# Evolution - Fact Or Fiction?



## muslim (Feb 19, 2005)

I would like to hear the views of everyone regarding this topic.

Salaam(peace)


----------



## ravisingh (Feb 19, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*

Evolution is a theory of speciation and the best explanation currently available for the diversity of life that exists.  In this respect it is certainly not fiction.  There are many examples of evolution occuring as we speak.  

 Is there another view that anyone else can espouse that has the same ammount of predictive and explanatory power?


----------



## BabbarSher (Feb 22, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*

I thinm Dear Muslim's point in asking for views is because of the rejection of the claims of Evolution by Islam. 

For that matter Chrsitanity, Judaism and Hindusim also seem to reject evolution as they harp about the Adam and Eve story. 

It is interesting to note that despite all these religions decrying each other - yes even hindusim has the same story of Adam and Eve, albeit with different names, they seem to have borrowed extensively in mthology/legends and stories of yore from each other. 

As of now, the scientific community has accepted evolution as the path to current life form. Even now the society is experiencing evolution - ever noticed the kids with much sharper minds then we had in comparable age. 

Akal Sahai


----------



## nsbuttar (Feb 22, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*

It is neither entirely facts nor fiction. It is a theory. It has emerged from observatiions. It is something you believe to be true, but u ave no proof, just your observations. As soon as you find a contradiction in your observations, the theory dissolves.


----------



## ravisingh (Feb 22, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*



> It is a theory. It has emerged from observatiions. It is something you believe to be true, but u ave no proof, just your observations


 There is plenty of proof for evolution --far more than any other view.  It is hardly based on "your observations" like any good scientific theory it has been test, retested, veified and provides the best explanation possible for the many different forms of life.  For example, many animals share genetic codes that serve as dramatic evidence for common ancestors (primates and humans are a prime example of this).  Another good example of this is that the vast majority of animals have a "face" (2 eyes above a nose and a mouth) all the result of a common ancestor.  Are you suggesting that the entire field of genetics is something that we just "believe to be true"?  How about other fields of science?

 The term "theory" in science has a very specific meaning and does not just mean that someone believes it.  The scientific method is rigorous, testable and verifiable and towers above any other method for describing the natural world.  It is not as though the theory of evolution results from simple observations of behaviour.

 I think the mistake that people make is believing that science and religion collide --they do not and are complimentary.  Now I'll use the much cited story of Adam and Eve.  As always with religious stories someone picks and chooses what is to be taken literally and what is metaphoric.  Given, that there is strong scientific evidence for the existence of a common ancestor for the higher primates and humans (we share 95% of our genome with this group) why would we continue to stubbornly believe that no evolution has occured in the face of years of scientific evidence suggesting otherwise?

 Babar Sher thank-you for the clarification.  In terms of Islam and evolution the above points give my view on the matter.  In my view, religion should play no role in explaining creation.  There is nothing inconsistent with saying that God created the world and a part of that world is a process called evolution.  To me it is the equivalent of arguing against electricity on the grounds that it somehow takes away from God --rather electricity is a part of the world that God created.


----------



## 21khalsa13 (Feb 22, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*

hello jee's

evolution fact or fiction??

let me re address the question for this forum

CONCIOUS EVOLUTION. FACT OR FICTION??

 this is the real issue at heart
are we evolving conciously. look at all religions and philosphy
as man becomes more conciouss and aware of his surroundings, in terms of science, art, religion
are not all religion essentially the same if you do a timeline of history
compare with knowledge at time, you see parrelells unreal if this isn't true
are you concious than your parents fact you have computer, tv etc, and they still use telephone.
how will our childrens concioussness evolve
a truly universal one i hope and pray.

is concioussness evolving through space, time, matter
has the galaxy gone through an unfolding, a learning,
from the first matter god created is it not all flowing , growing from there
through the stars, planets universe, this earth the planets, the animals.
finally us as perfect creation of god's image. co-create of our own existence.

look 99.9% of all animals lived have already been extinct.
so are we just working towards god's perfect architype of us.
'sacha surma'
we have mitochondria in our cells which were one time separate beings
then our bodies merged with theirs 
now all energy you use in your body is stored in these 'foreign bodies'

i don't believe darwin evolution - very limited to physical material world


regards my brothers


----------



## ravisingh (Feb 22, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*

Brother 21khalsa13,

 Although I am sympathetic to what I think that you are saying I'm not sure what you mean. The consciousness that you mention at first seems to be very physically/scientifically based --a sort of awareness of surroundings, etc. This can certainly be measured and is certainly described by science. The other stuff you mention seems unmeasurable and is very unclear to me. I can think of many different meanings for the term "consciousness" (phenomenal -how something feels, content --propostional or thoughts or ideas that I have that lead me to reason, state consciousness --the state of being aware, etc.) but am unsure what it is that we can say is shared by a galaxy, mitochondria, etc and how it can develop. 

 Although I can certainly understand and am sympathetic toward pantheism (everything is god), I have trouble understanding how one can consistently hold this view while maintaining that the universe can become "more" conscious --according to this view it would seem that everything already is conscious. In fact, you state that you have problem with darwin's physicalism yet the notion of more of something (thus quantifiable) is clearly in the physicalist/scientific paradigm.

 The way I understand what you have written you are staunch believer in a dichotomy between mind/consciousness and body/physical stuff. However, given what I take your position to be it would seem more reasonable to maintain a modified monisitic position (that mind and body are two expressions of the same stuff) --in which case discounting darwin as to physical would be a misnomer.



> so are we just working towards god's perfect architype of us.
> 'sacha surma'


 I also have problems with this statement. There is nothing to suggest that increased speciation (evolution) is going to make us closer to "god's perfect architype". Despite what people commonly believe evolution does not necesarily mean a "better" organism. In many cases (due mostly to artificial selection) the changes that are "selected" are just a lucky fluke (ex. small mamals survived the mass extinction event around the time of the dinosaurs due to the relatively smaller resources required because of their size --mamals are not necesarrily "better" but rather lucky).

 What is your notion of a "development" of the universe based on? I can think of two large systems that hold such a view (Samkhya in Indian philosophy and Aristotle in Western Philosophy) but this is only based upon assumptions nothing more.

  Once again, I do have sympathies for where I think that you are headed but would like to understand it better.

  Thanks,

  Ravi Singh


----------



## 21khalsa13 (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*

refer to earlier post


we have 3 realms we can currently work with


virtual/spiritual

mental

physical


in the virtual realm there is perfection

god's archetypes of life 

in the mental realm is life's thriving since the begining to reach these heights of existence.

in the physical we wait patiently for god to manifest in our everday world
-> sat yug again

i believe sat yug has always been here
just takes strength of of being to align ourselves to it

i. all the prophets , bhagats, gurus, gods. have
we still learning therefore we seek
therefore we sikh ------------> saikhyia
 

lots of love
yours


----------



## Amerikaur (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*

The evolutionary theory (at least in regards to humans) is rejected by many religous groups in favor of the story in Gensis. The story not only speaks of the divine creation of man, but lays reason for the philosophy of women being subservient to men (esp. their husband).

Ironically, this was the reason the apostle Peter gave for women (but not men) to cover their heads when they pray. 

1 Corninthians 11: 
_7 _A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. _8_ For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; _9_ neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. _10_ For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. 
(New International Version)


----------



## S|kH (Feb 25, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*

 http://www.mesora.org/dougtaylor/evolution.html 
 http://www.mesora.org/dougtaylor/evolution2.html 

Good read, don't necessarily agree with it, but it's interesting.

I've always been an ID person anyway, I'll make my debate soon (after tuesday's exam next week) then I'm free for 3 weeks.


----------



## ravisingh (Feb 26, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*

S]kh,

 Interesting link but I take issue with several points:

 Link 1


> Picture this. Darwin, explaining his theory of evolution. He's saying that man evolved over time through survival of the fittest. Only the strong survive. The weak die off. The need to continue his physical existence is what has shaped man into who he is today. All of man's capabilities came about through an evolutionary process aimed solely at survival.


 Incorrect.  Evolution is not "survival of the fittest" this is not how Darwin put it at all.  The term "survival of the fittest" was an intrepretation used by "sociobiologist" to justify racism.  Evolution is about the differentiation of species --not about survival.  "Strength" plays no part in it, certain mutations/characteristics become selected for a number of reasons leading to different species.  Those characteristics that get selected are not always the "best" in any sense. Natural selection does not always lead to the "fittest" or "best" systems as an example see below (taken with slight modifications from “The Fragmentation of Reason”,p.67 by Stephen Stich).



   “*Suppose that we have a population in which 3 alleles, A, S, and C, are all initially present.  AA is found in virtually every member of the population, and the following conditions hold:*



*            AS is fitter than AA;  *

*SS is lethal; *

*C is recessive to A (that is, AC and AA have the same phenotype and, in consequence, the same fitness; *

*CS is inferior in fitness to AA; *

*CC is the fittest allelic pair.*



*What will happen to the population?  Answer: C is eliminated; thus the fittest combination, CC, although initially present in the population, not only fails to become fixed but indeed is driven out ... Because of the initial preponderance of AA alleles, S alleles occur most frequently in AS combinations, and C alleles turn up in AC combinations, which, because C is recessive, display the AA phenotype.  The population thus moves toward a balanced polymorphism between A and S, with a few C alleles still present. Once the polymorphism is reached, selection then works to drive out the rare C alleles … So, despite the fact that CC is the best available genotype, natural selection works to displace C from the population”*


 The rest of the link’s argument do not follow as the interpretation of the theory of evolution is entirely incorrect.


 Link 2 


   Although, because this link is based on the same misinterperation as link 1, the argument is irrelevant, it still raises an interesting issue about abstract thinking.



> If evolution is correct, you might use an ability developed for survival - such as walking - for some other non-survival purpose, such as dancing. But you won't develop a new or advanced ability - such as running - unless you need it for survival. Something useless will not develop in the evolutionary process. Extras like that are detractions which will make you inferior in terms of survival, not superior.
> "Similarly," he went on, "the ability to think abstractly is an advanced thinking ability, clearly not needed for survival. It is hardly in the same league with, or ancillary to, the type of thinking that, say, an ape might use to get a banana."


 
 Despite the fact that “survival” and selection of systems is a misnomer (see above), lets us assume for the purposes of this argument that he is correct that only those things required for survival would be selected.  There is still ample reasoning as to why abstract thought would lead to greater survival.  


 Abstract thinking could be an important skill in hunting.  In fact, many theorists cite this as the reason for why the Neanderthals went extinct (the homonids that we evolved from developed the capacity for language whereas the Neanderthals did not).  Incidentally, the ability to speak leads to a serious risk that if survival (as it is argued for in the link) were the sole reason for evolution would surely have not been selected (again as it is argued for in the link).  It is because we can speak that we can choke –an immense disadvantage as it can lead to death.  Of course, since the ability to communicate greatly enhances the ability to hunt and language is the basis for thought there is an immense advantage to it that far outweighs the possibility of choking.


 Ravi Singh


----------



## Amerikaur (Feb 26, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*

"" Only the strong survive. The weak die off. The need to continue his physical existence is what has shaped man into who he is today. "" 
NO. This is NOT how Darwin explained the theory of evolution.

Darwin's description of Natural Selection describes how living beings naturally over-reproduce, and how species have a good amount of varience within themselves...such as the textbook example of how 100 years ago, the majority of a certain type of moths had darker wings, as coal pollution tended to darken their environment. However now, with cleaner fuels and more attention to pollution, the majority of the same type of moth has lighter wings. That has nothing to do with how big the moth is, or how strong the moth is. 

The need to continue physical existance? In other words...having a sex drive! I don't believe that human babies are divinely placed, I am confident that we as humans have to do a bit of (ahem) work to bring them in to this world...the mechanics of such, we probably would NOT do had we not had the urges to do so.

Some humans have genetics that give their face a particular shape...oval, round, heart-shaped, triangle, etc. Some humans have genetics that render disabling or disfiguring conditions. Some humans have genetics that render them sterile. 

Are genetically disabled/disfigured people the majority of the human population? Not now. But what if such a thing met mainstream acceptance as a desirable trait? Would the frequency of the disabled/disfiguring traits increase? I'd say yes. 

It follows that should the majority of the population be genetically sterile, then we wouldn't have much of a population for long. 

But the shape of one's face...just as much determined by genetics as the other two examples...has little to do with one's ability or desireability as a sex partner. Hence, we have humans of all races that sport many different shaped faces. 

Does that make sense?


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Feb 28, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*

BabbarSher, Hindus do NOT believe in the Abrahamic creation story nor do they believe in Adam and Eve.


----------



## vijaydeep Singh (Mar 7, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*

Ek Oankar Wahiguru Ji Ki Fateh
evolution is contious state of creation by God.


----------



## Amarpal (Mar 7, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*

Dear Khalsa Ji,

I am of the opinion that evolution is a fact. Each man carries a proof of it on his chest. The two nipple like dots and the associated darkened circle around it on the chest is the proof that creator had used the woman's body as template to create man. This is called evolution. 

There was never any functional need for these dots and red patches to exist on man's chest. The creator has left a tell tale mark in the process of evolution for we humans to discover that man came from woman and not the other way round.

With love and respect for all.

Amarpal Singh


----------



## muslim (Jul 22, 2005)

All i would like to say is the moderators of this site are slanders and liars, why? because my fisrt post was changed and edited, completely changing my post and deleting a relevant link which i provided. I cant believe the moderators of this site were so low, damn im disappointed.


----------



## Arvind (Jul 22, 2005)

muslim said:
			
		

> All i would like to say is the moderators of this site are slanders and liars, why? because my fisrt post was changed and edited, completely changing my post and deleting a relevant link which i provided. I cant believe the moderators of this site were so low, damn im disappointed.


Hi,Would you be kind enough to let us know, what contents were edited? Most of us here realize your controversial and sometimes insulting stand on a few issues. Still, we stood firm to keep your posts as-it-is just as a show to people how far some people go nowadays!Thanks for your help.Arvind.


----------



## muslim (Jul 22, 2005)

Well Arvind, if you find the moderator who did edit it you would find the message was neither insulting or in anyway rude. Missing parts to the post are as follows; important links to webistes containing interesting information regarding evolution and a warm friendly message to all spn members.


----------



## muslim (Jul 22, 2005)

psst heres the link, grab it before they delete it :rofl!!: 


http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1245


----------



## Arvind (Jul 22, 2005)

Hi Muslim,We respect member's posts. I encourage you to post it back. I am not aware of any mod editing contents of your posts as of now. Site admin Aman may be able to give a better pic, if he has some tool to look at the history of posts.fyi, rt now, there is site upgrade going on, and it has only affected past one day activities on SPN. But I dont believe, that wud hv affected ur past posts. However, if you posted something within past 24 hours, then Site admin is already in process of restoring so many posts, u may hv observed this by now.Anyway, Let us know by giving URL of which post you are talking abt. We will do our best to meet our member's satisfaction.Regards.


----------



## Arvind (Jul 22, 2005)

muslim said:
			
		

> psst heres the link, grab it before they delete it :rofl!!:
> 
> 
> http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1245


When was this link posted? If past 24 hours, then there are such threads under restoration already, due to site upgrade.We encourage a happy, healthy discussion oriented environment. So get up from the floor.Cheers.


----------



## muslim (Jul 22, 2005)

Ok my mistake Arvind and co.


----------



## drkhalsa (Jul 22, 2005)

Dear Muslim 

welcome back 
actually I read you r post in orignal format and next day it was missing but i think definately it was due to new upgrade as no one has done that deliberately 

any way thanks for the link ! still ihavent seen it 

Jatinder Singh


----------



## muslim (Jul 23, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*

Well at least everythings been put straight and sorted out. I look forward to everyones views and opinions on the documentary and other sources.

remeber the link is http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1245

take care people and happy debating


----------



## muslim (Jul 24, 2005)

*Important!! please read*

Since my last post about evolution, no one has yet seen the video documentary from the link i provided. Now as most people on this site are Sikhs (learners), let us learn something new on an important topic. I urge everyone to view the video on this link, here it is again. Come on people!

http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1245


----------



## muslim (Jul 24, 2005)

*Re: Evolution - fact or fiction*

520 sumthing views of this thread and still no reply on the evolution collapse video? whats going on?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 24, 2005)

*Re: Evolution - fact or fiction*



			
				muslim said:
			
		

> All i would like to say is the moderators of this site are slanders and liars, why? because my fisrt post was changed and edited, completely changing my post and deleting a relevant link which i provided. I cant believe the moderators of this site were so low, damn im disappointed.


 
What an outburst..brother.  Words said in haste  to hurt...can never be withdrawn...and words like "slander". "liars".."so low".."damn"...shouldnt be coming from a "muslim" or "Islamic" person because Islam means PEACE. I find this a curious way of describing "Peace" ??? Sorrys usually sound empty especially wehn said again and again..

I read Every one of the Announcements that came out from the Mosques in the aftermath of the 7/7 cowardly bombings in Londo to kill civilians...Each Announcement ONLY had something to say about MUSLIMS ONLY..no one else even got a single word of sympathy. 

Still to SIKHS..we are as ususal..Enemies towards NONE...Na ko beri nahin beganna said our GURU while sitting on the Hot Plate in Summer for the "offense" of having a different religion to that of the Govt.

PEACE on All Men....

Jarnail Singh Gyani


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 24, 2005)

*Re: Evolution - fact or fiction*



			
				muslim said:
			
		

> 520 sumthing views of this thread and still no reply on the evolution collapse video? whats going on?


 
I tried several times to connect..page always missing....
and once it loaded but the download was so damn slow i changed to another site after waiting more than 20 minutes...

Please tell the Admin HarunYahya to get some more bandwidth. I may be trying again today.

Jarnail Singh gyani


----------



## muslim (Jul 24, 2005)

*Re: Evolution - fact or fiction*

hmm gyani, i just tried the link myself and it worked perfectly fine. Maybe the problem is that you are clicking on the divx file format which i much slower as the divx file is much larger. Try the mpeg file, either full each part individually and im confident it should work.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 24, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*



			
				Amarpal said:
			
		

> Dear Khalsa Ji,
> 
> I am of the opinion that evolution is a fact. Each man carries a proof of it on his chest. The two nipple like dots and the associated darkened circle around it on the chest is the proof that creator had used the woman's body as template to create man. This is called evolution.
> 
> ...


 
Dear Veer Amarpal Ji,
Waheguru ji ka khalsa waheguru ji ki fateh.

Very interesting and unusual observation.

The other day i was watching a Discovery Channel Documentary of Human Birth..and it was clearly shown that the SEX of the UNBORN Foetus is in LIMBO until something "triggers" a Response.

In the Beginning... the foetus has everything for BOTH SEXES..a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD..so to speak.  Then When the "yet unknown mechanism triggers it...the cells in the SEX ORGANS begin to DEVELOP in such a manner that the Foetus becomes either MALE or FEMALE. IF the "signal" was for it to become MALE...the ORGAN/Clitoris/etc etc Begin to GROW OUTWARDS and UPWARDS from the SAME BASE....if the signal was for a FEMALE...everything DEVELOPS INWARDS...collapsing on itself..still the SAME BASE but REVERSED ORDER.  In the Female case the Ovaries etc remain INSIDE for ever....In the Male case the Testes remain INSIDE for  ayear or so and then DESCEND slowly. In the MALE case the "clitoris" is at the tip of the glans..and in the female it is buried deep ...and it is observed that the clitoris is only for pleasure..otherwise..(especially in the female) it has no purpose. Certain communities try to "male dominate" by having FEMALE CIRCUMCISIONS ( a lot of MUSLIMS do this) whereby the females are badly DISFIGURED and MUTILATED in an attemot to remove the clitoris. Thsi practise is BANNEd in the CIVILISED WORLD.

In the case of the CHEST region...in MALES the BASE remains UNDEVELOPED..while in FEMALES.. everything there DEVELOPS FULLY OUTWARDS.

So essentially what i onbserved is that the BUILDING BLOCKS of ALL -Male and Female are all the SAME...it is ONLY different ways of developing the same materials.

IF there is a "chemical" or other form of "block" or malfunction in these signal transmissions... we have thsose unfortunate babies with malformed sexual organs..malformed chests, legs, arms, conjoined twins and all the birth deformities..

Recent news reports suggest that due to Worldwide hunting of Male elephants for their TUSKS...Nature has provided Elephants a way out...More and more baby male elephants are being BORN WITHOUT TUSKS...Na hoveh baans na bajjeh banseri...as they say in Punjabi. That is the ONLY way for the elephant to survive..and i see the hand of nature/Evolution/Waheguru in this...ALL is IN HIS HUKM.

IMHO evolution has no conflict with GURBANI. It is all in Waheguru's HUKM.


Love

Jarnail Singh gyani


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 24, 2005)

*Re: Important!! please read*

waheguru ji ka khalsa 
waheguru ji ki fateh

             sorry i cannot watch this documentry i have limited download internet connection.if you want good debate about evolution theory
please also post your articles on sikhsangat.com and sikhi.com
                                                                 bhul chuk maaf


----------



## muslim (Jul 24, 2005)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*



			
				Gyani Jarnail Singh said:
			
		

> Recent news reports suggest that due to Worldwide hunting of Male elephants for their TUSKS...Nature has provided Elephants a way out...More and more baby male elephants are being BORN WITHOUT TUSKS...Na hoveh baans na bajjeh banseri...as they say in Punjabi. That is the ONLY way for the elephant to survive..and i see the hand of nature/Evolution/Waheguru in this...ALL is IN HIS HUKM.


 
Born without tusks? is that even possible? How? by hunting has this caused the DNA coding of an elephant to change?


----------



## muslim (Jul 24, 2005)

*Re: Important!! please read*

hi kds, i would love to post these articles and links on the websites you provided but unfortunately i am not a member on either websites.


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 24, 2005)

*Re: Important!! please read*

you can post their as guest and also those sites have much more people than this site


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 24, 2005)

*Re: Evolution - fact or fiction*

Dear mulsim ji,

THAT is GOD's NATURAL LAW OF SELECTION in action ( some call it evolution).  This works this way....in every Elephant "gene pool" there are soem Elephants that will be GIANTS...with Very large Tusks and all, soem will be midgets with NO TUSKS, most will be somewhere in between these two extremes....AS the Very large Ones with their HUGE TUSKS are hunted down aggressively, their GENE POOL slowly DIES OUT...leaving the way clear for teh midgets with NO TUSKS or very small tusks....very soon ALL Elephants will be from this NO TUSK gene pool...and NO TUSKS..NO HUNTING...Elephants are SAVED !!!

The Black and white MOTHS example is an old one about the workings of evolution..bt this Elephant example is an ongoing working example.only EVOLUTION has the answer to why it is happening.

Jarnail Singh gyani


----------



## kds1980 (Jul 24, 2005)

*Re: Evolution - fact or fiction*

Born without tusks? is that even possible? How? by hunting has this caused the DNA coding of an elephant to change?

i think you don't have knowledge about elepohants.in asian elephants
only male have tusks.and even not all males have tusks.male elephant without tusks are called makhna.with the hunting of male elephants
with tusks large number of makhna have the chance to mate with the females.so many male calves are born without tusks.if this will  continue
the future generation of asian elephants will no have tusks.there gene pool is changing


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 24, 2005)

*Re: Evolution - fact or fiction*



			
				muslim said:
			
		

> hmm gyani, i just tried the link myself and it worked perfectly fine. Maybe the problem is that you are clicking on the divx file format which i much slower as the divx file is much larger. Try the mpeg file, either full each part individually and im confident it should work.


..

Muslim Ji,
That worked.  I wanted to woenload and burn it to CD as I have a DIVX player. So i played the mpeg file.  Thank you. Most of the materials have been shown on discovery/national geographic/scientific explorer channels.

The Darwin Theory is fundamentally FLAWED because it begins with NO GOD....but this does not in any way prove that the Genesis Theory is correct either.  Both theories have a basic Flaw. The World has an age of billions of years...the documentary itself shows that there are billions of galaxies and universes  but the Bible and the Koran fail to even mention these..such a world could not have been created in just six days....and to say WAHEGURU 'needs a rest" is preposterous...jsut as the HEART beats 24/7..WAHEGURU also is at work 24/7..

These are my humble opinions...

Jarnail singh gyani


----------



## muslim (Jul 25, 2005)

*Re: Evolution - fact or fiction*

You are welcome Gyani, and thank you for taking time out to watch this documentary.



			
				Gyani Jarnail Singh said:
			
		

> ..
> 
> The Darwin Theory is fundamentally FLAWED because it begins with NO GOD....but this does not in any way prove that the Genesis Theory is correct either. Both theories have a basic Flaw. The World has an age of billions of years...the documentary itself shows that there are billions of galaxies and universes but the Bible and the Koran fail to even mention these..such a world could not have been created in just six days....and to say WAHEGURU 'needs a rest" is preposterous...jsut as the HEART beats 24/7..WAHEGURU also is at work 24/7..
> 
> ...


 
Well Gyani, what are the other flaws within the genesis theory? You mentioned the flaw that the universe was created in six DAYS, well heres an article from a website which explains it better.

*Six Days?*


The Qur'an states that "Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days" (7:54). While on the surface this might seem similar to the account related in the Bible, there are some important distinctions. 

The verses that mention "six days" use the Arabic word "youm" (day). This word appears several other times in the Qur'an, each denoting a different measurement of time. In one case, the measure of a day is equated with 50,000 years (70:4), whereas another verse states that "a day in the sight of your Lord is like 1,000 years of your reckoning" (22:47). The word "youm" is thus understood, within the Qur'an, to be a long period of time -- an era or eon. Therefore, Muslims interpret the description of a "six day" creation as six distinct periods or eons. The length of these periods is not precisely defined, nor are the specific developments that took place during each period. 
 After completing the Creation, the Qur'an describes that Allah "settled Himself upon the Throne" (57:4) to oversee His work. A distinct point is made to counter the Biblical idea of a day of rest: "We created the heavens and the earth adn all that is between them in six days, nor did any sense of weariness touch Us" (50:38).

To sum up, its not six days but six long periods (yaum) and got did not rest after completion.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jul 25, 2005)

*Re: Evolution - fact or fiction*

Thanks Muslim Ji.
Another Flaw that I see in the Genesis Theory is How can the GENES of just ONE COUPLE  Adam and Eve be enough to sustain the entire human race.  It has been proven that INBREEDING/INCEST for just one or TWO generations begisn to Produce imbeciles/deformed babies.  many many different couples are needed for gene variety.  Can just one couple produce the great variety of Human races...Africans, Mongolians, Aryans, red indians, Pygmies, Blacks Yelow white etc ? How doe the Theory of Genesis fit in ?  Please elaborate sir.

Jarnail Singh Gyani


----------



## DS777 (Apr 8, 2006)

*Re: Evolution, fact or fiction?*



			
				nsbuttar said:
			
		

> It is neither entirely facts nor fiction. It is a theory. It has emerged from observatiions. It is something you believe to be true, but u ave no proof, just your observations. As soon as you find a contradiction in your observations, the theory dissolves.



You say the same thing about belief in God.

Secondly, Mr. Muslim, I can see that you have never been to Turkey where Mr. Yahya's (Adnan Oktar) own countrymen regularly ridicule and chastise him in the press.  I respect his work on mainstream Islamic subjects and find them extremely inspiring, however, his scientific work is pseudo-intellectual at best.


----------



## Lee (Sep 23, 2009)

*Re: Evolution - fact or fiction*



Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Born without tusks? is that even possible? How? by hunting has this caused the DNA coding of an elephant to change?
> 
> i think you don't have knowledge about elepohants.in asian elephants
> only male have tusks.and even not all males have tusks.male elephant without tusks are called makhna.with the hunting of male elephants
> ...


 

This is indeed evolution in action. 

Evolution is simply that thoese triats more conducive to survival get passed onto offspring whilst those not do not.  The reason, well that too is very simple.

If I am a mouse with shorter back legs than my brother mice, then chances are I will be caught by the cat and killed.  So no chance to mate and pass my short legs along to my children.  My brothers with the long legs survice to mate, and so long legged mice prosper whislt short legged mice eventualy die out.

As with the elephants, to hunt those with tusks means that those without tusks get a better chance to mate, thus tuskless elephants.  It really is that easy.

Another example, the flu virus.  The present swine flu is nothing more than the old bird flu mutated and crossing speices.

There is a very good book that details all about evolution, Charles Darwins 'The theorory of evoltion by means of natural selection'.  Really before you can speak out about evolution you should go and read it.  You can still purchaes it in any bookshop, go, go out and buy it now.


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 23, 2009)

*Re: Evolution - fact or fiction*

Lee ji

Thank you for an excellent illustration of how natural selection works as per Charles Darwin. It still holds true, simple -- but continually confused with ideas like survival of the fittest and inheritance of acquired characteristics. Do you have any idea why?


----------



## Lee (Sep 23, 2009)

Narayanjot ji,

The term survivial of the fittest as has already been pointed out was not one that Darwin coined, it was in fact a contempory of his that first used it (not though for racist reasons as has mistakenly been said), and in fact Darwin did agree that it was a fitting phrase and in later editions of his book did use it himself.

The misunderstandings come with the word 'fittest', it is meant, in this context, the 'best suited' rather then the strongest.  So those creatures with atributes 'best suited' to survival (the long legs of the mice for example) would survive whilst those who's atributes did not 'fit' the bill were rather less fortunate.  As with many words, context is king in understanding.


----------



## spnadmin (Sep 23, 2009)

Lee ji

Thank you for adding that extra layer of understanding about "survival of the fittest" which is misused as a rule, in the 18th Century and also today, to justify the political and economic right of the powerful to overwhelm those less powerful and less affluent.

Originally the term "survival of the fittest" was used to justify a pure form of capitalism which tore societies apart in the early years of the Industrial Revolution. It was "coined" by the economist Malthus. Darwin's own adaption is interesting and I was not aware of that.


----------

