Has evolution facts destroyed Adam?

[Ouroboros]

Nonsense without any evidence.

Just like belief in an imaginary beings then.

http://www.dna.caltech.edu/Papers/dna-crystal-evolution.pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/article...es-of-fat-hint-at-origin-of-reproduction.html (you have to have subscription to read the article)

 

[loverOfTruth]

Just like belief in an imaginary beings then.

http://www.dna.caltech.edu/Papers/dna-crystal-evolution.pdf

Sign in to read: Bubbles of fat hint at origin of reproduction - life - 09 January 2013 - New Scientist (you have to have subscription to read the article)

About the first link. Something that starts with 'It is widely accepted that Darwinian evolution is responsible for the complexity
and adaptability seen in modern biology.' - you can right away throw away as it won't be showing evidence for anything.

Anyway, I skimmed through it and it does not give any evidence for your claim 'The potential for organic life, replication, mutation, and even the emergence of mind, was there in Reality from the beginning, unfolded in the very fabric of nature.'

I was asking for evidence of that.

Sorry not interested to subscribe. If you can paste some portions showing evidence, please feel free.

 

[Jainarayan]

And the self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago popped out of thin air ?

No, it was a process beginning with the formation of lipid membrane enclosed "cells". These cells have been reproduced in the lab. Except for Saruman creating orcs out of mud, another fantasy story, has anyone created living beings from dirt?

 

[loverOfTruth]

No, it was a process beginning with the formation of lipid membrane enclosed "cells". These cells have been reproduced in the lab. Except for Saruman creating orcs out of mud, another fantasy story, has anyone created living beings from dirt?

So those lipid membrane enclosed "cells" came out of thin air ?

More of a reason to believe in God. Of course, humans can't do what God can do.

 

[Jainarayan]

What part of "process" did you miss?

 

[allright]

[To me it sure sounds like God can't create Nature with the potential of Evolution. It's above his pay grade. It's not a miracle if he'd done that. He created Nature, but only to the degree of the understanding and intelligence of the believers, beyond that, that's too hard for him to do. What a weak God that is. [/quote]

:bow:

 

[Ouroboros]

[To me it sure sounds like God can't create Nature with the potential of Evolution. It's above his pay grade. It's not a miracle if he'd done that. He created Nature, but only to the degree of the understanding and intelligence of the believers, beyond that, that's too hard for him to do. What a weak God that is.

:bow:[/QUOTE]

You did get that I was being sarcastic though, right?

My view (in seriousness) is that Nature, Reality, all that exists, including us, biological life, everything, it all is "God" in its fullest. God, as Nature, "created" life and us by just being what Nature is. It is the nature of Nature to constantly create, recreate, and remodel matter, energy, life, and minds. It's all a complete unity. So did Nature use Evolution to create life? Absolutely, in my opinion. I just wanted to make sure there were no misunderstandings with my view. Sometimes I can make tongue-in-cheek comments that can easily be misunderstood.

 

[loverOfTruth]

What part of "process" did you miss?

You stated the process began with the formation of the cell ... so you need to explain how did the 'process began' out of thin air.

 

[Jainarayan]

Look it up like I did, and don't play word games.

 

[Thief]

I believe in evolution.
I believe God did it.

It's just the technique.
The only point the varies would be that Garden event....so full of science.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Look it up like I did, and don't play word games.

I am not playing any word game. You stated : "it was a process beginning with the formation of lipid membrane enclosed 'cells' " and I just asked you a simple question..

Either the 'process began' from thin air or the 'formation of cell' began from thin air - which one is it ? You just have no answer ... so you keep avoiding it.

 

[Jainarayan]

Look it up. I'm refusing to answer your attempts at "ah ha! gotcha!" Do you know chemical processes and reactions and how they occur? Look up basic chemistry.

 

[Breathe]

This belief certainly doesn't go with evolution and the evidence is so strong for evolution that u simply can't reject it. Where does this leave the beliefs and how do they contradict with evolution?

[...] Keep religious beliefs aside, do u think that science has destroyed
So called image of Adam ?

Personally, I think the only way to reject evolution is:

a) through ignorance of what evolution teaches
b) through self-denial because it conflicts with someone's established beliefs and there is an unwillingness to accept some things are metaphorical (or even wrong!)
c) both


To me, the story of Adam and Eve, (like many of the other stories of various religious scriptures) is allegorical and should be read as such; literalism cheapens it.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Look it up. I'm refusing to answer your attempts at "ah ha! gotcha!" Do you know chemical processes and reactions and how they occur? Look up basic chemistry.

You are refusing to answer a simple question because you have no answer.

A chemical process changes the composition of 'existing' chemicals/materials - just a hint.

 

[Gurtej]

Really ?

As Hamza Andreas Tzortzis points out in his response to The God Delusion :
"The odds against assembling the human genome spontaneously are incalculable. The probability of assembling the genome is between 4-180 to 4-110,000 and 4-360 to 4-110,000. These numbers give some feel for the unlikelihood of the species Homo sapiens. And if anyone were to accept evolution by chance, they would have to believe in a miracle as these numbers are so high! Therefore evolution itself would prove the existence of God!"
From: A Response to The God Delusion

==========================

"Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal is a well known expert with an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book ‘Evolution’, he responded:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...... As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

...

"Evolutionists can only postulate transition fossils, but with no certainty, and no evidence. Misleading reconstructions are assembled on the basis of fragments. There is no string of transitional fossils for any single assumed macroevolutionary event. Moreover ‘living fossils’ are all around us. 3.4 billion year old algae and bacterial fossils are identical to present forms. 500 million year old (myo) crustaceans, 450 myo scorpions, 450 myo crabs, 350 myo ferns, and countless other fossils are all identical to present forms. Species were created in stages by an omnipotent creator, and introduced at the perfect time when Allah had optimized the conditions for them. Every created organism established the correct balance for the next creation over long periods of time within a delicate ecosystem."

From: Evolution vs Islam
This article offers a very detailed analysis refuting evolution.

==========================

"These claims, totally contradicting all the rules of genetics, biophysics, and biochemistry are as scientific as fairy-tales of frogs turning into princes!"

From: THE EVOLUTION DECEIT

So to answer your question, no Evolution hasn't destroyed Adam one bit - just deceived some people into believing so.
Peace.

Hamza is good for nothing... Atleast use a credible islamic sort..
Or more
Importantly read some good evolution books.. Rejecting evolution is very close to rejecting god I wud say.....

I think the science has destroyed human being ego..
I was watching Richard Dawkins documentary on faith school and as him was so surprised to see so many young girls who believe Quran is a strong library of science and still reject evolution ... No w

 

[loverOfTruth]

Hamza is good for nothing... Atleast use a credible islamic sort..
Or more
Importantly read some good evolution books.. Rejecting evolution is very close to rejecting god I wud say.....

I think the science has destroyed human being ego..
I was watching Richard Dawkins documentary on faith school and as him was so surprised to see so many young girls who believe Quran is a strong library of science and still reject evolution ... No w

Nice counter argument :
- discredit Hamza as no good without any reason, without countering his argument
- ignore the others as they refute evolution in detail
- quote Atheist Prophet, Richard Dawkins' ignorant/irrelevant statement

Well done.

And by the way, I don't see any science in your arguments...all I see is ego.

 

[Ouroboros]

Dr. Colin Patterson misquoted: Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

With explanations and Patterson's own letters to correct the misinterpretation of his words.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Dr. Colin Patterson misquoted: Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

With explanations and Patterson's own letters to correct the misinterpretation of his words.

And a response to that...
That quote!

 

[illykitty]

Perhaps Adam and Eve represent the first humans as we know ourselves (first ones to not be as primitive). After all, didn't their sons have wives? Do you believe they married their sisters? I hope not! I see it as there being other humans, just that Adam and Eve were the first of modern species.

I don't know if I believe that, but personally if I were an Abrahamic, that's how I would interpret it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Personally, I think the only way to reject evolution is:

a) through ignorance of what evolution teaches
b) through self-denial because it conflicts with someone's established beliefs and there is an unwillingness to accept some things are metaphorical (or even wrong!)
c) both

d) and misquoting scientists and putting an anti-evolutionary spin to their words.

To me, the story of Adam and Eve, (like many of the other stories of various religious scriptures) is allegorical and should be read as such; literalism cheapens it.

Yup.