Creationists, please provide evidence

[McBell]

I'll give an example to make the law more clear, if you have the 206 human bones scattered in a garden in a windy weather. Do you think the wind by itself can collect the bones to form the human skeleton in the correct pattern?
The answer is never, because the forces elicited by the wind would produce more mess than organization as the wind carries no mind.
this also applies to the creation of the DNA and the simple cell-if you want to consider it simple-.
the probability of building of a single DNA of a cell to occur by chance is nearly zero as mentionned above, and when the time required to produce this single DNA by the statistical probability la was calculated , it exceeded many times the earth's age. this carries no doubt that the world was created.

Calculating the probability of something happening AFTER it has happened is worthless.
Especially if that is your argument for it not happening.

 

[McBell]

Life Cannot Be Explained by the Coming Together of Lifeless Molecules
Let us forget all the impossibilities for a moment and suppose that a protein molecule was formed in the most inappropriate, most uncontrolled environment such as the primordial earth conditions.
The formation of only one protein would not be sufficient; this protein would have to wait patiently in this uncontrolled environment without sustaining any damage, until another molecule was formed beside it by chance under the same conditions. It would have to wait until millions of correct and essential proteins were formed side by side in the same setting all "by chance." Those that formed earlier had to be patient enough to wait, without being destroyed despite ultraviolet rays and harsh mechanical effects, for the others to be formed right next to them. Then these proteins in adequate number, which all originated at the very same spot, would have to come together by making meaningful combinations and form the organelles of the cell. No extraneous material, harmful molecule, or useless protein chain would have to interfere with them. Then, even if these organelles were to come together in an extremely harmonious and co-operative way with a plan and order, they should have to bring all the necessary enzymes close to themselves and become covered with a membrane, the inside of which would have to be filled with a special liquid to prepare the ideal environment for them. Now even if all these "highly unlikely" events actually occurred by chance, would this molecular heap come to life?
The answer is "No," because research has revealed that the mere combination of all the materials essential for life is not enough for life to get started. Even if all the essential proteins for life were collected and put in a test tube, these efforts would not result in producing a living cell. All the experiments conducted on this subject have proved to be unsuccessful. All observations and experiments indicate that life can originate only from life. The assertion that life evolved from non-living things, in other words, "abiogenesis," is a tale existing only in the dreams of the evolutionists and completely at variance with the results of every experiment and observation.
In this respect, the first life on earth must also have originated from other life. This is a reflection of God's epithet of "Hayy" (The Alive, The Ever-Living). Life can only start, continue, and end by His will. As for evolution, not only is it unable to explain how life began, it is also unable to explain how the materials essential for life have formed and come together.
Chandra Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University describes the reality he faced as a scientist who had been told throughout his life that life had emerged as a result of chance coincidences:
From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can't find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation-and not accidental random shuffling(the miracles of life, haroun yehia)

You do know that this thread is about evolution, right?

 

[PolyHedral]

Life Cannot Be Explained by the Coming Together of Lifeless Molecules
Let us forget all the impossibilities for a moment and suppose that a protein molecule was formed in the most inappropriate, most uncontrolled environment such as the primordial earth conditions.
The formation of only one protein would not be sufficient; this protein would have to wait patiently in this uncontrolled environment without sustaining any damage, until another molecule was formed beside it by chance under the same conditions. It would have to wait until millions of correct and essential proteins were formed side by side in the same setting all "by chance." Those that formed earlier had to be patient enough to wait, without being destroyed despite ultraviolet rays and harsh mechanical effects, for the others to be formed right next to them. Then these proteins in adequate number, which all originated at the very same spot, would have to come together by making meaningful combinations and form the organelles of the cell. No extraneous material, harmful molecule, or useless protein chain would have to interfere with them. Then, even if these organelles were to come together in an extremely harmonious and co-operative way with a plan and order, they should have to bring all the necessary enzymes close to themselves and become covered with a membrane, the inside of which would have to be filled with a special liquid to prepare the ideal environment for them. Now even if all these "highly unlikely" events actually occurred by chance, would this molecular heap come to life?

Starting with a modern anything shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. You start with the single simplest replicating structure possible, and then work up.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Life Cannot Be Explained by the Coming Together of Lifeless Molecules

Is dust/dirt alive...????

 

[waitasec]

Is dust/dirt alive...????

only if god breaths life into it...
:sarcastic



i tell ya, watching the goal posts being moved is entertaining...
opcorn:

 

[meogi]

you escaped the body to criticize the tail

I tried eating the body by starting with the tail. Got full and ended up with food poisoning.

[FONT=&quot]nzymes combine together millions of units of information as they copy DNA, without making a single mistake.[/FONT]

Wrong. What do you think mutations are?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Darwinists do admit that DNA contains information about all the details in an organism. They acknowledge that this giant molecule

Hold on. DNA is a "giant molecule"?

is made up of consecutive sequences of four different components known as bases, and that these four bases—like an alphabet consisting of only four letters—contain blueprints for all the organic molecules that the body is to manufacture. They affirm that these components are not arranged at random, but in line with specific information, and that this information is further subdivided into genes, and that every gene is coded for different details (for example, the formula for insulin, the hormone that takes the blood sugar into the cells). Yet they do not admit that this sublime encyclopedia of information inside a tiny molecule totally demolishes Darwinists’ claims of coincidental evolution.

Because it doesn't. In fact, DNA evidence is the most compelling evidence of evolution we have obtained so far.

Each of the chromosomes in the nucleus contains genes that carry all the information regarding a human being. Darwinists never consider that all the organs in the human body are constructed according to a genetic blueprint within the cells. For example, the skin is controlled by 2,559 genes, the brain by 29,930 genes, the eye by 1,794, the salivary gland by 186, the heart by 6,216, the chest by 4,001, and the lung by 11,581 genes.

Actually, we appreciate that just fine. How does it contradict evolution? Are you aware that there are three billion of these genetic markers, so your couple dozen thousand only account for a tiny fraction of a fraction of the whole?

* Darwinists never appreciate that proteins are made up of only 20 of the more than 200 amino acids in nature, and can never account for such an intelligent selectivity.

Actually, the Miller-Urey experiment explained this pretty well.

Darwinists never realize that one “letter” being wrongly coded in any one of the rungs in DNA could lead to terrible consequences. It is therefore impossible to account for this coding in terms of coincidence.

And what you don't realize is that every single human being on the planet carries between 100 and 200 genetic mutations that are completely unique to them.

* Even if we assume an environment in which all the necessary nucleotides are present and that all the complex molecules and connecting enzymes needed for these to bond to each other are ready, the odds of these nucleotides combining in the desired order is 1 in 10600, that is mathematically zero.

The possibility of any form or system existing in any state is mathematically zero. This is an area known as statistical thermodynamics - I suggest you look into it.

* As science has proven, it is impossible for a single one of the 200,000 genes that make up DNA to form by chance, let alone the whole DNA molecule with its millions of rungs.

And how has it "proven" this?

In claiming that life evolved as the result of mutations, Darwinists never realize that 99% of mutations are harmful.

Utter nonsense. The vast majority of mutations are neutral and have no effect whatsoever. Very few are harmful and an equally small number are beneficial.

In claiming that life emerged as the result of blind chance, Darwinists never realize that the odds against a single, average-sized protein molecule forming by chance are 10300 to one.

Except it didn't have to happen by chance. There are things in this universe like "natural laws" and processes which can influence these things.

* And the chances of a functional protein forming by chance are 1 in 10950

And the chance of the sperm that you came from being the sperm that made it was well over 1 in two-hundred million. Yet, here you are.

* In analyzing these probabilities, Darwinists never realize that probabilities smaller than 1 in 1050 are mathematically impossible.

Once again, irrelevant. Statistical thermodynamics.

* Darwinists never realize that the cell, which they maintain came into being by chance and which—given the state of 19th century technology—they regarded as a balloon filled with water, has a structure as complex as that of New York City.

Once again, this is nonsense.

* Darwinists never realize that the power station known as the mitochondrion inside the cell, itself no larger than 1/100 millimeters, is far more complex than an oil refinery or hydroelectric station.

This is also nonsense. How could you possibly make these comparisons?

* Darwinists never realize that an identical DNA molecule exists in every one of the 100 trillion cells that constitute the human body and contains enough data to fill 1 million encyclopedia pages. Darwinists maintain that they came into being as the result of blind coincidences.

No we don't. We maintain that we came into being as the result of natural processes and natural selection.

* Darwinists never realize how the unconscious atoms that comprise DNA determine the specialization of cells in the eye, hair, bones, skin, stomach and other areas.

What relevance does that have?

* Darwinists never realize that the amount of information in the DNA of a single bacterium is equivalent to 20 novels of 100,000 words each.

Again, what relevance does that have?

 

[Oneatatime]

One would think that with the huge amount of money creationists generate from sales and donations that they could set up a world class research institute and generate some good quality science thats fit for publishing in a respected scientific journal.

 

[waitasec]

yup, you'd think...
they just stick to what they know best i guess..

 

[tumbleweed41]

[FONT=&quot]Darwinists [/FONT]....

[FONT=&quot]Darwin[/FONT].....

Plagiarism is a crime and a violation of forum rules.

Your source.


Forum rules.



(And stealing quotes from Harun Yahya won't win you any points for intelligent debate.)

 

[camanintx]

[FONT=&quot]The human body, on the other hand, possesses a structure trillions of times more complex than the name of a building or the words "I have won," and it is again totally impossible to imagine that this complexity could have come about of its own accord, or by chance.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Since we observe this complexity arising from a single-celled organism over a period of about nine months about half a million times a day, I don't see why you find it so hard to imagine it happening of its own accord.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Moreover, the trillions of DNA that billions of living things have possessed for millions of years have been used in the most intelligent manner, written in the most perfect manner with no flaws, and placed in a tiny area invisible to the naked eye.

[/FONT]
Actually, each and every living thing has hundreds of flaws in their DNA. That's what makes evolution possible.

 

[C.E.O]

Actually, each and every living thing has hundreds of flaws in their DNA. That's what makes evolution possible

:yes:

 

[tarekabdo12]

evidence [knowledge] is contrary to faith
whers yours ?

the less you know
the better
ignorance is bliss

knowing is where the demons of hell reside till judgment

This is not true regarding religious views globally. In Islam prophet Mohammed says " Asking for knowledge is a must for every Muslim"

In addition, the Qur'an used scientific facts to prove it's sincerity:
As an example,

[FONT=&quot]1.Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?(21/30): the great explosion theory
2.And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance.(21/31): it was also proven by modern science that mountains keep the stability of earth.
3.He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law)! Each one runs (its course) for a term appointed.(13/2)
4.He has created the heavens and the earth with the truth; He makes the night cover the day and makes the day overtake the night, and He has made the sun and the moon subservient; each one runs on to an assigned term; now surely He is the Mighty, the great Forgiver(39/5)>>>actually the word in arabic is encircle the night over the day and the day over the night, so if the move in a circle each one running after the other, so the earth must be circular

[/FONT]Actually, Why would someone have faith in an idea unless it was logically accepted?

 

[tumbleweed41]

So tarekabdo12, as to the OP...

Do you have any objective empirical evidence in support of Qur'anic Creationism?
Or will you continue with copy and pastes of pseudoscientific attacks on Biological Evolution?

 

[PolyHedral]

[FONT=&quot] it was also proven by modern science that mountains keep the stability of earth.[/FONT]

It was proven by modern science that the mountains are the most spectacular example of the instability of the Earth's crust, you mean.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Perhaps tarekabdo12 would like to visit the Rio Grande Rift here in Colorado.

 

[outhouse]

why is it creationist think that picking on ToE is proof of creation?????

is it because they have no evidence of creation AT ALL????

 

[tarekabdo12]

This great design is an evidence for a designer; A complex computer needed great minds to create it. The computer design, aeroplanes, boats, cars, weapons took thousands of years for the human kind to develop, whereas they inspired from what they already saw on earth, what God had created before. This fascinating balance between natural powers is a clue for the presence of a creator. Animals , birds and human bodies are more sophisticated than computers. Human brain is more complex than a computers. Human eye is more great than artificial made camera.

If you give me a camera without an inventor and a maker, I'd believe life was created by chance

 

[waitasec]

This great design is an evidence for a designer; A complex computer needed great minds to create it. The computer design, aeroplanes, boats, cars, weapons took thousands of years for the human kind to develop, whereas they inspired from what they already saw on earth, what God had created before. This fascinating balance between natural powers is a clue for the presence of a creator. Animals , birds and human bodies are more sophisticated than computers. Human brain is more complex than a computers. Human eye is more great than artificial made camera.

If you give me a camera without an inventor and a maker, I'd believe life was created by chance

in other words...
this is pov is entirely speculative...
so?

 

[camanintx]

If you give me a camera without an inventor and a maker, I'd believe life was created by chance

And if you give me a camera capable of reproducing itself, I'd believe in your analogy.