What's new

Church apologises to Charles Darwin over theory of evolution

I think the Union jack holds more value to me than any cross or whatever u wish to attribute my origins to me.

Anyway Blain thats my take. Anything you put on your national flag is what u die for the rest is all crap.

Regards

So here is the problem. While you have no problem dying for your "nation", yet you pick bones with dying for ones "religion"? To me it is all the same. If you were a humanist then you would deplore killings or even dying in the name of one's country just the same as you would in the name of religion.

I think the Union jack holds more value to me than any cross or whatever

The above point is exactly what drives people to fight others of a different religion. Someone else may simply say "I think the cross holds more value to me than any Union Jack or whatever". Hopefully you get the drift ;)
 
.
So here is the problem. While you have no problem dying for your "nation", yet you pick bones with dying for ones "religion"? To me it is all the same. If you were a humanist then you would deplore killings or even dying in the name of one's country just the same as you would in the name of religion.

You're absolutely right blain2. Which is why sometimes the truth is not good enough. Its the implications of the truth which matter more than the truth itself.
 
.
So here is the problem. While you have no problem dying for your "nation", yet you pick bones with dying for ones "religion"? To me it is all the same. If you were a humanist then you would deplore killings or even dying in the name of one's country just the same as you would in the name of religion.



The above point is exactly what drives people to fight others of a different religion. Someone else may simply say "I think the cross holds more value to me than any Union Jack or whatever". Hopefully you get the drift ;)

So are you Pakistani first or a Muslim first ?

Not a personal attack just curious ?

Regards
 
.
So are you Pakistani first or a Muslim first ?

Not a personal attack just curious ?

Regards

No offense taken. I believe I am a human first, then a Muslim and then a Pakistani.

My own logic is a simple one. 50-100 years from now, the concept of nation states may change...what happens when all of the Europe is united under the EU and the nation states go soft on their national identities?...where does that leave you? Then we have to go on finding another thing to affiliate with in order to be able to define ourselves.

So nationalistic affiliations in my own opinion are temporary. My religious creed defines me, and my human tendencies let me live my life while recognizing that others have just as much right to live as I do.

The bottom line is that life is simple for me. I am not out there trying to build empires as such I have no conflicts.
 
.
So nationalistic affiliations in my own opinion are temporary. My religious creed defines me, and my human tendencies let me live my life while recognizing that others have just as much right to live as I do.
.

One could argue that even religious affiliations are temporary. With the spread of scientific education, religion has never had lesser influence in the world, and (hopefully) its influence will decline further.

So where does that leave you?
 
.
No offense taken. I believe I am a human first, then a Muslim and then a Pakistani.

My own logic is a simple one. 50-100 years from now, the concept of nation states may change...what happens when all of the Europe is united under the EU and the nation states go soft on their national identities?...where does that leave you?

So nationalistic affiliations in my own opinion are temporary. My religious creed defines me, and my human tendencies let me live my life while recognizing that others have just as much right to live as I do.

The bottom line is that life is simple for me. I am not out there trying to build empires.

I agree whole heartedly but that can only work in places where education, law and order take priority over corruption and divesive politics.

Regards
 
.
No offense taken. I believe I am a human first, then a Muslim and then a Pakistani.

My own logic is a simple one. 50-100 years from now, the concept of nation states may change...what happens when all of the Europe is united under the EU and the nation states go soft on their national identities?...where does that leave you? Then we have to go on finding another thing to affiliate with in order to be able to define ourselves.

So nationalistic affiliations in my own opinion are temporary. My religious creed defines me, and my human tendencies let me live my life while recognizing that others have just as much right to live as I do.

The bottom line is that life is simple for me. I am not out there trying to build empires as such I have no conflicts.

Another question so if two muslims fight, one says for Pakistan what he percieves is right and the other what he percieves to be right Pakistan but both are good and honest muslims how will you percieve who is right and whose side will you take.

Regards
 
.
One could argue that even religious affiliations are temporary. With the spread of scientific education, religion has never had lesser influence in the world, and (hopefully) its influence will decline further.

So where does that leave you?

Yar religion is a personal matter for me. I know to whom I am answerable at my end (this is my belief) and like myself, I think that others will be answerable for their own lives.

In any case, I think every thing is temporary. I am not worried about being left in the lurch because the influence of religion is on the decline.
 
.
Another question so if two muslims fight, one says for Pakistan what he percieves is right and the other what he percieves to be right Pakistan but both are good and honest muslims how will you percieve who is right and whose side will you take.

Regards

AN,

With all else being equal, I would go with whomsoever is taking the most correct stance.
 
. .
Few days back I saw a program on BBC based on Darwin evolution theory. They went on and showed many scientific proofs, so mostly in science community theory is widely accepted.

Any way lets see whole thing in different perspective. In my opinion all religious scripts are written by human and not very old. At that time what ever knowledge they had by observations and experience, they tried to include in these books. When people developed deep faith in religion and religious scripts, they also accepted theories written in the script. At that time it was perfectly OK because script was based on contemporary observation probably truth of that time. Later stages religious people got more power and it was necessary for them to be in power to keep proving observation is a final truth, otherwise if script is proved wrong then religion will certainly loose popularity. So religious preacher started linking script to GOD and all previous human observation/theories got converted to word of GOD and people could not deny old observation.

So what is final conclusion for me? I believe in GOD. GOD created whole universe. GOD gave mind to human, now this is job of human to evaluate/re-evaluate observations/theories. In case one theory written in religious script proved wrong ( already many have been proved wrong) does not mean GOD does not exists, it only proves, theory was given by some person and next generation should take responsibility to take the knowledge further level.

So, I have deep faith in GOD and not in the theories/observation. I never reason GOD, but theories and observations. Also I do not reason GOD as a theory.

For an example if Big Bang theory will be proved ( then few religious scripts will be again proved wrong), even then I will believe big-bang is done by GOD.
 
.
Few days back I saw a program on BBC based on Darwin evolution theory. They went on and showed many scientific proofs, so mostly in science community theory is widely accepted.

Seems like brother you are trying to board two different ships at the same time which is not possible. Any links or proves regarding your wide acceptance of Darwin theory?

Any way lets see whole thing in different perspective. In my opinion all religious scripts are written by human and not very old. At that time what ever knowledge they had by observations and experience, they tried to include in these books. When people developed deep faith in religion and religious scripts, they also accepted theories written in the script. At that time it was perfectly OK because script was based on contemporary observation probably truth of that time. Later stages religious people got more power and it was necessary for them to be in power to keep proving observation is a final truth, otherwise if script is proved wrong then religion will certainly loose popularity. So religious preacher started linking script to GOD and all previous human observation/theories got converted to word of GOD and people could not deny old observation.

So what is final conclusion for me? I believe in GOD. GOD created whole universe. GOD gave mind to human, now this is job of human to evaluate/re-evaluate observations/theories. In case one theory written in religious script proved wrong ( already many have been proved wrong) does not mean GOD does not exists, it only proves, theory was given by some person and next generation should take responsibility to take the knowledge further level.

So, I have deep faith in GOD and not in the theories/observation. I never reason GOD, but theories and observations. Also I do not reason GOD as a theory.

Darwin theory is the most unscientific theory this world has ever known. We need not to look at other ways to justify it just for the sake of ourselves. It is in direct contradiction with "creation".

Darwanism gave rise to atheism and that's why atheists remain quite when evidence is presented against darwin theory. Atheists claim they don't have a religion. They do have a religion and it is called Darwanism.

For an example if Big Bang theory will be proved ( then few religious scripts will be again proved wrong), even then I will believe big-bang is done by GOD

The only proven scientific fact is big bang theory, not darwanism.
 
Last edited:
.
Top Ten Myths About Evolution

Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
First-time Visitors: Please visit Site Map and Disclaimer. Use "Back" to return here.


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

A Note to Visitors
I will respond to questions and comments as time permits, but if you want to take issue with any position expressed here, you first have to answer this question:

What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?

I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for testing. It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?


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

1. Humans Evolved From Monkeys
Humans and great apes had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor about 50 million years ago. Nowhere, except in the most illiterate anti-evolution literature, will you find a claim that humans evolved from monkeys.

2. It’s Only A Theory
“Theory” does not mean “hypothesis” or “guess” “Theory” means an organized set of related ideas. If you have a set of previously disconnected observations, and you come up with a possible explanation, you have an organized set of related ideas - a theory. A theory that hasn't been confirmed is a hypothesis. People commonly but incorrectly talk as if theories and hypotheses are the same thing. All hypotheses are theories, but all theories are not hypotheses.

Number Theory is the branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of numbers. Theories don't get much more proven than this.
Quantum Theory is the theory that describes how and why atomic particles behave as they do. It has allowed us to build computers and lasers. There's nothing "theoretical" about it.
Stress Theory is what engineers use to build buildings, bridges, and keep the wings on airplanes. It works.
Music Theory illustrates another use of the word "theory," to mean the underlying principles of a subject as opposed to actual practice. Music Theory is the set of accepted conventions used in European music. Other conventions are possible. That's why Asian music sounds so different from ours.
The Phlogiston Theory was the notion that heat was a substance that reacted with materials to explain combustion. It's wrong. But it's still a theory. The term "theory" has nothing to do with whether the ideas in question are right or wrong.

3. If Nobody Saw It, We Can’t Be Sure It Happened
If you find your house trashed and your TV and stereo missing, will you hesitate to call the police because nobody saw it happen? Would you want the judge to dismiss the case just because you only had forensic evidence, but no witnesses?

4. Science Can’t Say Anything About Origins
Maybe not. But once the origin happens, everything after that is history. And historical evidence is preserved in the physical record.

5. Obsolete Concepts
Critics of evolution are fond of citing Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man (actually the tooth of a fossil pig erroneously claimed to be human). These both happened about 100 years ago. They can't cite any cases of false claims of ancient human fossils since then.

“Survival of the Fittest” was borrowed by Darwin from the economic writings of Herbert Spencer. What does “fittest” mean? It's not just a tautology, like saying "the winner of the Super Bowl is the team with the most points." There are objective features that make some creatures fitter than others. If you need to move fast in the water, there is one shape that works best and it's shared by squid, sharks, tuna, dolphins, ichthyosaurs, and nuclear submarines.

6. There Are No Intermediate Fossil Forms
This is a claim for which there is a monosyllabic definition: lie. Not error, which implies honest ignorance, but lie, because the people who make this claim are generally fully aware of the fossil record and simply choose to misrepresent it. Archaeopteryx, the earliest known fossil bird for a long time (some recent finds may be earlier) has a thoroughly reptilian skeleton with a bony tail, teeth, and four paws with jointed fingers (not merely the horny skin growths at the middle joint that a few modern birds have). And it has feathers. If that's not an intermediate, what is? More recently, evidence is accumulating that some dinosaurs had hair and feathers. If we'd lived 100 million years ago, we might have put birds, mammals and reptiles in the same class or at least put the divisions very differently from today. Therapsids are the intermediates between reptiles and mammals, crossopterygians and ichthyostegids are the intermediates between fish and amphibians, and so on.

7. Evolution Is Not Testable
Darwin suggested birds had evolved from reptiles in 1859; Archaeopteryx, a creature with a reptilian skeleton but feathers, was discovered in 1862.

Piltdown Man, the famous early fossil man hoax, actually vindicated evolution. The alleged fossil was controversial from the start precisely because it didn’t match evolutionary expectations. It had a modern human skull but an ancient apelike jaw (altered by someone who knew what he was doing), rather than a mix of features on both parts. It was like trying to fake a 1950 car by mixing parts from a 1980 car and a 1920 car. As more and more hominid fossils surfaced, Piltdown Man was increasingly seen as a side branch even if it did turn out to be genuine. It just didn't match the other finds.

8. Evolution Means Humans are Just Animals
Are you a vegetable or mineral? Humans have hair and nurse their young just like all other mammals. Traits like nurturing, cooperation and monogamy are often favored by evolution because they enhance survival of the species.

9. Evolution is Just Random
Is the following number sequence random: 592653589793238462643383279? It not only looks random: it is random. But lacking in meaning? No. These are the digits of pi beginning with the fourth decimal place.

Random does not mean “meaningless.” The scientific meaning of random is that something cannot be predicted with better accuracy than that predicted by statistics. The phenomenon is its own simplest description. Biological systems are far too complex to describe or predict mathematically. We have incomplete information, and significant events like climate change or asteroid impact are unpredictable.

10. Complexity Cannot Arise Naturally
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often paraphrased as:

”Things always go from bad to worse”
”Disorder in the Universe is always increasing"
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about entropy, which is defined as (Heat Absorbed in a process)/Temperature Entropy can decrease locally if it increases elsewhere. Intuitive notions of “disorder” are of no relevance whatsoever. Any discussion of the Second Law that does not specifically define entropy and show how it relates to evolution is worthless.

Chemical reactions are not random. For example, the atoms in a crystal of table salt are arranged as below, with sodium and chlorine atoms in a strictly alternating square array. If we take the simple-minded approach that we have a one-half probability of getting a sodium or chlorine atom in each spot, the chance of getting 100 atoms arranged as below is (1/2)100 or one in 1.26 x 1030. That's roughly one followed by 30 zeros. According to this reasoning, table salt is impossible.

Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
But of course the reasoning is ridiculous. The chances of getting that arrangement of atoms is close to 100 per cent.

And we know DNA can arise from simpler chemicals because it does so every time your cells divide. Every haircut you get is proof of it. The missing half of the DNA strand is assembled from molecules in the cell fluids.

"But when cells divide, there's a pattern already available" say some anti-evolutionists. Try this: go to the lumber yard and buy the materials for a tool shed. Then put a set of plans on top of the pile, and let me know when the materials spontaneously assemble. I can pour gasoline onto a garbage pile and the molecules in the garbage won't suddenly get the urge to develop into gasoline, even though there's enough carbon and hydrogen to do it. The pattern means nothing. DNA replicates because it can spontaneously self-assemble.

Top Ten Myths About Evolution
 
.
Back
Top Bottom