Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Evolution & Sikhism

Discussion in 'Interfaith Dialogues' started by P_Sikh, May 1, 2007.

  1. P_Sikh

    P_Sikh
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    SSA,

    Charles Darwin's 18th century revolutionary explanantion about humans that humans just eveolved. Later many other scientitsts believed humans evolved and so do universe and evolved out of nothing which suggests 'No God'. Though Darwin thoery is critisiced as well in many sections of scienttists and being a Sikh i also beleive in God who created universe and all of us but few Qs comes in my mind which i would like to explore in sikhism if sadh sangat could help

    1. If we, for instance, beleive in 'No God' thory then fundamental Question is why humans? Why only humans evolved to this level of consciouness and not any other animals? And if we go back to millions of years inspecting human fossils by carbon dating it suggests humans were humans even millions of millions year ago which mean we evolved morally than from other forms. Also 'By Chance Creation & Evolution' without any 'Godly Intervention' can't evolve morally as there is nothing like 'Moralilty' at genetic level. So this theory takes us back to 'God'.

    2. And if we do beleive in 'God exists'
    - Then again why only humans have this high level of consciouness and not other animals?
    - According to Sikhism/many other religions, every animal possesses soul, then what makes nature/creator decide which soul to possess in which animal form. Would it be random or something else (Apart from 'Karma' becuase Karma will decide whether you reach salvation or not. And if not, born as human or animal/other organism. And if animal/other organism how Karma can decide which animal/pther organism as not many animals/other organisms are better than other?
    - And if something does decide which animal to become then what brings those animals back to human form as neither do they have that kind of consciouness to increase their level of soul nor do they have any Karma effect as animal do what animals do, they don't have moral values to effect their karma.

    Does sikhism touch this topic? If yes, i'm curious to find out. Any sincere contribution to these thought are appreciated.

    Thanks


    ----------------------------------------
    ----------------------------------------
     
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    Sikhism and Evolution Sikh Sikhi Sikhism Sep 18, 2012
    Learn Punjabi Evolution of Gurumukhi Lipi and Impact on Sikhism Language, Arts & Culture Mar 29, 2009
    Sikhism and Evolution Sikh Sikhi Sikhism Mar 5, 2006
    Sikhism and Evolution Theories Announcements Mar 25, 2005
    The Prayer Revolution - The Heart of Sikhism Essays on Sikhism Jul 23, 2004

  3. Parma

    Parma United Kingdom
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    262
    God is nature (quthrath) just taking its course. Also beyond! Indescribable. Pure perfect a spirit. Thats why i like our religion no boundary is big enough for many thoughts on how god can be described.
     
  4. Sinister

    Sinister
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    394
    Ok I'll do the best I can with the limited time I have.

    From the looks of it, your trying to fuse morality with biology which science usually does with the study of psychology and psychiatry.
    Anthropology and sociology also play a key role in understanding the development of human morality.

    These are wildly wide fields of study and cannot be summarized in a post on the Internet.

    My suggestion to you is if you truly are interested in viewpoint of biological evolution and other psychoanalysis blabber then go to take schooling in those fields and make up your mind. Trust me its worth it! (interesting research out there)


    “Later many other scientitsts believed humans evolved and so do universe and evolved out of nothing which suggests 'No God'.”

    -that statement is false…scientists do not claim that…obviously something cannot evolve from nothing (by the shear definition). This statement violates the laws of thermodynamics (I think the 3rd law). The physical matter/energy was always present in a ‘sink’. What varies is entropy or the arrangement of energy/matter, which caused evolution (again sweeping generalizations).
    Was this by chance or by choice? … chance (according to evolutionary theory). From a molecular and chemical point of view evolution makes COMPLETE SENSE, with very little loop holes in the science.

    I suggest reading Darwin’s original work “The Origin of Species” which he wrote later on in his career (what he is famous for). Although it is outdated literature it will help form the basis of your understanding in evolutionary thought. (note: it is extremely boring literature but necessary if you want to go on about this subject further)

    If we, for instance, believe in 'No God' thory then fundamental Question is why humans? Why only humans evolved to this level of consciouness and not any other animals? And if we go back to millions of years inspecting human fossils by carbon dating it suggests humans were humans even millions of millions year ago which mean we evolved morally than from other forms. Also 'By Chance Creation & Evolution' without any 'Godly Intervention' can't evolve morally as there is nothing like 'Moralilty' at genetic level. So this theory takes us back to 'God'.


    THAT IS A BIGGGG QUESTION WITH MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS AND VEIWPOINTS!!!!
    A lot of it is beyond my grasp, probably any evolutionary scientists grasp as well.

    THERE IS MORALITY AT THE GENETIC LEVEL…..
    Humans are different from their primate cousins because of something known as “DIVERGEANT EVOLUTION” (read up on this…because I simply do not know your biology background). The theory helps explain how humans have become, in David T Suzuki terms, a “superspecies”.

    Emotional feelings are strongly linked to both biology and morality, so that is where you should start your research. Emotional response is the fundamental link that guides morality through physical explanations. Emotions can also influence cognitive thoughts/logic.

    Studies on cognition are still being conducted and neurologists are having a great amount of fun unlocking the secrets of our complex mind.

    But to assume that there is no link between biology and morality is inaccurate and discrediting. What evolutionary biologists do understand is that primates will cooperate and limit their “Id” behaviour for security/predictability and gain to ensure a maximum survival technique. THIS IS KNOWN AS THE “ZERO SUM GAME” (simple but very effective model that helps explain how morality has developed in mammals) (AGAIN READ UP ON THIS TOPIC…VERY INTERESTING…ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE WITH SCIENCE).

    Co-operation for survival forms the basis/fundamentals of all moral thought….Once we became a dominant species (superspecies) we developed larger societies and higher cohesiveness (more interdependence) which required the development of further morality so not to hinder the Co-operation efforts within society and jeopardize survival.

    Continous modification led us to where we are today in terms of morality…and morality continues to shift (READ ANYHING BY NIETZSCHE).

    We start with biology; that forms the fundamentals…. Shift over to emotion…..shift over to societal social strain theory and you get a vague image of how morality comes about.

    All morality is dependant upon memory of tasks, events, situations, scenarious….these are all processed in a synaptic/chemical/molecular level.

    Although today morality cannot be explained through Brain synaptic pathways…we understand that it is a by-product of emotion … which can be explained, to some degree, physiologically.

    regards
    Sinister
     
  5. spnadmin

    spnadmin United States
    Expand Collapse
    1947-2014 (Archived)
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    14,551
    Likes Received:
    19,200
    P Sikh ji

    "If we, for instance, believe in 'No God' thory then fundamental Question is why humans? Why only humans evolved to this level of consciouness and not any other animals? And if we go back to millions of years inspecting human fossils by carbon dating it suggests humans were humans even millions of millions year ago which mean we evolved morally than from other forms. Also 'By Chance Creation & Evolution' without any 'Godly Intervention' can't evolve morally as there is nothing like 'Moralilty' at genetic level. So this theory takes us back to 'God'."

    This is the most interesting question I have encountered perhaps ever. On another thread Sinister ji was talking about "answering evil with goodness" and related themes. The thread went so far off track that I just backed out. But not before I had done some research on "There is a God" versus "There is no God". This was relevant at the time. Although there is a proof for God's existence in moral philosophy, and according to moral philosophers one of the best arguments for the existence of God, I never found any source that asked why humans of all the species evolved morally. That doesn't mean that there isn't philosophical writing on this subject. But the question is so original. Perhaps a few people on the forum will take this on. I will keep looking.
     
  6. P_Sikh

    P_Sikh
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all, i chose to write 'evolution out of nothing' in a statement for a reason because there are many contradictory theories about this. Some says hydrogen atoms/molecules began to exist out of the blue and started displacing matter to create universe, then big band to create universe from void blah blah blah. So what i mean what 'out of nothing' means 'No Godly Internevtion' or 'Mind Intervention'

    Now, if we do believe scientists 100%, they leave leave us in the middle of nowhere

    1. Firstly, they say universe is made of just matter and/or energy. Then what is mind (Matter or energy), In both cases mind cannot die accoording to 1st law of thermodynmaics then why scientists don't beleive that there is something (which religion called soul) which survives physical death. Why their beileive contradicts their own 100% proven law. So this takes us back to 'God'

    2. Now if we do beleive in 'By Chance Creation and then evolution only' it means all prophets from all the religions were not telling the truth which leave us with 3 options

    a) Either they all were lying
    b) Or suffering from some serious psychological disorder
    c) or their mind was manipulated by some Aliens


    a). Q is why would they lie? Prophets who preached truth and lived truth and gave up everything for truth can't just lie like this. And if they do, why they lied the same thing 'One God' in most cases or 'Many God' in few cases but does talk about 'God Exists'. Different preachers from different regions (Inaccessible to each other) said the same thing. which clearly shows it wasn't lie something is common between them (Either b or c)

    b) This would be highly unlikely as well for every single messenger unless it were explained by (c) in which case the number of messengers would probably be irrelevant

    c). If it was alien manipulation then it means aliens do exist and again same Q are applicable on them as well (Either evolved or created) which means there is somebody beyond them as well

    SO WHEREEVER WE GO WE REACH GOD IN THE END

    And i think why scientists or others don't beleive in God because they expect and imagine God to be some physical intity where it was written again and again in Scriptures that God is formless without any physical entity. And yet scientitsts always say 'Let us imagine' or 'Some external force did this'. Why don't they take that external force as God of religions as if God is not in flesh and bones then naturally it's like some force or something even beyond. So even scientists lead us to GOD but call it some 'External Force'. Even Chalres Darwin used words like 'If','LEt us assume' etc. more than 800 times in his book to prove his point to the world. If people have to use 'LEt us assume' then using in only once anybody could become master of the universe.
    Above all 'By chance creation & Evolution' can't have such a beautiful design pattern unless somebody designs it. Einstein agreed that whole of the creation has a beautiful common design pattern.

    Though i will read the Evolution refernces you have given above and provide my comments BUT I DON'T AGREE THAT SCIENCE DO BELIEVE IN MORALITY AT GENETIC LEVEL. IF THEY DO THEY CONTRADICTS THEMSELF BECAUSE SCIENCE EVEN DECLINES MEMORY BEING CARRIED OUT BY GENES AND THUS DECLINE 'REINCARNATION' AND 'PEOPLE WHO REMEMBERS THEIR PAST LIFE' BUT THEY YET AGREE THAT GENETIC CODE CARRIES INFORMATION (LIKE COMPUTER PROGRAMS) FROM PREVIOUS GENRATION TO BE CARRIED OUT IN NEXT GENERATION WHICH CLEARLY CONTRADICTS ITSELF COZ MEMORY COULD BE A SORT OF INFORMATION AS WELL BEYOND THEIR EXISTING THEORIES.
     
  7. Sinister

    Sinister
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    394
    Look, if you have doubt in well grounded evolutionary theory, its simply because you have not participated in higher level research. Alot has changed in the field of genetics since Darwin. THERE ARE VERY LITTLE LOOPHOLES IN THE SCIENCE OF GENETICS. Humans have evolved from single celled organisms without the intervention of a divine power (that much is what people in the scientific community call, "a justified true beleif")

    READ biological research on the "Zero Sum Game". And you will see how science beleives in morality at the Physiological level (NOT GENETIC LEVEL). It shows how cooperation of species and rules are estalished within a community of species. All mammalian Brains calculate and assess risk and using a logarithym type model make decisions, however these decisions can be influenced by emotions, upbringing and interactions....all these can be explained physiologically/sociologically.

    The Decision making process is purely physiological. (and if we disagree on this then there really isnt any point going on further in this debate)

    so depending on your risk assessment, your mood, your upbringing your brain makes decisions on interaction and morality in every day to day activity. (THIS IS KNOWN AS SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM...READ UP ON IT...INTERESTING STUFF)

    If your interested in psycho-analysis then definelty read into Freudian theories as well. (Sigmund Freud)

    But if your looking for theories on how life started or how matter/energy came into existance ... then sorry to say... science is not for you unless (that is neither the purpose or direction which many scientists take) you can state..."I do not know, and probably will never know"!

    Even Chalres Darwin used words like 'If','LEt us assume' etc. more than 800 times in his book to prove his point to the world. If people have to use 'LEt us assume' then using in only once anybody could become master of the universe.
    Above all 'By chance creation & Evolution' can't have such a beautiful design pattern unless somebody designs it. Einstein agreed that whole of the creation has a beautiful common design pattern.


    The "ifs" and "buts" are largely dissapearing from evolutionary theories. Charles Darwin conducted a thought experiment (so he had to use those terms). It was Mendelian genetics that later grounded his work.

    IF THEY DO THEY CONTRADICTS THEMSELF BECAUSE SCIENCE EVEN DECLINES MEMORY BEING CARRIED OUT BY GENES AND THUS DECLINE 'REINCARNATION' AND 'PEOPLE WHO REMEMBERS THEIR PAST LIFE' BUT THEY YET AGREE THAT GENETIC CODE CARRIES INFORMATION (LIKE COMPUTER PROGRAMS) FROM PREVIOUS GENRATION TO BE CARRIED OUT IN NEXT GENERATION WHICH CLEARLY CONTRADICTS ITSELF COZ MEMORY COULD BE A SORT OF INFORMATION AS WELL BEYOND THEIR EXISTING THEORIES.

    you are extremely confused my freind. Genetic materials carry ONLY phenotypic traits...NOTHING ELSE. But these phenotypic traits help us in our social setting. So indirectly genetics gives us morality. Indirectly our genes gives us the capacity to store reflexes and memory...etc.
    You must look at the larger picture:
    genes gives us a brain... the brain gives us morality
    (now how is that difficult to understand and how can a person deny that?)

    science is designed to contradict itself and become more precise. Pricsion is the goal of science not "absolute answers".
    PRECISION AND PREDICTABILITY IS WHAT CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE IS INTERESTED IN.
     
  8. JtotheAtothe...

    JtotheAtothe...
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have not read everyone's posts here, but I would like to share my thoughts which might repeat ideas already mentioned.

    1. First on the Morality:
    Morality really is not really derived from Gods. It is indirectly hardwired into our genetics. Our genes do not have a gene which comprises the moral system (or at least not found yet, or I have not learned of it). What we do have is emotion. Our emotions give us the ability to judge. It is merely intinctual, thus the plausibility of evolution. Animals react to their environment based on judgements they make. These judgements come from logic and emotions. But logic is also a reactionary process, based on experience coming from reactions to events and judgements made on these based on the emotions drawn out by said events. Thus a cheetah does not mind killing animals as he has found our from experience of hunger that it provides him with food. A chimpanzee finding a yound child(human) will come to its rescue and offer it food (yes, food, a force of good). This last example I heard on an excellent radio program "Radio Lab" on a piece titled "Morality" (check it out; it is extermely well produced and very interesint).
    Now to apply this to humans. Look at the years of slavery under the belt of the human race. Was it good morally? Obviously not. Now. At the time of the old, human judgement allowed it as acceptable. Only more human familiarity with this experience allowed us to deem this act immoral. Now you would certainly not agree that God decided to give us the righteous moral concerning slavery. It has been part of human history longer than it has not been. And still is present to this day. Why did god decider after thousands of years of slavery, that it was a bad idea? He didn't, we did.
    Our religion, Sikhism, is based around notions of ego, greed, materialism. These notions also reactionary discoveries. The world of that time was becoming the world we know today. Materialism was becoming a sickness, and greed grew more along with ego. The gurus determined these vices of man were negative; therefore, their concern with removing one of these vices. These morals taught by the gurus are reactionary judgements which arise through human evolution. But why do the Gurus concern with God if all this is, is just a natural order of genetics?
    2. The answer to this question is simple if your willing to accept it or complicated.
    The simple answer is that God is also a reactionary judgement. This judgement comes from the very questions you ask. On their natural path they lead to puzzlement and chaos( the 3rd law). But we cannot have this. We must answer these questions as we, you and me, are doing this very instant. Thus arises God, a mythical figure who completes the incomplete dome above our heads, answering our puzzles and bring order (yes the opposite of the 3rd law). By the means of God we the creation, we have inbetween, we have the destruction. God reverses the 3rd law of thermodynamics for us.
    The talk of aliens is quite interesting. If you believe in god, that god exists, then you must also beleive in aliens, that aliens exist somewhere in the universe.
    Elder people (many I personally know at least) or unwilling to accept the possible existence of aliens; yet, they are adamant on the existence of God. This paradox boggles my mind as both concepts require blind faith. Moreso, it is highly unlikely that they will ever meet god, a spiritual figure who may not be physical, as they are prone to the same vices we are, but they cannot believe that aliens, physical forms much like ourselves, exist somewhere.
    3. Lastly, science is hard at finding the facts to these questions.
    But you must remember most of everything in science is theoretical. Some people will use physics (I know one in particular) to justify the creation business and God. But they forget that what they using as proof is merely theoretical physics, the most-theoretical-of-all physics. It is not easy proving or not proving God. But what we can say is God is an idea, a theory (I do not know any one, personally, who has met God). THe for-god people always invalidate the no-god people by saying that they cannot factually disprove God's existence, that they can only theorize of such proofs. But I ask you, is there need to disprove god, if it is only an idea created by the for-god people. (This idea is really hard to put to words, but I am trying my best and more than likely setting myself up for the same attack I just discussed). Do i disprove something's existence if it does not exist. If I did not know of the notion of aliens, I would have nothing to disprove.
    So pick your posion, order or chaos. Order comes as God, and chaos comes in existence.
     
  9. P_Sikh

    P_Sikh
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    NO, I’m not saying I have doubt on evolutionary theory I do believe it BUT not the way you seem to be. You seem to believe in ‘Just Evolution’ and ‘By chance Creation & Evolution’ which I don’t.

    But if your looking for theories on how life started or how matter/energy came into existance ... then sorry to say... science is not for you unless (that is neither the purpose or direction which many scientists take) you can state..."I do not know, and probably will never know"!

    This statement is completely false. There were many scientists who worked on theories on how life started and continue to work in yet greater number. Few theories to name (Some are discarded and some are still being researched) are below but due to text limitation I’m not explaining each of them but if you/anybody want I could forward the details separately. And the

    • Life descended from Space
    • Matter transformed itself into life
    • Sugar theory
    • Choanoflagellate theory
    • Amino-acid Theory
    • Spontaneous Generation Theory
    • Higgs Boson Theory: According to this theory, ‘Boson’ is the source of all animate and inanimate life. Vast laboratories (Tevatron) costing about £6 billion have been set up by CERN 105 on the border of France and Switzerland to hunt for the ‘Boson’ (known as God-particle) by the collision of electrons on positrons at velocities close to the speed of light. This is being attempted by 5000 scientists in a tunnel, which is 17 miles long.


    Humans have evolved from single celled organisms without the intervention of a divine power (that much is what people in the scientific community call, "a justified true beleif")

    The "ifs" and "buts" are largely dissapearing from evolutionary theories. Charles Darwin conducted a thought experiment (so he had to use those terms). It was Mendelian genetics that later grounded his work.

    THERE ARE VERY LITTLE LOOPHOLES IN THE SCIENCE OF GENETICS

    DNA is considered the carrier of inheritance code but it remains the same in the living group. What we find happening is only the shuffling or permutation of genes. Examples of mutational changes through cross breeding have been found to be far-fetched. For example cross breading between a horse and a donkey producing a mule is cited as a transformation. But the biologists agree that the DNA keeps the organism within the parameters set by nature for a particular Genus. A mule remains within its genus. (Living organisms related to each other are called Species. One or more Species related to each other are called Genus. For example tiger, Lion (Felis Leo) and cat (Felis domestica) all belong to Felis Family. Lynx and bobcat do not belong to this family but together they are all members of Feldae genus. Nature permits interbreeding only among the members of particular Genus.)

    Nature permits crossbreeding only within limits. It abhors continuity of crossbreeding and therefore the hybrid mule is sterile and cannot produce babies. The same is the case with a geep. Through the process of cell-fusion the Cambridge scientists produced a ‘geep’ from a goat and a sheep. They named it Geep. Geeps only produce goats or sheep but no Geeps. It remains within its Genus and can only produce either pure sheep or pure goat as offspring. Genetically modified (mutated) plants have also remained within their Genus. No botonist has succeeded in changing maize to mustard or vice versa.

    The theory of Biogenesis (bio=life and genesis=birth) propounded by modern anthropologists has already questioned the hypothesis of Charles Darwin as stated in his “Origin of species”. This theory states, “The parent organism and its offspring are always the same kind. Man has long since ceased to evolve. Present day man, the human being that we are, does not differ from the human being who lived 100,000 years ago”

    Other critics say that if “Survival of the fittest” is believed then a time is bound to come when only one fittest animal (one of the humans?) will survive on the earth. There are no signs of such a thing happening. It is on the basis of such facts that Gaylord Simpson wrote, “Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single or simple cause” (The geography of evolution P. 17)

    “Neither physical nature nor life can be understood unless we fuse them together as essential factors in the composition of really real things whose interconnections and individual characters constitute the Universe” (Adventure of Ideas by A.N.Whitehead).

    We see that Darwin’s theory does not primarily deal with the origins of life as such but with evolution. It does not tell us how life first began but it does admit the watery origin of life from small organisms. Darwin theorized that man has evolved over a period of billions of years (through the process known as macroevolution). He passed through a series of animal ancestors starting from Amoebae. According to him humans are direct descendants of Ramaphithecus, an ape-like humanoid that roamed in the Siwalik Hills of northwest India about 8 to 14 million years ago. In 1980 using molecular biology, it was established that the fossils of Ramaphithecus were not those of the ancestors of human beings (Homo sapiens).

    According to Darwin the living species have developed from other living species but it is strange that there are no transitional forms today? The apparent similarity between Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Monkeys and humans is talked about as a link between them. In genetics humans are closer to Chimpanzees but chimpanzees cannot swim and hold their breath in water like humans. They fear water and easily get drowned. Humans also consume
    more water than chimpanzees. But it is misleading because the inner structure of humans is comparatively closer to a frog than to the ape world and no transitional forms between man and ape have been found so far.

    Efforts of the protagonists of Darwin’s theory to prove the transformation of dog-sized Eohippus (a small fox-like animal) into the present day Equine (Horse) have not been successful. It still needs to be explained why genes have remained unchanged for millions of years and why the cell has not altered its basic size, properties and chemical composition. The theory does not answer why a cat has remained a cat and a rat has remained a rat generation after generation. These facts only point to the belief that the fixity of families of living organisms is the universal law of Nature.

    The theory of ‘Natural selection’ or ‘Survival of the fittest’ rests on the premise that all life continually adapts itself to environment so that it becomes the fittest for survival. But we see that the horse and the cow both eat grass but the horse has front upper teeth, which the cow hasn’t and yet they both are enjoying equal chances of survival. Similarly most birds eat fruit from the trees but they have different kinds of beaks and have equal chances of survival. The theory also points to the fact that only the fittest of each species would survive but we find many varieties of the same species surviving with equal ease. For example there are more than a hundred species of dogs all enjoying equal chances of survival?

    According to the theory the females developed mammary glands after millions of years of evolution, a step towards being the fittest to survive. How did the females feed their babies before developing mammary glands? If they were able to feed their babies without mammary glands why did they need to develop breasts? If breasts were necessary for survival, why do we still find animals that do not have breasts to feed their babies and yet
    survive just as well? If the development of male and female sex organs was necessary for survival then why do we still have asexual (e.g. Amoeba, which have no sex and multiply by self-divison) and bisexual cells still surviving side by side with equal ease? If one celled organisms could reproduce themselves satisfactorily by dividing and subdividing and are still doing so, then in what way did sexual reproduction help in evolution?

    “Divine creation is the only possible initiator of life” (Luis Pasteur quoted in Scientific American 1965 p.52)

    Most scientists believe that when living creatures emerged from water their fins turned into legs, lungs, scale, fur and wings etc. They seem to say that over time, stone became amoebae, fish, snake deer, lion, and finally a monkey, which turned into man. Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogin does not agree with the above view. He says, “This principal cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a microscopic number of molecules assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred”(Physics Today vol. 25 p. 28).
     
  10. Sinister

    Sinister
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    394
    Your statements are based on confused knowledge of the evolutionary process and I simply cannot rectify everything you said even though everything you said is pretty much unintelligent: now Im not saying your unintelligeant…you may just be misguided in your knowledge.

    let me show you…

    This theory states, “The parent organism and its offspring are always the same kind. Man has long since ceased to evolve. Present day man, the human being that we are, does not differ from the human being who lived 100,000 years ago”


    Actually that’s false…The cranial capacity of the average male has increased by 2-3 cm3. We also have less hair…thanks to sexual selection. Our size and bone mass has also increased. We are also losing function in our 5th digit on our foot. THE CHANGES ARE MUCH MORE SUDDLE AND PRIMARILY THE RESULT OF SEXUAL SELECTION BECAUSE AFTER-ALL WE ARE A SUPERSPECIES.

    Other critics say that if “Survival of the fittest” is believed then a time is bound to come when only one fittest animal (one of the humans?) will survive on the earth.

    THAT’S NOT TRUE AT ALL…NO CRITIC IS DUMB ENOUGH TO CRITIQUE EVOLUTION ON THAT ARGUMENT….AGAIN REREAD INTO EVOLUIONARY THEORY; I THINK YOU HAVENT FULLY GRASPED IT YET.

    EVOLUTION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BOTH DIVERGEANT EVOLUTION AND CONVERGEANT EVOLUTION (YOUR ONLY LOOKING AT CONVERGEANT EVOLUTION)

    There is a third type, which is known as PARALLEL EVOLUTION (something to keep in mind)

    Now I’m not going to sit here and teach you evolutionary theory but I suggest you definitely take a look at what I am talking about before you further your arguments.

    AGAIN READ ANYTHING ON DIVERGEANT EVOLUTION. Or else It would be like arguing physics without knowing simple Newtonian mechanics.

    But the biologists agree that the DNA keeps the organism within the parameters set by nature for a particular Genus.

    SAYS WHO? WHICH BIOLOGIST? SOURCE PLEASE? That’s utterly false.

    Random point mutations can occur in ANY species leading to the production of a mutant. If that mutant species (M) is more inclined to survive and more appealing sexually (and compatible with the host community) it will one day most likely become the dominant SUB-SPECIES and then ultimately an entirely different species. Note the word ‘SUB-SPECIES’.
    Everything in nature exists in equilibrium including a gene pool.
    YOU INTRODUCE NEW GENES INTO A GENE POOL NOT THROUGH CROSS BREEDING BUT THROUGH RANDOM MUTATIONS.

    Sexual reproduction can pass down random point mutations within progeny….its not a very complicated phenomenon.

    PROOF;

    If you want proof we came from single celled organisms simply take a high powered microscope and look at your euckaryotic cell and compare it to another single celled eukaryotic organism. What you will find is Mitochondria (with similar mithochondrial DNA) the same powerhouse and similar structure.

    I have worked in a lab and when we observed bacteria cultures changing into entirely different species from our original control stock we step back and take a deep breath and said WOW. Trust me there is no divine intervention in that lab experiment and there certainly is none in evolution … its by chance…. THE STRENGTH OF EVOLUTION LIES IN ITS NUMBERS AND “CHANCE” IS NOT A BIG DEAL.

    An entirely new gene pool can emerge from an already existing gene pool (both in larger and smaller organism).

    The most elementary form of reproduction is with p-RNA/TNA and PNA (it is the most oldest form of reproduction known to man). And we our origins are most likely from this reproducing MOLECULE.

    The theory of ‘Natural selection’ or ‘Survival of the fittest’ rests on the premise that all life continually adapts itself to environment so that it becomes the fittest for survival. But we see that the horse and the cow both eat grass but the horse has front upper teeth, which the cow hasn’t and yet they both are enjoying equal chances of survival. Similarly most birds eat fruit from the trees but they have different kinds of beaks and have equal chances of survival. The theory also points to the fact that only the fittest of each species would survive but we find many varieties of the same species surviving with equal ease. For example there are more than a hundred species of dogs all enjoying equal chances of survival?
    YOUR WRONG AGAIN. “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST” IS A SINGLE VARIABLE IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
    YOU COMPLETELY LEFT OUT SEXUAL SELECTION.
    What you have stated above is an example of parallel evolution. Both species are evolving and surviving equally in a balanced equilibrium/ gene pool.

    Learn the basics of the theory. Evolution does not always lead to convergence of species it also creates variety under the right environments. Leading to the production of entirely different species.

    It still needs to be explained why genes have remained unchanged for millions of years and why the cell has not altered its basic size, properties and chemical composition.The theory does not answer why a cat has remained a cat and a rat has remained a rat generation after generation. These facts only point to the belief that the fixity of families of living organisms is the universal law of Nature.


    Actually scientists just recently discovered that cells are of the PERFECT size for the functions they perform. Thus they do not change in size. They are the most optimized size…growth would lead to increased energy consumption and inefficiency!
    New proteins are always emerging in cellular organisms…but only if they are beneficial for survival (your claim that cells have not changed chemically is false).
    Like I said look into Parallel evolution… you have not been doing what I am telling you to do.
    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘FIXITY OF FAMILIES’ IT IS IN FACT THE OPPOSITE … ASK ANY CONTEMPORARY GENETICIST or ZOOLOGIST.
    START BY “ACTUALLY” READING ‘ORIGIN OF SPEICIES’ THEN LEAN INTO MODERN THEORIES ON EVOLUTION…YOU WILL GET ALL YOUR ANSWERS!

    no transitional forms between man and ape have been found so far.
    Is this a joke? Could you provide a source for this statement? just go look at the fossil record.

    According to Darwin the living species have developed from other living species but it is strange that there are no transitional forms today?

    OMG …how do I begin with something like this?…. They CLASSIFY “TRANSITIONAL” FORMS AS SPECIES THAT ARE EXTINCT….OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT ALIVE TODAY!… If they were alive today they would NOT be classified as transitional species. If you want to look at transitional species simply pull out the vast fossil record.

    They seem to say that over time, stone became amoebae, fish, snake deer, lion, and finally a monkey, which turned into man.

    Hold up now! How did you get from STONE -à to Amoeba? The rest I agree with for reasons clearly discussed above.

    Conclusion:
    Evolution occurred by chance. Humans came from single-celled organisms possibly even PNA or TNA molecules. Where did the p-RNA, TNA and PNA come from? …WHO KNOWS, WHO CARES?
    Who knows? = GOD (a temporary yet permanent cover-up…for knowledge that is yet to be learnt)
     
    #9 Sinister, May 4, 2007
    Last edited: May 4, 2007
  11. P_Sikh

    P_Sikh
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Conclusion:
    Evolution occurred by chance. Humans came from single-celled organisms possibly even PNA or TNA molecules. Where did the p-RNA, TNA and PNA come from? …WHO KNOWS, WHO CARES?


    Well, this is the DUMBEST answer you could expect from any BY CHANCE/ACCIDENT EVOLUTISTNISTS (Now I’m not saying you are dumb)

    • Your conclusion (And every conclusion of any theory) leads us to SINGLE SOURCE = CREATOR = GOD and yet saying WHO KNOWS, WHO CARES? Well, MILLIONS OF people do care who believe in GOD. By Chance/Accident Evolutionists do want us to believe them 100% and gave up the ‘GOD EXISTS’ and still DON ‘T CARE about answering all the questions. WELL THAT IS DUMB.
    • And the scientists have predicted the previous death(s) of the universe and predict the death of this universe as well. ‘BY CHANCE’ can’t happen again and again. THEY SEEM TO BE SAYING THIS HAPPENED ‘BY CHANCE’ AND PREDICTING ANOTHER ‘BY CHANCE’ TO HAPPEN.

    What you saying is Chronological Snobbery, The fallacy which occurs when a point is refuted or proven by simply dating the evidence as very old thus making it impossible to be verified or be proven.

    Nobel laureate James Watson stated, “In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid” (The Double Helix, p. 14).

    Once evolution is allowed the assumption of an orderly universe favorable for life, they “do a little better” in explaining how life might have evolved. However, the origin of such a universe can never be assumed—it simply could not have occurred without detailed, creative forethought.

    A few decades ago, Harlow Shapley, a noted astronomer, made an interesting admission that still defines the predicament that evolutionists have always faced: “We appear, therefore, to be rather helpless with regard to explaining the origin of the universe. But once it is set going, we can do a little better at interpretation” (The Evolution of Life, Vol. 1).

    The Trilobite’s Eye: Evolution Reversed?
    The crux of the theory of evolution is that all living animals have evolved from simpler creatures. It all started as a puddle of living matter, which evolved into more complex and diverse creatures, and then animals. This whole concept is based on the assumption that, over time, all organisms improve by natural selection—survival of the fittest. While that concept is riddled with holes, let’s assume it true for a moment.

    You would expect to find that the fossil record shows that, as time passed, creatures grew more and more complicated. This would be especially true in vision systems. Because vision, in even the simplest of creatures, is very complex, you would expect it to take millions of years for any “advanced” vision system to appear.

    Anything complex that appeared too quickly, or appeared without any prior organism being its precursor, would be an embarrassment to proponents of evolution.

    So introduces the trilobite. These extinct invertebrates existed in vast numbers throughout the world’s oceans, and date back to the Cambrian period—approximately 400-500 million years ago. What is most amazing about these creatures is that they had remarkably complex vision systems. So complex were their eyes, that no invertebrates—or even many vertebrates—possess anything comparable today! Also, these creatures seem to have appeared suddenly, with no fossil record of anything of the like before
    them.

    Professor Richard Fortey, a researcher at the Natural History Museum in London states, “We know that the first trilobites already had a well-developed visual system. Indeed, the large eyes found in the genus Fallotaspis, from Morocco, prove that sophisticated vision goes back at least 540 million years to the Cambrian period.” Of the Phacops trilobite genus, he went on to state, “Clearly a very sophisticated structure (even more so than the [usual] hexagonal-lensed trilobite eye), Phacops’s crystal eye is a sports coupe in the age of the boneshaker” (“Crystal Eyes,” Natural History 109, no. 8, pp. 70-71).

    With such statements from a world-renowned paleobiologist, it is quite obvious that another leg “supporting” the theory of By Chance evolution is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

    Albert Einstein—made this keen observation about the order, laws and forethought that God put into His creation. Einstein expressed the following (condensed and paraphrased here): He was fully confident of the existence of a superior intelligence that he perceived to be at work in the universe. He expressed belief in a God who revealed Himself in the orderly harmony of what existed. His perception of religion
    as a scientist took on a “rapturous amazement” at the harmony of natural laws, which revealed an intelligence of such superiority that all the collective systematic thinking of human beings was an utterly insignificant reflection (Out of My Later Years).

    The Universe
    EVOLUTIONISTS’ assumptions of a creation without a Creator should not go unchallenged. Mathematical probabilities alone disprove the mere existence of matter coming about by random chance. Even the existence of a universe containing biological life prohibits any possibility of countless intricate balances occurring by chance. Yet, evolution ignores the overwhelming probabilities prohibiting the existence of this creation by random chance.
    The seven of the numerous, very specific conditions required in order for matter to exist in a form that is favourable to sustain life are (I’m not going to get into detail of each of these but again if you are not sure of any of these, ask for explanantion)

    • Neutron Mass ~ Proton Mass
    • Proton Charge = Electron Charge
    • Strong Nuclear Force
    • Epsilon Constant ~ Gravitational Fine Structure
    • Primordial Escape Velocity = Primordial Expansion Velocity
    • The Cosmological Constant ~ 0
    • Weak Nuclear Force
    Now what are the probabilities? A Software program, Universal Analyser, helped in calculating the mathematical probability of an undersigned universe meeting the 7 requirements for the existence of life.

    This software demonstrated how remote the probabilities were for all of these requirements to be met purely by random chance. One demonstration featured a total of 2,129 separate universe models. These models give a realistic picture of what the chances would be, given various requirements being met by random chance. Below is the list as to how many requirements were met.

    • Models meeting 1 of the 7 requirements—404
    • Models meeting 2 of the 7 requirements—8
    • Models meeting 3 of the 7 requirements—0
    • Models meeting 4 of the 7 requirements—0
    • Models meeting 5 of the 7 requirements—0
    • Models meeting 6 of the 7 requirements—0
    • Models meeting 7 of the 7 requirements—0

    Notice that of the 2,129 separate universe models, only 404 met at least one requirement by random chance. (The only requirements for which the random number generation program were able to qualify were requirements 1, 3, 4 and
    7.)

    Of the 2,129 models, only eight met two of the necessary requirements. Not a single model was able to meet three or more. The program user could alter the parameters to differ from the forces and constants found in the universe and score a higher probability than the demonstration covered. The point is this: Given the constants, forces and other parameters in the known universe, the probability of these seven requirements being met by chance would be nil for millions upon millions of separate models conducted continually across time!


    FEW OTHER FACTORS, IF WASN’T AT THE PRICISE PLACE/CONDITION, THE LIFE WOULD NOT BE HERE
    • PRECISE Orbits of the earth and moon
    • The PRECISE TILT of the earth
    • Issues of PRECISE temperatures, pressure and composition of the atmosphere
    • PRECISE filteration of radiation
    • The continuous water cycle

    STILL EVERYTHING HAPPENED BY CHANCE, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND YET AGAIN. MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF CHANCES HAPPENED FOR THE LIFE TO REACH HERE WITHOUT ANY INTERVENTION, WELL DONE BY CHANCE EVOLUTIONISTS.
     
  12. Sinister

    Sinister
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    394
    For a minute, step back and look at what you are saying?


    You started off with evolution (and you claim that it was “helped along” by God), yet you show a complete lack of understanding of the evolutionary theory. Is that fair?

    You just stated and then defended, that evolutionary theory couldn’t explain diversity of species…which is the exact opposite of what the theory does explain?

    Using science to explain the existence of God is just as stupid as using science to explain the atheistic viewpoint. SCIENCE IS AGNOSTIC… SWALLOW IT AS IT IS, IT HAS TO CATER TO BOTH SIDES!

    YOUR SO CALLED COMPUTER GENERATED “UNIVERSAL MODEL” ONLY HAS 2,129 UNIVERSES IN IT! HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY UNIVERSES THERE ARE? WHAT ABOUT IF IT’S IN THE TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS? Who says that the amount of universes are fixed? (you do…but then again you also thought that a species is fixed to its particular Genus)
    Probability models have no ground when you talk on the cosmic scale … so it just makes you look silly when you take them seriously.
    Scientists still haven’t discovered the true parameters of this universe let alone established the fact that there might just be other universes. So your model is pretty much hypothetical garbage.

    Again; anybody can counter your “proof in God” with simple questions…so it’s pointless, wouldn’t you agree?

    Now, you seem well versed in physics. My background is in organic chemistry, pharma, and immunology. So if you want to discuss physics I know my limited bit; but cannot discuss how atoms came into perfect arrangement to form sugars and nucleotides…but neither can you have claim to that knowledge (or any scientist for that matter). All you can say is that… “it was Gods handiwork” (and it might have been…but is that a “justified true belief”…not for everyone)

    The evolutionary process does not proceed with the help of a divine force…thus it’s purely a materialistic theory. And its extremely convincing if you consider the successes of recent ARTIFICIAL SELECTION and GENETIC ENGINEERING exercises.

    As far as evolution is concerned…who knows how it started? Might be by chance, might be some other way beyond our grasp of knowledge (this is what Gurbani states clearly!). That it is beyond our knowledge.

    BUT DON’T DEFILE THAT WHICH IS WITHIN OUR RANGE OF KNOWLEDGE WITH LIES AND ARROGANT/UNTRUE STATEMENTS. (and I didn’t need to quote a clever “scientist” to figure that out)
    • PRECISE Orbits of the earth and moon
    • The PRECISE TILT of the earth
    • Issues of PRECISE temperatures, pressure and composition of the atmosphere
    • PRECISE filteration of radiation
    • The continuous water cycle
    -By: P_Sikh

    All I know is that life is resilient and does not require that much “perfection”. You can see life in the harshest environments on earth.

    EVOLUTION IS BY CHANCE. “THE BEGININNINGS OF LIFE”… WHO KNOWS ABOUT THEM AND WHO CARES? … NOT SUCH A DUMB STATEMENT, NOW THAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT?

    Human logic cannot lead you to prove the existence of God. Human logic cannot lead you to disprove the existence of God. And that’s where everyone should draw the line between reason and utter VANITY.

    -Toodles; my silly model building freind.
     
  13. Harjas Kaur Khalsa

    Harjas Kaur Khalsa
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    18
    Sinister, I think you have some issues. You jump at P. Sikh saying "don't defile" and then you defile the science which you admit cannot disprove God's existance by asserting evolution is by chance.

    You have no proof of that. Science has no proof of that. It's a hypothetical theory that randomness and chance brought things into being. This theory was deliberately intended to explain God away by rationalists asserting there was no need for a Higher Intelligent Force. Its a theory with its antecedents in philosophical enlightenment and atheism. Naturally it espouses this prejudice. But while the science is correct, the atheism which the theory derived from cannot, as you admit, ever disprove intelligent design. Darwin had his biggest battles with Christian fundamentalists who rejected evolution because the Christian Bible said the world was created in 7 days. Sikhism has no such scriptural constraint. In fact, Guruji says there are ages and ages and a clear evolutionary process is to be seen from lower lifeforms evolving finally to human. Guruji even says there are countless beings and lifeforms higher than human.

    While Darwinian evolution had great success smashing Christian theory which was primitive and symbolic. Sikhism cannot be invalidated by this theory. All you can do is strain for the atheistic paradigm widely accepted by the scientific community, and hide behind the success of the science, as if it bolstered the atheistic belief as scientific. Which you admit, it cannot. While I don't expect you to accept Sikhism, evolution is not contrary to Sikh teaching, but in fact Sikhism teaches evolution.
    Physics at least does have a theory that morphogenic fields, wherein an adaptive intelligence stimulates the genetics, enzymatic processes, and bio-chemistry in physical matter to evolve in a particular direction. Such a theory makes a lot more sense than meaningless, random chemical soup that happened to form incredibly complex components. Chemistry cannot explain the complex mathematical symmetry that evolves out of the chaos of the world. And the complex mathematical symmetry comes close to describing Godlike qualities to the Zero Point Field.
    No one can convince you of anything. But you are wrong if you think science is entirely independant of theories which can account for God. While not proof, it is certainly far from invalidation. For one thing these scientific paradigms which include Higher Dimensional Intelligent Design are far more eloquent, beautiful and meaningful than the accidental collisions of soulless chemicals proposed by evolutionary scientific atheism.
     
  14. Sinister

    Sinister
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    394
    Its funny how people can pick and choose 3-4 statements from my post and then completely take them out of context. You must understand what I am getting at and read my entire posts.

    I am neither defending the theists or the atheists.

    No one has claim to this knowledge in metaphysics, is what I am getting at (if you hadn't already picked up what I am talking about)

    Science is Agnostic...you will routinely see in scientific reasearch phrases such as... "it is unknown to us the causes of the events observed" (often followed by a prediction for other scientists to follow up on).

    Scientists would rather state this because SCIENCE IS AGNOSTIC (what I have been trying to tell you everyone from the begining).

    but i do stand by my original statement:

    Human logic cannot lead you to prove the existence of God. Human logic cannot lead you to disprove the existence of God. And that’s where everyone should draw the line between reason and utter VANITY.

    To undermine either the random chance theorists or to undermine the "God-group" is equally wrong...and that is the message to my freind P_Sikh which I wish to relay.

    It is pointless to argue about the existence of God and it is pointless to argue that God doesnt exist.

    SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT OBSERVATION AND THEN PREDICTION OF NATURAL PHENOMENA. IT LOSES GROUND WHEN YOU ENTER LARGE COSMIC SCALE MODELS and metaphysical questions.

    I wonder sometimes; why is the middle ground so hard to comprehend?
    today I might have found my answer ... ignorance.

    And i think why scientists or others don't beleive in God because they expect and imagine God to be some physical intity where it was written again and again in Scriptures that God is formless without any physical entity. And yet scientitsts always say 'Let us imagine' or 'Some external force did this'. Why don't they take that external force as God of religions as if God is not in flesh and bones then naturally it's like some force or something even beyond. So even scientists lead us to GOD but call it some 'External Force'. Even Chalres Darwin used words like 'If','LEt us assume' etc. more than 800 times in his book to prove his point to the world. If people have to use 'LEt us assume' then using in only once anybody could become master of the universe.


    --Originially posted by P_Sikh

    Here is yet another ill thought out scheme.

    I will now tell you why they don’t take that “external force” as “God”. Because admitting to this would debase all science and return us to pre-Newtonian/ pre-enlightenment era.

    Case study:
    Imagine your sitting in a freshman organic chemistry examination and you get a question that asks you to explain why two reagents interact and bond.

    If you answer: “it is the will of God and was guided by some unexplained “external-Godly force”, you would get a big fat ZERO as a grade.
    If the scientific community acknowledges the existence of a “Godly-force” then this unexplained force has the validity to be applied to any scenario. You would have to get full marks if GOD was brought into science.

    Thus scientists cannot admit that it is GOD…they simply and eloquently say….WE DO NOT KNOW. They do it to save science and prevent it from reverting back to its *******ed roots where God and science was routinely mixed. That is what the enlightenment was all about. (I beg of you to read history).

    SCIENCE IS AGNOSTIC AND WILL ALWAYS REMAIN SO…GIVE ME ONE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED JOURNAL THAT STATES GOD EXISTS. GIVE ME ONE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED JOURNAL THAT STATES GOD DOES NOT EXIST!
     
    #13 Sinister, May 5, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2007
  15. jasi

    jasi
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    274
    to all sad sangat ji. understand once for all . when we know no one can talk or creat or reach to that extent wher he is able to see the so called GOD. in Gurbani it says."mithia na jai ,keeta na hoi,ape ap niranjan soi" the reason is that we are so tiny drop and can not talk about ocean. like all rivers emerges in the ocean and looses theire identity which we gave them when they emerg they become ocean. speed or noises which that river made through its journey to the ocean became silent.

    same way our soul will depart from us and emerges in bigger soul which is God.all we have to keep on remebering His name until such union takes place. stop guessing and waisting your time weather He exist or not .our prophets or wise people kept on telling from all the faith that God exist. use that time to to remeber His name and praise the same.do good deeds because you will only be judged against your deed.

    jaspi
     
  16. P_Sikh

    P_Sikh
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    You started off with evolution (and you claim that it was “helped along” by God), yet you show a complete lack of understanding of the evolutionary theory. Is that fair?
    Sinister, read my thread again I didn’t start this thread to get the crash course on evolution which teaches us ‘No God’ but to see if anybody could say something about evolution and morality from Sikh point of view. With my continuing Sikh study I’m realising (and agree with Harjas Kaur Khalsa) Sikhism does believe in evolution but with ‘Divine Force’ within us.

    YOUR SO CALLED COMPUTER GENERATED “UNIVERSAL MODEL” ONLY HAS 2,129 UNIVERSES IN IT! HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY UNIVERSES THERE ARE? WHAT ABOUT IF IT’S IN THE TRILLIONS UPON TRILLIONS? Who says that the amount of universes are fixed?
    Yes, there could be billions or trillions universe. Would you say ALL THOOSE CREATED ITSELF if proved there are many? We don’t have any explanation of SINLGE BY CHANCE Universe and if we really come to know about billion/trillions of Universes (Which is possible), BY CHANCE EVOLUTIONS IGNORING CREATOR wouldn’t find any place to hide on this planet.

    There seem to be INTELLIGENT COMMON DESIGN PATTERN at every level whether Universe, life, atom or whatever. And Design has no significance without a designer. Why can’t this be possible that our universe controlled by some intelligent life of other Universe(s) and so on in the chain. There is no limit to Creator = God intelligence.

    In your kitchen cabinet you've probably got a spray bottle with an adjustable nozzle, twist the nozzle one way & it sprays a fine mist into the air. Now twist this nozzle the other way & it squirts a jet of water in a straight line. Now you turn that nozzle to the exact position you want so you can wash a mirror, clean up a spill, or whatever.

    If the universe had expanded a little faster, the matter would have sprayed out into space like fine mist from a water bottle - so fast that a gazillion particles of dust would speed into infinity and never even form a single star. And if the universe had expanded just a little slower the material would have dribbled out like big drops of water then collapsed back where it came from by the force of gravity. A little too fast and you get a meaningless spray of fine dust. A little too slow and the whole universe collapses back into one big black hole. The surprising thing is just how narrow the difference is. To strike the perfect balance between too fast and too slow, the force, something that physicists call "the Dark Energy Term" had to be accurate to one part in ten with 120 zeros.

    If you wrote this as a decimal, the number would look like this:
    0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

    In their paper "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" two atheist scientists from Stanford University stated that the existence of this dark energy term "Would have required a miracle...
    An external agent, external to space and time, intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own."

    Just for comparison the best human engineering example is the ‘Gravity Wave Telescope’ which was built with a precision of 23 zeros. The Designer, the 'external agent' that caused our universe must possess an intellect, knowledge, creativity and power trillions and trillions of times greater than we humans have.

    Absolutely Amazing.

    Now a person who doesn't believe in God has to find some way to explain this. One of the more common explanations seems to be "There was an infinite number of universes, so it was inevitable that things would have turned out right in at least one of them."

    The "Infinite Universes" theory is truly an amazing theory.

    Just think about it, if there is an infinite number of universes then absolutely everything is not only possible...

    It's actually happened!

    Some people believe in God with a capital G.
    And some folks believe in Chance with a Capital C.

    Case study:
    Imagine your sitting in a freshman organic chemistry examination and you get a question that asks you to explain why two reagents interact and bond.
    If you answer: “it is the will of God and was guided by some unexplained “external-Godly force”, you would get a big fat ZERO as a grade.
    Now Consider the situation reverse, if you are BY CHANCE EVOLUTIONIST and you answered ‘this might have happened by chance. Our Universe came in existence by chance, earth formed By chance, life came and evolved by chance, why can’t these two reagents interact by chance’, how many marks would you score BIG FAT ZERO.

    Conclusion from my point of view (Not forcing you to accept)
    Where ever I turn, I see ‘Something of God in Everything’ including you. You ALL ARE PART OF THE SAME INFINITE LOOP.

    Sorry, text mistake

    Not You

    WE ALL ARE PART OF THE SAME INFINITE LOOP.
     
    #15 P_Sikh, May 7, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2007
  17. JtotheAtothe...

    JtotheAtothe...
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who cares who made the universe or did not make the universe? Can you press the undo button? This is not Microsoft Windows.

    Do these concerns actually matter? You cannot reject life. Its a gift from whomever or no one at all. If it wasn't meant to be lived then it would not have been given (for the spontaneous scenario, you might as well live it, too). We are so concerned with answers when clearly they do not matter.
     
  18. Harjas Kaur Khalsa

    Harjas Kaur Khalsa
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    18

    This statement is not clearly demonstrated anywhere. To the vast majority of world populations and cultures, these very questions are of ultimate importance. Even in western societies founded upon evidentiary principles of science and rationalism, there are whole university departments and fields of study dedicated to evaluating the answers to these same questions you dismiss as invalid.

    If they are meaningless to you, fine. But clearly to the rest of the world, they are not meaningless. Although the ability of people to adequately answer these questions may be insufficient.

    Now here is a simple case in point...you will die. And when you die...what then? Are you in any condition of preparation on the off chance there is an afterlife? If the question is meaningless, one must infer you have demonstrable evidence that an afterlife is a physical impossibility and utterly refuted by science...and if you do not...then buddy, you better take something to keep you cool! /joke
     
  19. Sinister

    Sinister
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    394
    Harjas Kaur.
    Please read Darwin’s original work... In NO way was he out to undermine the church and push a material world agenda. If you read his work he makes no reference to God until his last measly paragraph. Where he writes one of the most eloquent statements:

    “There is grandeur in this view of life, with it’s several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
    --(origin of species, pg 396…last manuscript)


    Show some respect for this. He did not want to disprove the existence of God, If anything he admits the existence of God. He wanted to build a model so that we could understand the working of nature without the introducing variables like “God’s plan” “God’s will”.

    HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND? Science is not out to “get” religion… we leave that to the philosophers. Science simply collects and reports data in a fashion that enhances the ability of the human to understand natural phenomena, and Darwin was in every sense of the term, “a true scientist”.

    “there are whole university departments and fields of study dedicated to evaluating the answers to these same questions you dismiss as invalid.”
    --Harjas Kaur

    HUH? You mean philosophy department’s right? You won’t find a “god” discussion in any scientific community … I’ll assure you that. Your claims are groundless… learn the difference between science and metaphysics. Sorry to say this but “J..to the A” is right…These questions are invalid in science (upon closer observation).

    You are doing a great injustice by lumping science with atheistic philosophy. Correct Science is the science that is Agnostic and without opinion (and yes I will continue to repeat this until it is drilled and engrained in everyone mind).

    how desparate this debate becomes when people cannot distinguish between fields of study.
     
    #18 Sinister, May 10, 2007
    Last edited: May 10, 2007
  20. P_Sikh

    P_Sikh
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    HUH? You mean philosophy department’s right? You won’t find a “god” discussion in any scientific community … I’ll assure you that. Your claims are groundless… learn the difference between science and metaphysics. Sorry to say this but “J..to the A” is right…These questions are invalid in science (upon closer observation).

    Sinister, that’s the MOST MEANINGLESS statement I have ever come across. Now you mean either Einstein wasn’t ‘True Scientist’ or didn’t belong to ‘Scientific Community’ when he spent years of his career modifying his ‘General Relativity Equations’ to attempt to eliminate the need for a Creator/God and ALAS HE HAD TO GIVE UP BECAUSE HIS EQUATIONS INDICATED HIM OTHERWISE and he admitted he was wrong by stating the universe was static and was always there. He further admitted ‘this was the blunder of his career’ and there was origin and equations did indicate point of creation. If you have any problem understanding his equations then the case is different. He also wrote book ‘Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology’ and you saying ‘We won’t find a ‘God’ discussion in scientific community’

    Dr. Hugh Ross, British physicist Steven Hawking, Michael Turner, Geroge Smoot with his team of 30 American astrophysicists, you know common between these scientists, they studied ‘Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God’.

    I’m not going to discuss the results of their discussions/research but if you say there is no discussion about ‘God’ in scientific community then THAT IS JUST MEANINGLESS. DON’T MISLEAD THE FOLKS. Yes, you could definitely say that there is no ‘God’ discussion in ‘Sinister Scientific Community’’.

    how desparate this debate becomes when people cannot distinguish between fields of study.
    Sinister stop contradicting yourself for GOD sake. You want people to distinguish between fields of study where if we listen to the results of one field of Study there is NO NEED of the other field of study. And then yet again you don’t want the folks of other field to say anything to first field of study which is trying to make it extinct. NOT FARE DUDE….
     
  21. Sinister

    Sinister
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    394
    You are doing a great injustice by lumping science with atheistic philosophy. Correct Science is the science that is Agnostic and without opinion (and yes I will continue to repeat this until it is drilled and engrained in everyone mind).


    Einstein and his "physics and Theology" is not a work of science.

    And I doubt you read any peer reveiwed scientific journals; which you will see have abosolutely NO disscussions of God or universe formation. All you read are books...which are largely spiced-up artwork made by scientists so that they sell. Scientists then collect royalties to help fund there actual research.

    most scientists will discuss theology for the fun of it NOT so that it may be indoctrinated and engrained as some scientific law.

    Correct Science is science that is Agnostic and without opinion.
    the work, "Physics and theology" is not to be taken as "scientific" but as an abstract thought experiment by a very inteligeant individual ... its an argument in metaphysics (that obviously went wrong).

    Now you know how silly you sound when you try to explain and verify God's existance through artifiscially constructed computer models! with artifiscial parameters.

    the same way Einstein was ashamed of physics and theolgy. many people critiqued him for that and called him "a theolgian in disguise".

    Look at his true works (his 1905 papers) Annus Mirabili Papers: no God discussion in there to my recollection just objective science (AND THAT IS WHAT HE IS RECOGNIZED FOR TODAY; WHICH HE RECEIVED A NOBEL PRIZE FOR)
    The works that are recognized in the scientific community are those that are agnostic. WITHOUT SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS AND PREDICTION AND VARIABLES (OCCAM'S RAZOR PRINCIPLE)


    true science is science without opinion...AND ONLY THIS SCIENCE IS THE SCIENCE WHICH IS REWARDED.
    Scientists do not sit there and cater to atheistic philosophy...they simply report that which is observed AS OBJECTIVE AND AS BLAND AS THEY CAN POSSIBLY MAKE IT.

    now if you disagree with that...then you truly do not understand the "scientific community".

    scientists may freely discuss religion and cosmic models...but they do NOT do these studies for merit of any sort
    critiquing science is one thing, critiquing an individual and their philosophical veiwpoints is all-together a different event.

    MY WORDS ARE NOT SO MEANINGLESS IF ONE WERE TO PULL THEIR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND AND LOOK AT THINGS AT FACE VALUE.
     

Share This Page