Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Miracles all tend to be just a mundane event when investigated. Why do "miracles" do that?
-
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!
The problem of Creationism in Islam rejecting the science of evolution.
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You do not know what a scientific theory is. You are using the incorrect definition. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. The germ theory of disease describes how some microorganisms cause some disease. The theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.
Eyewitness testimony is not all that reliable. Objective evidence is far superior.
Did they now. Or did they just make that claim later. You see if he had split the moon many thousands if not millions would have seen it. You see the Moon is pretty big.. It is sort of hard to miss something like that.
Yeah, faith is believing in what you know is not true. A rough but accurate paraphrase of Mark Twain.
So what?
The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light on Instagram: "Incredible moment witnessing a miracle—a testament to the extraordinary power of The Mahdi, who brought a woman back to life. Her shocking testimony reveals what she witnessed on the other side. #
165 likes, 15 comments - ahmadireligion on December 14, 2023: "Incredible moment witnessing a miracle—a testament to the extraordinary power of The Mahdi, who brought a woman back to life. Her shocking testimony reveals what she witnessed on the other side. #bringbackfromthedead #jesusmiracles...www.instagram.com
The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light on Instagram: "Dreams have always been a part of communication with God, offering guidance and revelations. Now, thousands of people are testifying through dreams to the truthfulness of Aba Sadiq's claim to bein
206 likes, 15 comments - ahmadireligion on December 15, 2023: "Dreams have always been a part of communication with God, offering guidance and revelations. Now, thousands of people are testifying through dreams to the truthfulness of Aba Sadiq's claim to being the Mahdi of this time. #dreams...
IOW most of Noah's family and their animals were drowned since they lived in the flooded area which included Noah's little "world" on a flat riverine flood plain, and that the highest hills in the flooded area were less than 15 cubits above the normal river level.
The bible says that Noah's brothers (Jubal & Jabal) and their families were obviously living outside the flooded area since they are the fathers of all nomadic herders and musical instrument makers
The bible doesn't say that Mt Ararat in Australia was covered or even Mount Ariate, but only says that the "Mountains of Ararat" were covered (where ever they are), but they were within the horizon and less than 15 cubits above the normal river level.
IOW the flood covered the highest hills in the flooded area, which stretched to the horizon (ie the highest hills in Noah's little "world" on a riverine flood plain).
I also live on a riverine plain and we have higher floods than the one which drowned most of Noah's family and their sheep and goats and chooks.
Last edited:
A very imaginative idealic view of what you believe the Noah World flood, but not how the Bible described the flood.
Sorry for the misspelling, but nonetheless the Mountains of Ararat are greater the 15 cubits, and yes the mountains were covered by the flood according to the Bible, and all humans and animals perished that were not on the Ark.
The Bible account makes no mention of just a 'little world' of Noah, It describes very literally in Hebrew it was a world flood where all the mountains were covered and all humans and animals perished that were not on the Ark.
Last edited:
Incoherent.
Miracles and the supernatural describe events that cannot be explained by Natural Laws and natural processes. Can you describe some of these events that were observed and documented in recent history?
Last edited:
This is not correct. It was called the Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin as he proposed it based on the evidence he had at the time. but in reality it is the sciences of evolution today based on many falsified hypothesis and scientific theories in the sciences of Biology, Genetics, Geology, Physics, Organic Chemistry, and Paleontology, The objective verifiable evidence are the 'facts' that support evolution. Virtually all the scientists of the world 95%++ support the sciences of evolution and all the major universities of the world. Also all the scientists support that evolution cannot be separated from the other sciences.
Also you do not know the basics of science to know what a theory is in science. You may call the Theory of evolution a falsified Theory, just like the other major Theories in science like Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Theories are the foundation of what science is today.
The view that evolution is a 'fact' is a slightly misguided use of terminology by many particularly laymen. Evolution is a 'factual' based science supported by objectively verifiable evidence that may be called 'facts', and is consistent and predictable in explaining the history of life on earth.
Last edited:
But that's how the writer(s) of that story would have seen their world over 2500 years ago, and not as a writer would in the 21st century.
So where are the "Mountains of Ararat", given that the bible story obviously doesn't refer to Mt Ararat, but refers to a group of hills on the flood plain.
That, however, is the only interpretation which has any sense of reality and as seen through the eyes of a writer 2500 years ago.
The biblical flood story was obviously just about a local event that upset Noah's little world. The bible describes Noah's world as a flat immovable disc which was covered by a domed coloured tent ( the "heavens") attached to the ring of the horizon (Isaiah 40:22), like a large child's snow dome, and not a rotating globe orbiting the sun.
Last edited:
justaguy313
Active Member
There have been many other ways in which creationist writers have used probability arguments to refute evolutionism, especially the idea of random changes preserved, if beneficial, by natural selection. James Coppedge devoted almost an entire book, Evolution: Possible or Impossible (Zondervan, 1973, 276 pp.), to this type of approach.
The first such book to use mathematics and probability in refuting evolution was written by a pastor, W. A. Williams, way back in 1928. Entitled, Evolution Disproved
In fact, evolutionists themselves have attacked traditional Darwinism on the same basis (see the Wistar Institute Symposium, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, 1967, 140 pp.). While these scientists did not reject evolution itself, they did insist that the Darwinian randomness postulate would never work.
Furthermore, since the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, is essentially a statement of probabilities, many writers have also used that law itself to show that evolution on any significant scale is essentially impossible. Evolutionists have usually ignored the arguments or else used vacuous arguments against them ("Anything can happen given enough time"; "The earth is an open system, so the second law doesn't apply"; "Order can arise out of chaos through dissipative structures"; etc.).
In the real world of scientific observation, as opposed to metaphysical speculation, however, no more complex system can ever "evolve" out of a less complex system, so the probability of the naturalistic origin of even the simplest imaginary form of life is zero.
The existence of complexity of any kind is evidence of God and creation. "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: He calleth them all by names by the greatness of His might, for that He is strong in power; not one faileth" (Isaiah 40:26).
justaguy313
Active Member
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let's give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, evolution has moved beyond just those two, but those two can explain most of evolution.
And look at that, you already forgot about natural selection. Perhaps you do not understand it.
And what do you mean that no one has observed a mutation. Please define what you mean by that. We probably have if you have a reasonable definition.
It is too late at night to deal with this ignorance. Let's work on the basics first. You need to be able to define what you mean since you do not appear to be using proper definitions.
That is not true.
Unfortunately for you, you can't demonstrate that to be true.
That is like saying, 95 % of priests say God is true, so it must be true.
The problem is, no one has observed it 100.000 years. It is possible that same effect happens many times in a year, or is caused by some other event.
You don't see the evidence, because you don't understand how it happened.
Sorry, I don't believe that.
I recommend you to read the Bible again. Rain was only a part of it. Large part of the water came form the "fountains of the great deep". The great deep is the water that was below the original continent. And fountains of great deep are like geysers. My guess is that meteor hit the original continent, probably on Yucatán peninsula, which then caused the original continent to brake up into modern continents. It caused the cracks to the original continent, probably lot of those int eh area of Mid-Atlantic ridge. And there the water and water vapor came first from small cracks, like in geysers, causing the heavy rain and flooding.
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep were burst open, and the sky's win-dows were opened. The rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.
Gen. 7:11-12
And the waters have been very very mighty on the earth, and covered are all the high mountains which are under the whole heavens; fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;
Gen. 7:19-20
all in whose nostrils is breath of a living spirit--of all that is in the dry land--have died. And wiped away is all the substance that is on the face of the ground, from man unto beast, unto creeping thing, and unto fowl of the heavens; yea, they are wiped away from the earth, and only Noah is left, and those who are with him in the ark;
Gen. 7:22-23
So, in Biblical point of view earth (=dry land) was formed like this:
Not to somebody encased in a faith-based confirmation bias, but it is easily demonstrated to an open-minded critical thinker.
Not so. A consensus of experts is meaningful. There are no experts regarding gods. Priest know no more about gods than you and I.
Science isn't art. It is not chosen out of aesthetical preference.
Does not make sense. The flood was described as it was believed to happen. Actually the Pentateuch was compiled after 600 BCE, and the writers did not see anything.
The Bible does not refer to a group of Hills. It refers to mountains in Hebrew.
That however is literally what was written in the text describing the flood in Hebrew. The writers when compiled after 600 BCE did not see anything.
No, as far as the Bible in Hebrew described it was a world flood covering the mountains and all humans and animals perished that were not on the Ark.
It is true that the origin of the story was an earlier Sumerian account of catastrophic flood of the Tigris Euphrates Valley, which also described it as world flood,
The reality is that the Noah's flood never happened, Noah is a mythical figure, and it is a myth though sincerely believed by those that compiled the Pentateuch after 600 BCE. Your interpretation of local flood in 'Noah's little world' is not productive of an event that never happened. It is a severe stretch of an interpretation on your part what you think should have happened, and not what is described in Hebrew.
This does not remotely effect the intent of the writers as they described it in Hebrew regardless of the shape of the earth. The world of the writers in 600 BCE was not just a 'Little World of Noah' included the Levant, Babylonia, Egypt,, Arabia, much of Africa, Turkey and the Mediterranean region at minimum. Even though the whole thing is a myth and never happened in the Levant, The account is believed as described by Jews, Muslims and Christians as an actual event as described up until the 18th century. IT is only in recent history that the account of the flood and the historical accounts are seriously questioned, and the Pentateuch is not a reliable historical account.
Last edited:
A 1928 book!?!?! How archiac! The problem with this is modern science and Chaos Theory math has demonstrated that all the cause and effect outcomes in Nature are not random, and probability estimates are meaningless efforts to demonstrate that evolution is false by Creationists with a pseudoscience agenda. The following thread documents the problem of Randomness in nature.
The problems of the belief in 'Randomness' and use of probability in 'Intelligent Design.'
I posted this in another thread and I believe it deserves it;s own thread. Out of interest in the issue I did a search of RF on 'Intelligent Design' and I was amazed at the number to threads on the topic including several addressing the problem of Islam and Intelligent Design. I was discouraged...
www.religiousforums.com
There is good reason scientists have ignored these useless ancient arguments. Increasing entropy and Second Law of Thermodynamics is meaningless in this case, because the source of energy for evolution is the internal heat of the earth and the sun, which provides far more than enough energy for the evolution of life.
Metaphysical speculation is the realm of Creationist pseudoscience, and not legitimate science. Again the Creationist arguments for irreducible Complexity has been demonstrated without basis i real science. There have been a number of threads on this cite that have demonstrate that the use of probability in this case and the phony argument for irreducible complexity is false and pseudoscience based on a Creationist agenda not legitimate science.
No as described above. Biblical citations do not contribute to a scientific argument.
Last edited:
No and meaningless, because claims by priests represent subjective arguments for the existence of God(s). There is no objective evidence for the existence of God(s). The support of scientists and ALL the major universities of the world is based on the objective verifiable evidence for all of science including evolution
Not true evolution has been observed today and in recent history, and documented by objective verifiable evidence in the history of life on earth, Your intentional ignorance of science based on an ancient tribal agenda ia appalling.
Science has demonstrated how evolution has taken place beyond any reasonable doubt. It is the Fundi Creationist beliefs that lack any objective science evidence whatsoever.