Things you've never understood...

[shinny]

Copied from: http://harunyahya.com/neverforget15.php



But yes, interesting read nevertheless.

Yes . As I have stated.

After some editing.

[gfb]

I do not understand the evolution theory (darwinism) . Seems like somebody got bored and decided that our ancestors were monkeys or whatever , LOL.

In conclusion, we must be the offspring of amounts of them - since no animal can be superior like a human (mentally and physically). Nevertheless, darwins theory fails. Mankind has the capacity to communicate in the most superior way, build, find cures for sicknesses etc. How can all these miracle- like actions be accomplished?. Just looking at nature and its perfect form displays that there is a creator.

Darwinism is just materialist philosophy.

Materialist philosophy is the most historic type of thought and the primary target of it is to agree that only matter exists (i.e. the evolution theory exists). Hence, with reference to materialist thought, matter has existed since the start and everything is made up of matter. This kind of approach makes it impossible to believe in a God (regardless of what religion).

[shinny]

Well obviously there's a basis for it, and there is biological evidence behind it. My main limitation I see for it is the time frame within which such stuff has evolved. It definitely seems feasible if you give it an infinite amount of time to occur, but having done biology and roughly knowing the odds of a mutation occurring in the correct place and manner, it seems quite hard for it to be entirely true with the CURRENT evidence. However, probability does work in weird ways and perhaps we just got damn lucky.

[dekoyl]

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do.

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate).  And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on).  In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have.

[fredrick]

a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle.

[dekoyl]

a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle.

Yes indeed. I guess she's just giving an example of what sort of evolution she's talking about, not in a practical sense.

[transgression]

why i'm tired but do not sleep until the early hours of the morning

[username]

why i'm tired but do not sleep until the early hours of the morning

Agreed. But I'm watching some german (?) film on SBS which is terribly sad.

[rh]

^and i'm waiting for that film to finish so i can watch what's on after it!

[lanvins]

Why everyone in the world seems to hate each other.....

[vce01]

Why everyone in the world seems to hate each other.....

i heart everyone

[shinny]

Why everyone in the world seems to hate each other.....

i heart everyone

Except VCAA.

[cobby]

Why telemarketers have a tendency of calling you just when your in the middle of doing something!

[xox.happy1.xox]

Why everyone in the world seems to hate each other.....

i heart everyone

Except VCAA.

Amen to that.

[bturville]

random events do not cause anything other than irregularity and confusion, they still claim that the marvellous order, plan, and design, seen both in the universe and in living organisms, arose by chance.

*sigh* It's not chance, I wish people would get that. It is accumulation of successive variations over enormous time-scales.

If the same scientist were to find three bricks resting on top of one another while walking along a flat road, he would never suppose that these bricks had come together by chance and then climbed up on top of each other, again by chance. Indeed, anyone who did make such an assertion would be considered insane.

Ermm...exactly, he wouldn't. The process of life has a few teeny tiny differences when compared to a freakin' brick.

Darwinism is just materialist philosophy....I do not understand the evolution theory...Materialist philosophy is the most historic type of thought(darwinism)

*smashes head against desk* Come on man, I don't mind anybody rejecting Darwinism but at least know what it is before you have a go.