 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Feb 2009 : 08:28:01
|
http://www.darwin200.org/
It is often argued that there are three scientists that changed this world. They have the greates impact on the world and mankind. They are Copernicus, Charles Darwin, and Sigmoid Freud. First, Copernicus told us that our earth was not in fact the center of the solar system as we were made to believe by the religions at the time. Second, Darwin told us that in fact we were not uniquely created but rather we descended from monkeys  ( okay not exactly that but we share the same ancestory with other life forms).
Third, Freud told us that in fact as humans we are not exactly rational beings as we thought we were. Freud postulated that human behavior and conduct are driven by hidden dark forces that are not based on reason.
I understand this is not the moment to digress into the details of these various theories and their impact on human perception of this world and ourselves; so i will just say:
Happy Birthday Charles Darwin!And with that I will share an old poem of mine, a tribute to arguably the greates scientist of all times, Charles Darwin
DARWIN'S RIGHT:
Of course Darwin 's right
What intelligent designer
Would design a defective universe
Life and intelligence
Isn't the design for
A universe that largely existed
For a non-living matter
Of course Darwin 's right
Optimism in randomness is our hope
Against the despair
Of a rigid deterministic design
What after-birth shall cast the baby away ?
What missing facts shall cast the science away ?
Of course all the books are right
In a different way
Wasn't Mendel ,Copernicus , and Galileo right ?
What about Einstein's Spinoza
And Pope's god who in the beginning said
Let there be Newton
Creationism is found nowhere
From the lowest layers of rocks
To the highest ground of our DNA
Life is one slow journey
Away from imperfection
Of course Darwin 's right
If Dolly turns out defective
We 'll pick up from there
And who thinks
Stem cell will kill babies ?
And man shall be defamed
By walking on an apian frame ?
Finally all shall caught up with
The perpetual scrutiny of
The scientific eye
That defies the conventional
And makes the infinite worlds of probables
And if the moral-man appear crooked
On an ancient frame
That's alright
Darwin is right
[/blue]
|
Edited by - kayjatta on 13 Feb 2009 08:55:49 |
 |
|
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2009 : 13:40:27
|
| Kay I am lost as far as Darwin is concerned , I accept your opinion as your right to chose what to believe, I invite you though to dig deeper brother because what my instinct tells me is that most of those theorem are based on supposition and conjecture , I mean inconclusive pointers which lead the rest of those following into oblivion. The Big bang theory and evolution are mind boggling theories.They are based on factors that the scientists foisted on us to follow but with missing links or verifiable conclusions per say. The suggestions are based on ideas that appeal to reason but could not be conclusively proven , beyond all reasonable doubt.Take religion as a basis for my believe in creationism , I look to revelations that with time have stood the challenges of scientific theory and faired well , to think that an unlettered man such as Mohamed the holy Prophet (SAW) producing an elaborate text as the Koran was a freak or chance occurrence makes my mind reel. Like I said before we all have the choice of believing what ever we want so there rest my case. |
|
|
|
tamsier
United Kingdom
556 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2009 : 01:47:57
|
Great topic as always professor Kay. The Torah [jewish holy book] and all the two major religions that derived from Judaism, places human creation at the time of the last ice age [about 10 to 12 thousand years ago]. Considering the fact that archeological evidence discovered in Eastern Africa places the ancestor of early humans [apes] about two to thee million years ago and through evolution became the early humans we all decended from, even these holy books can justify. In their attempt to justify their claim and keep people in the church, the church for example claim genesis was only a story. They have done this before, in the middle ages. Now either the bible is true or not. You can't keep changing the post, or picking and choosing. The anecestor of the bible and the quran is the Torah. Perhaps these two [torah and quran]are the only holy books that have not changed posts. However, I have yet to hear from any scholars from these two what they have to say about the ample evidence provided.
So kay just like you, I believe in freedom of religion, and just like you I wish Darwin happy birthday. |
Tamsier
Serere heritage. Serere religion. Serere to the end.
Roog a fa ha. |
|
|
|
Prince
507 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2009 : 02:23:16
|
Nice poem Kay. Copernicus and Darwin are undoubtably among the greatest scientists of all times. BUT putting Freud in the realm of these great people is an overstatement. Science is based on empirical evidence, psychology is not.
Psychology is the most disguised of all the pseudosciences. Frauds like Sigmund and his group of "dream analysts" are not scientist.
I look at psychologist with Scientology's lens. |
|
|
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2009 : 01:33:50
|
Brother Kay, i have posted a link on your top and it was from a discussion on Darwinism etc based on a critique by a famous creationist by the name of Harun Yahya ;an advocate who actually proposes an atlas of creation. Diametrically opposed to your stance. I saw this link and propose we all read what is being done by our mighty brains all in order to butress the theory of evolution. Like I said I do respect your right to believe what you like but I just want to share my views on the topic and wait to see what your response would be, thanks again.Evolution is a very interesting or fascinating topic which should not be ignored by any of us me thinks.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated
|
Edited by - kaanibaa on 17 Feb 2009 01:39:07 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2009 : 08:57:32
|
Kaanibaa, thanks for your interest in the theory of evolution. I must say that although I have taught biology before, I am not an expert on evolution. However, the theory of evolution makes a lot more sense to me than the creationist view where the universe was constructed in seven days and only a mere 6,000 years ago. There is plenty of observable and verifiable evidence that contradicts this simple creationist view.
But my experience makes me believe that unless you have a significant understanding of science (biology particularly), any argument in favor of evolution is likely to fall on your deaf ears. I have once mentioned a friend of mine, years ago, who counter any argument in favor of the nine planets of the solar system (he called them "worlds"-duniyaa koonunto)by questioning who the prophets of those planets are since ours is Muhammed.  I always thought that was funny, but it also reveals our experiencial disconnect.
I will have to also say that for many people the discussion of evolution and creation is a matter of either or. It is possible that it does not have to be that way, because if I could correctly recall Charles Darwin himself was (an aspiring) priest at one point. Gregor Mendel with his theories of inheritance and variation (Mendelian genetics) also comes to mind; he was a monk.
The origin(s) of life is still an unfinished subject. There are various theories about how life originated on this planet. The meteorite theory, the composition of the earth's early atmosphere, and even the silicate clay (colloidal materials) theories have all been proposed. This matter is far from settled, but since Wohler's synthesis of urea ( an organic substance) from ammonia (actually ammonium cyanate-an inorganic substance) the rift between inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and biochemistry has substantially been narrowed.
Some of the evidences of evolution include:
1. Fossils-fossils provide a snap shot of the history of the progression of life on earth as imprinted mostly in the layers of sedimentary rocks.
2. Homologies-this indicates the anatomical similarities between related organisms due to common ancestry. For example the front legs of a lizard and the wings of fowl have different functions but the same skeletal structures.
3. Distribution over time and space-The drama of evolutionary change play out on a vast amount of time and space. Mobility and adaptation are crucial to the survival of species.
4. Examples-Real time examples such as artificial selection common in agriculture, the interaction of organisms in their natural ecosystem, the mutation and resistance of microbes to drugs, can be cited as examples of evolution at play.
I hope this small contribution helps further the discussion. Thanks again. |
Edited by - kayjatta on 17 Feb 2009 13:17:28 |
|
|
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2009 : 13:18:54
|
I concur with your reply that the question in the minds of researchers and theorists about the origins of life is inconclusive so they are still searching.People have tried to propose theorem and these were and are being subjected to tests which up to now fail to establish the veracity of their claims or theorem, leaving us all in a quandary . Yet creationists offer their versions based on scripture and also based on challenges to the proffered theorem in favor of evolution. They the creationists have been able to break open the theorem so proffered and so send the protagonists back to their experiments and drawing boards. The explanation of time in the spiritual domain is subject of concern. Like in the koran it is stated that a day as noted in the spiritual ream is equal to several if not a thousand days in our current reckoning. Take the explanation of the time it takes for light to travel from the sun to reach earth as an example then perhaps you would begin to understand what this means.This surely is explained scientifically I hope.The basis on which evolution rests to argue for its factuality is flawed in many ways and you too have submitted that it is yet to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that life began from a single random cell, which is what the said experiments are trying to establish and failed to do after all these years. What is true though is that we could very well believe what ever we choose to but then we have to also reasonably try to verify what others try to make us believe in, by checking them out. This is what creationists have been doing all the time to debunk those theorem and have debunked several that is why the evolution theorists are now standing on clay feet.
I quote as follows
The origin(s) of life is still an unfinished subject. There are various theories about how life originated on this planet. The meteorite theory, the composition of the earth's early atmosphere, and even the silicate clay (colloidal materials) theories have all been proposed. This matter is far from settled, but since Wohler's synthesis of urea (actually ammonium cyanate, an organic substance) from ammonia (an inorganic substance) the rift between inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and biochemistry has substantially been narrow
Theory again is to my mind conjecture and until it is established by scientific experiments and various tests it remains mere conjecture or supposition based on reasons that appeal to the one projecting them.I also want to know what you mean by saying that Darwin is right as it stands . What did he say about the origin of life and is it right or correct to say man evolved from the ape etc ? Was this scientifically proved ? |
Edited by - kaanibaa on 17 Feb 2009 13:30:12 |
|
|
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2009 : 20:09:20
|
Rendre à Dieu ce qui appartient à Darwin
French rendition of what people do today that is:-
Render to God what belongs to Darwin. Another argument in Walf Fadri news paper recently which covered the topic extensively. In essence it discussed the value(s) of Darwin's works but along the line outlined it's short comings . What is apparent is that Darwin is depicted as a confirmed adversary of the idea of creationism but others seem to see him in a different light; I quote Walf here under as follows in french:-
Aujourd’hui, toutes ces ‘vérités scientifiques’ commencent à prendre de sérieuses rides. Des recherches moins serviles et plus critiques sur les thèses de Darwin rétablissent la vérité des faits. En réalité, Darwin n’a jamais été, comme on le présente généralement, un fossoyeur du créationnisme. Thierry Hoquet, maître de conférence en philosophie à l’université Paris X-Nanterre et spécialiste du darwinisme soutient : ‘L’anthropologie de Darwin résumée comme l’homme descendant du singe n’a aucun sens d’un point de vue darwinien’ (1). Pour lui, cette formule très célèbre est ‘extrêmement inadéquate’.
M. Hoquet, auteur de l’ouvrage ‘Darwin contre Darwin’, indique également que Darwin ne répond pas à la question de l’origine de la vie, ni celle de l’homme. Dans l’épistémologie darwinienne, on peut se contenter de comprendre un mécanisme sans être contraint de remonter à son origine radicale. On peut se demander : qu'attendent les macaques, chimpanzés et autres babouins pour évoluer ?
Like i was saying it seems Darwin commenced and advanced research on the issue of evolution making such comments that triggered this debate over the years , some serious researchers followed on his thesis and most of the projections were put to the test basing the checks on verifiable experiments and trying to do them under atmospheric conditions as those they project to have been in existence at the period of time in question.They are yet to get the definitive results so we wait for a break through. The theory of random selection or chance happening etc is still wide open the above poster asked what the other species such as macaques ,baboons and chimpanzees are waiting for to evolve.The allowance we have as humans to advance in scientific knowledge is limited . The scriptures have in varied ways expounded on the origin of life and this has yet to be debunked by science .The arguments for evolution which offer us the way out through the side entrance failed to give us any hard boiled evidence to hinge onto, that my friend is too dangerous to hold to. So I beg to differ with you with all due respect. The post I quoted seems to say that there is a theory of 'Darwin against Darwin' at play here, too many questions with no answers more like it.As he has failed to answer the question of the origin of species , too many missing links. I too have studied Biology but it is my believe that science has not given us all the answers to our questions about life, the complexity of cells and the intelligent design behind all these natural objects from the stars to genes or human genome ,All these makes me believe that there was a designer and refuse to accept the theory of evolution which relies I think too heavily on random or accidental existence of the first living cell .I tell myself that all those beautiful structures like cars , buildings that we admire , bridges suspended across huge sea barriers were made and designed by some one, who paid special attention to detail and made sure that tees were all connected. That is a fair statement so too do i believe that we humans and life in general was designed by the creator and since it was not intended for us to live forever , a fault or faults were inbuilt so that the creation does not keep on living but dies when these cease to function as they should.I am sorry for being too persistent about this topic but it interest me a lot and by this posting I wish to share with you my own perspectives of what happened .Also forgive me if I seem to be preaching you into accepting my views so to speak but as it is I read your posting and have a lot of respect for what you have written in the past, leaving this to go even though it is against what i believe without giving you my own views on it , I believe is not fair at all to me and to you as well. thanks again for your time
|
Edited by - kaanibaa on 17 Feb 2009 20:10:16 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2009 : 09:22:34
|
Okay Kaanibaa, you have said so much here that I am not quite sure where to start responding to your comments and questions.
But again I have to admit that I am not an expert on evolution; but Lurker, who I suspect might have an indept background in biology than I do, or even Minnesota's English Chemist John Dalton1 could add their weight to this discussion.
However, the best favor you could do for yourself is to refer to the evidences of evolution that I provided above, namely: fossils, homologies, distribution over time and space, and examples.. Ultimately no one can make your understand and appreciate this things other than yourself.
Einstein once said that "there is no limit to knowledge and the knowable". The process of living is a process of continual questioning. So do not expect the theory of evolution or any other theory for that matter to be closed to further questioning or enquiry. Besides creationists, who maintain that different species were created independently by a higher power, did not provide any satisfactory answer either. Other than faith and mysticism, there is nothing that corroborates creationism. By the way what is the exact length of the day in the Koran? The Bible already got it wrong . Can you give a concrete number?
Perhaps I should say that Darwin's work is more about the origin of species than about the origin of life. Now if we can establish the chemical origin of life (there is already substantial progress on this), it will be a big boost to Darwin's theory, but already modern biology centers completely on the theory of evolution. Without the concept of evolution, biology as we know it today is rendered meaningless. The fields of paleontology, molecular biology, developmental biology, medicine and genetics are all (derived) and sustained by the concept of evolution.
You said that a theory is a conjecture? Far from it. A theory is an advanced stage of the scientific method than a mere observation or a hypothesis. A theory is strongly supported by research and experimentation.
You have asked about the seemingly lack of evolution in chimpanzees, and said what are they waiting for? Well evolution is continually going on, but much of it occurs over such a large span of time and space that you may not be able to observe it in chimpanzees in your lifespan. However, in a laboratory situation you could observe evolution at play in bacteria, fruit flies, and how microbes adapt and develop resistance to drugs in a matter of weeks and months.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the time line of human evelution and development and see for yourself how humans (recent arrivals in this world-just over a hundred thousand years ago) are preceded by other hominids (human-like species) four to six million years ago. The earth itself is 4.5 billion years old, now if you consider that to the appearance of humans 100,000 years ago you can see that this world could not have been contemplated for us humans . Our appearance here is purely accidental, other wise you will be tempted to ask how long did it have to take God to decide our creation. Makes sense ?
There is a lot of crucial information in vestigial tissues of organisms across organic spetrum. For example the (vestigial) pseud- seeds in banana, the breast in human males, the wings of flightless birds like ostriches, the mammalian tail (including human embryos), gill bars in tetrapods (four-legged) terretial (land) vertebrates, the fused molars and premolars of mammals, the wisdom teeth in humans, the front teeth of the fetus of cows and whales, rudimentary limbs (legs) in snakes, the hip bone in whales, the amniotic sac in mammals (a vestigial eggshell), parthenogenetic lizards (also called lesbian lizards), relocation of the human testicles, the flower of self-pollinating plants like dandelions, the stems and leaves of parasitic plants like fungi, pseudogenes, the presence of mitochondria and chloroplasts in eukariotic cells, ....
All of these points unmistakably to a slow but sure progression of life; DNA's perpetual struggle for a better chance at survival. All living forms are (mere encasements) just DNA's attempt at propagation and suirvival.
Thank you. |
Edited by - kayjatta on 18 Feb 2009 09:34:43 |
|
|
|
mbay
Germany
1007 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2009 : 13:04:19
|
First question come through the scientist was ‘Why` life and then through the time comes the 2d one of ’how'? Scandal? NO. If we don’t intend to go beyond it. Science is a sense v/v that has always being around since our existing !(the very first importance part of our living) and is still extending is self throughout our environment day by day, It is logic to expanding it . So if you have it why not bring it over?
But this or at least some clarifications does not suit everyone including me as Muslim , although am interested a lot about science i still lost some credibility and seen it as MAN TOPPLED FROM PEDESTAL.
some says“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” Right?
But while there is many interest about this man and around so that we have to even makes his year in our company. Have we another choice as Scientific publishing company?
http://www.springerlounge.com/index.php?id=13630
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n645322075153g53/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springer.com/life+sci/journal/12052
|
|
|
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2009 : 16:08:34
|
| Kayjatta, I thank you for the time you took to respond my blabbering piece , yours was an erudite response and I clap my hands for you. I accept that theory , meaning not all theory is conjecture or supposition so withdraw that statement with due respect. I however do not want to assume that i or any one would attempt to silence questioners of creation, rather than that I too rise to the challenge of getting more answers to the queries and wait like all most do to see the fool proof evidence of the veracity of the said claims. The contribution of Darwin to the advancement of science cannot be underestimated here by any means it was immense. History also taught us about the contribution of religion to scientific advances and I think there is a degree of complimentality here. Unlike many other interested persons, I do believe that it is not abhorrent to study what Darwin and other scientist have expounded or explored either to a conclusive end or opening leads for others to pursue. For by that means we have been able to get facts and departed from fiction.The fear of scientific intervention in various topical issues by religious fanatics is unreasonable for to my mind if what is being preached is true it should stand the challenge of scrutiny; ergo I endorse that move.I have read about scientist who converted to Islam after coming face to face with certain revelations which were made in the Koran about certain topics which were being just newly discovered by science. I shall not try to be a preacher here , I just wanted to get more from you on the topic and you have given me something to chew on for while. By the way I trust you do have some knowledge about the time it takes for light from the sun to travel from the sun to reach earth; that illustrated ,in my view a perspective to your query about the issue of days and time as mentioned in scriptures.This was what I garnered from a lecture on your question about the duration within which creation took place. Further to this we are taught when Allah wants something to be he says be and it is or becomes (Fa innama amuru iza arada sayan anya kullalahu kunfaya kun )Thanks again. |
Edited by - kaanibaa on 18 Feb 2009 16:47:22 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2009 : 08:03:05
|
It only takes eight minutes (8 minutes) for the light from the sun to reach the earth. You do the math Kaanibaa and tell me what you find please...
I agree with you that religion has contributed greatly to science. In fact I can give you a long list of scientists and philosophers who were also priests. I have already told you about Gregor Mendel and Copernicus who were both priests.
During the European Rennaisance and the Islamic Golden Age, many scientists (formerly called natural philosophers) were religious scholars... |
Edited by - kayjatta on 19 Feb 2009 08:43:47 |
|
|
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2009 : 17:15:06
|
| You are welcome brother, now i know where we all stand on this topic. I shall continue to read your postings on them and make comments where i deem fit. For now though I shall keep reading about Darwin and his works as well as those of his disciples , for to ignore this I shall be missing out on a lot of information. I shall recommend that you too read the writings I mentioned especially one by the famous Turk ; his works called ...the atlas of creationI am sure if you read this you shall be able to find an alternative perspective to this topic ; that is Darwinist theorem.Wa salaam. |
|
|
|
mansasulu
997 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2009 : 18:44:45
|
Wow that was a very spirited debate! Needless to say I just in awe...In a recent finding, Alan Boss one of our "leading luminaries," in the area of astronomy claimed that trillions of planets could be out there. Folks this just shows how little we know about creations of the ULTIMATE CREATOR-IN-CHIEF, Allah SWT. Whether its Darwin, Corpernicus, Freud, Mandel, Einstein etc...and the whole human race's collective knowledge knows very little about the universe.
Frankly, I think it is a complete waste of time to ponder about mundane and irrevant theories of creation rather than reflecting on the visible signs we see on a daily basis. The rising of the sun for example. How often do we reflect on the power behind it. The air we breathe, why can't we begin to imagine there is a greater power in control. Folks, all these cannot be hapharzard or explainable by theories that are based on supposition and guesstimate.
Allah said in the Quran, in Sura Al Araf (The Heights) (174) And recite (O Muhammad SAW) to them the story of him to whom We gave Our Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), but he threw them away, so Shaitân (Satan) followed him up, and he became of those who went astray. (175) And had We willed, We would surely have elevated him therewith but he clung to the earth and followed his own vain desire. So his parable is the parable of a dog: if you drive him away, he lolls his tongue out, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls his tongue out. Such is the parable of the people who reject Our Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.). So relate the stories, perhaps they may reflect. |
"...Verily, in the remembrance of Allâh do hearts find rest..." Sura Al-Rad (Chapter 13, Verse 28)
...Gambian by birth, Muslim by the grace of Allah... |
Edited by - mansasulu on 19 Feb 2009 18:48:38 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2009 : 07:52:06
|
Thanks mansasulu, we fully respect your views. Notwithstanding, I have just quoted in my earlier posting above that (Einstein said that) there is no limit to knowledge and the knowable (and I think that sounds like common sense), and that the process of human existence is a process of continual questioning. Perhaps you might want to be reminded that Alan Boss (as you mentioned above) did not arrive at his conclusions about the "trillions of planets" through religious (conjecture)but instead through scientific understanding. Do you see the contradictions in your "wisdom" ? You conveniently find it necessary to embrace Alan Boss' (scientific) findings but finds it a "waste of time" to investigate the origins of life. You further argue that we should "reflect on the visible signs we see on a daily basis" such as and the "rising of the sun", "the air we breathe"; don't you know that we have reflected on these things and the only comprehensively useful information we have about the rising of the sun (due to gravitation) and the air we breathe (oxygen) is soley from systematic study and investigation called science? Besides don't you see the similarities between you and other life forms on a daily basis? What should stop you from reflecting on that? It might be satisfying to the common man to just reflect on only the simple things he see on a daily basis, but the sophisticated minds ( I am certainly not one of them- I am only a disciple) like that of Alan Boss (you have mentioned above), and others past and present have to dig deeper for the truth. The truth is often too valuable to be found (on the surface) without effort to find it.
I am amazed that with the pervasiveness of science in your own life time, from gene therapy and reprogenetics, to the promises of nanotechnology and NASA's landing of un-manned space crafts on Mars and beyond, you are still calling all of these achievements "suppositions and guesstimate".
You know it was a political scientist who once said that "science is undeniable, because it is everywhere for you to see; in you home, at work and at school". I wouldn't normally expect that from a political scientist, but when Dr. Senghore made this remark, he also lamented the complacency of the African towards science. Dr. Senghore argued that when the African invented the mortar and the pestle, he thought his problems are all solved and he gave up looking for even better ways to make his life easier. So even after the African found himself in a storey building, he moved in with his mortar and the pestle. Perhaps religion is our (the Africans) mortar and pestle.
It is easier to lament the political problems on our continent, but even after we have established the "political Kingdom" Nkrummah had foreseen, the African will have to give up the mortar and pestle mentality in order to "intricate the continent from its long night of slumber" ( Collin Powell, 2002).
Thank you, and as I said we respect and greatly value your views. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
