Kami Penentang Evolusi

[Swan]

Sori bro.. Kalau urusan Alkitab, sudah menyangkut iman, agak sedikit melenceng dari ranah ilmiah.
Di kitab dan agama yg saya anut, malah dibilang alam semesta diciptakan dari api (ledakan), lalu berputar pada orbitnya dan tidak sebentar.
Maaf saya nggak mau nerusin, karena bakalan rentan debat kusir yg tidak jelas.

Oke, kembali ke masalah utama.
Mengenai angka 1, sudah saya jelaskan di tret sebelah. Angka 1 itu muncul akibat limitasi dari suatu kekosongan (nol) atau limitasi dari tak terhingga (unlimited).
Limitasi ini bisa berupa limit oleh benda, bisa pula limitasi oleh pikiran kita sendiri (slave of our mind).

Umur alam semesta terbukti dari ada bintang terjauh (tercatat hingga saat ini, 2010) yg jaraknya 14 milyar tahun cahaya. Jadi?
Jika dibilang cahaya langsung seketika sampai, oke... gpp... mengapa tidak ada bintang yg jaraknya 15 milyar, 100 milyar, 1 trilyun tahun cahaya? Mungkin ada. Cahayanya saja yg belum sampai ke bumi. Jika ada, bisa jadi umur alam semesta lebih tua dari itu.

Memang membahas sains yang dikaitkan dengan KITAB SUCI manapun, akan terasa berlebihan dan cenderung untuk dihubung-hubungkan. Saya melihatnya lebih ke sistematika nya. Mungkin yang dipahami oleh ilmuwan macam Hawking adalah bahwa SANG PENCIPTA (yang bukan personal seperti agama) menciptakan SISTEM, untuk selanjutnya sistem tersebut berjalan otomatis sesuai dengan HUKUM. Saya rasa akan merujuk kepada causa prima yang dibuat-buat kalau hal ini terus-menerus diperdebatkan, bukan menemukan solusi dan jawaban yang diinginkan.

Kitab Suci pun (apapun itu) adalah PRODUK SOSIAL dan BUDAYA. Tapi saya tidak akan bahas lebih jauh lagi tentang KS.

Ya, sampai saat ini masih tercatat umur semesta 13,7 MILYAR tahun. Mungkin bisa lebih.

[GEO]

Itulah sebabnya, jika kita memandang Sains, kita tidak dapat egois dalam menyama ratakan konsep TUHAN. Masing-masing agama memiliki konsep TUHAN yang dianggap paling benar. Maka nya sains bertindak sebagai penengah yang logis dan ilmiah.

bagaimana dengan Sang Creator ....setuju kah ?
saya sudah menyebut bahwa Hukum alam ada yang mengendalikan ...
inti sebenarnya yang saya selalu coba angkat apakah Hawking saat ini masih memiliki Iman ,kalau dia hanya berkutat pada Hukum Alam saja dan mengesampingkan adanya Sang pencipta ..dengan apa lagi saya menyebutnya
Atau hukum Alam yang di maksud Hawking adalah Hukum alam yang berdiri sendiri dari kehampaan masa lampau .....Hukum alam yang terbentuk tanpa kendali apapun

ya mungkin itu yang di maksud Hawking

[Swan]

bagaimana dengan Sang Creator ....setuju kah ?
saya sudah menyebut bahwa Hukum alam ada yang mengendalikan ...
inti sebenarnya yang saya selalu coba angkat apakah Hawking saat ini masih memiliki Iman ,kalau dia hanya berkutat pada Hukum Alam saja dan mengesampingkan adanya Sang pencipta ..dengan apa lagi saya menyebutnya
Atau hukum Alam yang di maksud Hawking adalah Hukum alam yang berdiri sendiri dari kehampaan masa lampau .....Hukum alam yang terbentuk tanpa kendali apapun

ya mungkin itu yang di maksud Hawking

Ya kau tanyakan saja dengan Hawking, atau kalau perlu, kau debat sekalian. Sekalian bilang ke Hawking kalau bumi itu tercipta dalam kurun waktu 6 HARI. Iman adalah keyakinan antara kamu dan Tuhanmu. Kalau Hawking menganggap SAINS adalah TUHAN, berarti ia beriman dengan Sains.

[GEO]

Ya kau tanyakan saja dengan Hawking, atau kalau perlu, kau debat sekalian. Sekalian bilang ke Hawking kalau bumi itu tercipta dalam kurun waktu 6 HARI. Iman adalah keyakinan antara kamu dan Tuhanmu. Kalau Hawking menganggap SAINS adalah TUHAN, berarti ia beriman dengan Sains.

jangan marah dong swan ,tak mungkin lah saya berdebat dengan Hawking

[GEO]

Didn’t Darwin Call the Evolution of the Eye Absurd?



Many people today insist that even Charles Darwin did not really believe his own ideas about evolution. They claim that he saw many flaws in the idea of natural selection as the agent of evolution, and that in his writings he expressed these misgivings. Some even claim that Darwin’s own words show he ultimately abandoned his belief in evolution. This is plainly not the case.
One very frequent “evidence” used to show that Darwin did not believe his own theory involved the human eye. In The Origin of Species, we read:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.1

Darwin called the evolution of the eye “absurd”! Doesn’t that show he really didn’t believe in evolution? Isn’t this proof enough?
If our reading stopped here, then yes, we might argue Darwin had given up on his theory. However, reading further we find the following:

“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei,2 as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.3

Now we see, by reading Darwin’s entire statement in context, that he in no way abandoned his theory. He did, indeed, indicate that the evolution of the eye was “absurd.” Nonetheless, his “reason” led him to accept that this “absurd” thing could actually occur by means of natural selection.
Continuing to address the problem of the human eye’s complexity, Darwin wrote the following in February 1860 in a personal correspondence with Asa Gray, a Professor of Natural History at Harvard:

. . . Now I will just run through some points in your letter. What you say about my book gratifies me most deeply, and I wish I could feel all was deserved by me. I quite think a review from a man, who is not an entire convert, if fair and moderately favourable, is in all respects the best kind of review. About the weak points I agree. The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder. 4

Darwin indicated that even though he was troubled by this concept, his “reason” would prevail. After all, there are many variations of eyes in nature, ranging from “simple” to complex. His presupposition that evolution was true, led him to believe that the increasing complexity of the eye was due to natural selection, and he left it at that. The how of this supposed progression was not explained by Darwin.
Darwin did describe the concept of human eye evolution as seemingly “absurd,” but his worldview caused him to accept natural selection as an adequate explanation.

[Swan]

jangan marah dong swan ,tak mungkin lah saya berdebat dengan Hawking

Saya tidak marah, kawan. Santai saja...

[bujangga]

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.1

yup.

sebenarnya dulu aku mau menanyakan ke bro "siapa" atas alasan apa MATA diciptakan oleh alam?
kehadiran mata seolah2 Alam menciptakan dengan tujuan. aku setuju..itu Absurd jika alam mampu memikirkan Mata harus ada

[Chair]

kenapa masih ada saja yang menyangkal evolusi? mungkin menarik jika di diskusikan secara mendalam disini.

[Chair]

Didn’t Darwin Call the Evolution of the Eye Absurd?



Many people today insist that even Charles Darwin did not really believe his own ideas about evolution. They claim that he saw many flaws in the idea of natural selection as the agent of evolution, and that in his writings he expressed these misgivings. Some even claim that Darwin’s own words show he ultimately abandoned his belief in evolution. This is plainly not the case.
One very frequent “evidence” used to show that Darwin did not believe his own theory involved the human eye. In The Origin of Species, we read:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.1

Darwin called the evolution of the eye “absurd”! Doesn’t that show he really didn’t believe in evolution? Isn’t this proof enough?
If our reading stopped here, then yes, we might argue Darwin had given up on his theory. However, reading further we find the following:

“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei,2 as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.3

Now we see, by reading Darwin’s entire statement in context, that he in no way abandoned his theory. He did, indeed, indicate that the evolution of the eye was “absurd.” Nonetheless, his “reason” led him to accept that this “absurd” thing could actually occur by means of natural selection.
Continuing to address the problem of the human eye’s complexity, Darwin wrote the following in February 1860 in a personal correspondence with Asa Gray, a Professor of Natural History at Harvard:

. . . Now I will just run through some points in your letter. What you say about my book gratifies me most deeply, and I wish I could feel all was deserved by me. I quite think a review from a man, who is not an entire convert, if fair and moderately favourable, is in all respects the best kind of review. About the weak points I agree. The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder. 4

Darwin indicated that even though he was troubled by this concept, his “reason” would prevail. After all, there are many variations of eyes in nature, ranging from “simple” to complex. His presupposition that evolution was true, led him to believe that the increasing complexity of the eye was due to natural selection, and he left it at that. The how of this supposed progression was not explained by Darwin.
Darwin did describe the concept of human eye evolution as seemingly “absurd,” but his worldview caused him to accept natural selection as an adequate explanation.

mas / mbak Geo, darwin itu pelengkap konsep evolusi dan keaneka ragaman hayati.

[bujangga]

kenapa masih ada saja yang menyangkal evolusi? mungkin menarik jika di diskusikan secara mendalam disini.

rasanya sudah panjang lebar bicara evolusi di sini.
baiknya anda definisikan dulu batasan evolusi anda bro sebelum semua salah kaprah