Quran Vs Bible in light of science

[AxisMundi]

Then show us...

Good luck.

4.82, 6.114, 21.50

Any scripture is only as good as its predictive power.

The predictive power of the Holy Bible clearly disproves all other books of faith.

And what "predictive power" is found in your bible, and from what educated source comes this idea that any truth of scripture is measured by "predictive power".

I suspose you're going to launch into the usual apologetic nonsence of twisting the human language out of recognition, and attempting to state that revelations is "predictive" as well, and not the contemporary commentary on the fall of Rome.

Let's just say.....you have nothing...

Among the many innaccuracies in your bible....

The earth and universe are of the same age, both some 6,000 years old.
The earth is flat.
The earth is the center of the universe.
Life began on land.
Life began all at once.
There is enough water on the planet to completely inundate the surface.
Species, including human beings, can start from one mating couple.
Tens of millions of animals, birds, fish, insects, etc. can fit on one boat.
In addition, their feed for over a year, including raw meat, and millions of tons of plant seeds.

All this in the very opening chapter of your scriptures. Were I to take and list the entire disproved passages, historical innaccuracies, and self-contradictions, the owners of this site would be quite cross with the amount of bandwidth it would take up every time someone read the post.

 

[AxisMundi]

MDNA traces back to Eve, the first female.

Y chromosomal traces back to Noah, the last male.

"Last male"? So I'm not supposed to exist at the moment? You're trying to be serious or was this a typo?


BTW, small m and n before DNA.


mDNA merely shows a common ancestry, not the first human beings, and Noah is never mentioned at all. Biologists merely used "mDNA Adam" and "mDNA Eve", who did indeed live several thousand years apart (and Eve first) because it was convinient.


There was no actual biblical connection intended nor implied.

Y-chromo Noah is a YECer invention created after mDNA Eve/Adam were announced and simply doesn't exist, since not all men have the same Y-chromasome as one would expect had Noah, and his sons, been actual survivors of an actual flood.

This of course is ignoring the Minimal Viable Population Theory (not hypothesis) which clearly states that for Adam and Eve, OR Noah and company, the human race would've been extinct within a few generations due to inbreeding mutations and sterility.

Nuclear DNA shows that there are no ancestors linked to Homo Sapines Sapiens.

nDNA, what makes up 22 pairs of the 23 pairs of DNA, is individual and isn't passed from parents to child. This is the reason it is used in forensics, nDNA is specific to the individual.

Your attempt to use it as an argument is akin to a YECer using radio-carbon dating taken in a swamp as proof it doesn't work.

Completely false.

Einstein's SR & GR theories are the most proven principles in all of physics, of which, point to a Universe with a beginning.

Time does not exist outside of matter.

That matter, energy, space and time are related are contained in the SR & GR formulas, of which, are the most proven in physics.

Even Hawking's theories decades ago demonstrated that time had a beginning.

These hypothesis (not theories) do indeed address A begining, not THE begining.

The Universe will eventually suffer a heat death, at which time there will no longer be any reference with which to measure time, thus it will have ended.

The Universe is cyclic. Each cycle begins with the Big Bang and ends with the Big Crunch, where another Big Bang quickly occurs and the universe starts again, refreshed, renewed, without begining nor end.

 

[Meow Mix]

Actually there is a y-chromosome adam, not an mDNA adam (mDNA is passed by mothers only).

However, as you noted, mDNA eve and y-chromosomal adam lived thousands of years apart, and they in no way represent manking coming from a pair of individuals because one was quite dead when the other was alive, and both of them weren't the only female or male alive during their respective times. They're just the earliest common ancestors for mDNA and y-chromosomal genes respectively. I don't get why that's so hard for creationists to grasp.

 

[Bowman]

4.82,

No mention of being divinely inspired in this ayah.

6.114,

'Alkitaba' refers to the Holy Bible whenever used in the Koran.

21.50

No mention of being divinely inspired in this ayah.


No wonder you did not bother to posit the Arabic...

 

[Bowman]

We have already covered several examples...however, you have failed to read through the posts leading up to your entry point..

Among the many innaccuracies in your bible....

The earth and universe are of the same age, both some 6,000 years old.
The earth is flat.
The earth is the center of the universe.
Life began on land.
Life began all at once.
There is enough water on the planet to completely inundate the surface.
Species, including human beings, can start from one mating couple.
Tens of millions of animals, birds, fish, insects, etc. can fit on one boat.
In addition, their feed for over a year, including raw meat, and millions of tons of plant seeds.

All this in the very opening chapter of your scriptures. Were I to take and list the entire disproved passages, historical innaccuracies, and self-contradictions, the owners of this site would be quite cross with the amount of bandwidth it would take up every time someone read the post.

Nice meritless assertions.

Come back when you can posit scripture to your googled claims...

 

[Bowman]

"Last male"? So I'm not supposed to exist at the moment? You're trying to be serious or was this a typo?

Last male, as in surviving male, brother.

BTW, small m and n before DNA.

Not when you begin a new sentence.

mDNA merely shows a common ancestry, not the first human beings, and Noah is never mentioned at all. Biologists merely used "mDNA Adam" and "mDNA Eve", who did indeed live several thousand years apart (and Eve first) because it was convinient.

Completely wrong....go google some more...

The Universe is cyclic. Each cycle begins with the Big Bang and ends with the Big Crunch, where another Big Bang quickly occurs and the universe starts again, refreshed, renewed, without begining nor end.

Lol...not even close.

You are dating yourself and your faith by thinking that there will ever be a big crunch.

Where have you been?

 

[Meow Mix]

MDNA traces back to Eve, the first female.

Y chromosomal traces back to Noah, the last male.

No, you're simply wrong. mDNA eve wasn't the Biblical "eve," nor was she the only female alive during her time -- humans were alive and well at that time. Same thing with y-chromosomal Adam. They're just the last common ancestors for mDNA and y-chromsomes respectively.

Nuclear DNA shows that there are no ancestors linked to Homo Sapines Sapiens.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but evolution works like a branching tree; and we know several other human species closely knit with Homo sapiens; some of them candidates for direct ancestors -- though it's difficult to tell. But it's ultimately unimportant.

Why do you suppose nDNA shows "there are no ancestors linked to H. sapiens?

Completely false.

Einstein's SR & GR theories are the most proven principles in all of physics, of which, point to a Universe with a beginning.

Maybe I should point out that I'm a foundational cosmology student... you're sort of preaching to the choir, and on top of that you're not correct. Special relativity has nothing to do with whether or not the universe had a beginning because it uses Minkowski spacetime where the Riemann tensor is zero -- so it couldn't possibly explain pretty much anything about whether or not the universe had a beginning.

General relativity, on the other hand, also has nothing to say about whether the universe had an ontological beginning. Nobody is disagreeing that the current state of the universe had a beginning with the big bang event, but the BBE wasn't a creation ex nihilo as creationists like to distort it. (Granted, the popular media distorts it to sound like that too, fueling the fire of misunderstanding).

Just to make things clear for everyone: the BBE was not the universe starting to exist from nothing. That is not the case.

Time does not exist outside of matter.

Yes it does. Do you consider fields matter? I nor anyone else in physics seem to.

That matter, energy, space and time are related are contained in the SR & GR formulas, of which, are the most proven in physics.

Even Hawking's theories decades ago demonstrated that time had a beginning.

Time is thermodynamic, as I mentioned before: it gets its arrow from the entropic gradient.

Now suppose that you have a box filled with a gas in thermodynamic equilibrium. Some parts are going to be losing entropy sheerly through probability -- then those spots will start gaining entropy again. Each time that happens, it's essentially a point where time "starts" again.

So yes, time can have a beginning, but there is more than one type of time; and time beginning doesn't mean the beginning of ontological existence obviously. For example with our box analogy, there is an overarching metatime that -- as the saying goes -- keeps those entropic events from happening at once!

The Universe will eventually suffer a heat death, at which time there will no longer be any reference with which to measure time, thus it will have ended.

Wrong, the universe as a whole would still be a thermodynamic system even when in equilibrium -- there would still by sheer chance be pockets of lower entropy (on a universal scale those "pockets" could be huge swaths; in fact what we call our "visible universe" could possibly be such a lower entropy pocket in a larger megaverse that's in thermodynamic equilibrium!).

Since there would be pockets of lower entropy, entropy would still be increasing in those pockets after they form, and therefore time's arrow would still follow the entropic gradient.

 

[Bowman]

Actually there is a y-chromosome adam, not an mDNA adam (mDNA is passed by mothers only).

Agreed...

However, as you noted, mDNA eve and y-chromosomal adam lived thousands of years apart, and they in no way represent manking coming from a pair of individuals because one was quite dead when the other was alive, and both of them weren't the only female or male alive during their respective times. They're just the earliest common ancestors for mDNA and y-chromosomal genes respectively. I don't get why that's so hard for creationists to grasp.

Actually, the latest evidence shows that both existed circa 50,000 years ago.

 

[Bowman]

No, you're simply wrong. mDNA eve wasn't the Biblical "eve," nor was she the only female alive during her time -- humans were alive and well at that time. Same thing with y-chromosomal Adam. They're just the last common ancestors for mDNA and y-chromsomes respectively.

Both emanate from the same time period and are not related to any other hominid.

The 'Big Bang' for art, tools, and complex language all converge on this time period.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but evolution works like a branching tree; and we know several other human species closely knit with Homo sapiens; some of them candidates for direct ancestors -- though it's difficult to tell. But it's ultimately unimportant.

Why do you suppose nDNA shows "there are no ancestors linked to H. sapiens?

Evolution is also undirected.

Evolution would never account for complex life bursting onto the scene, using the same blue-print, over and over again, after having previously gone extinct.

Evolution would predict a different outcome each time, with an excruciating long development period, and no re-usage of features.

Maybe I should point out that I'm a foundational cosmology student... you're sort of preaching to the choir, and on top of that you're not correct. Special relativity has nothing to do with whether or not the universe had a beginning because it uses Minkowski spacetime where the Riemann tensor is zero -- so it couldn't possibly explain pretty much anything about whether or not the universe had a beginning.

General relativity, on the other hand, also has nothing to say about whether the universe had an ontological beginning. Nobody is disagreeing that the current state of the universe had a beginning with the big bang event, but the BBE wasn't a creation ex nihilo as creationists like to distort it. (Granted, the popular media distorts it to sound like that too, fueling the fire of misunderstanding).

Just to make things clear for everyone: the BBE was not the universe starting to exist from nothing. That is not the case.

GR and the space-time theorems thereof, clearly establish that the space-time dimensions of the Universe must have a specific beginning.

Within the Universe, time is a dimension in which cause and effect relationships occur.

Hawking and Penrose' theorem established that both space and time began at the cosmic beginning.

Yes it does. Do you consider fields matter? I nor anyone else in physics seem to.

Elaborate...

Time is thermodynamic, as I mentioned before: it gets its arrow from the entropic gradient.

Now suppose that you have a box filled with a gas in thermodynamic equilibrium. Some parts are going to be losing entropy sheerly through probability -- then those spots will start gaining entropy again. Each time that happens, it's essentially a point where time "starts" again.

So yes, time can have a beginning, but there is more than one type of time; and time beginning doesn't mean the beginning of ontological existence obviously. For example with our box analogy, there is an overarching metatime that -- as the saying goes -- keeps those entropic events from happening at once!

Why don't you show how falsifiable this is, for us...

Wrong, the universe as a whole would still be a thermodynamic system even when in equilibrium -- there would still by sheer chance be pockets of lower entropy (on a universal scale those "pockets" could be huge swaths; in fact what we call our "visible universe" could possibly be such a lower entropy pocket in a larger megaverse that's in thermodynamic equilibrium!).

Since there would be pockets of lower entropy, entropy would still be increasing in those pockets after they form, and therefore time's arrow would still follow the entropic gradient.

Not even close.

Please tell us with what your reference points would now be?

 

[AxisMundi]

Last male, as in surviving male, brother.

Moot, as your premise is inherently flawed, and not recognized by the scientific community.

Not when you begin a new sentence.

Yes, when you begin a new sentance as well. Basic Composition 101 stuff there.

Completely wrong....go google some more...

Might I suggest you do the same? You might come across the wiki entries for mDNA Adam/Eve for example.

Here let me help you...

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the most recent common matrilineal ancestor from whom all living humans are descended. Passed down from mother to offspring, all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in every living person is directly descended from hers. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived thousands of years apart.

I'll invite you to link to a scientific sourse for mDNA Noah, as all I can find tends to be YECer sites.

Lol...not even close.

You are dating yourself and your faith by thinking that there will ever be a big crunch.

Where have you been?

I have just as much evidence for my hypothesis as you do for yours.

Indeed, I would say much more sicne yours is based purely on pseudosciences and you can only reply with ad hominems.

 

[Meow Mix]

Both emanate from the same time period and are not related to any other hominid.

The 'Big Bang' for art, tools, and complex language all converge on this time period.

mDNA Eve was 200,000 years ago, not 50,000 years ago. This is ~50,000 years apart from when y-chromosomal Adam lived. They most certainly didn't live even close to the same time frame. I don't know what you mean by "not related to any other hominid," mDNA Eve and y-chrom Adam are just regular humans like you and me who happen to be the earlist common ancestors for mDNA and y-chromosomes respectively.

There were many humans alive at the time (in fact, more than one species of humans alive at the time). This might help to show you visually how we can share mDNA from a single individual, even if there were other humans alive at the time with that individual (as was the case with both mDNA and y-chrom Adam):

Evolution is also undirected.

Evolution would never account for complex life bursting onto the scene, using the same blue-print, over and over again, after having previously gone extinct.

Evolution would predict a different outcome each time, with an excruciating long development period, and no re-usage of features.

That's incorrect. Are you familiar with convergent evolution? (See: Convergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It's actually the case that quite often the same body plans/methods to solve common problems evolve, and evolve again, and again, and again -- independently. There's evidence that the eye, for instance, has evolved independently multiple times rather than having one common origin.

GR and the space-time theorems thereof, clearly establish that the space-time dimensions of the Universe must have a specific beginning.

Within the Universe, time is a dimension in which cause and effect relationships occur.

Hawking and Penrose' theorem established that both space and time began at the cosmic beginning.

You're referring to the fact that if the universe were a singularity with a positive apparent horizon that the geodesics from Hawking-Penrose theory are by definition finite (can't be infinite), so ostensibly therefore time stretches finitely into the past (at least I'm assuming that's your train of thought).

I'm not sure how much you know about H-P theory but just because the geodesics are finite doesn't mean that time "began" in a literal sense. Besides, there is no indication that the universe was a singularity during the BBE. As far as I know, Hawking himself admits this; as that was part of the "big deal" surrounding his publication of "A Brief History of Time."

Again, there are no indications that time "began" in any meaningful sense.

Elaborate...

Do you consider fields matter? Time exists if fields exist.

Why don't you show how falsifiable this is, for us...

This isn't something that needs to be falsifiable, it's definitional/analytic.

Definition: Time is the entropic gradient

A quick 'n dirty definition, yes, but if time is the entropic gradient or at least gets its arrow from the entropic gradient then it is glaringly, obviously true that in thermodynamic equilibrium there will be many "starts" of time as entropy lowers, then raises.

Asking to falsify something that's definitionally true is sort of like asking if the statement "If A > B and B > C then A > C" is falsifiable.

Not even close.

Please tell us with what your reference points would now be?

What do you mean by reference points...?

In thermodynamic equilibrium you would get your concept of time from the random entropic reductions that will of course begin tending towards higher entropy after their formation. I don't see what's mysterious about that.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Ah...how I love to see a real physicist pwning the Creatards.

 

[AxisMundi]

We have already covered several examples...however, you have failed to read through the posts leading up to your entry point..

In other words, you have nothing nothing to offer.
It would've taken just as much effort, perhaps less, to copy/paste some examples than to type in your above response.

Nice meritless assertions.

Come back when you can posit scripture to your googled claims...

I would hope you would see that ad hominems do not win arguments, or add to your credibility.

I have read the bible through, twice, before I graduated from grade school, which motivated me to leave the religion in my early teens way bak in the day before cell phones, home video games, and cable TV.

When's the last time you've read it?

Everyone has also noted that you refuse to address what I write as well, insted resorting to ad hominem attacks. So, try to refute this...

The earth and universe are of the same age, both some 6,000 years old....
Genesis 1:1, 1:5. As to the age, it is arrived at by counting generations between Adam and Abraham.

The earth is flat...
Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8. Sorry, but no amtter how tall the tree or mountain, one cannot see the other side of a globe. Isaiah 40:22. A circle is a two dimensional object.

The earth is the center of the universe...
1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1, 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 22:14.. Good Gods, there's just too many. Google it.

Life began on land...
Genesis 1:11. Third day. Life in the oceans isn't introduced until the fifth day, Genesis 1:20.

Life began all at once....
See above.

There is enough water on the planet to completely inundate the surface....
Great Flood Myth. Sorry, but there isn't enough water on the planet to compeltely inundate the surface.

Species, including human beings, can start from one mating couple...
Adam and Eve, the animals on the Ark, not to mention Noah, his sons, and their wives. The Minimal Population Viability Theory disproves these biblical ideas.

Tens of millions of animals, birds, fish, insects, etc. can fit on one boat...
Hello? Two of everything, or seven pure and two impure depending on whihc version you're reading. And since the waters would've been absolutely poisionious to any marine creature, due to rotting corpses and the imbalance of salts, guess where the fishies gotta ride.

In addition, their feed for over a year, including raw meat, and millions of tons of plant seeds...
Total length of flood from start to finish, 370 days.
All plants would've perished as well, including seeds.
Oh, forgot about potable water as well. Where did Noah store milliosn of gallons of fresh water?

 

[AxisMundi]

Ah...how I love to see a real physicist pwning the Creatards.

A thing of beauty it is. :yes:

 

[AxisMundi]

Actually there is a y-chromosome adam, not an mDNA adam (mDNA is passed by mothers only).

However, as you noted, mDNA eve and y-chromosomal adam lived thousands of years apart, and they in no way represent manking coming from a pair of individuals because one was quite dead when the other was alive, and both of them weren't the only female or male alive during their respective times. They're just the earliest common ancestors for mDNA and y-chromosomal genes respectively. I don't get why that's so hard for creationists to grasp.

Yes, you are correct, of course, Ms. Mix.

But then I only claim to be a passing informal student of biology.

Besides, it's easier for my arthritic fingers to type.

 

[Bowman]

Might I suggest you do the same? You might come across the wiki entries for mDNA Adam/Eve for example.

Here let me help you...

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the field of human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve refers to the most recent common matrilineal ancestor from whom all living humans are descended. Passed down from mother to offspring, all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in every living person is directly descended from hers. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived thousands of years apart.

So....since when is wiki known for scholarly material?

Anyone can edit any wiki, at any time.

I'll invite you to link to a scientific sourse for mDNA Noah, as all I can find tends to be YECer sites.

MDNA is not even a term for males, brother...it is yDNA for males...

Further, I am not a YEC.

I have just as much evidence for my hypothesis as you do for yours.

You believe in an oscillating Universe.

There is no modern science to support your world view.

 

[Bowman]

[/size][/font]

mDNA Eve was 200,000 years ago, not 50,000 years ago. This is ~50,000 years apart from when y-chromosomal Adam lived. They most certainly didn't live even close to the same time frame.

Please don't tell me that you googled this from wiki...

Show us exactly where you are getting your dates from.

 

[AxisMundi]

So....since when is wiki known for scholarly material?

Anyone can edit any wiki, at any time.

More mere ad hominems. PROVE the wiki quote incorrect by citing a scientific source substantiating your idea that the two lived together.

And yes, anyone can indeed edit wiki, including quite learned individuals.

This is why independant research sources show that wiki is as accurate, and more accurate in some cases, than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

MDNA is not even a term for males, brother...it is yDNA for males...

I have already corrected myself, sparky.

Further, I am not a YEC.

And yet you forward YECer ideals and use their arguments.

You believe in an oscillating Universe.

There is no modern science to support your world view.

There is just as much evidence of a cyclic universe as there is for not.

Considering that something cannot come from nothing, including gods, there is more reason to expect the validity of the cyclic model.

 

[AxisMundi]

Please don't tell me that you googled this from wiki...

Show us exactly where you are getting your dates from.

And we can expect links from you when?

 

[Bowman]

More mere ad hominems. PROVE the wiki quote incorrect by citing a scientific source substantiating your idea that the two lived together.

And yes, anyone can indeed edit wiki, including quite learned individuals.

This is why independant research sources show that wiki is as accurate, and more accurate in some cases, than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

More accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica....wow...now thats saying alot...

And yet you forward YECer ideals and use their arguments.

No.

I do not.

There is just as much evidence of a cyclic universe as there is for not.

Considering that something cannot come from nothing, including gods, there is more reason to expect the validity of the cyclic model.

There is no current evidence for an oscillating Universe.

Perhaps you have already googled 'wiki' and found that world view wanting....yes?