Creation

Answer 1

The pace of evolution depends on how well adapted a species is to its environment and how stable the environment is. If a species is not well adapted to its environment then it will either evolve or go extinct. If the environment changes then the species living in it will have to adapt and evolve, or go extinct. If a species is well adapted to its environment and the environment is not changing then there will be no evolutionary pressure and no evolutionary process will occur. This kind of stability can be maintained for millions of years sometimes but ultimately every environment will change.

Answer 2

The above is not quite correct. Evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms, never stops. Variation by mutation, independent alignment of chromosomes, crossing over and random fertilization still goes on in species. The selection may be stabilizing if the environment is stable, but alleles change. Evolution and speciation are two things that flow seamlessly one into the other.

Answer 3

The question suggests that the asker is a bit confused about what constitutes a species. For all intents and purposes, we can replace the word 'species' with 'population'. Evolution concerns the changes in allele-frequencies in reproductively linked groups of organisms - populations. 'Species' is just a label that we attach to reproductively linked populations that share definitive features. Species do not become species: they already are, and always have been. Occasionally, we find reason to attach a new species-label to a particular population. Usually such reasons are found in increasing reproductive isolation and the divergence of phenotypes.

To elaborate, theories of evolution existed prior to Darwin - there was wide scientific acceptance of the principle that organisms evolved into new species. Prior to Darwin, the actual mechanism was uncertain. Darwin's breakthrough was natural selection, whereby organisms change by optimising to their environments. They do this either in response to change, or to exploit untapped environmental resources - think of the camel's adaptation to low rainfall/desert environments. Objectors to the theory of evolution claim that evolution is just a theory. They are correct. Objectors are wrong to suggest that, being a theory, evolution is not factual.

A theory is a statement of confidence, where a law (in science) is a numerically-provable fact, such as Newton's Law of Gravity. The absence of a mathematically-elegant formula (such as Newton's Law) does not reduce the validity and predictive usefulness of a theory.

Evolution is confidently demonstrated every day by the emergence of new antibiotic-resistant bacteria and by calici-virus-resistant rabbits. Challenging these organisms has killed off all but the few which are naturally resistant. Over time, the resistant strains become the main part of the population.

an angel reprsents immorality. This is because after you die you become an angel in which you will then be immortalized

Answer:

Both God and the human soul represent immortality. God, because he exists forever and makes immortality possible for us; and the soul because it is the vehicle of human immortality.

Yes! he did! Science/Creationists can prove that. It also is a possibility that God could have created the world through a "big bang." I question you, how could something create itself? Wouldnt it need a Creator? look at all the animals and all living things around you. Only God could have created anything so complex as your own body!
A Muslim's answer:

Obviously YES...

The question is: "If God created the world, then why most of the scientists don't say it?"

The modern science doesn't say directly that God created the world. So do they say the contrary? NO. They don't say anything about that. HOW? Very simple:

The scientific answer for how everything came into being is shortly as follows:

"The Laws of Nature made everything from dust clouds in the space."

You can find detailed information about this.. I am not going into the details.

As you see nothing is said on even God created everything or not. The answer will be obvious when we understand what are "The Laws of Nature" (LN).

When we study The Laws of Nature we conclude that:

1- The LN are laws and we know that if there is a law, then there is obviously a law-maker.

Explanatation: There are laws in countries. And these laws are put by someone (government in this case), they cannot exist by themselves and this is crystal clear. According to laws of a country, a person who, for example, robs a bank will be punished and imprisoned for, let's say, 10 years according TO THE LAWS OF THAT COUNTRY. Now we say that according to this and this laws of that country he was punished for 10 years. We don't say this and this laws put that person in the prison. Even if we say, we don't mean it in a direct way. He was put in the prison by the government according to some laws. Saying that he was sent to prison by this and this laws of that country doesn't mean that it was not done by the Government. Isn't it?

In the same way the LN exist, they are put in the Nature by someone and are controlled by the same Person who has put them. For example, one of the LN is that everything that has a non-zero mass attracts another thing that has a non-zero mass... This is a universal law and applies everywhere (This is also an evidence that there is only One Person who created and controls everything). So the dust particles in the space are attracted toward each other by this law... The collisions took place by the laws of momentum. Actually the mistake is in the interpretation. It should be said that "The Earth is held in an orbit according to the law of gravitational attraction, the attraction of the Sun." not "The Earth is held in an orbit by the law of gravitation." Still no problem, even if we say that we shouldn't understand the direct meaning. Otherwise, if we undestand the direct meaning in the example above and forget the government, we would be mistaken. Similarly, if we forget a Law-Maker, A Controller of those Laws, we would make greater mistake than that in the example.

2- What scientists say is not completely wrong. They are explaining something true, but interpreting it wrongly. Let me give an example to make this point clear.

We know that by the use of the modern technology we can control a huge machine by a computer. The computer is put somewhere away from the machine. Now a person is, for example, controls a car by computer sitting in a room. He drives the car and there is no one inside the car. A person unaware of modern technology tries to understand how that car is moving. He starts as follows:

1- The tires are rotating, that is why the car is moving.

2- The tires are rotated by the motor.

3- The motor is working by electricity.

4- The electricity is produced by a simple Natural Law - Motion of charged particles creates magnetic field and magnetic field changes the direction of moving charged particles. Moving charged particlesa creates electric current.

5- ...

...

Conclusion: There exist some laws and systems in that car and it is because of those laws and systems that the car moves. It is obvious that those systems and laws cannot exist there by themselves. There is obviously an engineer who has managed and put those systems and laws and it is him who is controlling it from outside of it... Driving a car from outside is something more complex and difficult and developed way of driving than driving it from inside it. Even if you don't see and you haven't seen the engineer of that car, you say that it is obviously made by someone. And even if you don't see the driver or any driver inside it, or near to it, still you say that it is being controlled by someone.

So all what we say - this is done by this, that is done because of this - are the explanations of the processes that are put in the universe by Someone All-Powerful and All-Wise. He has created everything and He is controlling everything. But it is not necessary for Him to be seen. I mean not being seen is never an evidence for non-existence of something, for example of the driver fo the car by computer.

Simply, everything MUST be created by someone and MUST be controlled by someone. And that person MUST be All-Powerful... etc. etc. Muslims call Him Allah meaning "The God, the One and only". Christians call him simply The God. The first step is that He exists and everything is created by Him.

According to Sanskrit Vedic texts: The Primeval man. He was sacrificed, and from his body elements of the natural universe were then created.

In some lineages of Hindu the Dharma, Purusha (sanskritpuruṣa, पुरुष "man, macranthropy", in sutraalso called puṃs "man") is the "world-soul" which pervades the universe. The vedasdeityare interpretations of the many facets of Purusha. According to the Rigvedic purusha-sukta, Purusha was dismembered by Brahma, Vishnu & Shiva -

In the rigveda, Purusha is described as a primeval giant that is sacrificed by the gods (see purushamedha) and from whose body the purushaand the varnas (castes) are built. He is described as having a thousand heads and a thousand feet. He emanated Virat, the female creative principle, from which he is reborn in turn after the world was made out of his parts.

In the sacrifice of Purusha, the Vedic chants were first created. The horses and cows were born, the brahminwere made from Purusha's mouth, the kshatriyafrom his arms, the vaisyafrom his thighs, and the shudra-1from his feet. The Moon was born from his mind, the Sun from his eyes, the heavens from his skull. Indra and Agni emerged from his mouth.

The parallel to Norse ymiris oftenpurushaconsidered to reflect the myth's origin in proto-indo-european-religion.

Purusha is the most misunderstood entity in Hinduism.

We have a grossly distorted concept of Purusha because our concept of Purusha is based on the literal meaning of Purusha (Rigveda 1.10.90). This makes us conclude that Purusha is surreal.

According to Manu Smriti 1.11, Purusha is same as Brahman. This means that Purusha is absolute fact and thus is directly compatible with science.

Purusha (Rigveda 1.10.90) is a symbolic description of the properties of the isometric component of our skeletal muscular system acting as a single unit.

That single unit is what we call Purusha.

It has to be mentioned here that the isometric component controls the isotonic component of our skeletal muscular system that brings about movements. Thus, Purusha, though by himself can't bring about any movement, has indirect control over each and every activity of our life.

We should associate every symbol mentioned in Rigveda 1.10.90 a property of isometric contraction of our skeletal muscular system. We must never take the literal meaning of the Mantras.

DECODED PURUSHA:

Rigveda 1.10.90 - 1:

Literal translation:

Purusha has thousand heads, thousand eyes and thousand feet. On every side of pervading earth he fills a space ten fingers wide.

Interpretation based on Brahma Jnana:

We think with the Unified Skeletal Muscle, feel with it and it facilitates or retards whatever we do. It is the outstanding unified symbol that keeps absolute facts as the center of our entire life.

Rigveda 1.10.90 - 12

Literal translation:

The Brahmana was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made.

His thighs became Vaisya, from his feet the Sudra was produced.

This is the most misunderstood Vedic Mantra.

The Varnas refer to efficiency our activities. There are four Varnas and thus four grades of efficiency.

We consider eating as an example.

1. The most efficient way of eating would one in which some one else keeps food in our mouth. (Brahmana Varna).

2. It is less efficient when we use our arms to reach our food. (Kshatriya Varna).

3. It is still less efficient when, in addition, we to lean forward using our thighs. (Vaishya Varna).

4. It is least efficient when we use our feet to take a step to reach the food. (Shudra Varna).

Rigveda 1.10. 90 - 14 and Manu Smriti 1.19 and 1.20

According to both of these, Purusha behaves as seven different Purushas, depending on which of the seven locations of it is active. {depending on the point towards which Purusha (Unified Skeletal Muscle) is contracted}.

These seven manifestations of Purusha (Brahman) are Indra, Shakti, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Shani and Yama. This is what we mean when we say all gods are manifestations of Brahman and that all gods spring from Brahman.

PURUSHA AND BRAHMAN:

Purusha has the entire range of the tone of our skeletal muscular system i.e. 0% - 100%.

Brahman has a tone exactly 50%. Thus, Brahman is the state in which Purusha can't felt. Brahman is the ideal state of Purusha.

Thus,

1. Purusha, according to Hindu mythology is a surreal character

2. According to Brahmajnana, it is the isometric component of our skeletal muscular system acting as a single unit

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahai and others. See also:

Is there evidence for Creation?

Can you show that God exists?

Seeing God's wisdom

God did. Who names you....your parents...your gaurdian? Well God didn't have a parent or gardian or anyone above or older than him...he has no beginning and end....so i guess God created the name God...

Another point of view:

Since human beings created language, it would have been a human who first coined the word "God" to describe what he imagined was his creator. The actual word 'god' is Old English and Germanic in origin. Other cultures have different words for the same idea.

The Mathematical Tabulation concerning the Year of "Adam's Creation" according to the Account of "Moses" (contained in the First Five Books of the Old Testament) is Absolute: 4004 - 4000 BC

---Old Testament Study Manual Vol. 1 Latter Day Saint Edition

This Calculation coincides with Bishop James Ussher (1581 - 1656).

His Result: 4004 BC

Note that this Conclusion Occurred During the Renaissance Era & thus, itself, was amidst MANY Forward Thinking Queries.

The First Latter Day Saint Leader, Joseph Smith, also agreed with the Chronology of Moses & went further a step to Calculate the Age of the Universe according to his Understanding:

And the Following Document agrees, from a "Christian" Perspective, by adding: "Today there are many Christians who accept the Reliability of Geologic Dating, but do not compromise the spiritual and historical inerrancy of God's word."

To this, I would like to add: If God's Word were Truly "Inerrant"-- Moses, as a repeater of "God's Words" would have therefore been "Inerrant", and Bishop Ussher's Chronology of Creation, based on his Calculations on the "Word of God through Moses", would have been Held as Admissible Fact in a Court Decision.

In Short, the Stories of ANY Religion are based in Myths cultivated by 200,000 years of Human History, which is Concluded upon in a More Accurate Manner in Scientific Articles.

Answer 1

Teach them both theories and allow them to choose for themselves what they would like to believe!

Answer 2

Unfortunately, there are no simple solutions for such a conundrum. As parents, you both have and feel the obligation to teach your children what you think is right and true. Whether or not creationists can be blamed for their refusal to learn why evolutionary theory is indeed the best explanation for life's diversity as demonstrated by our observations in biology is almost irrelevant to the real issue: that they do believe that creationism is right and true, and not evolution.

You have no alternative then, but to hope that your ex-wife is a reasonable person, and that you can manage to impart as many independent and critical thinking skills and as much knowledge on them as is necessary for them to find out for themselves why creationism is not a rational attitude.