Documentation

[rockondon]

I suppose it is down to who and what you put your faith in eg Darwin and his written word and the theory that has developed, or Gods words through people on Earth, and to me it seems a fine line between which to decide if you were trying to find the truth.

Like most people who accept evolution, I could not possibly care less about Darwin, nor do I have any "faith" in anything he has said, and his authority has no sway over me whatsoever. If he spent his spare time dancing around in dresses, wearing ladies make up, and recanting everything he has ever said and written it would not affect my acceptance of the Theory of Evolution at all.
People accept evolution for the same reason: evidence...mountains of it, and more evidence for it is found every day.

If someone told me they accepted evolution because they had faith in Darwin I'd laugh at them and try to restrain myself from calling them a moron.

if you were truly neutral how would you choose, or would you somehow combine the two?

It certainly isn't hard to reconcile religious beliefs with science. In another thread I described it like this:

Imagine God creating the universe. Imagine Him creating this beautiful world of ours - essentially a spinning, cooling ball of lava...a mixture of all kinds of matter, liquids, and gas. This god could use His powers to make the planet habitable and use His powers again to put life here...but He didn't have to. In His infinite wisdom, He already provided everything necessary. Molecules attract and repel, combine and separate, and interact in ways that enable them to do amazing things on their own. A very simple arrangement of molecules forms together with the ability to replicate - life has begun. This wonderful, competent God created a world that is self-sustaining. The life on earth has free will because He doesn't need to intervene, His creation sustains itself so intervention is unnecessary. When Christians accept evolution, they tend to have faith in a god like this one - brilliant, competent, and wise, and they have the respect for God to try to understand His creation and reconcile their beliefs in light of this deeper understanding.

Many people seem to think that the best way to respect God (or whatever name they have for the Creator they believe in) is to remain ignorant about His creation, spread lies about those who do try to understand it, spread lies about evidence, spread propaganda about false evidence (fake footprints anyone?) contrived by those who want others to remain ignorant about how the world works, and so on. Personally, if you have to be ignorant or deceitful in order to maintain your beliefs then I think there's something wrong with your beliefs. I don't think the Creator would frown on someone for trying to understand His creation, but that's just me.

 

[Eddy Daze]

I remember listening to Darwins biography on radio 4, he apparently told his house keeper that he was becoming convinced that the species were set.

 

[painted wolf]

If he did, he never mentioned it to anyone else in his copious journal entries and personal letters.

Even if he did, it would make no difference. Evolution does not depend on Darwin, indeed all Darwin suggested was the first natural mechanism for it.
Evolution was being discussed for decades prior to Darwin's birth.
Alfred Russel Wallace was also working on a theory of evolution, but he did not yet have a mechanism.
Long before that Lamarck had also proposed a hypothesis on evolution. But his mechanism was found to be unworkable.
Evolutionary thought goes back to Aristotle.

wa:do

 

[Eddy Daze]

Even further back than aristotle apparently



from the link

" We accept evolution, but not that the forms of the species are changing. The bodies are all already there, but the soul is evolving by changing bodies and by transmigrating from one body to another. I have evolved from my childhood body to my adult body, and now my childhood body is extinct. But there are many other children. Similarly, all the species are now existing simultaneously, and they were all there in the past.
For example, if you are traveling in a train, you find first class, second class, third class; they are all existing. If you pay a higher fare and enter the first-class carriage, you cannot say, "Now the first class is created." It was always existing. So the defect of the evolutionists is that they have no information of the soul. The soul is evolving, transmigrating, from one compartment to another compartment, simply changing place. The Padma Purana says that there are 8,400,000 species of life, and the soul evolves through them. This evolutionary process we accept: the soul evolves from aquatics to plants, to insects, to birds, to animals, and then to the human forms. But all these forms are already there. They do not change. One does not become extinct and another survive. All of them are existing simultaneously."

 

[painted wolf]

From what link?

just a couple of points:

I have evolved from my childhood body to my adult body, and now my childhood body is extinct.

That is growing up, not evolving.

But all these forms are already there. They do not change. One does not become extinct and another survive. All of them are existing simultaneously

Obviously someone never saw a fossil. Unless there is a T.rex kicking around somewhere still?
You are not the same as your parents or grand parents... that is change. The Great Dane is not the same as a Poodle, that is change.

wa:do

 

[Eddy Daze]

I have found the missing link !

Evolution in Fact and Fantasy

how do I go off the board without my text dissapearing?

I think certain changes are accepted in body types,because even individuals can chnge radically from embryo to adult, but not one species becoming a new one, I think Prabhupada means there is a universal set amoun of species, the molds are there indefinitely

 

[painted wolf]

But that change from child to adult is not evolution.
Evolution is a process of generations not individuals.

If there is a set amount of species, we are due for a boom in creation. We have been loosing species at a horrific rate since the ice age.

Who replaces the Mammoth and the Dodo?

We see species changing. Like the lizards of Pod Mrcaru.

wa:do

 

[rockondon]

I think Prabhupada means there is a universal set amoun of species, the molds are there indefinitely

The number of species alive today account for only 1% of the number of species that once walked this earth.
The molds (or rather, DNA) are changed by mutations. We have 100+ mutations in us. Therefore, the 'molds' change. Lots of time = big changes.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, frogs and many other animals lay eggs by the hundreds. A snake gives birth to scores of snakes at a time, and if all were allowed to exist, there would be a great disturbance. Therefore, big snakes devour the small snakes

Therefore, Srila believes that God was too incompetent to make snake species that can create a few healthy offspring, thus He sits back and watches countless babies get devoured. His god is incompetent and a monster.

I think certain changes are accepted in body types,because even individuals can chnge radically from embryo to adult, but not one species becoming a new one

Speciation has been observed numerous times.

 

[Eddy Daze]

These material bodies are said to be temporary structures, so in the scheme of things , not such a big deal as is made out. We know punishment works otherwise we would not build prison houses, and we do not judge the builders of those places to be incompetent and monsters

 

[painted wolf]

If its no big deal, then why deny the evidence that species evolve?

The material body simply moves in its direction independent of the soul.

wa:do

 

[rockondon]

These material bodies are said to be temporary structures, so in the scheme of things , not such a big deal as is made out.

Translation: Yes there is the needless slaughter of countless babies by my 'loving' god but what's the big deal?
I'm sure that in the days where the bible was used to justify slavery they likely used a similar approach - you're my slave right now but don't worry, your material body is just a temporary structure.

We know punishment works otherwise we would not build prison houses, and we do not judge the builders of those places to be incompetent and monsters

We don't call them that because they didn't create the problem, they offer a solution. If God created species as is then He created the problem, the solution being needless devouring of weak, suffering offspring. Why didn't he arrange it so only a few healthy ones would be born? Is needless slaughter part of His 'master plan'?

I'm not bashing God here, I'm merely pointing out the absurdities behind Srila's god. I'm suggesting that God was competent enough to create this world well enough such that life formed on its own, and flourishes on its own without the need for His intervention. This explains the innumerable 'mistakes' in the animal kingdom such as species where so many unhealthy babies are born for each healthy one, animals with sightless eyes, men with nipples (we have mammary glands too, yikes!), etc. I'm suggesting that God is not incompetent, nor a monster.

If evolution is false, why did God create such wanton and needless death, why do some species of cave fish and salamanders have useless sightless eyes, why do whales have legbones and snakes have pelvises, why do I have nipples and an appendix and a tailbone and get goosebumps etc etc.

But all these things make sense if evolution is true. The appendix equivalent in other animals allows them to digest cellulose, the tailbone is a remnant of a lost tail, and when my fur-covered ancestors got goosebumps it raised their body hair, making them appear larger to ward off predators. Life makes sense in light of evolution, but if you don't want to accept it then feel free to believe in a god that is stupid, incompetent, and likes to kill babies needlessly. If I were you I'd rather believe that He wisely created matter and allowed the world to develop naturally from there.

 

[Eddy Daze]

Translation: Yes there is the needless slaughter of countless babies by my 'loving' god but what's the big deal?
I'm sure that in the days where the bible was used to justify slavery they likely used a similar approach - you're my slave right now but don't worry, your material body is just a temporary structure.

We don't call them that because they didn't create the problem, they offer a solution. If God created species as is then He created the problem, the solution being needless devouring of weak, suffering offspring. Why didn't he arrange it so only a few healthy ones would be born? Is needless slaughter part of His 'master plan'?

I'm not bashing God here, I'm merely pointing out the absurdities behind Srila's god. I'm suggesting that God was competent enough to create this world well enough such that life formed on its own, and flourishes on its own without the need for His intervention. This explains the innumerable 'mistakes' in the animal kingdom such as species where so many unhealthy babies are born for each healthy one, animals with sightless eyes, men with nipples (we have mammary glands too, yikes!), etc. I'm suggesting that God is not incompetent, nor a monster.

If evolution is false, why did God create such wanton and needless death, why do some species of cave fish and salamanders have useless sightless eyes, why do whales have legbones and snakes have pelvises, why do I have nipples and an appendix and a tailbone and get goosebumps etc etc.

But all these things make sense if evolution is true. The appendix equivalent in other animals allows them to digest cellulose, the tailbone is a remnant of a lost tail, and when my fur-covered ancestors got goosebumps it raised their body hair, making them appear larger to ward off predators. Life makes sense in light of evolution, but if you don't want to accept it then feel free to believe in a god that is stupid, incompetent, and likes to kill babies needlessly. If I were you I'd rather believe that He wisely created matter and allowed the world to develop naturally from there.

The material of the body is not the living part, it is the soul that is important and the law of Karma here.

What solution do you have?

 

[Sunstone]

We know punishment works otherwise we would not build prison houses, and we do not judge the builders of those places to be incompetent and monsters

Speak for yourself.

 

[rockondon]

The material of the body is not the living part, it is the soul that is important and the law of Karma here.

Thats why torture and slavery in the name of God is perfectly acceptable.

What solution do you have?

Reconcile beliefs with human knowledge. As our understanding grows, I see no reason why our spirituality cannot grow with it.

 

[Eddy Daze]

Theidea would be to find the absolute truth, and I do not think we can judge that absolute, no matter how it appears to us. If anyone is torturing today in the name of God, then maybe they are fooling themselves regards the absolute.

some people will be using god as an excuse for economic gain, I think most torture, war , suffering and starvation are caused not by religion but mans love of money, and its clearly stated that this is the root of all evil.

I find animal killing for the sake of taste buds abominable, God advises against this, but it is going on wholesale, the meateating was once regulated but then put an end to in both the bible and the vedic writings.These fellow creatures are suffering on factory farms so we can cheaply delite our belly

 

[rockondon]

Theidea would be to find the absolute truth, and I do not think we can judge that absolute, no matter how it appears to us.

Your idea is to pursue something which you admit can never be found. Your idea is to set yourself up for failure and when you fail, believe whatever fairy tale you happened to be indoctrinated in or sounds good to you. A common tactic to avoid truth in favor of unsubstantiated, often false and contradicting religious claims.