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

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, if you can't answer it that the next man can understand it, then it's probably a bunch of baloni like theory of evolution

No, you are merely looking for excuses to keep yourself ignorant of reality. Like it or not you are descended from monkeys.

 

[justaguy313]

No, you are merely looking for excuses to keep yourself ignorant of reality. Like it or not you are descended from monkeys.

Speak for yourself. I wasn't asking YOU anything anyways

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speak for yourself. I wasn't asking YOU anything anyways

Actually you were talking to me. When you post on the open forums you are talking to everyone. And in this matter I can speak for you to. If you claim to be a human being you are claiming to be descended from monkeys.

Perhaps you believe that you are a giraffe? I do not know if being a "furry" is a protected status here.

 

[justaguy313]

Actually you were talking to me. When you post on the open forums you are talking to everyone. And in this matter I can speak for you to. If you claim to be a human being you are claiming to be descended from monkeys.

Perhaps you believe that you are a giraffe? I do not know if being a "furry" is a protected status here.

I wasn't addressing you, I quoted shunyadragon, since he quoted my post. You can't answer my question anyway, so I don't understand exactly why are we having this conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wasn't addressing you, I quoted shunyadragon, since he quoted my post. You can't answer my question anyway, so I don't understand exactly why are we having this conversation.

And no, you were in reality addressing everyone. If you wanted it just between you and @shunyadragon then you should have used the PM feature. When you post on the open forum you are inviting everybody and their aunt to chime in.

And if you could ask your question properly I could answer it. I doubt if shunyadragon can answer such a poorly formed question either. Do not blame others for your failures.

 

[justaguy313]

And no, you were in reality addressing everyone. If you wanted it just between you and @shunyadragon then you should have used the PM feature. When you post on the open forum you are inviting everybody and their aunt to chime in.

And if you could ask your question properly I could answer it. I doubt if shunyadragon can answer such a poorly formed question either. Do not blame others for your failures.

Excuse me being plain. No, shunyadragon can't answer it either as he wouldn't know how to answer the question if we evolved from monkeys, than where did those monkeys come from. Even quasiquackademics like him can't answer that

 

[SkepticThinker]

What mockery? Ask yourself again that question and contemplate about it for a long time

No thanks. You'll need to point it out instead of just claiming it. Otherwise, I'll have no choice but to dismiss it as an empty claim.
This is a debate forum.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If the flood happened as told in the Bible, we should find all of those. And if we find them, they are evidence for the flood, because:

1) vast sediment formations like for example orogenic mountains, the area of Grand Canyon.
-> Flooding water from the "fountains of great deep" flushed material from where the water came. The material was carried in thick layers and consisted of all kind of lose material, obviously first that what was on top of everything.
2) modern continents
-> Originally there was single continent, and below that there was vast amount of water. the flood came when the continent was broken. And eventually the pieces of the continent sunk and formed the modern continents.
3) Oil, gas and coal fields
-> All living things died from surface of the earth. Lot of it was flushed and mixed in with the sediments. And in time they were formed into oil gas and coal.
4) Marine fossils on high mountain areas
-> If water covered all mountains, as the Bible tells, we can expect marine animals appearing to the higher areas.
5) Mid Atlantic ridge
-> When the original continent was broken, there was obviously lines where it was cracked. Mid Atlantic ridge is evidence of such fault line.
6) Old coast lines
-> If water covered everything and later went down, it would have left cost lines in many phases of decreasing water level. That we can see such lines is evidence for the flood.

I hope these images could help to understand how the flood happened. In the image 3 (sphere and section view) is the situation before the flood, one continent on top of water. Image 4 shows how cracks appeared and from there vast amount of water vapor and flooding water also that carried all kind of stuff towards those lines where nowadays is great mountains. This also cleaned the area next to the fault line (for example the ocean floor of Atlantic), making it look like a new continental surface.
View attachment 86015

These are just assertions. And like, old, long-ago debunked assertions.
Marine fossils on top of mountains doesn't demonstrate a global flood. I think even Answers in Genesis tells their readers to stop using that one.

 

[shunyadragon]

Excuse me being plain. No, shunyadragon can't answer it either as he wouldn't know how to answer the question if we evolved from monkeys, than where did those monkeys come from. Even quasiquackademics like him can't answer that

It is not a matter of answering your questions, which can be answered by simply getting an education in the sciences on the internet. There are thousands of references available to explain evolution in detail. I have an extensive education in the sciences related to evolution. What is your academic background in science? It appears very little or none.

The overwhelming evidence that life evolved over billions of years in response to changing environment including the evolution of primates that result in monkeys, humans and other primates is the simple answer.

I did answer a key question and did not get a response, The energy source for abiogenesis and evolution is the sun and the internal heat of the earth. Again as previously described the problem of entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics do not apply.

As far as primate evolution it occured in the changing environments of Africa where different primates adapted to different environments. The fossil evidence over millions of years traces this adaptation to different environments resulting humans and related primates. The evidence dmonstrate that homosapiens began to dominate more than 300,000 years ago as the most intelligent omnivorous tool making primate and over time other closely related primates died out.

The only response I get from you is disparaging mooking of science with scattered misrepresentation of sources, false information and not responding to factual posts on abiogenesis and evolution,,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excuse me being plain. No, shunyadragon can't answer it either as he wouldn't know how to answer the question if we evolved from monkeys, than where did those monkeys come from. Even quasiquackademics like him can't answer that

Oh no, they can. You just do not want to hear or understand the answer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

The fossil record and genetics demonstrates that human beings are great apes.

Human Evolution

Learn about human evolution, what human fossils can tell us, and what research Smithsonian scientists are doing into human evolution.

naturalhistory.si.edu

Also, survival of the fittest doesn't mean "might makes right" and it wasn't even a phrase coined by Darwin. Fitness is the ability to produce fertile offspring.

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?

This question doesn't appear to make sense.

Nature doesn't select "the best." It selects for whatever helps a population of organisms to survive in a given environment.

I mean, this is like asking, how come I still exist even after my grandmother has died.

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!

This question doesn't make much sense either.

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

There aren't any "superior things" or "less superior things." You seem to have a giant fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.
There is no "relapsing" or devolving, or whatever it is that you're trying to say.

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

This question doesn't make sense either. Can you re-phrase?

What is nature which ‘selects’? If it was sense and awareness, what is it?

The environment.

If it doesn’t have sense and awareness how does it select?

How Does Natural Selection Work? 5 Basic Steps (VISTA) | AMNH

Natural selection is a simple mechanism - so simple that it can be broken down into five basic steps: Variation, Inheritance, Selection, Time and Adaptation.

www.amnh.org

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?

Sure, but that's not an accurate description of natural selection.

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.

The definition of evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. I don't know what the above is supposed to be. There are no "temporary" or "permanent" evolutionary distinctions.

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.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.
Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve.
I would suggest reading the above link about natural selection.

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.

Not sure what you're trying to say here either.

Evolution is not a straight linear progression from one organism to the next. It's more of a tree or a bush, much like a family tree of your ancestors looks like, but with far more spikes and branches.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not a valid response.

The answer you received was a brief synopsis of what the mountains of evidence indicate. It's not a dumb answer at all. You might know that if you understood evolution in the slightest.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Show me evidence, and I'll believe anything. Without it, there is no good reason to believe anything.

 

[shunyadragon]

So can you answer what this ''idiot'' is asking in the song?

No the songs are meaningless.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg. The genetics of the eggs may be slightly different from the previous generation and determine the genetics of the next generation, Farmers and poultry producers use this concept to selectively breed chickens for commercial purposes.

If you go back to the wild fowl of Southeast Asia where domestic chickens originated. The selective breeding of selecting eggs resulted in breeding new various breeds of domestic chickens from the genetic diversity of the population. The evolution of the wild fowl was the result of evolution in response to the changing environment were survival of each generation was determined from genetic diversity in the eggs as to which was better adapted to the environment.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I like to speak in plain terms excuse me very much. If I wasn't I would speak fancy quackademic stuff like your pal shunya here

Nobody is asking you to "Speak fancy quackademic."
You were merely asked to define the terms you're using. It makes for easier conversation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Speak for yourself. I wasn't asking YOU anything anyways

You're on a public debate forum.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I dont know why you keep coming up with this bull****. you come up with rot and twist it in order to make it appear that something is fact when it is not.

The Silver Scrolls (dated 600 b.c) are merely the oldest SURVIVING texts currently from the Hebrew Bible. That does not tell us the bible is only dated to 600 B.C. We have other evidence its much older than that date!

No one has made the claim that the original world wide language was Hebrew btw. How could it have been...the Hebrew nation didnt exist at the time of Abrahams calling. The bible clearly tells us Abraham was called by God out of Ur of the Chaldees to become a great nation.

As i said, just because their exists a known document of 600 B.C only means thats the oldest document we have...it does not attest to the age of the people and culture...it is clear they had language of their own long before that time. This does not support any claim that the jews came out of the Canaanites!

Jewish Languages

Jewish languages are the various languages and dialects that developed in Jewish communities in the diaspora. The original Jewish language is Hebrew, supplanted as the primary vernacular by Aramaic following the Babylonian exile. Jewish languages feature a syncretism of Hebrew and Judeo-Aramaic with the languages of the local non-Jewish population.

Early Northwest Semitic (ENWS) materials are attested through the end of the Bronze Age—2350 to 1200 BCE.

Khirbet Qeiyafa (Arabic: خربة قيافة), also known as Elah Fortress and in Hebrew as Horbat Qayafa (Hebrew: חורבת קייאפה), is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Elah Valley and dated to the first half of the 10th century BCE.[1][2] The ruins of the fortress were uncovered in 2007,



BTW, if Nebuchadnezzar took them into captivity in 457 B.C, do you think these were essentially cave men he took prisoner? They had wealth and a way of life that was clearly a lot more than 143 years old when taken into captivity...otherwise why the heck would one of the richest kingdoms of the day even bother?



Hititties...

The Hittites are mentioned more than forty times in the Bible. Twice we are told that Heth, their father, was a son of Canaan, one of the four sons of Ham. From the picture the Genesis narrative presents, at least one tribe of the Hittites was established in the land of Canaan in the time of Abraham, and this patriarch bought a property from them near Hebron. Later, one of Isaac's sons, Esau, married Hittite wives. When Israel went up to conquer the Promised Land, the Hittites were among the peoples that the Lord promised to drive out. The language of some passages would seem to give to the Hittites more importance than is given the other Canaanitish populations, and to make them a great power.

Even if the Hittites seem to have taken an important part in the confederation that opposed Joshua, which suffered a tremendous blow at Hazor, they do not seem to have been entirely destroyed, as the Hittites are frequently mentioned in the subsequent history of Israel. We.find that David had Hittite soldiers in his army, before and after his accession to the throne. Under Solomon, the remains of the Hittites and other Canaanites were finally subjected to tribute or bond service. But we are also told that Solomon and his company of merchants carried on an immense trade with "the kings of the Hittites" and "the kings of Syria," especially in horses from -Egypt.

In spite of all that the Bible has to say about the Hittites, "scarcely a generation ago, . . • many scholars claimed that the Hittites were but a mythical race of people. . .. We are told that Abraham bought the cave of Machpelah from a Hittite, that Esau took Hittite women. . . . In spite of these and a score of other references to the Hittites, the scholars continued to assert that if such a people ever existed, they were merely a small tribe of Palestine occupying but a village or two."—"The Bible and the Spade," Edgar J. Banks, p. 97.

Finally, your last statement "humanity has been around for 300,000 years..."

Show me a written document dating humanity to 300,000 years old, please?

What you actually have is fossilized human remains from Morocco that secular scientists claim are 300,000 years old. They do not actually have proof that these bones are 300,000 years old...its merely a theory of age using the same theorectical timeline that tell us the rest of the evolutionary story. That is not proof of anything any more than your statement against the hebrews is. You claim there is no written proof beyond 600 bc and then you claim 300,000 years for mankind without any written evidence! And whats more, the fossils found in Morocco appear to have "modern faces" and, "the Moroccan site is in northwest Africa, far from the sites in East and South Africa that have yielded many of Africa’s other hominin fossils." ("These Early Humans Lived 300,000 Years Ago—But Had Modern Faces" National Geographic Magazine June 8 2017)

It is very clear from the Morocon find that these individuals lived either much earlier or at least at the same time as the Ethiopian discoveries dated 195k. We also find artefacts such as tools and this clearly tells us these people were intelligent enough to manufacture tools to use for tasks in excess of the 300-350l evolutionary timeline...so there is a big problem with that date clearly...its 105k older than the Ethiopian site!

And finally, they dated this site using radioative dating methods...that in and of itself is proven highly unreliable and only works under the standard of universalism...which the bible flood debuts as untrue (given much of the bible history is shown to be true, we have no reason to doubt the rest of it other than nonchristians claim its false via a secular theory from sources corrupted by Satan and sin. What we see around us is a result of the influence of sin...God has never claimed this world as we know it today to be the perfect creation he made...it is but a shadow of that creation and lies in ruin. The whole idea of the biblical plan of redemption is to restore not only humanity, but also the rest of the world.

You cant reconcile the DArwinian timeline of modern humans with ancient Neanderthals and find that they actually date the opposite way around (ie the modern is older). This suggests they co-existed and that is the point...it also agrees with the biblical record far better than the Darwinian one!

What i find really interesting about the find in Khirbet Qelyafa is that they found Carbon 14 at the site and have dated it to 1050-970 B.C using that method. This tells us its not actually very old at all and this supports the bible timeline very accurately back to at least that date. That is evidence for biblical historical accuracy.

Note the findings are that...

Archeologists, Yosef Garfinkel, Mitka R. Golub, Haggai Misgav, and Saar Ganor rejected in 2019 the possibility that Khirbet Qeiyafa could be associated with the Philistines. They wrote: "The idea that in this chronological phase the knowledge of writing should be associated with the Philistine city state of Gath can now be rejected.
In 2010, Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa identified Khirbet Qeiyafa as the "Neta'im" of 1 Chronicles 4:23, due to its proximity to Khirbet Ğudrayathe (biblical Gederah). The inhabitants of both cities were said to be "potters" and "in the King's service", a description that is consistent with the archeological discoveries at that site.


Now the really interesting thing about the Shephelah surveys is that they appear to have had a colonised population of some 50-100k individuals...and i must ask, given Jewish history states Abraham was their founding father, how long would it take 1 man and his immediately family to become a population of that size?

It appears to me that you lack intellectual acuity in not seeing the contradiction in your Darwinian view on this subject. The evidence is actually a lot more consistent with the biblical narrative.

BTW it seems that your real intent here is an attempt at knocking off the law of Moses in the biblical narrative. That wont work using this method amigo...time you barked up a different tree as the Silver Scrolls containing reference to that law obviously come from a time much earlier...as supported by the biblical narrative of Moses writings and the affirmation of the law as given at mount Sinai.

When you only have one book that you are willing to read and/or cite, you won't wind up actually knowing very much. Here's a challenge: get out your handy KJV and see if you can fix your car, your computer, your phone -- or even your toaster. Upgrade a little to NIV and see what you can learn about how to remove an appendix on the verge of exploding, or grind lenses to help someone see, or figure out the circumference of a circle when you only have a straight-edge ruler. See if your Bible can help you create a vaccine to prevent measles or chicken pox or COVID-19 or AIDS. What does your trusty NT tell you about the histories of China or Japan or all of South-East Asia?

Oh, yes, you can find a mention of Hittites in your Bible -- but what can you learn of Hittite history from that little mention?? Nothing, is what. Nothing about their language, their culture, their history, their arts, their sophisticated production of iron goods. No, the Bible lets you know there were Hittites, but nothing of significance about them. Surface gloss, nothing more.

 

[justaguy313]

No the songs are meaningless.


The egg. The genetics of the eggs may be slightly different from the previous generation and determine the genetics of the next generation, Farmers and poultry producers use this concept to selectively breed chickens for commercial purposes.

If you go back to the wild fowl of Southeast Asia where domestic chickens originated. The selective breeding of selecting eggs resulted in breeding new various breeds of domestic chickens from the genetic diversity of the population. The evolution of the wild fowl was the result of evolution in response to the changing environment were survival of each generation was determined from genetic diversity in the eggs as to which was better adapted to the environment.

So, explain if you can, how did it came about, if you claim that you know this

 

[1213]

Marine fossils on top of mountains doesn't demonstrate a global flood. I think even Answers in Genesis tells their readers to stop using that one.

If there would have been global flood covering even the mountain tops, we would probably find marine fossils from those areas, do you agree with this?

If we find such fossils, in such places, it is evidence for that there could have been such a flood. But, obviously the reason for the fossils could maybe be something else also. The point is only to say, if it happened, it would have left certain signs. And we can see the signs, therefore it may have happened.

Answers in Genesis is no authority for me, and it should not overrule truth and reason/logic.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Please cite the many scholars that believed this.

Ah hello...that was a published reference! You know that right? I think I smell trouble..you attempted to rebutt a published reference without peer reviewed reference of your own.