For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

[Thief]

Actually, this thread was a challenge to creationists to show evidence for the creation of man.
All you have done is post pictures of nature and say "See, there's the source of my belief".
All others have done is make assertions.

I like that
thought I would say so instead of posting a smiley face

 

[Thief]

btw......

 

[gnostic]

until you die.....then dust

and Adam is no different than we are....except
he was the first to walk with God

evolution.....Day Six
the garden event came AFTER Day Seven
there is a declaration nothing more will be created

so Chapter Two is a story of maniplution
altering the body and mind of one specimen
and then cloning that body

Eve is indeed a clone.....no navel
not born of woman

You don’t understand what a “clone” is.

If Eve was a clone of Adam, then Eve would a man, not a woman.

Clone mean a “copy”.

If you clone a man, then the clone’s sex would be “male”.

If you clone a woman, then the clone’s sex would be “female”.​

Do you get it?

Eve is not a “clone”. Your claim about clone is faulty and incorrect.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Except that it wasn’t symbolic.

You must understand before Judaism, Christianity and Islam, people who believed in other religions have similar myths about creating humankind from dust, soil or clay.

If they were truly only symbolic and allegories, then why retell a similar these pagan myths in abrahamic scriptures?

The bible, Tanakh and Qur’ān may be the current and still popular scriptures of today, but it also shown us that people still believe in superstition and the supernatural, that were prevalent in ancient times.

Anyone who has ever studied other ancient literature, that many religious belief would know that Christians, Jews and Muslims have adopted and adapted myths of other cultures.

Do you really think creation of man from dust, soil or clay were originally or uniquely Judaeo-Christian or Islamic concepts?

Well, they aren’t.

For instance, in Egypt, they believed that the ram-headed god, Khnum created humans from clay, moulding them on his potter’s wheel.

And in Mesopotamia, civilisations like the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians, have different myths about people being created from clay.

Example, in the Sumerian “Song of the Hoe”, the god Enlil using the hoe or pick ax, like a farmer. Enlil would use the hoe to break the soil, and dug out humans from the ground.

In another myth, “Enki and Ninmah” are involved in creation competition, to see who could create better humans than the other. And they were created from clay and water.

In the creation story that included the Flood, called the Epic of Atrahasis, was written in Akkadian or Old Babylonian, almost a thousand years before Genesis, say the first group of humans were created from clay and the blood of a slain god. The purpose for such creation was to replace the lesser gods with humans as “workers”, to built cities and temples, and to built irrigation and canals.

My point is that the Abrahamic religions are just as superstitious as their pagan counterparts, not understanding nature, like you said, so they invent stories or they adopt and adapt existing stories.

Saying it is merely “symbolic” is not really answers to not understanding the science in nature.

Science wasn't developed then as it is now. How would you have put it if not in those terms, molecules and elements? Education was given by the Prophets according to peoples capacity not according to today's scientific understanding.

It makes perfect sense to explain science at that time as dust and water as was the level of the people at the time.

 

[gnostic]

Bottom line....how do you not understand that faith is required to believe in something you cannot prove.

Mathematicians provide proofs, not evidences. Mathematicians are the ones who attempt to prove or disprove their axioms, theorems, equations.

For the hundreds of times, proof is merely a logical or mathematical statement in the forms of some mathematical equations or formulas.

The Special Relativity’s mass-energy equivalence equation - E = mc^2 - is an example of a scientific proof. This equation isn’t evidence, it is proof.

You can prove or disprove this equation, but it isn’t evidence, and it isn’t verification needed to validate the predictions of testable hypotheses or theories.

One of explanations and predictions that Einstein made when he wrote his paper on Special Relativity is “Time Dilation”.

It stressed that there would be time differences for a mass in motion (let’s call this mass, M2) and mass that is stationary (“observer”, let’s call it M2). If you have 2 clocks in sync, then the prediction is that once one of the masses start moving, then the faster that M1 is moving, the slower it is (clock) time. The clocks with M1and M2 would be out of sync.

These explanation and prediction on time dilation in special relativity have been tested a numbers of time, eg the clock on the Space Shuttle to be in sync with the clock at Cape Canaveral before launch, but by the time of flight, the days in spent in space, and it eventual return to Cape Canaveral, the clock on the Shuttle is showed to slowed and out of sync with the clock at Cape Canaveral.

That’s the evidence, Deeje. The evidences are detectable and measurable, ever since NASA and the Russian version of NASA (whatever they call themselves) when they first launched their rockets into space.

Evidence isn’t the equation; evidence isn’t proof.

Scientific evidences are anything that can observe, detect, measure, quantify and test. Science is all about verification via empirical evidences or laboratory experiments.

Scientists need to follow the Scientific Method procedure to acquire real data of the real world, and that "empirical evidences".

No scientists ever call it "scientific proof" or "empirical proof" because there are no such thing as "empirical proof".

Only popular mass media and people who have never study science would confuse evidence with proof. And you are one of them.

 

[Thief]

You don’t understand what a “clone” is.

she could be nothing else

not born of woman
no navel

 

[gnostic]

she could be nothing else

not born of woman
no navel

If Eve was a clone, she would be Adam 2 or Adam junior or Tom or John, but not Eve.

 

[Thief]

If Eve was a clone, she would be Adam 2 or Adam junior or Tom or John, but not Eve.

nay....she would be his twin sister

 

[gnostic]

nay....she would be his twin sister

Twins, possibly yes, but twins are not clones.

You still don’t understand the concept of clone.

Oh forget it. You still don’t understand, and you can never understand. Explaining to you is hopeless.

 

[gnostic]

Science wasn't developed then as it is now. How would you have put it if not in those terms, molecules and elements? Education was given by the Prophets according to peoples capacity not according to today's scientific understanding.

It makes perfect sense to explain science at that time as dust and water as was the level of the people at the time.

Both the Bible and the Qur'an contained many contents that are not really understandable to ordinary readers, and even devout believers will struggle with their respective scriptures. Which is why many passages in both scriptures require interpretations to be understood.

And even then, such interpretations can be wrong or faulty.

The scriptures don’t need to be science treaties to have misunderstandings.

As to atoms and molecules, yes, it was poorly understood, right up to the late 19th century or early 20th century.

As early as the 5th century BCE, the Greek philosopher Leucippus was the first to postulate about matters being made of smaller particles called the “atom” (the atom was actually coined by his pupil, Democritus). And though a lot Leucippus was incorrect, it was still the first step at understanding what matters are made of, which are made of particles called atoms. The problem with the atom at this stage is that it was more philosophical and theological claim, not scientific one.

But wrong or not, the atoms were known as 1000 years before Muhammad and the Qur’ān.

And the Qur’ān are filled with passages of poorly understood nature and reality.

So if god, or Allah in this case, was the true author of the Qur’ān, then i don’t see why god couldn’t add anything that have real scientific merit.

But the Qur’ān isn’t a science treatise, nor Allah had anything to do with what Muhammad wanted in the Qur’ān. Muhammad only demonstrated he is just ordinary but cunning man, with below intelligence in term of science.

The golden age of Islamic science during the Middle Ages, had to do with a number of great philosophers and mathematicians, and neither Allah, nor the Qur’ān add anything to scientific knowledge.

Second, not all of Islamic science in the golden age, were not Muslim’s invention. Because the Muslim Arabs conquered Persia and former Byzantine provinces (eg Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor), but rediscoveries of Ancient Greek and Roman science treatises. These were translated into Arabic or even Persian. But some of these medieval Muslims did make improvements on some existing scientific knowledge, while very few are true inventions.

My point is that knowledge is culminative, and the concept of atoms weren’t unheard of.

 

[Audie]

Mathematicians provide proofs, not evidences. Mathematicians are the ones who attempt to prove or disprove their axioms, theorems, equations.

For the hundreds of times, proof is merely a logical or mathematical statement in the forms of some mathematical equations or formulas.

The Special Relativity’s mass-energy equivalence equation - E = mc^2 - is an example of a scientific proof. This equation isn’t evidence, it is proof.

You can prove or disprove this equation, but it isn’t evidence, and it isn’t verification needed to validate the predictions of testable hypotheses or theories.

One of explanations and predictions that Einstein made when he wrote his paper on Special Relativity is “Time Dilation”.

It stressed that there would be time differences for a mass in motion (let’s call this mass, M2) and mass that is stationary (“observer”, let’s call it M2). If you have 2 clocks in sync, then the prediction is that once one of the masses start moving, then the faster that M1 is moving, the slower it is (clock) time. The clocks with M1and M2 would be out of sync.

These explanation and prediction on time dilation in special relativity have been tested a numbers of time, eg the clock on the Space Shuttle to be in sync with the clock at Cape Canaveral before launch, but by the time of flight, the days in spent in space, and it eventual return to Cape Canaveral, the clock on the Shuttle is showed to slowed and out of sync with the clock at Cape Canaveral.

That’s the evidence, Deeje. The evidences are detectable and measurable, ever since NASA and the Russian version of NASA (whatever they call themselves) when they first launched their rockets into space.

Evidence isn’t the equation; evidence isn’t proof.

Scientific evidences are anything that can observe, detect, measure, quantify and test. Science is all about verification via empirical evidences or laboratory experiments.

Scientists need to follow the Scientific Method procedure to acquire real data of the real world, and that "empirical evidences".

No scientists ever call it "scientific proof" or "empirical proof" because there are no such thing as "empirical proof".

Only popular mass media and people who have never study science would confuse evidence with proof. And you are one of them.

"Prove it" is a fig leaf.

 

[Audie]

Both the Bible and the Qur'an contained many contents that are not really understandable to ordinary readers, and even devout believers will struggle with their respective scriptures. Which is why many passages in both scriptures require interpretations to be understood.

And even then, such interpretations can be wrong or faulty.

The scriptures don’t need to be science treaties to have misunderstandings.

As to atoms and molecules, yes, it was poorly understood, right up to the late 19th century or early 20th century.

As early as the 5th century BCE, the Greek philosopher Leucippus was the first to postulate about matters being made of smaller particles called the “atom” (the atom was actually coined by his pupil, Democritus). And though a lot Leucippus was incorrect, it was still the first step at understanding what matters are made of, which are made of particles called atoms. The problem with the atom at this stage is that it was more philosophical and theological claim, not scientific one.

But wrong or not, the atoms were known as 1000 years before Muhammad and the Qur’ān.

And the Qur’ān are filled with passages of poorly understood nature and reality.

So if god, or Allah in this case, was the true author of the Qur’ān, then i don’t see why god couldn’t add anything that have real scientific merit.

But the Qur’ān isn’t a science treatise, nor Allah had anything to do with what Muhammad wanted in the Qur’ān. Muhammad only demonstrated he is just ordinary but cunning man, with below intelligence in term of science.

The golden age of Islamic science during the Middle Ages, had to do with a number of great philosophers and mathematicians, and neither Allah, nor the Qur’ān add anything to scientific knowledge.

Second, not all of Islamic science in the golden age, were not Muslim’s invention. Because the Muslim Arabs conquered Persia and former Byzantine provinces (eg Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor), but rediscoveries of Ancient Greek and Roman science treatises. These were translated into Arabic or even Persian. But some of these medieval Muslims did make improvements on some existing scientific knowledge, while very few are true inventions.

My point is that knowledge is culminative, and the concept of atoms weren’t unheard of.

They still are full of things that do not make sense / nobody
understands / nobody agrees on.

That hardly makes them profound.

 

[Cacotopia]

I'd say the best possible evidence for the creation of man about 6,000 years ago is that men are still here. If men had been around 250,000 years as evolutionary scientists believe, women would have strangled all of them to death by now for being so insufferable.

As a serious response to your epic statement, consensual sex isn't that old of a practice.

 

[Polymath257]

If you don't have 'proof' for what you claim...you have to have "faith" that how the "evidence" is interpreted is correct. There is no way to know for sure....how can you not understand that?

If your standard is absolute proof, then you cannot know that there is a world outside of your senses. You cannot know that you are not a brain in a vat being fed all of your sensory data. You cannot know that you don't live in The Matrix.

If your standard is absolute proof, you cannot know *anything* about the real world. You can't know there is a table in your kitchen because you can't know there is a kitchen. You can't know there are beautiful birds, because all those birds may be illusions.

If you want to allow for a real world outside of your consciousness, then you *cannot* rely solely on proof.

But, you *can* and almost certainly *do* accept the evidence of your senses as a means to discover facts about the real world. This acceptance, in and of itself, goes beyond strict proof.

But if we accept that our senses do, in fact, give information about the external world, then the methods of science come into play. At that point, we can use the scientific method to discover how the real world works.

Now, contrary to your claims, I am almost certain that you do, in fact, accept the conclusions of science in a great many situations. This is because *everyone* accepts, at least to some extent, the evidence of their senses.

If you want to call this 'faith', so be it. But it is a very moderate form of faith that pretty much everyone accepts as reasonable.

There is a *huge* difference between this ordinary confidence and religious faith. Where confidence is based on what we can actually see and test about the real world, faith goes beyond that and accepts untestable claims about a world we cannot even have evidence for. THis *religious* faith, as opposed to the purely secular confidence is what you have to justify.

And this goes doubly so when your religious faith contradicts the results of secular confidence. When that happens, the natural and reasonable thing to do is wonder if maybe your religious faith isn't quite as valid as you might like.

Anyway, that's how I see it and also how a great many others see it. Pretty pictures of birds or nature don't serve to prove creation simply because the claim goes way beyond the evidence.

 

[FearGod]

This topic is not about evidences “FOR” or “AGAINST” evolution.

This topic is about creationists showing demonstrable evidences that man (Adam) can be created from the earth, as some scriptures say, like the Genesis 2 and Qur’ān 15, 23, 38 & 55.

According to Genesis, Adam is made out of dust from the earth.



As I understand it (verse), this “dust” would be “soil” of some types, which I had learned in my subjects on soil testing and foundation, in my days of studying civil engineering course, and “soil” could be of 3 basic types:

1. sand,
2. silt,
3. or clay.

Soil of these types have different chemical compounds and molecular structures of degraded rock minerals.

Before soil were made, the original source to soil are from rocks. The process of turning rock into soil...

(A) begins with “weathering” rock, where rock minerals (eg quartz or feldspar) have broken away from rock,
(B) and then over time, these rock minerals will degrade, turning rock minerals into clay minerals or silt minerals.​

Genesis is not very specific about the soil type, only that Adam’s creation is set somewhere in the Garden of Eden.

In the Qur’an, the soil is the last one, clay.

The story of Adam’s creation, in the Qur’an is entwined with the creation and fall of Iblis, the Islamic version of Satan/Devil.



The passage in Qur’an 38:71-77, repeated the creation of man in similar but slightly in more detail about the fall of Iblis (Satan). So I won’t bother quoting this passage.

In Qur’an 55:14, we have god shaping the clay into man, like pottery”.



But in Qur’an 23:12-14, we have some more detail about another material (“sperm-drop”) to make, and how all these, were .



The questions are, how can it be possible to make a living, breathing man of silt or clay or vague “dust”?

If we break down human flesh and bones into their molecular structures, they are not the molecular structures of clay or silt. How do you account for the chemical compositions (of human anatomy and soil) being so different?

So what evidences that you have that man is made directly out of the earth (soil)?

It shouldn’t be possible to create man from soil, unless it is all “magic” and supernatural.

Question for you.

Was life existing during the formation of earth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Question for you.

Was life existing during the formation of earth?

Let me jump in.

No.

Why do you ask? Let me warn you moving the goal posts is considered a loss.

 

[Polymath257]

Question for you.

Was life existing during the formation of earth?

Not that we know of. It may have existed in other locations in the universe, but we have no specific evidence of such. In any case, if you go back to the very early universe, no life existed. it started at some point within the universe.

 

[FearGod]

Not that we know of. It may have existed in other locations in the universe, but we have no specific evidence of such. In any case, if you go back to the very early universe, no life existed. it started at some point within the universe.

So it was matter first, it was non living matter.
Life existed from the non living matter, the question is why the atheists don't
accept the idea that life was made including humans from the non living matter
or the earthly matter.

 

[Polymath257]

So it was matter first, it was non living matter.
Life existed from the non living matter, the question is why the atheists don't
accept the idea that life was made including humans from the non living matter
or the earthly matter.

We *are* made from non-living matter! No atom in your body is alive. No molecule in your body s alive. It is the *combination*, the structure of how those non-living parts interconnect, that produces life. There is no separate 'life force' that makes something alive.

But multicellular life didn't form in one step. Humans are the result of a long process that started from the first cells billions of years ago. We are NOT the result of a magical 'blowing of life into dead matter'. There were billions of years between the first living things and humans.

 

[Thief]

Twins, possibly yes, but twins are not clones.

You still don’t understand the concept of clone.

Oh forget it. You still don’t understand, and you can never understand. Explaining to you is hopeless.

likewise