Evolution and Creationism: because ...

[First Baseman]

You miss quoted me, I said: "Archeology falsifies the story of Exodus.."

Answers in Genesis is not taken seriously by anyone but those presuppositionally committed to their narrow belief system. Is has been debunked too many time for me to bother to do so again.

AIG actually believes this!

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/archaeology yields a site that asks: "Has Porn Really Become a ‘Public Health Crisis’?" I don't see how this relates.

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/ leads to apologia written by one Clifford Wilson (an archeologist with so little in the way are real professional credits that his bio on Answers in Genesis makes reference to his grades in graduate school). In any case, the evidence that Wilson offers up is basically, "cause the bible says so." Even so, he admits: "We have already said that we do not use the statement: “Archaeology proves the Bible.” In fact, such a claim would be putting archaeology above the Bible. What happens when seemingly assured results of archaeology are shown to be wrong after all? Very often archaeology does endorse particular Bible events. And some would say that in this way it “proves the Bible.” But such a statement should be taken with reservation because archaeology is the support, not the main foundation." The bottom line is what Wilson is an advocate of the idea that the bible is a credible source of historical information because it contains the names of "real" people and "real" places.

Here, chew on this: The Exodus, had it occurred, would have left a billion and a half fire pits (and everything else, like daily kitchen middens, burials, etc.) and yet nothing has been found. That's 64,750 pits for every square mile of Sinai or one pit in every 430 square feet (that's about a moderately sized living room). Food and burials are required, they and fire pits and kitchen middens are not archaeologically invisible and can be seen world-wide as the remains of much smaller and much older migrations.

I obviously disagree with nearly everything you posted but thanks for responding anyway.

 

[Sapiens]

I obviously disagree with nearly everything you posted but thanks for responding anyway.

Go ahead and disagree, as I have noted in the past, you are entitled to your own opinion. However, what I posted was not opinion, but rather, fact and you are not entitled to your own facts. I am assuming that you are "dismissing" me because you cannot falsify what I have posted with anything more meaningful than, "is not!"

 

[Sapiens]

Altfish,
That is what many people believe, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
Let me ask you; who do you think would know more, and I mean know more about everything? Would it not be The Almighty Creator, who is also PERFECT in knowledge? Job 36:4, 37:16.

If there were such a beast, but alas, there is not, so invoking it is a waste of everyone's time.

Actually, it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than in Creation!! The reason being; there is absolutely NO evidence of evolution, despite the many claims.

Wow, in one sentence you dismiss the collective knowledge and literature of all of biological science for the last two hundred or so years. Now that takes guts and ego.

People believe evolution because people who are supposed to be very smart, say that anyone who does not believe in evolution is ignorant, and most are reluctant to be called ignorant, even though very few have actually investigated evolution, or the Bible, for that matter.

Really? What possible motivation would these "smart" people have for deceiving their dumber brethren?

There is a dictionary term, Prestabilism, which means that everything God created, both animal and plant, can ONLY reproduce after its own KIND. This is written several times, in the first chapter of Genesis, 1:11,12,21,24,25. This is a hard and fast law of God!!!

Too bad for you, it's not true. Genesis and God have failed you again. ,Here are a few "kinds" you need to research: Epilobium angustifolium, Adiantum pedatum, Nereis acuminata. You really should have looked prestabilism up, it has two meanings, one according to Leibnitz and the other Kant, neither being yours.

For many years scientists have tried, but have failed to be able to break this law. They have made animals put on different looks, longer or shorter legs, make them more aggressive. All these changes are within the established KINDS, and called, Ontogenesis, or Ontogeny.

Perhaps we could better answer that question if you'd provide a definition of "kinds" rather than running about the field carrying the goal posts.

Scientists have experimented with Tsetse Flies, which reproduce very fast, so that many generations can be studied and attempts made to cause evolution. They have failed, totally, both In vivo, and Invitro.

I think you mean Fruit Flies, Tsetse flies put you to sleep. with respect to Fruit Flies you should read, and attempt to refute, this from Talk Origins:

5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster
Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.

5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster
Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).

5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster
Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.

5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster
In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.

 

[Sapiens]

They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.

They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.

5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species
In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.

In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.

Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.

5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster
Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below.

Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973).

Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.

5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila
The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift.

Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases.

Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event.

Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced.

In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift.

 

[Sapiens]

When Darwin was researching the idea of evolution, he said that if evolution could not be proven but the fossil record, it is a false concept. Well that would be the end of the theory, according to Darwin, because the fossil record definitely does NOT support evolution. There have been millions of fossils found, but not ONE that was evolving into a higher form of life. Every fossil was easily differentiated, was easily recognized as to what it was.

There are lots of intermediates in the fossil record, here are a few examples (also from Talk Origins

1. The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:
   1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
      
      
   2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
      
      
   3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
      
      
   4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
      
      
   5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
      
      
   6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
      
      
   7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
      
      
   8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
      
      
   9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
      
      
   10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
       
       
   11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
   
   The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:
   1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
      
      
   2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.
      
      
   3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
      
      
   4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
      
      
   5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
      
      
   6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
      
      
   7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
      
      
   8. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
      
      
   9. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).
   
   The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:
   
   1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
      
      
   2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
      
      
   3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

Have you ever heard of the dictionary term, Homoplasy??? This concept, which would, necessarily happen, is a complete impossibility. Can you even imagine, two animals, evolving along, one growing female organs, the other male organs, completely independently of the other. They must mature before they could mate to produce offspring. How could they live before they reproduce, and what would be the chances that they would find each other, in the entire earth.
So people think it could happen through Mutations, but no mutations can reproduce. Even such animals, such as the mule, cannot reproduce, because it is getting close to the boundaries of KIND.

That's not what Homoplasy means. Homoplasy is a character shared by a set of species but not present in their common ancestor. A good example is the evolution of the eye which has originated independently in many different species. In your example of male and female, you exhibit a severe lack of knowledge concerning basic biology. Have you never raised chickens? Do you know how a hen, who has been laying eggs, can turn into a rooster? Learning that is on your path to enlightenment.

Just one more point, although I could write a book on this subject, even though I am not a scientist, but a religious Minister.

Gee ... I would never have guessed.

If evolution was true, and happening for millions of years, as scientist claim, there would be no distinct Kinds, but all animals would be found to be evolving to a higher Kind.

That's utter nonsense.
Scientists are always looking for their Scared Monster, the one link between any Kind. Don't you think that at least monster, between all the different Kinds would have been found, by now??

No, crockaducks are the invention of preachers. The crocoduck is a perfect example of the straw man fallacy of over-simplifying the opponent's argument (here, the existence of transitional forms) to make it easier to "refute". Crocodiles and ducks have not had a common ancestor for 245 million years; their closest fossil common ancestor,Archosaurus[wp], was far more like a crocodile than a duck, but both crocs and ducks have a mix of primitive and advanced features from their common ancestor, the basal ruling reptile. Transitional forms need not be chimaeras of two of their descendants.

The crocoduck and other chimaeras actually hold an interesting place when considered as possible evidence. Creationists purport that chimaeras would be evidence of evolution, yet if such a chimaera were actually found to exist, then it would actually serve as evidence against evolution as it is understood by modern biologists. Hence, the crocoduck argument demonstrates that creationists do not understand the actual claims made by the theory of evolution (thanks Rational wiki).

Evolution is really a blasphemy against our Creator!!!

If it's blasphemy, and if its also true ... where does that leave you?

 

[First Baseman]

Go ahead and disagree, as I have noted in the past, you are entitled to your own opinion. However, what I posted was not opinion, but rather, fact and you are not entitled to your own facts. I am assuming that you are "dismissing" me because you cannot falsify what I have posted with anything more meaningful than, "is not!"

You assume much. Neither will you go point by point and attempt to prove anything ICR has to say is wrong because you csnt do jt. All of your facts are based on the assumptions of scientists who change their ideas often. I'm sure glad God won't change His word - ever.

For all you know your scientists will come up an entirely new theory tomorrow morning that will totally blow all of your assumed facts out of the water.

 

[Sapiens]

You assume much. Neither will you go point by point and attempt to prove anything ICR has to say is wrong because you csnt do jt. All of your facts are based on the assumptions of scientists who change their ideas often. I'm sure glad God won't change His word - ever.

I already gave you one from: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis#A_representative_argument_from_AiG I really don't need to do more, they're well detailed on the web ... google and wiki are your friends, though I'm happy to help you with specic questions and things that you don't understand.

For all you know your scientists will come up an entirely new theory tomorrow morning that will totally blow all of your assumed facts out of the water.

I hope that they come up with dozens, I have no assumed facts, only incomplete explanations and when they are updated I love it. You on the other hand are stuck with stuff that incorrect, that has been proven incorrect and you have no way to move from the bronze age to the quantum age and still save face. Too bad, it really is a shame.

 

[metis]

Even if one ignores what the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it is just plain old common sense-- all material objects appear to change over time, and genes are material objects. Gradations of change add up over time, which accounts for what we have seen in the fossil record plus genome testing. If this were incorrect, then geneticists would be totally apposed to the ToE-- but they ain't.

 

[Blastcat]

1. Answer redacted.

2. I believe the OT to be the word of the living God Jehovah. Jehovah is holy and He never lies so yes, his word is 100% correct.

So, how do you account for the success of modern science?

 

[Blastcat]

Only one changes with the times while the other is solid and never changes and never will.

A scientific theory will ALWAYS change due to some new data. That's why we can trust it. A good scientific theory is NEVER set in stone but on facts.On the other hand, a religious belief that cannot be changed requires a very closed mind.

No new data will be able to penetrate a very closed mind, and so, no change will be possible.

 

[Blastcat]

They absolutly wrong , the whole something is from God .

some Atheists claim the whole something is from nothing this is sound crazy too .

1. You would have to demonstrate, not just assert that "the whole something is from God".
2. Just because something sounds crazy to you doesn't mean it's false.
3. It doesn't MATTER what some atheists think about the cause of the universe, nobody KNOWS the cause. Even though some people might invent them.

 

[Blastcat]

You assume much. Neither will you go point by point and attempt to prove anything ICR has to say is wrong because you csnt do jt. All of your facts are based on the assumptions of scientists who change their ideas often. I'm sure glad God won't change His word - ever.

For all you know your scientists will come up an entirely new theory tomorrow morning that will totally blow all of your assumed facts out of the water.

Unfortunately, a scientific THEORY is an explanation of the facts. The facts don't change from day to day. Sorry. You don't understand science, how it works, and how it applies to ToE.

 

[Godobeyer]

1. You would have to demonstrate, not just assert that "the whole something is from God".
2. Just because something sounds crazy to you doesn't mean it's false.
3. It doesn't MATTER what some atheists think about the cause of the universe, nobody KNOWS the cause. Even though some people might invent them.

Some scientist said it's Big Bang . that's what mentioned in Quran before 1400 years ago.

 

[Blastcat]

Some scientist said it's Big Bang . that's what mentioned in Quran before 1400 years ago.

The big bang isn't a cause... it's how the universe started.. the events that took place. Nobody knows what the CAUSE of the universe, the CAUSE of that "Big Bang" was. There already had to BE something before it could "bang".

Read more here:

http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

And I think that many people would love to see a quote from the Quran about it.

 

[Godobeyer]

Some scientists say WHAT is the big bang?...

 

[Godobeyer]

And I think that many people would love to see a quote from the Quran about it.

[Quran 41.11] Then He directed himself to the Heaven when it was SMOKE, and then said to it and to Earth: "Come willingly or by force" they said "We do come willingly"

[Quran 21.30] Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the Earth were meshed together then We ripped them apart? And then We made of water everything living? Would they still not believe?

[Quran 51.47] And the heaven, We built it with craftsmanship and We are still expanding.


If you intereting check this link

http://www.speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/big_bang_crunch.htm

 

[Blastcat]

I know what the Big Bang theory is, thanks. I edited my question to you because I got mixed up. Sorry. If you read my edited version of post 75, you will see a better comment. Sorry for the mix-up.

 

[Godobeyer]

I know what the Big Bang theory is, thanks. I edited my question to you because I got mixed up. Sorry. If you read my edited version of post 75, you will see a better comment. Sorry for the mix-up.

No problem

 

[Blastcat]

[Quran 41.11] Then He directed himself to the Heaven when it was SMOKE, and then said to it and to Earth: "Come willingly or by force" they said "We do come willingly"

According to the Quran,

1. The universe was smoke .
2. BUT also contained the Earth.
3. And smoke and planets can talk, and have "will".

In what possible way can you see this as having ANYTHING to do with the Big Bang theory?

[Quran 21.30]

Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the Earth were meshed together then We ripped them apart? And then We made of water everything living? Would they still not believe?

According the the Quran:

1. The heavens and the Earth were meshed together.
2. Someone called "We" ripped them apart.
3. Everything living is MADE OF water.

What is "heavens"?
How were these "heavens" and the "Earth" meshed together. What does that mean?
What does living things being "made of" water mean, and how does that RELATE to the Big Bang theory?

[Quran 51.47]

And the heaven, We built it with craftsmanship and We are still expanding.

I looked this up because it was so darn interesting. It really DOES seem to say that the universe is expanding, doesn't it? I have a few other translations:

_
Welcome to the Quranic Arabic Corpus, an annotated linguistic resource for the Holy Quran. This page shows seven parallel translations in English for the 47th verse of chapter 51 (sūrat l-dhāriyāt). Click on the Arabic text to below to see word by word details of the verse's morphology.


Chapter (51) sūrat l-dhāriyāt (The Wind that Scatter)


Sahih International: And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

Pickthall: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).

Yusuf Ali: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.

Shakir: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.

Muhammad Sarwar: We have made the heavens with Our own hands and We expanded it.

Mohsin Khan: With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof.

Arberry: And heaven -- We built it with might, and We extend it wide.

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=51&verse=47

So, depending on the translation, the verse doesn't necessarily talk about an expanding universe. Some of these translations seem to say that the universe is big. In any case, what would I say IF the Quran really said that space was expanding? I'd be impressed ... and I would have to wonder how they made that lucky guess with no science. But in the context of so much of the pronouncements in the Quran that are just weird and poetic, hard to understand, and just plain wrong ( Smoke? ) I would have to DISCOUNT the possibility that it was a lucky guess, first.

I don't start OFF with the supposition that the Quran is correct about cosmology or anything else, for that matter. I don't believe in magic, and I know that religions usually have wonderfully creative creation myths.

I've heard this science proves Islam apologetic before, of course. It seems to be a really big deal.

 

[Godobeyer]

According to the Quran,

1. The universe was smoke .
2. BUT also contained the Earth.
3. And smoke and planets can talk, and have "will".

In what possible way can you see this as having ANYTHING to do with the Big Bang theory?



According the the Quran:

1. The heavens and the Earth were meshed together.
2. Someone called "We" ripped them apart.
3. Everything living is MADE OF water.

What is "heavens"?
How were these "heavens" and the "Earth" meshed together. What does that mean?
What does living things being "made of" water mean, and how does that RELATE to the Big Bang theory?



I looked this up because it was so darn interesting. It really DOES seem to say that the universe is expanding, doesn't it? I have a few other translations:

_
Welcome to the Quranic Arabic Corpus, an annotated linguistic resource for the Holy Quran. This page shows seven parallel translations in English for the 47th verse of chapter 51 (sūrat l-dhāriyāt). Click on the Arabic text to below to see word by word details of the verse's morphology.


Chapter (51) sūrat l-dhāriyāt (The Wind that Scatter)


Sahih International: And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

Pickthall: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).

Yusuf Ali: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.

Shakir: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.

Muhammad Sarwar: We have made the heavens with Our own hands and We expanded it.

Mohsin Khan: With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof.

Arberry: And heaven -- We built it with might, and We extend it wide.

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=51&verse=47

So, depending on the translation, the verse doesn't necessarily talk about an expanding universe. Some of these translations seem to say that the universe is big. In any case, what would I say IF the Quran really said that space was expanding? I'd be impressed ... and I would have to wonder how they made that lucky guess with no science. But in the context of so much of the pronouncements in the Quran that are just weird and poetic, hard to understand, and just plain wrong ( Smoke? ) I would have to DISCOUNT the possibility that it was a lucky guess, first.

I don't start OFF with the supposition that the Quran is correct about cosmology or anything else, for that matter. I don't believe in magic, and I know that religions usually have wonderfully creative creation myths.

I've heard this science proves Islam apologetic before, of course. It seems to be a really big deal.

The earth and everything else except Humans and Jinnys are obeyers.

Some words and means are newers invented .


If it's about language it's Arabic language,and Quran down with antic Arabic langauge.

Why don't you post a thread about in Islam DIR, they had better English than me ?

Sorry