made by Nature (off) and No decision was made by the bird (off)
and the wings evolved with no decision from any side (on)

You need to stop baselessly asserting that certain things are "impossible". There's no reason to suggest that human functions such as cognition and speech are anything other than the result of our natural evolution.[/quote]

Similar to the Wings (No decision making entity),done by chance and luck and kept
with the decision of the natural selection for the following generations

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your entire post was one assumption after another.
Especially that last one.
(In all fairness, most items of belief are that much.)

When expressing any idea...you have to consider who you are talking to.

As I pointed out, and you mentioned it again....somethings require seeing to believe.
Believe in small things floating around in your body?

So, burning bushes, arks, eternal afterlife, deamons, possession and magic are all easy to believe if God tells you so, but if God tells you that microorganisms exist it's just a step too far?

Sure we believe.
But explain that to people who know little more than tending sheep.

And you accused ME of making nothing but assumptions. The point is that God could have told people, and apparently chose not to. To chalk that up to the ignorance of the audience of the time is missing the forest for the trees. If they were reasonable and intelligent enough to take God at his word about practically everything else, why would this be an exception? And would it not have been trivial for God to have just passed on that knowledge?

Mose could ask....what is Man?...how is this made?
I am not carved of wood...chiseled of stone....cast of metal.....
What is Man made of?

Of course the answer is....
'...You are made of dust. Dust you are. Dust you will be....'

Because God is a liar? And is, apparently, incredibly patronizing?

Prove it?....cut the man and let him bleed.
As the blood dries and crumbles....there is the proof.

But to demonstrate the chemistry and the form?
To reveal the genetics and the handiwork therein?
No...that would be far too much for the moment at hand.

So, lies are preferable to truth, depending on the time and convenience? You're making a lot of allowances.

Genesis wasn't really about us.
Genesis was about God....introducing Himself....as Creator.

And yet this supposed creator was either wrong or lied about how mankind was created? Wouldn't it have been a far better introduction for the creator to accurately outline his method of creation? Wouldn't that have provided definitive proof (or, at least, exceptionally good evidence) of his existence?

I suspect a need to choose what was said.
And that choosing will, of course.....confuse some people.

There's a difference between "choosing your words" and "completely making something up that is neither true nor accurate".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

abiogenesis contradict biogenesis

Do you understand the concept of either?

So your logic as follow
No decision was made by Nature (off) and No decision was made by the bird (off)
and the wings evolved with no decision from any side (on)

Yep. Evolution doesn't require conscious decisions, just random mutations and natural selection. The same way that rocks on the beach don't "decide" to get smaller and become sand, they are just eroded over time due to the environment to become sand.

Similar to the Wings (No decision making entity),done by chance and luck and kept
with the decision of the natural selection for the following generations

Chance and luck have nothing to do with it. It's no more "lucky" that certain animals evolved wings than it is "lucky" that I have hazel eyes, or that the sun is round. Other than that, I'd say you're fairly accurate.

 

[johnhanks]

And creating an equal intellect from the very beginning....
is little more than casting your own reflection.
Talking to an echo.

A classic false dichotomy. Who said the created mind had to be equal to the creator's?

And you actually think it's not entertaining, watching Man sort it out?

If your idea of entertainment is watching people die of plague, you have a point.

And yes, the human eye can't see such things.
If you tell a shepherd such things...what's he going to do about it?
Sit and worry?

More profitably, perhaps practise elementary hygiene.

 

[FearGod]

Do you understand the concept of either?

Biogenesis : living things should come from another living things.
Abiogenesis : living things come from non-living things

Yep. Evolution doesn't require conscious decisions, just random mutations and natural selection. The same way that rocks on the beach don't "decide" to get smaller and become sand, they are just eroded over time due to the environment to become sand. .

good comparison between the human evolution and the rocks evolved to sand
by the nature selection!

Chance and luck have nothing to do with it. It's no more "lucky" that certain animals evolved wings than it is "lucky" that I have hazel eyes, or that the sun is round. Other than that, I'd say you're fairly accurate.

Natural selection actually depends on the chances of mutations and luck,whereas
you confirm that Chances and luck have nothing to do with it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Biogenesis : living things should come from another living things.
Abiogenesis : living things come from non-living things

And why should it be a problem that abiogenesis contradicts biogenesis? Biogenesis isn't a law, it's a belief.

good comparison between the human evolution and the rocks evolved to sand
by the nature selection!

Thanks. Naturally, it's a bit more complex, but I think it paints a picture.

Natural selection actually depends on the chances of mutations and luck,whereas
you confirm that Chances and luck have nothing to do with it.

How does natural selection depend on chance or luck?

 

[FearGod]

[/How does natural selection depend on chance or luck?

Before nature selection happened,then there are many chances of mutations
happened,some are good and others are bad,and the lucky (good one) will be
selected and inherited to the next generation,whereas the unlucky (bad mutation)
will not survive.

without chances and luck there will be no Natural Selection and no evolution

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Before nature selection happened,then there are many chances of mutations
happened,some are good and others are bad,and the lucky (good one) will be
selected and inherited to the next generation,whereas the unlucky (bad mutation)
will not survive.

without chances and luck there will be no Natural Selection and no evolution

This is something of an extrapolation from the truth. "Luck" isn't part of it. Is the individual with a given mutation that makes it marginally more likely to survive lucky? Yes. But that doesn't mean that "chance and luck" are a part of natural selection, since when you have entire populations constantly reproducing offspring with 100 new mutations in every individual born per generation, it stands to reason that eventually some of these mutations will produce a positive effect on that particular individual's survival, which will then be carried on to the next generation and naturally prosper. The process doesn't require "luck", since luck is eliminated when you're talking about a process that requires thousands - if not millions - of individuals and populations over several hundred generations.

To draw another analogy by way of illustration, if there is a lottery for which there is a 1/1000 chance of winning and 100,000 people enter it, the one person who wins that lottery is clearly very lucky. However, it is not "lucky" that any single individual won, since there were so many individuals in the lottery that it was inevitable that one of them would win. Multiply that by the fact that each individual has over 100 chances of "winning", there can be as many "winners" as possible, and that evolution takes place over millions of years and hundreds and thousands of generations of hundreds and thousands of different populations of different species, and the notion that evolution or natural selection is dependant on "luck" makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[FearGod]

This is something of an extrapolation from the truth. "Luck" isn't part of it. Is the individual with a given mutation that makes it marginally more likely to survive lucky? Yes. But that doesn't mean that "chance and luck" are a part of natural selection, since when you have entire populations constantly reproducing offspring with 100 new mutations in every individual born per generation, it stands to reason that eventually some of these mutations will produce a positive effect on that particular individual's survival, which will then be carried on to the next generation and naturally prosper. The process doesn't require "luck", since luck is eliminated when you're talking about a process that requires thousands - if not millions - of individuals and populations over several hundred generations.

To draw another analogy by way of illustration, if there is a lottery for which there is a 1/1000 chance of winning and 100,000 people enter it, the one person who wins that lottery is clearly very lucky. However, it is not "lucky" that any single individual won, since there were so many individuals in the lottery that it was inevitable that one of them would win. Multiply that by the fact that each individual has over 100 chances of "winning", there can be as many "winners" as possible, and that evolution takes place over millions of years and hundreds and thousands of generations of hundreds and thousands of different populations of different species, and the notion that evolution or natural selection is dependant on "luck" makes no sense whatsoever.

Why the birds who evolved the wings survived and the others died and were extinct

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why the birds who evolved the wings survived and the others died and were extinct

Again, that's not luck. The birds that didn't grow wings most likely had populations that evolved in other directions. Flightless birds, for instance.

 

[FearGod]

Again, that's not luck. The birds that didn't grow wings most likely had populations that evolved in other directions. Flightless birds, for instance.

No,i am talking about the flying birds,why we cant see the previous ones,the same
birds before evolving the wings,where are they ,why they were extincted.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No,i am talking about the flying birds,why we cant see the previous ones,the same
birds before evolving the wings,where are they ,why they were extincted.

Like I said, because they most likely separated out into other populations and evolved into various different species - like all life does.