If he could, wouldn't he have already done 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
Evidence for the great flood (as Bible describes) are:
1) vast sediment formations like for example orogenic mountains, the area of Grand Canyon.
2) modern continents
3) Oil, gas and coal fields
4) Marine fossils on high mountain areas
5) Mid Atlantic ridge
6) Old coast lines
The Mid-Atlantic ridge is evidence for the fountains of great deep, which were like geysers that you could still see for example in Iceland. The water that we can now detect tied chemically in the rock can be remains of the water that was below the original continent, before is was broken and sunk.
Bible, life and this world are the evidence for God. We would not have any of this without Him.
The KJV and Orthodox Jewish Bible and Young's Literal Translation etc clearly say the flood was only 15 cubits high.
End of argument.
KJV
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
OJB
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters rise; and the harim were covered.
YLT
fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;
Last edited:
IOW the ranges of unique flora and fauna in the six distinct bio-geographical zones evolved after Pangaea broke up about 200 million years ago, and after Gondwana broke up over 50 million years ago.
Do you have any actual scientific evidence to support your hypothesis that kangaroos and echidnas are native to the middle east?
It's just an imaginative story in a book about a local river flood which was 15 cubits high and drowned most of Noah's family, including his widowed mother (Gen 5:31), and his grand parents (Gen 5:27) and his other children born before and after his sister Naamah gave birth to their three sons (Gen 5:32).
Last edited:
Have you ever seen a god and had a face to face conversation like Abraham did when he shared a meal with a god (Gen 18)?
If not, then how do you know that gods exist?
Last edited:
. . . and the mountains were covered.
All of the above are evidence against any sort of flood described in the Bible.
False, the Mid Ocean Ridge is evidence of billions of years of Continental Drift.
There is absolutely no evidence for 'Fountains of the Deep' related to the Mid Ocean Ridge or anywhere else.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What mockery??
That giant cut and paste job you posted doesn't address my points or counterarguments to you at all. I've already pointed out to you that abiogenesis and evolution are different things that you are conflating.
Humanity has pondered over the origin of life, and has searched for answers in religion and science.
Both fields have tried to explain the origin of life. From theories such as the Big Bang to Evolution,
for many, science has provided a satisfactory explanation that replaces theistic arguments. Over the
last century, the Theory of Evolution, which began with Charles Darwin, has become a mainstream
belief. In our times, avowed atheists propagate it and anti-theist scientists like Richard Dawkins
have popularized the idea through books like The God Delusion . For the most part, the propagation
has been effective.
Nonsense.
As I already pointed out to you, many Christians and religious-minded folks also accept that evolution is a reality of life on earth.
I gave you Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project as an example.
You didn't respond to anything I said.
"Charles Darwin traveled around the world where he would catalog the local plants and animals.
On one of his trips to the Galapagos Islands, he noticed non-identical species of finches with each
species having a slightly different beak. Years later, he would come up with the idea that these
species all must have a common ancestor. These differences must be due to adaptation to new
circumstances over time. As a result, they evolved slightly according to their environment. Thus,
similarities in species and adaptation became the basis for the Theory of Evolution."
He was right. The discovery of genetics, many years later, confirmed and verified his observations. As did the fossil record.
"Darwin concluded through analogy, that living beings that looked similar must have a common
origin that adapted to new conditions."
Through analogy?
Where's the analogy?
"Over a long period, the differences and changes would
become so many that they give rise to a new species.
This has since been confirmed and verified, many times over.
Thus, the reason for the changes would be the
factor that would allow one species to survive and others to become extinct. He called this law the
survival of the fittest . Therefore, according to Darwin, evolution was necessary to adapt and survive.
Through natural selection, the strongest in nature survived and they had similar features. Finally,
their shared features pointed to a common ancestor and origin.
Not quite. Survival of a species doesn't depend on the extinction of another.
"One day someone asked Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan (From Him is Peace), “ Is the theory of
Evolution correct? ”"
Who? What does this guy know about science?
"The Imam (From Him is Peace) said, “ The theory of evolution is one of the dumbest theories out
there. Iblis is the one who taught Darwin the Theory of Evolution. ”
He doesn't sound very well educated on the subject matter. Why are we asking this guy about evolution, again?
"Someone said, “ Can you help me with a small piece of information about the origin of life? There
are a lot of similarities between humans and other species. ”
This question doesn't make any sense.
Origin of life (abiogenesis) and evolution are not the same thing. Evolution requires life to exist and reproduce for it to act upon.
"The Imam (From Him is Peace) said, “ For example, who does the human resemble? ”
The person said, “ Humans and apes for example, and there are other organs or parts in our bodies
that resemble other species. ”
Humans are apes. This guy doesn't seem to know very much about evolution.
"The Imam (From Him is Peace) said, “ There is a resemblance as well between some aquatic species
and some mammals, and there are also plants that resemble mammals. And there are also stones that
were formed to look like human faces and animals and plants by natural events such as wind and
rain. So, are these stones now biologically related to humans? Of course not. The answer is no, there is
no relationship between apes and humans. ”
Oh dear. Stones do not reproduce and do not evolve, as biological organisms do. The analogy doesn't work.
And again, humans are apes, according to cladistics.
"The person said, “ So what about the origin of life? ”
The Imam (From Him is Peace) said, “ It was with Adam (PBUH). He is the first human
creation. ”
That's a claim that requires demonstration. How did he demonstrate it to be true?
We have included here some images of inanimate beings that resemble human or animal
anatomy. If the Theory of Evolution claims that resemblance between species means there is a
biological relationship, then these plants and stones should be biologically related to us as well. In
this argument, the Imam (From Him is Peace) is saying that similarity is not a sucient condition
to prove the basic tenets of the Theory of Evolution. Furthermore, this theory does not even
consider an extraterrestrial source for life on Earth. Thus, the Imam (From Him is Peace) is
categorically rejecting any truth in the Theory of Evolution.
We're still continuing with this terrible watchmaker-type analogy? All this guy is doing is betraying his lack of understand as to what evolution actually is, as well as conflating it with origins.
Plants are related to other organisms, to varying degrees. That's demonstrable.
Rocks do not reproduce and pass on heritable traits to anything. So the analogy is flawed.
Also, scientists don't just say "oh well these things look alike so they must be related."
No. We have genetics, that demonstrates a nested hierarchy of relatedness between all living things on earth. It's basically the same concept we use to demonstrate paternity today. It's the same concept used when you send your DNA sample to 23andMe to find your long lost relatives and trace them back to their origins.
"According to science, modern humans ( Homo sapiens ) evolved from an earlier form known as
Homo habilis or Homo erectus . Scientists discovered their fossils in Africa and identifieed similar
features to modern humans like their body proportion, size, and hands. They believe that these
features are the result of adaptation from living in trees to living on the ground. However, these
assumptions are false.
No, they're demonstrable and verifiable. This Imam guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
" Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan (From Him is Peace) debunks this myth by
revealing the reality of the Haytan. The Haytan are human ape-like species that lived on the planet
and still do to this very day."
I said, “ The creature that the natives call Bigfoot or Yeti, that resembles the Haytan… ”
The Imam (From Him is Peace) said, “ Those are the descendants of the Haytan. ”
I said, “ Glory be to God. ”
The Imam (From Him is Peace) said, “ I told you before, there are still many of them still alive
today. ”
Wait, this guy thinks that bigfoot exists and are the ancestors to humans? LOL
"-Goal of the wise by Aba Sadiq from him is peace, door number 25-Alien life and extraterrestrials"
If he's speaking on behalf of god, you'd think he'd know a lot more than he does.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
How is any of this evidence of a "great flood." Please explain.
IOW the highest hills/mountains weren't covered by 15 cubits, and as witnessed by Noah's grandparents and his mother and the original story teller, and as written in the Orthodox Jewish Bible by rabbis.
OJB
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters rise; and the harim were covered.
Last edited:
Yes they were by 15 cubits of water . . . . . . and the mountains were covered.
I go by the Rabbis understanding of Torah. It is in their language and in their book.
IOW from their understanding of Torah, the Rabbis who wrote the Orthodox Jewish Bible say that the flood height was only 15 cubits, and do not say that the harim were covered by 15 cubits as falsely claimed by other versions which do not understand Torah.
OJB
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters rise; (semi colon)
and the harim were covered.
There was no punctuation in Biblical Hebrew. No semi-colon. This is a problem throughout the Bible when western punctuation leads interpretations not intended in the original text. Original Koine Greek and Aramaic also did not have punctuation.
If the Hebrew scriptures had no punctuation marks, how was a sentence or paragraph formed? Who originated that process?
Answer (1 of 5): There was a strong oral tradition on how to read the texts, even before symbols for vowels and chanting were invented in Tiberias about 1300 years ago. The chanting tradition told where to end a verse, where to pause during a verse, and even how to group the words.
The original Hebrew (and Aramaic) manuscripts were written without vowels and without punctuation. The fact that vowels were not written is not as problematic as it might seem, due to the character of the Hebrew language. In fact, most Modern Hebrew is also written without vowels. Vowels are inserted only when necessary to prevent possible misunderstandings.
Johannine Comma - Wikipedia
The earliest reference to what might be the Comma appears by the 3rd-century Church father Cyprian (died 258), who in Unity of the Church 1.6 quoted John 10:30: "Again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one. '"
.Fifteen cubits upward did the waters rise and the harim were covered.
Last edited:
IOW from their knowledge of the Torah the Rabbis who wrote the Orthodox Jewish Bible said the flood height was 15 cubits and did not say that the harim were covered by 15 cubits. And so endeth the lesson.
From their knowledge of the Torah the Rabbis who wrote the Orthodox Jewish Bible said the flood covered the mountains and all the humans and animals perished that were not on the Ark. The Rabbis today agree,
You are the one that needs lessons on the Biblical Hebrew and respect for the Rabbis.
Last edited:
IOW the Rabbis who wrote the Orthodox Jewish Bible said that the flood height was 15 cubits and the harim were covered, and clearly did not say that the mountains or harim were covered by 15 cubits.
And in the language I use and as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary and used by English people, the KJV and Young's Literal Translation also clearly say that the flood height was 15 cubits and do not say that the mountains were covered by 15 cubits, and I have no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise.
Last edited:
The Torah was not written in Oxford English, and the Rabbis know better than you or I concerning how to understand and interpret the Torah.
From their knowledge of the Torah the Rabbis who wrote the Orthodox Jewish Bible said the flood covered the mountains and all the humans and animals perished that were not on the Ark. The Rabbis today agree,
You are the one that needs lessons on the Biblical Hebrew and respect for the Rabbis.