-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
No, we are not. That is what you are saying....if we both admit to having "beliefs" about what we cannot prove, it just levels the playing field. You guys boast about having all this "evidence" for macro-evolution and yet when we examine it, it is all based on conjecture, suggestion and assumption, not on facts at all.
If you can't prove that what you believe is true, then stop saying as much. Teach your theory as an unproven hypothesis and stop people like Dawkins calling it fact, when it is nothing of the sort. If there is dishonesty...that is where it is.
We are proud to operate by faith because we are "believers"...you guys claim to be realists who judge things by facts.....the truth is you don't have "facts" when it comes to macro-evolution. Adaptation is provable and demonstrable...but beyond that is pure guesswork. Why can't you admit to a 'belief system'.....because that is what you have.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You don't seem to understand how this is done. We have evidence that supports our theory. Creationists do not appear to have any evidence at all.We have as much real evidence as you have, that he wasn't created.
gnostic
The Lost One
You seem to ignore the fact that "evidence" is based on interpretation. Who interprets the evidence and declares that evolution "must have" happened because no other explanation will fit into their preconceived scenario? Isn't it the people who already believe it? Bias much?
Wow, you are to talk.
You posted up a bunch of pictures of animals and say they are all due to creation and Intelligent Design, but that only based on “your interpretations”.
You posted up these pictures that have no contexts as to being “created” or “designed”, because of your say-so.
Your interpretations are based nothing more than wishful thinking and red herring.
So you remember that post that you got from chemical composition of human body?
You had shown illustration/chart as “proof” for creation, that human is made out of dust.
What you didn’t do, is that you didn’t bother to read and understand the rest of the article, where it never show that human body is never made out dust.
The three most essential makeup of living matters, are biological compounds of proteins, carbohydrates and dna, they are not composition of “dust”.
You are reinterpreting chart to suit your agenda, without bothering to understanding the rest of article, is just another example that you are not capable of being honest with interpretations of evidences.
This is exactly how I see your suggestions and assertions. Wishful thinking is not science...and yet macro-evolution is based on what science "believes" not on what can be established without doubt. If you can't prove something, you need "faith" to "believe" it. That is a fact.
When God says that he created man 'from the dust of the ground', he was speaking to those who were not familiar with the composition of matter. He was not addressing scientists. We are all made from the same basic materials. We are all just a collection of atoms and molecules, but composed in such unique ways as to produce all that we see on earth and beyond.
Creation is not an accident.
This is an accident....
What do you think scientists do? Show us evidence for macro-evolution that doesn't involve suggestions and a chart?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
This is exactly how I see your suggestions and assertions. Wishful thinking is not science...and yet macro-evolution is based on what science "believes" not on what can be established without doubt. If you can't prove something, you need "faith" to "believe" it. That is a fact.
When God says that he created man 'from the dust of the ground', he was speaking to those who were not familiar with the composition of matter. He was not addressing scientists. We are all made from the same basic materials. We are all just a collection of atoms and molecules, but composed in such unique ways as to produce all that we see on earth and beyond.
Creation is not an accident.
This is an accident....
What do you think scientists do? Show us evidence for macro-evolution that doesn't involve suggestions and a chart?
Poor Deeje, still refusing to even try to learn what is and what is not evidence and wondering why she can't get any.
When he couldn't find any conflicting scenario between the information put there for about 1400years versus the modern scientfic advancements made he wrote this nonsense.
"so nebulous that there is very little opportunity for disproof, and they can be made to fit just about any reasonable observation. They can be entirely derived from Aristotle’s well-known statement about epigenesis"
This Holly book is not only for the 21st century use, it is intended by Allah to be the guide(manual) of human beings untill the end of time. and I am agreement that the information is accurate, but some how blurry untill it is researched by scientists ( quran's info as a start point or just from scratch)
BTW there are a lot of verses that are currently not understood even by the native arabic speakers and may be just a signs for the comming generations.
Do you know about the body of Ramesus II of egypt and the promise allah made by the time of exodus? fullfiled in our era but was just a vague unclear for the past generations except some one genius understands and start researching on it. I don't understand what other evidence will some one who can critically(without bias like you guys) think would need.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No nonsense there. Mohammed knew no more than the ancient Greeks did. There was nothing amazing about his writings.
Everybody is on to this weak attempt by Muslims to justify their faith. Perhaps you should try a different tactic. As it is you are merely making your religion look rather foolish.
Islam is not totally without merit, but you are beginning to make it look that way.
gnostic
The Lost One
We are still not made out of clay or silt soil, Deeje.
There are no silicate particles or minerals in our body.
You cant turn silicon into carbon atoms, not without splitting atom. There are 14 protons and normally 14 neutrons in a silicon nucleus. While carbon has 6 protons, and normally 6 neutrons. (Different isotopes would have more or less neutrons in the nucleus.)
Electrons are only bonded to the nucleus by weak nucleus force, but strong nucleus force holds everything together within atomic nucleus, which the protons and neutrons.
It would require tremendous forces and energy to split the atoms, and that would cause radioactivity or harmful radiations.
Nature is not an accident.
Evolution doesn't describe accident.
You said you believe in adaption, well evolution is adaption at population level, over number of generations, where the changes to the genes are passed on.
The changes don't have to be huge or very different.
But who am I talking to?
I am talking to person who refused to learn basic biology. Unlike you, I am still learning and I am willing to learn more. And I am willing to look at the evidences without my preconceptions and belief.
Creation, on the other hand, is trying to describe event which defy natural or physical laws, which can only be described as "miracle".
When Genesis describe the first day, he created light from just saying a few words, for example, "Let there be light". That's not natural, it is like magic or witchcraft, where witches would incant some spells.
Only primitive and superstition people would believe that such things being possible. The Egyptians believed in such miracles, where saying some words will create something out of nothing.
And from religious perspective, the God creating light from nothing but spoken words, that is the same wishful thinking fantasy as the Egyptian superstitions.
It doesn't need God to explain the natural forces or natural properties of materials or matters. You don't need the supernatural to explain the nature.
gnostic
The Lost One
What make you think it was Ramesses ruling at the time of Moses' exodus?
The Qur'an provide no dates to when the exodus out of Egypt took place, nor the name of the king.
The Bible do provide dates, but it is still not easy to pinpoint it, since it doesn't match historical records and archaeological evidences, and like the Qur'an provide no name as to the Egyptian king.
For instance, in 1 Kings 6:1, when Solomon started building his temple (in the 4th year of his reign), it say that 480 years had passed since Moses liberated and led the Israelite out of Egypt. Assuming that Solomon is a real king, his temple building project would have started in 967 BCE. Adding 480 years to 967 BCE, will get you 1447 BCE.
1447 BCE is too early for Ramesses II, who reigned between 1279 and 1213. Ramesses II belonged to the 19th dynasty. 1447 BCE would put it in the reign of Thutmose III, reign 1479 to 1425 BCE, 18th dynasty.
All anyone can do, is speculate, who was king of Egypt at that time.
But the other possibility is that both the Bible and Qur'an are just myths. In that case, no evidences are possible, since Moses didn't exist.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
The very definition of bias is in the words I bolded, and you've the nerve
to claim you are the one who does critical objective analysis.
Audie
Veteran Member
ecco
Veteran Member
But you haven't even done that. All you have done, regarding ToE, is state your opinion that it is wrong.
Regarding the OP; for-creationists-show-evidences-for-creation-of-man, you haven't shown one single shred of evidence other than your opinion on your interpretation of the bible.
ecco
Veteran Member
Nonsense. YOU posted a long cut and paste to show how prescient and accurate the Koran was regarding sperm.
I posted an article showing that everything stated in the Koran had been known for hundreds of years before your "messenger" ever wrote anything. In other words, he wrote what was common knowledge at the time and people like you get all giddy and claim he must have gotten his info straight from Allah. What utter nonsense.
Now you go off on a completely different tangent to again try to show how accurate your Koran is. Do you really think I'm going to take the time to disprove another of your silly notions? You made your case with the sperm thing. You were shown to be completely wrong. You failed, miserably.
Do I have a bias? Yep, I sure do. I am biased against people who post incredibly ridiculous nonsense, are called out on it and then post another different bunch of incredibly ridiculous nonsense.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
As far as I can tell, you have zero evidence that man was created (and by the specific god you worship), or you would have presented it by now.We have as much real evidence as you have, that he wasn't created.
All existing evidence points to the fact that lifeforms evolve over time, including man.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
You seem to ignore the fact that "evidence" is based on interpretation. Who interprets the evidence and declares that evolution "must have" happened because no other explanation will fit into their preconceived scenario? Isn't it the people who already believe it? Bias much?
Then tell us what features a fossil would need in order for you to accept it as evidence for humans and chimps evolving from a common ancestor. Tell us what shared genetic markers you would accept as evidence for humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor.
Or is there no observations from fossils or genetics you would ever accept as evidence for common ancestry between chimps and humans?
Yes, because what science already suspects is accurate. That's why the fossils match the predictions made by the theory of evolution. If you think this is wrong, then please show that there are no fossils with a mixture of human and ape features.
The theory of evolution makes the prediction that we should see matching nested hierarchies for morphology and genetics. When the evidence matches the predictions made by the theory then that is evidence for the theory. That's how evidence works.
What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as a missing link? Or will you never accept any fossil as being a missing link, no matter it looks like?
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
So you are saying that ID does not have evidence?
How are fossils and DNA sequences not facts?
If you won't accept any observation as being evidence for evolution then it is disingenuous to ask for evidence.
Here are the direct words of those scientists who are not so cynical to appreciate the world out side their box
H) Scientists’ Comments on the Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran:
"The following are some comments of scientists1 on the scientific miracles in the Holy Quran. All of these comments have been taken from the videotape entitled This is the Truth. In this videotape, you can see and hear the scientists while they are giving the following comments. (To view the RealPlayer video of a comment, click on the link at the end of that comment.
1) Dr. T. V. N. Persaud is Professor of Anatomy, Professor of Pediatrics and Child Health, and Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. There, he was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy for 16 years. He is well-known in his field. He is the author or editor of 22 textbooks and has published over 181 scientific papers. In 1991, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists. When he was asked about the scientific miracles in the Quran which he has researched, he stated the following:
“The way it was explained to me is that Muhammad was a very ordinary man. He could not read, didn’t know [how] to write. In fact, he was an illiterate. And we’re talking about twelve [actually about fourteen] hundred years ago. You have someone illiterate making profound pronouncements and statements and that are amazingly accurate about scientific nature. And I personally can’t see how this could be a mere chance. There are too many accuracies and, like Dr. Moore, I have no difficulty in my mind that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which led him to these statements.”
Professor Persaud has included some Quranic verses and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad in some of his books. He has also presented these verses and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad at several conferences.
2) Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson is the Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Professor of Molecular and Human Genetics at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. Formerly, he was Professor of Ob-Gyn and the Chairman of the Department of Ob-Gyn at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. He was also the President of the American Fertility Society. He has received many awards, including the Association of Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology Public Recognition Award in 1992. Professor Simpson studied the following two sayings of the Prophet Muhammad :
{In every one of you, all components of your creation are collected together in your mother’s womb by forty days...}2
{If forty-two nights have passed over the embryo, God sends an angel to it, who shapes it and creates its hearing, vision, skin, flesh, and bones....}3
He studied these two sayings of the Prophet Muhammad extensively, noting that the first forty days constitute a clearly distinguishable stage of embryo-genesis. He was particularly impressed by the absolute precision and accuracy of those sayings of the Prophet Muhammad . Then, during one conference, he gave the following opinion:
“So that the two hadeeths (the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad ) that have been noted provide us with a specific time table for the main embryological development before forty days. Again, the point has been made, I think, repeatedly by other speakers this morning: these hadeeths could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available [at] the time of their writing . . . . It follows, I think, that not only there is no conflict between genetics and religion but, in fact, religion can guide science by adding revelation to some of the traditional scientific approaches, that there exist statements in the Quran shown centuries later to be valid, which support knowledge i
the Quran having been derived from God.”
3) Dr. E. Marshall Johnson is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Developmental Biology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. There, for 22 years he was Professor of Anatomy, the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy, and the Director of the Daniel Baugh Institute. He was also the President of the Teratology Society. He has authored more than 200 publications. In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Johnson said in the presentation of his research paper:
“Summary: The Quran describes not only the development of external form, but emphasizes also the internal stages, the stages inside the embryo, of its creation and development, emphasizing major events recognized by contemporary science.”
Also he said: “As a scientist, I can only deal with things which I can specifically see. I can understand embryology and developmental biology. I can understand the words that are translated to me from the Quran. As I gave the example before, if I were to transpose myself into that era, knowing what I knew today and describing things, I could not describe the things which were described. I see no evidence for the fact to refute the concept that this individual, Muhammad, had to be developing this information from some place. So I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved in what he was able to write.”
4) Dr. William W. Hay is a well-known marine scientist. He is Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. He was formerly the Dean of the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA. After a discussion with Professor Hay about the Quran’s mention of recently discovered facts on seas, he said:
“I find it very interesting that this sort of information is in the ancient scriptures of the Holy Quran, and I have no way of knowing where they would come from, but I think it is extremely interesting that they are there and that this work is going on to discover it, the meaning of some of the passages.” And when he was asked about the source of the Quran, he replied: “Well, I would think it must be the divine being.”
5) Dr. Gerald C. Goeringer is Course Director and Associate Professor of Medical Embryology at the Department of Cell Biology, School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. During the Eighth Saudi Medical Conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Professor Goeringer stated the following in the presentation of his research paper:
“In a relatively few aayahs (Quranic verses) is contained a rather comprehensive description of human development from the time of commingling of the gametes through organogenesis. No such distinct and complete record of human development, such as classification, terminology, and description, existed previously. In most, if not all, instances, this description antedates by many centuries the recording of the various stages of human embryonic and fetal development recorded in the traditional scientific literature.”
6) Dr. Yoshihide Kozai is Professor Emeritus at Tokyo University, Hongo, Tokyo, Japan, and was the Director of the National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan. He said:
“I am very much impressed by finding true astronomical facts in [the] Quran, and for us the modern astronomers have been studying very small pieces of the universe. We’ve concentrated our efforts for understanding of [a] very small part. Because by using telescopes, we can see only very few parts [of] the sky without thinking [about the] whole universe. So, by reading [the] Quran and by answering to the questions, I think I can find my future way for investigation of the universe.”
7) Professor Tejatat Tejasen is the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Previously, he was the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the same university. During the Eighth Saudi Medical Conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Professor Tejasen stood up and said:
“During the last three years, I became interested in the Quran . . . . From my study and what I have learned from this conference, I believe that everything that has been recorded in the Quran fourteen hundred years ago must be the truth, that can be proved by the scientific means. Since the Prophet Muhammad could neither read nor write, Muhammad must be a messenger who relayed this truth, which was revealed to him as an enlightenment by the one who is eligible [as the] creator. This creator must be God. Therefore, I think this is the time to say La ilaha
illa Allah, there is no god to worship except Allah (God), Muhammadur rasoolu Allah, Muhammad is Messenger (Prophet) of Allah (God). Lastly, I must congratulate for the excellent and highly successful arrangement for this conference . . . . I have gained not only from the scientific point of view and religious point of view but also the great chance of meeting many well-known scientists and making many new friends among the participants. The most precious thing of all that I have gained by coming to this place is La ilaha illa Allah,
Muhammadur rasoolu Allah, and to have become a Muslim.”
After all these examples we have seen about the scientific miracles in the Holy Quran and all these scientists’ comments on this, let us ask ourselves these questions:
. Could it be a coincidence that all this recently discovered scientific information from different fields was mentioned in the Quran, which was revealed fourteen centuries ago?
. Could this Quran have been authored by Muhammad or by any other human being?
The only possible answer is that this Quran must be the literal word of God, revealed by Him.
https://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-h.htm
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Oh the irony of a person, one who is about as biased as can be, complaining about others allegedly being biased. Or perhaps it's not so much irony as it is hypocrisy and complete lack of self-awareness.You seem to ignore the fact that "evidence" is based on interpretation. Who interprets the evidence and declares that evolution "must have" happened because no other explanation will fit into their preconceived scenario? Isn't it the people who already believe it? Bias much?
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
What good is that? You're basically saying God put into the Koran these cryptic hints about future discoveries and knowledge, that no one would understand until after scientists have figured it out.
That makes absolutely no sense at all.