Audie
Veteran Member
Sorry-ah but irremediable evidence of the chariots
wheels has already been found.
Chariots in Red Sea: ‘Irrefutable evidence’
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
Sorry-ah but irremediable evidence of the chariots
wheels has already been found.
Chariots in Red Sea: ‘Irrefutable evidence’
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wow! Talk about "No honor among thieves". That nonsense was lifted directly from some of the Ron Wyatt sites:
Exodus and the Red Sea Crossing
There are others, but I get a warning about the connection not being secure and I do not wish to provide buggy links.
ecco
Veteran Member
Well for my self, I believe that Quran is the words of god and with no doubts, that is me!!
But for those of you, who are in need of further evidences, there are a lot of progress made so far in finding evidences based on historical facts and archeological findings. I am not saying, this is all you need, but worth a good look.
"........The Kingdom of Ebla consisted of part of south-eastern Turkey and part of Mesopotamia and extended as far as south of Damascus, in Syria.
The kingdom attained the highest cultural and economic levels, but eventually, like many other civilisations, disappeared from the face of the earth.
Once the capital of the Kingdom of Ebla, one low hill, has been of the greatest interest to archaeologists and has been shedding light on a very ancient civilisation ever since 1975.
The discovery of the Kingdom of Ebla in 1975 was regarded as one of the greatest and most important discoveries of classical archaeology. The importance of this discovery was highlighted when a library consisting of 20,000 tablets and fragments written in cuneiform were found................."
Here is the link that contains a video and the full notes.
Harun Yahya
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You need to learn what is and what is not evidence. This does not qualify.
Dr Mourice says, all you need is to visit Egypt and see.....
Again that is me and I. May not qualify again. I dont expect a quick "red card" now
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is not how it is done. If his evidence is real it would be published in peer reviewed journals and you could link it here. All sorts of loons make all sorts of unsupported claims. Real scientists publish their results for all to see.Dr Mourice says, all you need is to visit Egypt and see.....
Again that is me and I. May not qualify again. I dont expect a quick "red card" now
It sounds like Maurice is a loon, and a lover of 9 lives as well:
The new york times here All Wrapped Up in His Work
By the time he was one of the most fameous punblications and bigges admired. And also critisized without ...... You know when faith related things arrise .........
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He is not an anthropologist, he is merely a medical doctor with an agenda. He refutes his ow claims by avoiding peer review.
This is a failure on your part, do you have anything else?
No matter how one is convinced with the facts, there are a lot of factors that could hold back one's courage to be identified as part of a creed.
Dr mourice himself had a fight inside him, but he was so courageous to break through those and still justifies his motives to not openly get recognized as such. people are mislead by an other hiden monster!! Very difficult to over come.
Here is what he said about the sort of getting labeled as "one with agenda" every one is waiting for some body else say ......
Q: Have you embraced Islam?
A: I wanted to make it quite clear in the very beginning that even before I learnt the first letter of Bismillah, I was convinced that God was unique and all- powerful and when God guided me to undertake a study of the Quran, my inner soul cried out that Al- Quran was the Word of God revealed to his Last Prophet Mohammed (S.A.W.).
In my book "Quran, Bible and Science," I have mentioned these facts and the book has met with instant success in the entire Christian world. In this book I have devoted myself to discuss all problems from purely academic angle, rather than that of faith or belief which would have revealed only my personal convictions. This was because I desired to be treated by the world as an academician rather than a theologian. About my faith and belief, God knows what is in one's heart. I am convinced that if I identify myself with any creed, people will invariably dub me as one belonging to such and such group and feel that whatever I say or do, I do so from only the angle of such and such creed group. I know my fellow beings very well and understand their mentality only too well. I wanted to assure them that all my pronouncements are based on scientific knowledge and not on any religious dogmas.
Newsletters
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
This thread is about evidence. You certainly should not be proselytizing here.
You do not seem to understand the concept of evidence. So far you have not supplied any for creationism. Would you like to learn what is and what is not evidence?
Audie
Veteran Member
I have no interest in helping you with your agenda,
but honestly, you only make your cause look
worse, the more you say.
It does not look to me as if you have a flippin'; clue
about your fellow beings.
Well me too sorry for you! You are not reading to understand. It is the well kknown French Doctor who said that in an interview and the link with full content is put there fore you to see.
Any ways Doctor's arguiments and findings are clearly stated in the video I posted its link above. Are you going to label him "lier" as subduction zone usually does when all goes well articulated and he cant say any thing other than ask for peers and bla ...bla while it needs ones self confidence only to grasp and look further in to the issue, and ofcourse understandg the message Dr Mourice wanted to convey wasnt complicated by any means and it doesnt need peers and any other persons interpret for you.
Doctor says the situation of scull bone fructure on Ramsuss successor would have caused a quick decay and would have destroyed the body in no time. He was rather astonished by how this pharoehs body was much better in condition than other ones. Plus the way Quran could have clearly mentioned similar situation and God says to preserve a body that would be a sign for generation to come, which is beyond any rational mind to get an opposing arguement that could be supported with any kind of justification interms of the knowledge we humans are given so far.
What ever the case is, I think any one who cant appreciate how this kind of information could have been there before 1400 years ago, when there is no probably any clue about mummy and the body of pharohs is definitely the real idiot.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
By referring to people that are well outside of their areas of expertise you expose them as fools and sometimes liars.
You need to find people that have a clue about what they are talking about. The easiest and most reliable way to do this is to find peer reviewed articles in well respected professional journals that support your claims. If you can't find any then the odds are huge that you are wrong.
You are blaming others for your wrong doings. This is highly hypocritical. I would suggest that you avoid such behavior.
ecco
Veteran Member
A book is not a peer reviewed paper. But, let's see who the Publisher is:
Islamic Book Service
Oh dear.
Audie
Veteran Member
gnostic
The Lost One
You don’t understand what peer review is.
Peer review don’t interpret people’s works. They test people’s works. They make sure the evidences and data were objectively obtained, and if the peers tested the hypotheses themselves, it would work for them, as the people who wrote them (hypotheses).
If the peers perform experiments and it doesn’t work or doesn’t correlate with the hypotheses, then it very possible that the authors to the papers have misrepresented his findings, his test results or data. In another word, trying to cheat the system.
Any scientist who don’t present his or her hypothesis before peer review, then his or her work haven’t been substantiated.
Science is all about verifications, and the only way to verify a hypothesis or a theory is through empirical evidences, from either lab-controlled experiments or from finding evidences in the fields.
Peer review is a mechanism that allow independent scientists to examine and test the papers.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
Peers don't rerun the experiments found in the paper. What the peers will do is make sure the authors used the proper controls and methodologies. It is very rare for reviewers to challenge the actual results, but it does happen. If a reviewer feels strongly that the data is fabricated they may suggest that the paper not be published, but I have never seen a situation where reviewers repeat the experiments. It would take a lot of paperwork, time, and money to get a study approved that would repeat the work of others, and repeating work is strongly frowned upon by most institutions.
What can and does happen is that other scientists will base new research projects on published articles that will in part test the hypothesis of the paper. If those new experiments produce funky results then it casts doubt on the work in the published article. To use an analogy, if you build a house on a faulty foundation then the house will collapse.
Very good point. Almost all primary research papers are required to have a hypothesis. The only differences are "bid data" (e.g. new sequenced genomes) papers that are focused on reporting results that other scientists can use to test hypotheses.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Of course, it has happened that faulty experiments ( see Psychology!!)
will be cited, results accepted, and throw off a lot of subsequent work-
so repeating of experiments might well be done more often than it is.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
I have to chuckle at the naivete exhibited here - from a creationist that, doubtless, fancies himself to be some sort of 'well read' and 'well informed' person that totally 'God created people from soil, there you go. the science.'
Extrapolation? HA!
Sorry - it is supported by many lines of actual evidence.
I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:
The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.
======================
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.
==================================
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.
======================
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.
==================================
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
We can hereby CONCLUDE that the results of an application of those methods have merit.
Application of the tested methodology:
Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo
"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "
Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny
"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."
A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "
Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny
"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."
A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
CONCLUSION:
This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.
Too much "jargon" for someone that has "studied" all this for decades, I know.... I am beginning to lose faith in the honesty of creationists who make these embellished claims of having great scientific knowledge.