For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

[Audie]

hmmmm......

evolutionist
iːvəˈluːʃ(ə)nɪst,ɛːvəˈluːʃ(ə)nɪst/
noun
noun: evolutionist; plural noun: evolutionists

1. 1.
   a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.

adjective
adjective: evolutionist
1.
relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection."

"Creationist: A creationist is someone who believes that the story of the creation of the universe in the Bible is true, and who rejects the theory of evolution."




Because this is the creation Vs evolution forum.



I'm afraid it has everything to do with evolution. Are you saying it requires no "faith" to "believe" something you can't prove?

You all keep telling me you can't "prove" evolution.....what is the logical conclusion?



Was that warranted? Personal insults are not permitted gnostic and they are a poor excuse for a reply.
I am as honest as you are.



Yep.....can you? I find it hilarious to think you would try emotionally blackmailing me.

It doesn't work, sorry.

In the insult dept, you slap back hard!

 

[ecco]

How could Muhammad have possibly known all this 1400 years ago...

Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore8 is one of the world’s most prominent scientists in the fields of anatomy and embryology and is the author of the book entitled The Developing Human, which has been translated into eight languages. This book is a scientific reference work and was chosen by a special committee in the United States as the best book authored by one person. Dr. Keith Moore is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. There, he was Associate Dean of Basic Sciences at the Faculty of Medicine and for 8 years was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy. In 1984, 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. He has directed many international associations, such as the Canadian and American Association of Anatomists and the Council of the Union of Biological Sciences.

In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Moore said: “It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Quran about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God.”9 (To view the RealPlayer video of this comment click here ).

Consequently, Professor Moore was asked the following question: “Does this mean that you believe that the Quran is the word of God?” He replied: “I find no difficulty in accepting this.”10

During one conference, Professor Moore stated: “....Because the staging of human embryos is complex, owing to the continuous process of change during development, it is proposed that a new system of classification could be developed using the terms mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah (what Muhammad said, did, or approved of). The proposed system is simple, comprehensive, and conforms with present embryological knowledge. The intensive studies of the Quran and hadeeth (reliably transmitted reports by the Prophet Muhammad’s companions of what he said, did, or approved of) in the last four years have revealed a system for classifying human embryos that is amazing since it was recorded in the seventh century A.D. Although Aristotle, the founder of the science of embryology, realized that chick embryos developed in stages from his studies of hen’s eggs in the fourth century B.C., he did not give any details about these stages. As far as it is known from the history of embryology, little was known about the staging and classification of human embryos until the twentieth century. For this reason, the descriptions of the human embryo in the Quran cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century. The only reasonable conclusion is: these descriptions were revealed to Muhammad from God. He could not have known such details because he was an illiterate man with absolutely no scientific training.

Further details here.
https://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a.htm

You can cut and paste. I can cut and paste... (my emphases)
Daft Claim: Proof of Allah is apparently modern embryology in the Quran • Skeptical Science

Daft Claim: Proof of Allah is apparently modern embryology in the Quran 12
OK, give us just one single quote from the Quran that is a clear statement of modern science … note, the vague poetical stuff that has been twisted does not count, nor does a link to some YouTube clip … just the exact words from the Quran … if your claim is correct it should be simple to prove it.

And as you might expect, this is what came back:

THe best exapmle is Professor Keith Moore http://www.quranandscience.com/human/135-dr-keith-moore-confirms-embryology-in-quran.html

Yes indeed, that old chestnut. Just in case you are not familiar with this one, the claim here is that when presented with the detailed description of embryology in the Quran, Dr Keith Moore (a real embryologist) confirmed that it was amazing, aligns with our modern understanding and so must be from Allah.

Dr. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C. of the Department of Anatomy, University of Toronto, Canada, has become a favorite of Islamic apologists ever since he accepted an invitation to produce a special edition of his Embryology Text Book specifically for use by Muslim students in Islamic Universities.

To justify what he wrote, he liberally translates Arabic into terms that no Arabic speaker would consider justified, he also completely ignores the timing of phases dictated by the hadith he pretends is accurate, when in reality it is not.

Why did he do this? Easy $$$ He was quite well paid by the Saudi government for the use of his name.

This all has a couple of interesting additional notes …

1. Moore is not a Muslim and so this evidence of a miracle did not convince him, so why should it convince us?
2. The Acknowledgments for this book recognize a number of “distinguished scholars” who supported the book with time or money. And number 6 on the list? Osama bin Laden. (Yikes!!)
3. If you buy Moore’s sixth edition University textbook called “The developing human”, he actually directs his readers to read an essay by Basim Musallam, who shows that the Koran merely echoes what Greek doctor “Galen” wrote 450 years earlier. * (B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 54)

...
OK, the latest news is that Hamza has written a 58 page paper on all this to present his claim in great detail, and PZ read it and then blogged a few comments …
...
Here, let me give you the short version…and I do mean short. This is a paper that focuses with obsessive detail on all of two versesfrom the Quran. You heard me right: the entirety of the embryology in that book, the subject of this lengthy paper, is two goddamned sentences, once translated into English.

We created man from an essence of clay, then We placed him as a drop of fluid in a safe place. Then We made that drop of fluid into a clinging form, and then We made that form into a lump of flesh, and We made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh, and later We made him into other forms. Glory be to God the best of creators.​

Seriously, that’s it. You have just mastered all of developmental biology, as taught by Mohammed.

Only a blinkered fanatic could turn that mush into an overwrought, overextended, overblown, strained comparison with legitimate modern science. Tzortzis’s paper is risible crackpottery.

​

So, in summary

• An aging professor got paid a lot of money to make a mountain out of a molehill
• Quran's words were stretched to the breaking point
• Everything in the Quran account was common knowledge 500 years earlier

* To read more on Galen's account vs the Quran see...
https://www.scribd.com/doc/24665426/Islamic-Embryology-and-Galen



Also note that I gave attribution at the top of the cut and paste and indented the cut and paste. That way I didn't give the false impression that the words are my own until the reader got to the bottom.

 

[Audie]

You can cut and paste. I can cut and paste... (my emphases)
Daft Claim: Proof of Allah is apparently modern embryology in the Quran • Skeptical Science

Daft Claim: Proof of Allah is apparently modern embryology in the Quran 12
OK, give us just one single quote from the Quran that is a clear statement of modern science … note, the vague poetical stuff that has been twisted does not count, nor does a link to some YouTube clip … just the exact words from the Quran … if your claim is correct it should be simple to prove it.

And as you might expect, this is what came back:

THe best exapmle is Professor Keith Moore http://www.quranandscience.com/human/135-dr-keith-moore-confirms-embryology-in-quran.html

Yes indeed, that old chestnut. Just in case you are not familiar with this one, the claim here is that when presented with the detailed description of embryology in the Quran, Dr Keith Moore (a real embryologist) confirmed that it was amazing, aligns with our modern understanding and so must be from Allah.

Dr. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C. of the Department of Anatomy, University of Toronto, Canada, has become a favorite of Islamic apologists ever since he accepted an invitation to produce a special edition of his Embryology Text Book specifically for use by Muslim students in Islamic Universities.

To justify what he wrote, he liberally translates Arabic into terms that no Arabic speaker would consider justified, he also completely ignores the timing of phases dictated by the hadith he pretends is accurate, when in reality it is not.

Why did he do this? Easy $$$ He was quite well paid by the Saudi government for the use of his name.

This all has a couple of interesting additional notes …

1. Moore is not a Muslim and so this evidence of a miracle did not convince him, so why should it convince us?
2. The Acknowledgments for this book recognize a number of “distinguished scholars” who supported the book with time or money. And number 6 on the list? Osama bin Laden. (Yikes!!)
3. If you buy Moore’s sixth edition University textbook called “The developing human”, he actually directs his readers to read an essay by Basim Musallam, who shows that the Koran merely echoes what Greek doctor “Galen” wrote 450 years earlier. * (B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 54)

...
OK, the latest news is that Hamza has written a 58 page paper on all this to present his claim in great detail, and PZ read it and then blogged a few comments …
...
Here, let me give you the short version…and I do mean short. This is a paper that focuses with obsessive detail on all of two versesfrom the Quran. You heard me right: the entirety of the embryology in that book, the subject of this lengthy paper, is two goddamned sentences, once translated into English.

We created man from an essence of clay, then We placed him as a drop of fluid in a safe place. Then We made that drop of fluid into a clinging form, and then We made that form into a lump of flesh, and We made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh, and later We made him into other forms. Glory be to God the best of creators.​

Seriously, that’s it. You have just mastered all of developmental biology, as taught by Mohammed.

Only a blinkered fanatic could turn that mush into an overwrought, overextended, overblown, strained comparison with legitimate modern science. Tzortzis’s paper is risible crackpottery.
​

So, in summary

• An aging professor got paid a lot of money to make a mountain out of a molehill
• Quran's words were stretched to the breaking point
• Everything in the Quran account was common knowledge 500 years earlier

* To read more on Galen's account vs the Quran see...
https://www.scribd.com/doc/24665426/Islamic-Embryology-and-Galen



Also note that I gave attribution at the top of the cut and paste and indented the cut and paste. That way I didn't give the false impression that the words are my own until the reader got to the bottom.

Huh, allah is the best of creators. I wonder who the others are, and what they made, that we may compare.

 

[ecco]

Because this is the creation Vs evolution forum.

Um, no it isn't. This is a thread giving Creationists the opportunity to provide evidence to support their side.

for-creationists-show-evidences-for-creation-of-man​

All you have done is post pictures of birds and made comments like, "I see god's work in everything".

Your opinions are not evidence.


It's very telling that no Creationist has posted any "evidences-for-creation-of-man".

 

[dfnj]

No you don't since you made your creator out of whole cloth.

You completely don't get my frequency. I'm am so cynical that everything in the Universe is so devoid of meaning that I choose to think otherwise just to be slightly more cynical than you.

Gn pointed out the following-
But faith has nothing to do with logic. It only require acceptance in belief, hence conviction. And you don’t even have to be intelligent to believe in something.

The main problems with faith and belief are the lack of common sense and strong bias, which are nothing to be proud of

All of which is true. You say it is rubbish because it takes courage, which is something to be proud of, as if that is some way negated the truth of what he said. Logic, your forte, I'd say no.

Further, we note that it depends a whole lot what you have faith in / what you are faithful to whether there is anything admirable or requiring courage.

Oh, your post to me about logic not being the end is completely irrelevant to the topic.

You may want to try your hand at competitive grant writing. You continue
as you do here, and the first response they come to will be found
"unresponsive" and no more will be read, your submission will simply be
circular filed.

Your experiences begging for money are hardly representative of what we are talking about. My problem with what you are saying is you are making a subjective judgment. You've crossed over from being objective to expressing a particular bias. I have no problem with your opinions. The thing is your opinions are NOT facts. Every thing you said that is a criticism of faith is purely an opinion or subjective judgment. That is why it is rubbish. Many people have a different opinion of faith. Why do you think your personal dogma is "better" than anyone else's?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It's very telling that no Creationist has posted any "evidences-for-creation-of-man".

It always amazes me that creationists can't see how obviously their position is without base. Proponents of evolution can post actual comparisons of genetic data, fossil lines, comparisons of body structure between animals, analysis of vestigial parts/genes, undeniable proof that selection (whether natural or not) can drastically affect the traits within animal lineages with the breeding humans have done with domesticated animals, bacteria evolving constantly due to overuse of antibiotics in the agricultural industry, dating methods that prove the astronomical age of the Earth... the list goes on.

And what can they point to?
Scripture? Hearsay, all of it.
The fact that man is made from the materials of the Earth? Just what else is there for us to be made of?
"When you see a painting... "? Do the molecules of dried paint worship the painter (i.e. creator), do you think?
"DNA is information."? So are layers of geological strata. So is the composition of light from a star. So are craters made from meteoroids. What does it prove?

And that's the reason the OP of this thread has not, at all, been addressed. There is no evidence for creation that appears in the natural world. Nothing that can be compared, measured or quantified in any way. Could this be because "creation" (at least as creationists describe it) never happened? All available, valid evidence points to "yes."

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You know, I can't help but grimace when I see things like this written by evolutionists

....each of these points apply equally to yourselves....especially the bolded parts. I keep hearing about all this "evidence" and how "overwhelming" it is. The only thing that is overwhelming is the volume, not the content....I keep asking for this evidence to be presented and yet, where is it?

Nothing provided to date substantiates anything in connection with macro-evolution....nothing is supported by the "evidence"...it is supported by the interpretation of the evidence...can you tell the difference?

It is rather disingenuous to ask for evidence when you will never accept any observation as evidence.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Rubbish. Faith is something that takes courage and conviction, and hence, is something to be proud of.

Then what does it mean when creationists claim that evolution is based on faith? Are they saying that evolution being based on faith makes it truer?

 

[ecco]

• you are making a subjective judgment
• your opinions are NOT facts
• faith is purely an opinion or subjective judgment.

That is why it is rubbish.

So, you admit that your worldview/religion is rubbish. OK.

 

[Audie]

You completely don't get my frequency. I'm am so cynical that everything in the Universe is so devoid of meaning that I choose to think otherwise just to be slightly more cynical than you.


Your experiences begging for money are hardly representative of what we are talking about. My problem with what you are saying is you are making a subjective judgment. You've crossed over from being objective to expressing a particular bias. I have no problem with your opinions. The thing is your opinions are NOT facts. Every thing you said that is a criticism of faith is purely an opinion or subjective judgment. That is why it is rubbish. Many people have a different opinion of faith. Why do you think your personal dogma is "better" than anyone else's?

I am not a grant writer, I've no experience "begging" for money, as you so insultingly and dismissively put it.

I referred to something you wrote that was 100% unresponsive, and
made an observation of how such nonsensical irrelevance is
treated in the real world.

Likewise, your bit about my opinions being better than others is nonsense.

Speaking of expressing bias as fact, see the above.

 

[Audie]

Then what does it mean when creationists claim that evolution is based on faith? Are they saying that evolution being based on faith makes it truer?

Now now, you are getting all secular wanting some logic and consistency.

 

[Audie]

Um, no it isn't. This is a thread giving Creationists the opportunity to provide evidence to support their side.

for-creationists-show-evidences-for-creation-of-man​

All you have done is post pictures of birds and made comments like, "I see god's work in everything".

Your opinions are not evidence.


It's very telling that no Creationist has posted any "evidences-for-creation-of-man".

Please please, we BEG of the creos!! I even suggested a good
possibility, show that no human material predating the
"creation" are to be Found!

Post some "evidences-for-creation-of-man".

 

[gnostic]

Rubbish. Faith is something that takes courage and conviction, and hence, is something to be proud of.

Actually, it take more to leave aside preconception aside and allow evidences to decide the outcome of analysis and conclusion, not the other way around.

If scientist formulate a hypothesis from his initial observation, then he (or she) should some mean to test his (or her) hypothesis. So if the scientist performed experiment 10 times, and his experiments failed 10 times, then he should discard his hypothesis, because it has been debunked. If that’s the case, I wouldnt even bother to submit the hypothesis to peer review, for independent testings. And as debunked hypothesis, the hypothesis would be deemed as “highly improbable”.

But if the experiments are successful 10 times, then the hypothesis could be deemed “probable”.

I say it “could be”, because it would require more testings, hence either performing alternative experiment. This is to ensure that there are no errors.

And only then can the scientist put his hypothesis for further testings from peer review, by performing the experiments themselves.

Only then can the hypothesis be officially elevated to “scientific theory” status.

Performing experiments repeatedly or finding independent evidences are required in real science, and that required verification.

The more evidences you have, backing up a theory or hypothesis, the more probable it is.

But you cannot test creation of Adam. If you cannot turn dust or soil into living man. Believing in such miracles require belief and faith, not on testable evidences.

If a creationist cannot repeat God’s miracle of creating a man from dust or clay, then what your claim that is true, isn’t even a hypothesis.

This is why creationism and Intelligent Design are considered pseudoscience. They cannot be tested.

 

[Audie]

Actually, it take more to leave aside preconception aside and allow evidences to decide the outcome of analysis and conclusion, not the other way around.

If scientist formulate a hypothesis from his initial observation, then he (or she) should some mean to test his (or her) hypothesis. So if the scientist performed experiment 10 times, and his experiments failed 10 times, then he should discard his hypothesis, because it has been debunked. If that’s the case, I wouldnt even bother to submit the hypothesis to peer review, for independent testings. And as debunked hypothesis, the hypothesis would be deemed as “highly improbable”.

But if the experiments are successful 10 times, then the hypothesis could be deemed “probable”.

I say it “could be”, because it would require more testings, hence either performing alternative experiment. This is to ensure that there are no errors.

And only then can the scientist put his hypothesis for further testings from peer review, by performing the experiments themselves.

Only then can the hypothesis be officially elevated to “scientific theory” status.

Performing experiments repeatedly or finding independent evidences are required in real science, and that required verification.

The more evidences you have, backing up a theory or hypothesis, the more probable it is.

But you cannot test creation of Adam. If you cannot turn dust or soil into living man. Believing in such miracles require belief and faith, not on testable evidences.

If a creationist cannot repeat God’s miracle of creating a man from dust or clay, then what your claim that is true, isn’t even a hypothesis.

This is why creationism and Intelligent Design are considered pseudoscience. They cannot be tested.

I think he was saying that it takes courage to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[Audie]

There is a HUGE difference between a "creation scientist" and a " evolutionary biologist ". Every creation scientist that I am aware of has sworn not to use the scientific method. When one works at a creationist site one is usually required to sign a Statement of Faith where a literal interpretation of the Bible is taken to be correct no matter what. That means if evidence goes against that biblical view that evidence is wrong. Since science is evidence based that is an oath not to use the scientific method. Now you will not find an evolutionary biologist that thinks evolution did not happen, but they have not sworn an oath stating that evolution is right no matter what and they would change their minds if the evidence told them they that they were wrong. They follow the scientific method.

Some may well use it for something, but, t hey have to put it on the shelf in order to do "creation science".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hmmmmm, It is a myth only in the way I present it. Ok, so you reject that all the materials I listed, in any combination, in any environment didn't produce a living organism ? I don;'t understand your position. This is what has been preached for 60 years, at least. How else should I present it ?
Should I just skip these fundamental basics and just assume that a perfect environment existed, with no possibility of hostility to the presupposed perfect components that are assumed to have existed, that are assumed to have combined into the assumed perfect combination, and voila' ! the assumed precursor first living organism exists ! It's alive, alive !

I can see how you, a proponent of this never observed, unknown, presumed, assumed, hoped for myth would prefer that the basic reality just be skipped so the Disneyland of abiogenesis could be entered.

You guy's whoop and jump and scream no evidence for God, no proof of God ahhhhhh people who believe in him are idiots etc.

Abiogenesis is your dirty little secret, your belief in a bogus myth.

Now others, especially your sidekick, will huff and puff and say there is "evidence", and promptly try and educate me on all this "evidence".

They will post about contrived and controlled experiments, and an infinitesimally tiny sliver of a result from one, or the other, and crow about how, as your buddy says , there are a few problems left.

This is a huge pile of steaming codswollop, a palliative to the gullible and faithful, shiny objects rolled across the ground to dazzle and distract from the absolute basics of the proposition, that you reject.

It's all good for me. I know what most of the shiny objects are and their failings to in relation to the basic proposition.

So you guy's just go ahead, have your rally, prop and jack one another up, get that mob mentality going, jump up on those pedestals and make every effort to figurative lynch me with the rope of your "superior" knowledge. It's all good.

I know, and you know that I and millions of others know, it's an illusion, a chimera.

So, I will keep my faith, and you are welcome to yours.

Do you have evidence that man was created, or not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have evidence that man was created, or not?

I do believe that the answer to your question is quite clearly "No".

 

[gnostic]

I think he was saying that it takes courage to be intellectually dishonest.

LOL

Yeah, that’s one way you could read it.

 

[gnostic]

One of the properties of seas that has only recently been discovered is related in a verse of the Qur'an as follows:

He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through. (Qur'an, 55:19-20)

This property of the seas, that is, that they meet and yet do not intermix, has only very recently been discovered by oceanographers. Because of the physical force called "surface tension," the waters of neighbouring seas do not mix. Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them

There are large waves, strong currents, and tides in the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. Mediterranean Sea water enters the Atlantic by Gibraltar. But their temperature, salinity, and densities do not change, because of the barrier that separates them.

My understanding of the Black Sea is that it is connected to the Mediterranean through the Bosporus and Dardanelles. And that the flow goes both ways.

Since the Mediterranean have denser and higher saline level, it flow into the Black Sea at the bottom layer, while the less saline water of the Black Sea flow into Mediterranean from the upper level.

So in the Black Sea, the lower layer is more salty than the water closer to the surface.

But the water flowing outward from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean, will eventually become more salty until it reach the same salinity as the rest of Mediterranean.

In this case, your hydrology of different seas is flawed as your interpretations of verse 55:19-20.

 

[Deeje]

It is rather disingenuous to ask for evidence when you will never accept any observation as evidence.

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?

As far as I can see, you have as much real "evidence" as we do because we can interpret the very same evidence to show that intelligent design was involved in the entire process. What do you have?

Science can't tell us how life began....it can show us a bunch of old bones that can't really tell us anything unless science gives them a voice....and of course those bones are going confirm what science already suspects.
Science can test DNA and find similarities in bone structure and make guesses about it all based on their interpretation of evidence....but what is concrete or substantive about any of that?

The missing links have always been missing because they never existed. The Bible, to my way of thinking, is so much more logical than scientific guesswork, implied by flawed human reasoning. There are so many gaps in science's scenario, with no substantive way to fill them. We have no gaps.

You "believe" that what is not provable is true.....so do I.