It has been demonstrated by simple physics that such a world flood is impossible and no geologic evidence is found for flood debris of this magnitude has ever been found.Unfortunately for you, you can't demonstrate that to be true.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It has been demonstrated by simple physics that such a world flood is impossible and no geologic evidence is found for flood debris of this magnitude has ever been found.Unfortunately for you, you can't demonstrate that to be true.
Unbelievable pseudoscience dishonest mythology with absolutely no evidence that any of the above actually took place.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:
View attachment 85915
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.
There was no conversation that I can see. Just you making a bunch of Gish Gallop-type claims and not responding to points or arguments against them.We have different stances, no need to have a further conversation. I have stated my beliefs and you did yours. I have no desire to prove to you something which you deny.
Move on
You forgot the cite the source you cribbed these outdated debunked arguments from: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).
ore 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).
You forgot to cite your source for this too: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
No, it isn't. Because many of the scientists who accept evolution are also religious. Francis Collins, for example, is a physician/geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, accepts evolution, and also identifies as a Catholic.an evangelical Christian.That is like saying, 95 % of priests say God is true, so it must be true.
If nobody observes a murder, does that mean it's impossible to determine who the murderer is? Of course not. There is evidence that can be examined in light of other evidence.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.
Then go ahead and enlighten everyone. What is this evidence you speak of?You don't see the evidence, because you don't understand how it happened.
No, read the book Chaos: Making a New Science by James GleickChaos theory? You must be joking, what are you an agent of Illuminati?
True. So what?a) Matter-scientific definition
Matter is the substance from which a physical object is composed
The material substance that occupies space has mass and is composed mainly of atoms, which are composed of protons, electrons and neutrons, which form the observable Universe, which is exchangeable with energy.
Matter is an indeterminate substance of reality, specifically an element in the universe that is subject to formation and transformation.
An atom is an empty ball of space with a small nucleus around which electrons orbit in a fixed orbit. An atom is not only small, it is essentially 99.9% empty space.
Einstein proved that E=mxc^2 holds, from which it follows that all matter consists of energy.
Too ancient and archaic to be relevant todayb) Matter-definition of Imam Ahmed Al Hassan a.s.
Matter is a void that can exist
The physical body is the appearance or manifestation of the perfect image in the matter-void that can exist. So taste, smell, hearing and other perceptions come from this physical body from the perfect image. And matter (which is the void that can exist) remains the same if:
- the image of a living body manifests in it, for example in an orange that looks, smells and tastes good
- the image of a dead body manifests in it, for example in a pig that stinks and is prohibited for consumption in Islam
In the book of Allegories, in question #28, he explains: Veils of Darkness are made of matter or emptiness and creation came into being with the brilliance of Light in Darkness (manifestation of Light in Darkness), hence it follows that: Matter=Darkness/Void/Ego/Closet and Creation =mixture of Darkness and Light in it
The veils of Darkness and Light can be lifted, by abandoning the objects of ignorance, bad morals and striving away from the Ego and its abandonment, the veils of Light can be lifted by knowledge and awareness of the objects of the mind and good morals in oneself and the ladder (metaphorically) rises in different positions /ranking
And even though matter is 99.9% empty space, it still contains energy.
Imam Ahmed Al Hassan a.s.: As for the world, the Qur'an clarifies the general law, which is as follows, that the whole world of bodies returns back to the original force that created them and will always remain so, with this force the world of bodies also rises (see Surah Al Anam 6:73)
And so, the Qu'ran explains that physical matter goes back to the energy force as it is called and matter is nothing but a condensation of energy. All this has been confirmed by Einstein's theory of relativity, laboratory experiments and the conversion of matter into energy and vice versa. (Al Jawab Al Munner vol.4 page 27-28)
it follows that: Matter=Energy=First Force=Original Source of Creation=Manifestation of Light in Darkness=Manifestation of Energy in Atom=Muhammad sawas
The explanation of this is in Ziyarat al Jamiah: Peace be upon the Ahlul Bayt and the city of the message and the city of the angels and the city from whence the revelation was sent down and the rest of what Allah swt has and His Lights, the creation returns to You and You judge it and with You is Heaven restrained from falling to the Earth except by Your permission, and they are Muhammad and his family (sawas)
Death is from the life of Muhammad and his family(sawas), Muhammad and his family(sawas) are pharaoh l.a. and Moses a.s. (in allegory).:
- not everyone understands this (may Allah swt give you success): with Muhammad and his family, everything in the world rises (with them, good rises as well as its opposite - evil)
Death cannot be except by ability and ability comes from life, and every life is established by their life(Al-Muhammad sawas), Pharaoh rises with them, Moses a.s. rises with them and Azrael rises with them.
So ability is from life and life is from energy.
Imam Ahmed Al Hassan explains in the book Glimpses of the Messengers' Calls:
Surah Al Baqarah(2:115) To Allah belong the east and the west, so wherever you turn is the Face of Allah, Verily Allah swt is All-Comprehensive, All-Knowing
Allah swt has no face or faces and anyone who believes this is a kaffir, like the disbelievers of Quraysh or even more disbelieving than them.
The face is what one faces and the face of truth and reality that Allah swt faced Al Muhammad sawas was His Holy Essence (Allah swt). As for the face of the Holy Essence with which He faces His creation, these are His Evidences (Hujjujullah), because they are the Face of Allah swt and they are His best names with which Allah swt faces His creation and by which Allah swt becomes recognizable.
Thus, wherever your Qiblah (direction of turning) towards Allah turns is the Face of Allah (the representative of Allah and His Evidence for creation), because his (Hujjujullah) soul is not limited to the limitations of bodies, because it is present and surrounds you from all sides. Whoever can understand these words will be able to understand the truth because Al Muhammad sawas is the food you eat and the water you drink and the air you breathe. Nabi Jesus, peace be upon him, said: "I am the bread of life"
And Al Muhammad sawas are Moses and Haman, Abraham and Nimrod and the fire of Abraham and his peace and coolness because the heart of the son of Adam is between the two fingers of the Merciful (Al Rahman) and Al Muhammad sawas are Al Rahman in creation, they are the creation of Allah and creation is their creation and Allah created them and from them he created the rest of creation (blessed is Allah the Best Creator)
From this it follows that we are all part of everyone and everything.
c) without a source of energy, energy would cease to exist, and without energy, nothing remains in an atom, except for 99.9% emptiness
Question 29 from Allegories (Al Mutashabehat):
Why is it considered that without the Evidence of Allah or the Infallible on Earth, the Earth would melt together with its inhabitants as it is said from the Imams of Ahlul Bayt?
Abu Hamza asked Abu Abdullah a.s.: "Would the Earth cease to exist without the Imam?"
Abu Abdullah a.s. he replied: "If the Earth was left without an Imam, it would melt."
Abu Jaafaar a.s. said: "If the Imam were lifted from the Earth for one hour, the Earth would swell with its inhabitants as the ocean swells with its own."
This is true because the Proof of Allah a.s. the overflowing point that reaches the Earth if this happens, and because the existence of the Evidence is both in all the Heavens, in the high and holy positions, in its image on Earth it is in the navel of the embryo, namely in the place where the food is drawn from mother to the fetus, so its image is the umbilical canal that comes from Heaven to Earth, translating God's downfall to Earth. Through them you are sustained and through them the rain falls upon you.
Therefore, Evidence a.s. the strong rope of Allah and the pillar of Light that descends from the sky to the earth and without it the earth would melt, which means that the Divine Light would no longer reach the earth and it would decompose and its population would return to the essence of nothingness, so it is not possible fully explain the greatness of the reward and the benefits of Proof a.s. to all creation.
Jesus a.s. said: "Images are visible to men, but their Light is hidden in the image of the Light of the Father. He will be revealed, but his image is hidden with His Light."
Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument made by intelligent design proponents that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations. It is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, the other being specified complexity.[1] Contrary to the claims of intelligent design supporters, the consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,[2][3][4] but creationism.[5][6][7][8] In 2005 in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which Behe testified in support of his claims about irreducible complexity the United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents",[9] and that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Read further for details . . . I checked out threads on rf and found them inadequate to address the problem of irreducible complexity. I will start a thread on this topic. I will also start a thread on the topic on the bogus claims that the Second Law of Thermodynamics and entropy determine evolution cannot happen |
You lost me at, "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, ..."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:
View attachment 85915
There was no conversation that I can see. Just you making a bunch of Gish Gallop-type claims and not responding to points or arguments against them.
This is a debate forum, by the way.
No, read the book Chaos: Making a New Science by James Gleick
and repond to the thread referenced.
True. So what?
Too ancient and archaic to be relevant today
Religious belief and not relevant to science today. You have not reponed to my post and read current scientific references concerning the problem of randomness and the pseudoscience of irreducible complexity.
Irreducible_complexity
Irreducible complexity This article covers irreducible complexity as used by those who argue for intelligent design. For information on irreducible complexitywww.bionity.com
Creationism Portal · v • d • e
Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument made by intelligent design proponents that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations. It is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, the other being specified complexity.[1]
Contrary to the claims of intelligent design supporters, the consensus of the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,[2][3][4] but creationism.[5][6][7][8] In 2005 in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which Behe testified in support of his claims about irreducible complexity the United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents",[9] and that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
Read further for details . . .
I checked out threads on rf and found them inadequate to address the problem of irreducible complexity. I will start a thread on this topic.
I will also start a thread on the topic on the bogus claims that the Second Law of Thermodynamics and entropy determine evolution cannot happen
Read my posts to you and what I was responding to.What was your argument exactly? That I am a creationist and I don't know anything about science. I will debate people who show some respect not feed the random trolls.
They were pointing out that your arguments are outdated, as far as the science goes. Science has come a long way since the 1920's.Whatever chief. To you your religion and to me mine. You can start whatever you like, that doesn't mean a thing and you didn't prove a thing with claiming that what I post is an arhaic nonsense. So knock yourself out if you want
Classic denial. My posts and references do not reflect any one religion. They reflect the current academic math and science, which you choose to conveniently ignore with dishonest pseudoscience posts, which you cannot defend based on factual science..Whatever chief. To you your religion and to me mine. You can start whatever you like, that doesn't mean a thing and you didn't prove a thing with claiming that what I post is an arhaic nonsense. So knock yourself out if you want
Classic denial. My posts and references do not reflect any one religion. They reflect the current academic math and science, which you choose to conveniently ignore with dishonest pseudoscience posts, which you cannot defend based on factual science..
They were pointing out that your arguments are outdated, as far as the science goes. Science has come a long way since the 1920's.
Also, they are points that have been debunked over the years, many times over, and as such, are not good arguments in favour of your position.
I do not disregard your views on science, because of your religion. I presented a sound science and math based argument with references that your view on evolution, Intelligent Design, Randomness of nature, entropy, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false, and you have not defended your view based on science.I think we said to each other what we meant. I won't engage in further meaningless conversation with a person who disregards views of people because of their religion. If you think you got something to prove, then do so. Ad hominem attacks with baseless arguments that ''the science knows best'' prove nothing. What would I need to defend, since you didn't write one valid counterargument to what I wrote? When you will address my points with at least researching what I wrote, then maybe we can talk further.
This is a classic Red Herring and personal attack fallacies based on your inability to respond to arguments with sound objective science.It is clear to everyone that you're a provoking troll. I don't debate trolls, so find another victim
Bye
I do not disregard your views on science, because of your religion. I presented a sound science and math based argument with references that your view on evolution, Intelligent Design, Randomness of nature, entropy, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false, and you have not defended your view based on science.
True. So what?
Too ancient and archaic to be relevant today
Religious belief and not relevant to science today. You have not reponed to my post and read current scientific references concerning the problem of randomness and the pseudoscience of irreducible complexity.