The problem of Creationism in Islam rejecting the science of evolution.

[Monty]

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters rise and the harim were covered.
No punctuation nor semi-colons in Biblical Hebrew

IOW from their expert knowledge and understanding of the Torah, the Rabbis who wrote the Orthodox Jewish Bible clearly said the flood was only 15 cubits high and the harim were covered, and did not meaninglessly say that the harim were covered by 15 cubits as falsely claimed in the fake versions which are not written by Rabbis and say absolutely nothing whatsoever about the actual flood height anyway.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Actually a lot of older Latin writing survived that dates before Julius Caesar regardless of what survives of his writings.

Egyptian hieroglyphic writing 3,200 BCE, Canaanite, 1,500 BCE, Sumerian/Babylonian cuneiform 3,500 BCE. Hebrew evolved out of Proto-Canaanite ~600 BCE. There were numerous archaeological finds of writing in these scripts all around the Levant at the time of Moses. Still absolutely no text of the Pentateuch before 600 BCE.

Omg, are you really using this evidence?

These examples you cite, they are recorded in stone...you know that right? They aren't relevant to the point I made that you are responding to.

Your dating is incorrect. The bibles internally recorded historical account is in excess of 6500 years...not merely 600 b.c just because YOU claim 600 b.c given that's the date of the oldest extant evidence doesnt prove anything other than, thst piece of evidence was 600 b.c.

Let me illustrate, the secular claim was thst the bible account of the Hittittes was false...until they bloody found archeological evidence proven they really existed. Prior to that find, the only account of the Hittites was in the bible!

The individuals historically recorded in the bible timeline are in its genealogy from Adam to Christ are they not? Quite a number of these individuals have been discovered to have really existed through archaeological evidence have they not? (Eg Hezekiah, king David, Herod's temple, and others)

So its quite a valid determination to make thst if we have real evidence thst proves the existence of biblical people and cultures, then the most likely answer is, the bible account is not only true, but accurate.

 

[Monty]

Omg, are you really using this evidence?

These examples you cite, they are recorded in stone...you know that right? They aren't relevant to the point I made that you are responding to.

Your dating is incorrect. The bibles internally recorded historical account is in excess of 6500 years...not merely 600 b.c just because YOU claim 600 b.c given that's the date of the oldest extant evidence doesnt prove anything other than, thst piece of evidence was 600 b.c.

Let me illustrate, the secular claim was thst the bible account of the Hittittes was false...until they bloody found archeological evidence proven they really existed. Prior to that find, the only account of the Hittites was in the bible!

The individuals historically recorded in the bible timeline are in its genealogy from Adam to Christ are they not? Quite a number of these individuals have been discovered to have really existed through archaeological evidence have they not? (Eg Hezekiah, king David, Herod's temple, and others)

So its quite a valid determination to make thst if we have real evidence thst proves the existence of biblical people and cultures, then the most likely answer is, the bible account is not only true, but accurate.

What evidence do you have that Adam existed and first became pregnant when 130 years old (Gen 5:1-3)?
And do you have any evidence that Noah's sister, Naamah, actually gave birth to Shem, Ham & Japheth when she was ~500 years old (Gen 5:32), and if so, how many other children did she give birth to and were drowned with her grandparents and mother 100 years later (Gen 5:27)?

 

[Monty]

It is clear that God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground...not out of another animal. The torah says God made Eve from Adam...not another animal.

Do you have any actual evidence of that, and if so, is that why it took them 130 years to first become pregnant since they couldn't work out which was Arthur and Martha, given they were genetically identical and why they were both named Adam (Gen 5:1-3)?
But either way, our aborigines arrived here over 50,000 years before Adams' grandmother was a girl.

 

[Monty]

I believe in God, but I believe science as science, philosophy as philosophy and theology as theology.

But have you ever seen a god and had a face to face conversation as described in Gen 18?

 

[justaguy313]

References provided by the testimony of Rabbis today it was believed the flood covered all mountains and all the animals and humans perished as recorded and believed by those that compiled the Pentateuch believed it was a literal world flood. You have provided no references to support your opinion'.

Though many to day believe sincerely that it was a world flood covering all the mountains,as described in the Bible:

Noah’s Flood: a Historical, Global Catastrophe

Examining the immense biblical data for Noah’s flood as an actual, year-long, worldwide, and catastrophic flood about 4,500 years ago

answersingenesis.org

But Noah’s flood is critical to that question. Simply put, if that flood was a global, year-long, catastrophic event about 4,500 years ago, as Genesis appears to teach, then it is very reasonable to conclude that it would have produced an incredible amount of erosion and sedimentation and would have buried many plants and animals in those sediments, which would later become fossils as the sediments hardened into rock. Creation geologists believe the flood would have produced exactly the kind of geological features that we see all over the earth, as, for example, are beautifully displayed in the walls of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, USA. These Bible-believing geologists think that most (not all) of the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers are the result of the flood. But secular geologists, who reject God’s eyewitness testimony in Genesis 6–9, say those rock layers were formed over hundreds of millions of years. So, if the flood produced most of the fossiliferous sedimentary layers around the world, then those layers cannot be the result of hundreds of millions of years of erosion and sedimentation, as the secularists claim.



Still no references to support your assertion, even though your posts are getting longer with meaningless stuff. You need references form Rabbis and recognized Christian theologians, academic or religious leaders to support your assertions, and you have provided none.

All this is your own personal interpretation nothing else.
Woosh!!! Wooosh!!!

False, 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 written in Hebrew. The Rabbis read and recite the Tanakh in traditional Hebrew, and understand, teach and interpret it as based on the original compilation of the Pentateuch in the Hebrew text.The text is variously translated for layman, but not for Rabbis. When the tanakh is researched and studied it is in Hebrew,

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters rise and the harim were covered.
No punctuation nor semi-colons in Biblical Hebrew

The Nature of the Rulers found in the Nag Hammadi Collection, it states: “ The rulers took counsel with
one another and said, “Come, let us cause a flood with our hands and obliterate all flesh, from man to
beast.” But when the ruler of the forces came to know of their decision, he said to Noah, “Make yourself
an ark from wood that does not rot and hide in it, you and your children and the beasts and the birds
of heaven from small to large—and set it upon Mount Sir.” Then Norea came to him, wanting to
board the ark. When he would not let her, she blew upon the ark and caused it to be consumed by fire.
Again he made the ark, for a second time. ” -The Nature of the Rulers , The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, Marvin Meyer

In the writings about a Gnostic sect in Egypt, the well-known historian Epiphanius provided
further details of the story of Norea and the Ark. He wrote that she had requested entry into the
Ark three times and burnt down the Ark three different times, all because she did in fact believe a
flood was coming, but she also believed it was part of Noah’s plan to get rid of her in the flood. The
truth is that she burnt down the Ark ten times, and in all times she did so in secret. In all ten times,
the companions were shocked and doubt entered into them, as they wondered why God would
allow the Ark to be burnt down if Noah was really a Prophet. Because of the burning of the Ark,
the promise was ten times delayed, and God used these events as a test and opportunity to rid
Noah’s believing community of any doubters. Noah had mercy on Norea and she was eventually
let on the Ark. In the Holy Bible’s book of Genesis it states: “ On that very day Noah and his sons,
Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark . ” -The Holy Bible , Book of Genesis, Chapter 7, Verse 13

That makes a total of eight human beings or four couples who entered the Ark on that day.
Many Arabic sources mention that only seven remained rm believers in Noah (PBUH): Noah’s
wife, his three sons, and their three wives. Hamran narrated that Abi Ja’far (From Him is Peace)
said concerning the words of Allah: “ ‘ But none believed with him, except for a few. ’ He said: “ They
were eight.-Bihar Al-Anwar , Al-Allamah Al-Majlisi, Vol. 11, p. 336

So here you have three different sources, gnostic, judaic and islamic, but I guess you will say again that this is arhaic to deny the obvious.

Deaf,, dumb and blind and they will not return...

 

[justaguy313]

What evidence do you have that Adam existed and first became pregnant when 130 years old (Gen 5:1-3)?
And do you have any evidence that Noah's sister, Naamah, actually gave birth to Shem, Ham & Japheth when she was ~500 years old (Gen 5:32), and if so, how many other children did she give birth to and were drowned with her grandparents and mother 100 years later (Gen 5:27)?

What evidence do you have that you developed from monkeys other than Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest or the might is right?

If nature selected the best, why did the primitive plants and animals survive and why did monkeys survive? And why didn’t nature change them to something more superior?

Why don’t you see those who are not the best attacking those that are the best to wipe them out just as the lion ravages or preys on the human and poisonous animals like scorpions and snakes sting humans and more superior animals, thereby killing them. Germs attack humans which are more superior!

Why don’t more superior things relapse to something lower as mankind becomes weak then dies, turning into soil. Similarly, in plants and animals.

Why are extinct animals found in excavations which are from highest ranks of animals in terms of size of corpse and perfection?


What is nature which ‘selects’? If it was sense and awareness, what is it? If it doesn’t have sense and awareness how does it select? Don’t you think, if someone said ‘This metal selected that brick as a friend for it’ that would give rise to laughter and mockery? How then is it possible for such selection to be associated to (supposed) nature which becomes more superior than God's laws on the planet?

Evolution-the definition: is that which attains in many types of animals, for we see that mankind when born in a cold climate they turn white, similarly with animals, so one category of animal can have a particular climate and a specific form and specific habits, as is the case with plants. When that occurs we do not find a difference between temporary and permanent evolution (with difference of colour, size, habits of an animal) and plants and animals or animals and humans.

There are two issues here:

1) That one animal and one plant or one human can differ a little with the difference in the environment and climate, along with intervention of all individuals in one category, as if it were a human but this is black and that is red and that yellow. Or that all individuals are a bear but all polar bears have specific characteristics and bears of hot countries have other characteristics. Or that all individuals are wheat and Iraaqi wheat has its own characteristics and Australian wheat has its own characteristics.

2) That one thing can substantially differ simply due to the environment as though this can be a monkey and that a human and that a plant, with all of them coming from one root. This is like saying that from the same mud you can make a bricks and ceramics but that you can also make iron, ivory and water.

 

[justaguy313]

You face many problems in your posts. It is like you are in a glass house throwing stones.

You mock science and misrepresent it..

Yes, again you are dishonest about science and mock science with false assertion in the above.

Yes, if you keep telling lies about the sciences of evolution, some intentionally ignorant based on an ancient tribal agenda will believe you.

 

[F1fan]

What evidence do you have that you developed from monkeys other than Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest or the might is right?

What evidence? The evidence experts in biology rely on, which is massive, and includes genetic mapping. Not only do the obsolete beliefs of Christianity and Islam have nothing to better explain the evidence, but the evidence shows creationist beliefs dead wrong. The well educated defer to experts in science, and no sciences acknowledge any gods, or religious interpretations of religious books.

If nature selected the best, why did the primitive plants and animals survive and why did monkeys survive? And why didn’t nature change them to something more superior?

Nature doesn't select the "best". It selects those most able to survive the stress of the environment they live in, and can reproduce offspring that also survive. You must consider sharks, lions, and bears as the best, and only because they are excellent at killing humans easily (just as God designed, eh?).

Why don’t you see those who are not the best attacking those that are the best to wipe them out just as the lion ravages or preys on the human and poisonous animals like scorpions and snakes sting humans and more superior animals, thereby killing them. Germs attack humans which are more superior!

That is how nature works. But in literalist interpretations it is how God designed the Earth and all living things, with humans at some disadvantage.

Why don’t more superior things relapse to something lower as mankind becomes weak then dies, turning into soil. Similarly, in plants and animals.

Because there are no gods directing anything, and nature just runs its course.

Why are extinct animals found in excavations which are from highest ranks of animals in terms of size of corpse and perfection?

They are extinct. So, perfection? Says who?

What is nature which ‘selects’? If it was sense and awareness, what is it? If it doesn’t have sense and awareness how does it select? Don’t you think, if someone said ‘This metal selected that brick as a friend for it’ that would give rise to laughter and mockery? How then is it possible for such selection to be associated to (supposed) nature which becomes more superior than God's laws on the planet?

Evolution-the definition: is that which attains in many types of animals, for we see that mankind when born in a cold climate they turn white, similarly with animals, so one category of animal can have a particular climate and a specific form and specific habits, as is the case with plants. When that occurs we do not find a difference between temporary and permanent evolution (with difference of colour, size, habits of an animal) and plants and animals or animals and humans.

There are two issues here:

1) That one animal and one plant or one human can differ a little with the difference in the environment and climate, along with intervention of all individuals in one category, as if it were a human but this is black and that is red and that yellow. Or that all individuals are a bear but all polar bears have specific characteristics and bears of hot countries have other characteristics. Or that all individuals are wheat and Iraaqi wheat has its own characteristics and Australian wheat has its own characteristics.

2) That one thing can substantially differ simply due to the environment as though this can be a monkey and that a human and that a plant, with all of them coming from one root. This is like saying that from the same mud you can make a bricks and ceramics but that you can also make iron, ivory and water.

So you are showing us you lack basic education in what evolution is. Not our problem if you don't read up on the material and comprehend it.

 

[justaguy313]

What evidence? The evidence experts in biology rely on, which is massive, and includes genetic mapping. Not only do the obsolete beliefs of Christianity and Islam have nothing to better explain the evidence, but the evidence shows creationist beliefs dead wrong. The well educated defer to experts in science, and no sciences acknowledge any gods, or religious interpretations of religious books.

Nature doesn't select the "best". It selects those most able to survive the stress of the environment they live in, and can reproduce offspring that also survive. You must consider sharks, lions, and bears as the best, and only because they are excellent at killing humans easily (just as God designed, eh?).

That is how nature works. But in literalist interpretations it is how God designed the Earth and all living things, with humans at some disadvantage.

Because there are no gods directing anything, and nature just runs its course.

They are extinct. So, perfection? Says who?

So you are showing us you lack basic education in what evolution is. Not our problem if you don't read up on the material and comprehend it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You could not understand that response? Wow! What an ironic abuse of the video.

 

[justaguy313]

You could not understand that response? Wow! What an ironic abuse of the video.

Oh look, ''creationists''. What a ''coincidence''

And I thought there were a concensus

Some of the greatest inventors actually believed in God. Should I start naming islamic ones?

Shoosh

25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

How did the universe begin? How did life arise on Earth? These have been humanity's most important questions through the ages. In the last century, we have learned more about science and the creation of the universe than everything known before the twentieth century. What is more notable, the...

www.famousscientists.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh look, ''creationists''. What a ''coincidence''

And I thought there were a concensus

Some of the greatest inventors actually believed in God. Should I start naming islamic ones?

Shoosh

25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

How did the universe begin? How did life arise on Earth? These have been humanity's most important questions through the ages. In the last century, we have learned more about science and the creation of the universe than everything known before the twentieth century. What is more notable, the...

www.famousscientists.org

Believing the creation myths alone is not what makes one a creationist. Scientists before Darwin's time did not have a good explanation of how life arose. A creationist is one that still believes the Bible even though we know why and how it is wrong. The modern use of creationist was originally coined by Charles Darwin himself.

So yes, Newton believed the creation myths. He did not believe in the atomic bomb. Does that mean that he was incredibly wrong? No we had not understanding of atomic theory back then one would not expect him to know that. Nor do we expect him to understand evolution. Odds are that since he was a scientist and did follow the evidence that he would accept the theory of evolution today.

 

[F1fan]

Oh look, ''creationists''. What a ''coincidence''

And I thought there were a concensus

Some of the greatest inventors actually believed in God. Should I start naming islamic ones?

Shoosh

25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

How did the universe begin? How did life arise on Earth? These have been humanity's most important questions through the ages. In the last century, we have learned more about science and the creation of the universe than everything known before the twentieth century. What is more notable, the...

www.famousscientists.org

Then they were able to separate their belief in God from understanding how reality works. Look at how creationists fail because they can't.

And it is funny that there is any list that is about scientists who believed in a God, because it illustrates the oddity of belief in God with science.

 

[justaguy313]

Believing the creation myths alone is not what makes one a creationist. Scientists before Darwin's time did not have a good explanation of how life arose. A creationist is one that still believes the Bible even though we know why and how it is wrong. The modern use of creationist was originally coined by Charles Darwin himself.

So yes, Newton believed the creation myths. He did not believe in the atomic bomb. Does that mean that he was incredibly wrong? No we had not understanding of atomic theory back then one would not expect him to know that. Nor do we expect him to understand evolution. Odds are that since he was a scientist and did follow the evidence that he would accept the theory of evolution today.

Newton was an alchemist and occultist. Ever heard of John Dee? You guys are so skeptical that you probably don't believe even in supernatural phenomena like telekinesis and remote viewing. You're a waste of my time.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Newton was an alchemist and occultist. Ever heard of John Dee? You guys are so skeptical that you probably don't believe even in supernatural phenomena like telekinesis and remote viewing. You're a waste of my time.

Bring us verifiable evidence of telekinesis and remote viewing, and you might be surprised how we skeptics respond. In fact, we respond very positively to evidence that we can verify for ourselves. We don't respond nearly so well to hear-say of fabulous events that only one or two people claim to have witnessed.

 

[shunyadragon]

But have you ever seen a god and had a face to face conversation as described in Gen 18?

No one has.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Nature of the Rulers found in the Nag Hammadi Collection, it states: “ The rulers took counsel with
one another and said, “Come, let us cause a flood with our hands and obliterate all flesh, from man to
beast.” But when the ruler of the forces came to know of their decision, he said to Noah, “Make yourself
an ark from wood that does not rot and hide in it, you and your children and the beasts and the birds
of heaven from small to large—and set it upon Mount Sir.” Then Norea came to him, wanting to
board the ark. When he would not let her, she blew upon the ark and caused it to be consumed by fire.
Again he made the ark, for a second time. ” -The Nature of the Rulers , The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, Marvin Meyer

In the writings about a Gnostic sect in Egypt, the well-known historian Epiphanius provided
further details of the story of Norea and the Ark. He wrote that she had requested entry into the
Ark three times and burnt down the Ark three different times, all because she did in fact believe a
flood was coming, but she also believed it was part of Noah’s plan to get rid of her in the flood. The
truth is that she burnt down the Ark ten times, and in all times she did so in secret. In all ten times,
the companions were shocked and doubt entered into them, as they wondered why God would
allow the Ark to be burnt down if Noah was really a Prophet. Because of the burning of the Ark,
the promise was ten times delayed, and God used these events as a test and opportunity to rid
Noah’s believing community of any doubters. Noah had mercy on Norea and she was eventually
let on the Ark. In the Holy Bible’s book of Genesis it states: “ On that very day Noah and his sons,
Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark . ” -The Holy Bible , Book of Genesis, Chapter 7, Verse 13

That makes a total of eight human beings or four couples who entered the Ark on that day.
Many Arabic sources mention that only seven remained rm believers in Noah (PBUH): Noah’s
wife, his three sons, and their three wives. Hamran narrated that Abi Ja’far (From Him is Peace)
said concerning the words of Allah: “ ‘ But none believed with him, except for a few. ’ He said: “ They
were eight.-Bihar Al-Anwar , Al-Allamah Al-Majlisi, Vol. 11, p. 336

So here you have three different sources, gnostic, judaic and islamic, but I guess you will say again that this is arhaic to deny the obvious.

Deaf,, dumb and blind and they will not return...

Yes they are archaic and no, ancient tribal myths are not obvious. They are ancient tribal myths.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh look, ''creationists''. What a ''coincidence''

And I thought there were a concensus

Some of the greatest inventors actually believed in God. Should I start naming islamic ones?

Shoosh

25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

How did the universe begin? How did life arise on Earth? These have been humanity's most important questions through the ages. In the last century, we have learned more about science and the creation of the universe than everything known before the twentieth century. What is more notable, the...

www.famousscientists.org

No one doubts many scientists believe in God. I am a scientist and I believe in God.

The problem is with relatively few scientists believe in a literal Creationist view of the Pentateuch today.

What's your point?

 

[shunyadragon]

IOW from their expert knowledge and understanding of the Torah, the Rabbis who wrote the Orthodox Jewish Bible clearly said the flood was only 15 cubits high and the harim were covered, and did not meaninglessly say that the harim were covered by 15 cubits as falsely claimed in the fake versions which are not written by Rabbis and say absolutely nothing whatsoever about the actual flood height anyway.

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters rise and the harim were covered.
No punctuation nor semi-colons in Biblical Hebrew.

Actually there was never a Noah flood, because it is mythology.