Various religious views on evolution

[firedragon]

You made me smile there when you said it doesn't matter if someone here says he is a king, the king, or whatever. Because this is, as you say, the internet. It's almost the same as claiming education about a subject.

I didn't mean to demean anyone. You know when coffee gets a bit strong steam comes out.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Firedragon, Sanskrit pronunciations also differ in different regions. 'Gyan' (Delhi), 'Nyana' (Thamiz) is an example. People pronounce words in their own way. One more reason is that even the original Vedic pronunciation also has been lost for some words. ॡ (ḹ) or ञ ña [ɲ] are examples.

Most North Indians cannot pronounce 'Kazhagam' correctly, however hard they may try, because their languages do not have that sound. Well, I am no linguist, but I have observed and listened to people. My sister-in-law is from a Tamil brahmin family.

"How in the world do you write a long vowel in English?"
This is how it should be written: 'vyavahAra' in Harvard-Kyoto (ASCII) and 'vyavahāra' in Diacritic.
An original long vowel lost to coalescence is sometimes marked with a double avagraha: सदाऽऽत्मा sadā'tmā ( ← सदा sadā + आत्मा ātmā) "always, the self"
Linguists have devised ways to represent sounds.

"By the way, I didn't know Ganesha was called Ek Danta. Why is that?"
Now that is a funny mythological story. VedaVyasa wanted to write SrimadBhagawatham (South Indian pronunciation) SrimadBhagawat (North Indian pronunciation), but he needed a scribe who could write fast. Ganesha offered his services on the condition that VedaVyasa should not stop his dictation. VedaVyasa put his own condition that Ganesha should write only after he understood the verse.

Ganesha, then broke one of his teeth and used the ocean as ink, but VedaVyasa inserted a difficult verse (Klishta Shloka) every now and then, to stop Ganesha in his writing while he, VedaVyasa, could gather his thought about what to write.

"Eka Danta"

See, the tip of one of his teeth is broken. That is how Ganesha is always depicted.

 

[Tiberius]

Relativity and evolution are two rather different topics. Evolution contrasts with what the holy scriptures say about how life came about on the earth, as well as the heavens. So if a person believes in evolution, how can he put his trust in God as outlined in the Holy Scriptures?

First of all, it only contradicts a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible. Lots of people view Genesis and the creation account as metaphorical, and there are plenty of Christians who have no problem with evolution.

Secondly, if you want to learn how the Earth came about, are you going to go to a book, or are you going to look at the Earth itself? Reality can't be wrong, you know. If you want to know what reality is, you should look at reality. And if reality and an old book say different things, then reject the book, because you sure can't reject reality.

 

[YoursTrue]

First of all, it only contradicts a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible. Lots of people view Genesis and the creation account as metaphorical, and there are plenty of Christians who have no problem with evolution.

Secondly, if you want to learn how the Earth came about, are you going to go to a book, or are you going to look at the Earth itself? Reality can't be wrong, you know. If you want to know what reality is, you should look at reality. And if reality and an old book say different things, then reject the book, because you sure can't reject reality.

Oh. I see that many religionists do believe in evolution, even though they claim the Bible is inspired by God. Also -- when you asked if I would go to a book, I thought at first you meant books about evolution. I've read them, studying basic evolution in school, read many treatises on evolution. I do not accept the theory. Because in the long run, it doesn't make sense to me, and no matter what a person may say, there is no proof that nullifies what the Bible says about creation.

 

[YoursTrue]

I didn't mean to demean anyone. You know when coffee gets a bit strong steam comes out.

Ummm insofar as it was meant, I think you told the truth.
Which reminds me though -- when Jesus was on trial, Pilate asked Jesus if he was a king. And they made fun of Jesus.

 

[firedragon]

"How in the world do you write a long vowel in English?"
This is how it should be written: 'vyavahAra' in Harvard-Kyoto (ASCII) and 'vyavahāra' in Diacritic.
An original long vowel lost to coalescence is sometimes marked with a double avagraha: सदाऽऽत्मा sadā'tmā ( ← सदा sadā + आत्मा ātmā) "always, the self"
Linguists have devised ways to represent sounds.

Oh. I didn't know that a capital A represents a long vowel. That's nice and thanks for telling me.

"By the way, I didn't know Ganesha was called Ek Danta. Why is that?"
Now that is a funny mythological story. VedaVyasa wanted to write SrimadBhagawatham (South Indian pronunciation) SrimadBhagawat (North Indian pronunciation), but he needed a scribe who could write fast. Ganesha offered his services on the condition that VedaVyasa should not stop his dictation. VedaVyasa put his own condition that Ganesha should write only after he understood the verse.

Ganesha, then broke one of his teeth and used the ocean as ink, but VedaVyasa inserted a difficult verse (Klishta Shloka) every now and then, to stop Ganesha in his writing while he, VedaVyasa, could gather his thought about what to write.

That's what you mean by pronunciation? I disagree that it's a pronunciation difference, it's a language difference. Because if you write a word that ends with "ath", and someone else ads an a and a ma to that word, it's a linguistic difference, not a pronunciation. If the Tamil's say the word that way, they are making it suit them. That's not a pronunciation issue.

A pronunciation issue is when lets say a Tamil person reads Sanskrit and pronounces a word differently. Like a westerner would have pronunciation problems reading an Indian language. I have noticed westerners who learned Hindi, they pronounce "Main" (I dont know if I am writing it correctly) quite strangely. As in Main is actually not main. The n is there to make it sound like the Indian would pronounce it. I don't know Hindi whatsoever. This is just one aspect I could think of.

See, the tip of one of his teeth is broken. That is how Ganesha is always depicted.

So he has only one proper tusk. That's the reason? One tooth aka ek dantha?

 

[Aupmanyav]

A pronunciation issue is when lets say a Tamil person reads Sanskrit and pronounces a word differently. Like a westerner would have pronunciation problems reading an Indian language. I have noticed westerners who learned Hindi, they pronounce "Main" (I dont know if I am writing it correctly) quite strangely. As in Main is actually not main. The n is there to make it sound like the Indian would pronounce it. I don't know Hindi whatsoever. This is just one aspect I could think of.

Yes, it is a pronunciation issue. A Bengali, a Tamil or a North Indian will pronounce the same word differently. Partha (a name of Arjuna aka Patha Mukherjee) will be pronounced as Partho Mukherjee in Bengali. 'Sandesh' (a Bengali sweet) will be pronounced as 'Sondesh' in Bengali.

You are right about 'Eka Dantha', writing it as perhaps it will be written in South India. Which is the place of origin of your family in India, if I am not being too inquisitive?

Ekadantha is a 2007 Indian Kannada-language comedy drama film directed and written by Bollywood actor - director Sachin starring Vishnuvardhan, Prema and Ramesh Aravind.
Ekadantha - Wikipedia

Eka Danta Vinayak Temple, Varanasi

 

[firedragon]

Yes, it is a pronunciation issue. A Bengali, a Tamil or a North Indian will pronounce the same word differently. Partha (a name of Arjuna aka Patha Mukherjee) will be pronounced as Partho Mukherjee in Bengali. 'Sandesh' (a Bengali sweet) will be pronounced as 'Sondesh' in Bengali.

You are right about 'Eka Dantha', writing it as perhaps it will be written in South India. Which is the place of origin of your family in India, if I am not being too inquisitive?

Ekadantha is a 2007 Indian Kannada-language comedy drama film directed and written by Bollywood actor - director Sachin starring Vishnuvardhan, Prema and Ramesh Aravind.
Ekadantha - Wikipedia

Did I say Eka Dantha? Anyway, Eka is correct. To mean single. It's correct Sanskrit. Singular. Unique.

No Aup. I have no known connection to India.

 

[Tiberius]

Oh. I see that many religionists do believe in evolution, even though they claim the Bible is inspired by God. Also -- when you asked if I would go to a book, I thought at first you meant books about evolution.

Why would I tell you to go and look in a book for evidence about the real world when the real world itself is all around you?

I've read them, studying basic evolution in school, read many treatises on evolution. I do not accept the theory. Because in the long run, it doesn't make sense to me, and no matter what a person may say, there is no proof that nullifies what the Bible says about creation.

Logical fallacy, argument from incredulity.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would I tell you to go and look in a book for evidence about the real world when the real world itself is all around you?



Logical fallacy, argument from incredulity.

The argument is: no proof, maybe as they call it, "circumstantial evidence," but that is combined with their theories. Another argument is that it simply is impossible. (incredulity)

 

[Tiberius]

The argument is: no proof, maybe as they call it, "circumstantial evidence," but that is combined with their theories. Another argument is that it simply is impossible. (incredulity)

Spoken like someone who has no idea what evolution is.

 

[F1fan]

The argument is: no proof, maybe as they call it, "circumstantial evidence," but that is combined with their theories. Another argument is that it simply is impossible. (incredulity)

Your dilemma is that many thousands of experts in biology do work that demonstrates evolution is a real, natural phenomenon, and they report their findings. You as a non-expert, with a biased religious view that openly is opposed to evolution, has no credibility to judge whether evolution is valid or not. That you reject evolution and do so without any expertise is nothing to brag about. You have no argument.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

So if you're a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, or of another religious belief, what does your religion teach about evolution.

Hi YoursTrue. Good afternoon. In my faith we believe in the inerrant Word of Yahweh. The Bible shows us that life on this planet is only a few thousand years old. Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution (and natural selection) occur. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities and increasing complexity, resulting from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy and it's something that should be rejected. Macroevolution has never been observed and is not scientific.

In 1980, the “Macroevolution Conference” was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a “turning point in the history of evolutionary theory.” Summarizing a range of opinions, he said: The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.

 

[syo]

So if you're a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, or of another religious belief, what does your religion teach about evolution.

I'm pagan. Evolution is a lie.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm pagan. Evolution is a lie.

How do you figure that, of course, as a pagan.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi YoursTrue. Good afternoon. In my faith we believe in the inerrant Word of Yahweh. The Bible shows us that life on this planet is only a few thousand years old. Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution (and natural selection) occur. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities and increasing complexity, resulting from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy and it's something that should be rejected. Macroevolution has never been observed and is not scientific.

In 1980, the “Macroevolution Conference” was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a “turning point in the history of evolutionary theory.” Summarizing a range of opinions, he said: The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions ofe, some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.

It seems to me that while there is claimed to be "evidence," primarily I suppose in the way of fossils, that evolution is a sure thing, it occurs to me that if someone believing in evolution, naturally stemming from abiogenesis, is categorically impossible realistically that is because of no true proof, and by that I mean, any real circumstantial evidence dead or alive, that evolution, yes, of the different branches or kinds of living organisms occurred, then what? Then how did life forms come about, and by life forms I mean the differences between such as gorillas and lions. Once an evolutionist gets to the point that there IS NO PROOF of the theory beyond conjecture, then what?

 

[syo]

How do you figure that, of course, as a pagan.

Evolution speaks of new species. Nothing is ''new'' in paganism.

 

[YoursTrue]

Spoken like someone who has no idea what evolution is.

You and others can say what you like about my understanding of evolution or lack of it. It does not change the fact that there must be an intelligent force behind life in the forms it is apparent in. That's what I see. We (you and I) see things differently.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution speaks of new species. Nothing is ''new'' in paganism.

Can you be a little detailed? I mean then how did humans come about, according to paganism? But if that's too deep, then forget it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution speaks of new species. Nothing is ''new'' in paganism.

OK, so then how did monkeys come about, according to paganism, of course.