Posts Tagged ‘Evolution’

If everything is happening automatic because of Evolution

December 7, 2017

I respect scientists; they are intelligent people; they discover and invent things and I am thankful to them. I buy things from the market discovered and invented by them and I am entitled to use those things as I have paid for them. I am grateful to the technicians and other artisans who make things convenient for me and I pay them for their services. I enjoy sports and I pay for that. I enjoy artists; they paint beautiful paintings; and I do pay for their paintings if I like to buy them. 

Thread: “If everything is happening automatic because of Evolution ” Forum
Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 1: 

Paarsurrey wrote:

I am an ordinary man in the street. I don’t have any claim to scholarship or any piety. I respect scientists; they are intelligent people; they discover and invent things and I am thankful to them. I buy things from the market discovered and invented by them and I am entitled to use those things as I have paid for them. I am grateful to the technicians and other artisans who make things convenient for me and I pay them for their services. I enjoy sports and I pay for that. I enjoy artists; they paint beautiful paintings; and I do pay for their paintings if I like to buy them.

They are my partners in my life; but I don’t think I have any reason to prefer one for the other. Why should I consider a Scientist to have any hegemony over me as the Atheism people make me believe?

Science is not the whole of human life; it is only a part of it. The Scientists never create anything from nothing; they only discover things that are very much already in existence in the Universe. I respect the Scientists but I admire, thank and gratify the One-True-God who had in reality created everything in me and around me. I think I have a right to do so. Am I right, please?




Is it rational to think evolution is eternal?

October 27, 2017

Thread: “Why some people reject evolution ” Forum: Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 80: 
———- wrote:
——— wrote:
[Replying to post 75 by ————]

You are missing the point. Just because one can understand a process without including intelligence being involved, does not mean intelligence is not involved.

Wrong again. I understand completely. You are simply adding in an unnecessary element for no reason other than to fit some non rational, faith based belief.

The process itself works without inserting ghosts, or goblins, or gods. No magic required, so why inject it?

some non rational

Paarsurrey wrote:

Isn’t it more or most irrational to believe that evolution is eternal, please? There must be a time/stage when it got going. Right, please?
If it could start off at a time/stage, then it could cease at a time/stage, rationally,please. Right, please?
Evolution is OK, but it is not eternal. Right,please?

Science does no miracles

August 12, 2015

<>Thread:”It is just evolution”

Please click the post # below to view,comments and or join discussion on the topic.

Post #1

paarsurrey Wrote:

Science does no miracles and science does not claim to have done any. The scientific progress is just a part of evolution of man. No credit deserves to be given to the philosophers, mathematicians and or to the scientists in this regard.
Does one agree to it?

The participants in this discussion:
If they belong to a revealed religion,

  • They should quote from the revealed scripture for their claim and reason and then elaborate their viewpoint.

Those who fall back on science for support, they should quote for their relative claims and reasons from:

  • A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
  • From a text book of science
  • Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

and then elaborate their viewpoint. This is for ease of comparison.
Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.

Post #6
Red Economist

Red Economist Wrote :

amazingly, I sort of agree with this, but thats because I think of scientific knowledge as the work, achievement and property of all mankind. In very general economic terms, without the work of many people providing the kind of resources to feed and educate these scientists, etc, their discoveries would not be possible. more specifically, scientists drew on others work or relied on others to make their discoveries. it is sort of an illusion that a singe person ‘magically’ came up an idea and tends to reflect notions of intellectual property rather than the process of sharing ideas that is part of science.

e.g. the fact that darwin is credited with evolution ignores the contribution of other scientists and thinkers in this process such as Alfred Russell Wallace. Issac Newton is credited with major breakthroughts with developing Calculus, but there is a controversey over whether Gottfreid Leibniz got there first. Not sure about Einstein, but it was the Engish Physist Arthur Eddignton who actually demonstrated the validity of the general theory of relativity.

Paarsurrey liked this.

Truthful Religion is natural; science is not that natural

April 19, 2014

I find the following article at the blog “patheos” very interesting and informative:
“Is science more “unnatural” than religion?”
March 21, 2014 By Connor Wood

I give below its synopsis:

• “Robert McCauley, a philosopher and cognitive scientist at Emory University, thinks that religion is natural, but science isn’t.”
• McCauley has “outlined in a recent book – titled, aptly, Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not – is that religious beliefs arise from our basic, evolved cognitive predispositions and biases, while science is only possible when we struggle hard to overcome those biases. “
• “Cognitive scientists reason that the single most important feature of our ancestral environments was always other people. We learned how to hunt and fish from others, for example. As children, we learned our language from others. “
• “McCauley believes that maturationally natural systems get at the core difference between science and religion – religion relies on them, while science shuns them.”
• “Science, in other words, is hard. And religion is just what comes naturally.”

This is just to introduce to the article consisting of 1387 words, approximately. The viewers are suggested to read the article in original to form their own opinion independently and without bias.

In search of truth

April 1, 2014

The viewers are advised to visit the link given below to know the context of discussion and then from their independent and sincere opinion.

paarsurrey | April 1, 2014 at 2:53 pm

@ anaivethinker
“. . I would have to try to make evolution and religion work together. . .
. . .
. . .
Do you have a similar experience? Do you know someone with a similar experience? Feel free to comment or question about anything.” Unquote

The observation was correct that evolution/science work together; but the decision was incorrect to become Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic.

If Bible/Christianity was wrong on occasions; it does not prove Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism automatically correct. Truth of Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism must be proved correct on its own merit.

Truth must be proved of every religions or non-religion on some common criteria.

So your search for truth is incomplete. You went from one extreme to another extreme.

Thanks and regards

Suffering: the steps of evolution would stop dead

March 24, 2014

March 24, 2014 at 10:11 pm

Further on suffering

“The profound philosophy of life and death, the innumerable shades in between, and the role they play in shaping life and improving its quality are all noteworthy.

We know that life is only a positive value, and death merely means its absence, and no sharp border exists separating one from the other. It is a gradual process; the way life travels towards death and ebbs out, or from the other direction we view death travelling towards life gaining strength, energy and consciousness as it moves on. This is the grand plan of creation.

It is the perpetual struggle between life and death that subjects the living to a constant state of trial, so that all who conduct themselves best survive and gain a higher status of existence.

It is this constant struggle between the forces of life and the forces of death which provide the thrust to the living to perpetually move away from death or towards it. It may result either in the improvement or deterioration in the quality of existence in the wide spectrum of evolutionary changes. This is the essence and spirit of evolution.

Suffering could only be considered objectionable if it were created as an independent entity with no meaningful role to play in the scheme of things. But without the taste of suffering or an awareness of what it means, the feeling of relief and comfort would also vanish. Without an encounter with pain and misery, most certainly, joy and happiness would lose all meaning. Indeed the very existence of life would lose purpose, and the steps of evolution would stop dead in their tracks.

Mirza Tahir Ahmad
(With little changes)


“Survival of the Fittest” plays its role in suffering and happiness

March 19, 2014

March 19, 2014 at 12:12 am

I would like my friends here to read the following for a preliminary understanding of “The Question of Suffering”:
“When we explore the history of evolution in search of the causative factors which gave birth to the sensory organs as life evolved, we can safely conclude that right from the beginning they have always been the sense of loss and gain. We identify the journey of evolution to be a long procession of some obscure realization of gains and losses which gradually evolved the sensory organs to register the presence of pleasure and pain, comfort and suffering.

If we look back at the lower forms of life, at the first few rungs of the ladder and compare them with the higher forms of life near the top, it is not difficult to recognize that in real terms the evolution is the evolution of consciousness. Life is constantly spiraling up from a lesser state of consciousness to a higher state with continuously sharpening faculties of awareness.

The awareness of gain and loss is rather vague and obscure in the beginning, and we cannot locate a definite seat for this awareness in the anatomy of rudimentary organisms. But we know from their reactions to the surrounding elements and situations that they do possess some defused sense of awareness. It is this diffused inexplicable sense which is employed somehow by the Creator to initiate the sense of perception in life.

This sense of perception gradually developed and created its own seats in the organism of life. It is these seats which got precipitated ultimately into what we know now as sensory organs. The creation of the brain was not a separate and unrelated incident. No development of sensory organs could be meaningful without a corresponding development of a central nervous system and a simultaneous evolution of the brain, which could decipher the messages transmitted by the sensory organs.

Evidently therefore, the brain developed as an essential counterpart of the system of perception. The more evolved the consciousness becomes, the more intense grows the sense of loss and gain felt by specific nerve centers which translate the awareness of loss as suffering, and gain as pleasure, to the mind through the brain. The less developed the consciousness, the smaller is the awareness of suffering. The same goes for happiness.

Thus, the sensory provisions for the recognition of suffering and happiness are indispensable to each other. It is quite likely that if the level to which suffering can be experienced is reduced, its opposite number, the capacity to feel pleasure and happiness, will also be lowered to the same degree. The two seem to participate equally in propelling the wheel of evolution; both possess equal significance. One cannot be done away with alone without the other, thus nullifying the entire creative plan of evolution.

We understand from the Holy Quran, that God did not create suffering as an independent entity in its own right, but only as an indispensable counterpart of pleasure and comfort. The absence of happiness is suffering, which is like its shadow, just as darkness is the shadow cast by the absence of light. If there is life, there has to be death; both are situated at the extreme poles of the same plane, with innumerable grades and shades in between.

As we move away from death, we gradually move towards a state of life which is happiness; as we move away from life, we move away with a sense of loss and sorrow towards death. This is the key to understanding the struggle for existence, which in turn leads to a constant improvement in the quality of life and helps it to achieve the ultimate goal of evolution. The principle of the “survival of the fittest” plays an integral role in this grand scheme of evolution.”

Mirza Tahir Ahmad


March 13, 2014

March 13, 2014 at 9:29 pm

Human compassion cannot finish suffering absolutely without destroying life itself.

Like one cannot destroy North Pole without destroying the South Pole.

There are two wheels of Evolution; suffering and happiness.

If one wants only Happiness; that is the plan of the Heaven.

Then one should do good deeds and seek help and mercy of God one would enter the paradise; there is all Happiness there; else one would end in all-suffering the South Pole of Happiness.

Quran 67:2-3 mentions it clearly:

Blessed is He in whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things;

It is He Who has created death and life that He might try you—which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving.

One who wants to understand the “The Question of Suffering”; should read the following Essay on the above question:

It has to be a conscious Creator to endow death with consciousness and create life out of it

March 13, 2014

The creation and evolution of sensory organs owe their existence to interminably long encounters with loss or gain. They are the two most potent creative factors created by God. All the five senses which we possess are the products of our awareness of them, as discussed before, which during a billion years of our evolution, gradually materialised into sensory perceptive mechanisms.

Suffering and happiness could not by themselves have created the mechanism of consciousness. To register their presence without such mechanisms, they themselves would cease to be. How then can nothingness create anything? Unconsciousness cannot design and create consciousness even in trillions of years.

It has to be a conscious Creator to endow death with consciousness and create life out of it. The Most Masterly Creator seems to have employed pain and pleasure in an, as yet, unknown manner to create the very organs which perceive them. Remove the pain as an instrument in the making of this masterpiece of creative wonder and life will be rendered into a senseless mass of vegetation, not even aware of itself.

Are a few odd cases of misery and deprivation too big a price to pay for the prodigious marvel of consciousness?

God the creator was not in a hurry to create the Universe and life in a jiffy

March 12, 2014

Please view Paarsurrey comments on the blog “UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES” for your valuable opinion, even if you differ.


paarsurrey says:
March 12, 2014 at 3:16 pm


Hi friend

You wrote:

“With regards to being “open”, that’s also where we differ. I am open to anything should the evidence present itself. Needing evidence before believing something is not being close-minded.
If you showed me objective evidence of a god, I assure you, I will believe you. Just like if someone captured the bigfoot and presented in front of everyone in the zoo, and after testing that the specimen is real, I will believe that the bigfoot does exist.
However, I would actually throw the argument of being “close-minded” back on you. You have closed your doors for any other gods, or any other possibilities (such as the non-existence of god, maybe god is not all-loving etc.) other than the one you have now. I watched a show where a creationist said, that if the Quran/Bible says that 2+2=5, he will not question it.
But he will work out how it is true. I think that’s the position you have adopted, by accepting your view as the absolute truth.” Unquote

Paarsurrey says:

I think I did not say that you are a close-minded person. I only told about myself that I am an open minded person; never hinting at you that you are a closed minded person. If I said, I apologize for that.

I don’t agree with those who say if Quran/Bible says (2+2= 5); I will believe that. I will definitely question it; yet it is a fact that Quran never says such untoward things; that is my experience with Quran.

I never adopted such a position. You definitely got me wrong. I accept Quran in ethical, moral and spiritual realms; and that is the purpose of the Revelation of Quran, it is clearly stated in its very beginning:

[2:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[2:2] Alif Lam Mim.
[2:3] This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous*,
* or truth seekers

In other than ethical, moral and spiritual fields which pertain to religion and not to science i.e. in secular, material and physical matters I will go with the facts and laws of the respective sciences and relative branches of the knowledge to which they specifically pertain.

I am not a creationist; in the sense that I believe that the human beings got evolved in millions of years.

he One-True-God spoke the Word “Be” and lo!, everything in the Universe started taking a shape, a formation, they could not refuse the command of the Creator; maybe it was a big-bang out of a black-hole perhaps but in billions of years, it came to the present form. The process is known as Evolution. The process continues, till the One-True-God speaks the Words “Not to be” and then it would stop; it would come to an end.

Thanks and regards

Does it help?