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

[1213]

World flood in 40 days is unbelievably sudden. Even in the Biblical narrative the ground DID NOT sink

Bible tells that earth, meaning dry land, the original single continent, was stretched over vast water area called the great deep. Bible also tells that the flood came when the fountains of the great deep burst open. Logical conclusion from that is, for some reason the original continent was broken, which led to the situation where the water came from below the earth. And when the water came out, the parts of the obviously logically continent sunk. This all obviously caused massive sentimental formations first outwards from the fountains to the edges of the continent.

Things that we can observe in nature suggests that when God formed the circle around our planet, it went about where nowadays is the "ring of fire". From that circle earth was originally stretched. And when the earth, dry land, was broken, it seems to have started from where we can nowadays find the Mid-Atlantic ridge.

I think the evidence for Biblical flood is overwhelming.

 

[shunyadragon]

Bible tells that earth, meaning dry land, the original single continent, was stretched over vast water area called the great deep. Bible also tells that the flood came when the fountains of the great deep burst open. Logical conclusion from that is, for some reason the original continent was broken, which led to the situation where the water came from below the earth. And when the water came out, the parts of the obviously logically continent sunk. This all obviously caused massive sentimental formations first outwards from the fountains to the edges of the continent.

Things that we can observe in nature suggests that when God formed the circle around our planet, it went about where nowadays is the "ring of fire". From that circle earth was originally stretched. And when the earth, dry land, was broken, it seems to have started from where we can nowadays find the Mid-Atlantic ridge.

Terrible dishonest using selective evidence to justify a mythical account of Creation and th ehistory of the earth. Nothing above is supported by any factual and physical evidence. Your description of the early history of the earth and the flood is physically impossible

The Mid-Atlantic ridge and spreading zone is evidence of billions of years of Continental Drift.

I think the evidence for Biblical flood is overwhelming.

You have presented absolutely no evidence for the Biblical flood, and you have failed to respond to the overwhelming evidence for an ancient earth with uniform geologic processes over millions of years,

You are either terribly intentional ignorant of science or a down right lier. Likely both.

 

[1213]

Terrible dishonest using selective evidence to justify a mythical account of Creation and th ehistory of the earth. Nothing above is supported by any factual and physical evidence. Your description of the early history of the earth and the flood is physically impossible

The "ring of fire" is a real thing, also the mid-Atlantic ridge and modern continents are a real thing. All of them and many other observations are factual and support the Bible story. However, I understand that the idea of God creating earth as told in the Bible sounds impossible. I think even more impossible is the idea that all this would be by chance, is even more impossible.

The Mid-Atlantic ridge and spreading zone is evidence of billions of years of Continental Drift.

If one thinks that without anti God bias, I don't see how that could be logically any evidence for billions of years. What evidence do you have for that the ocean floor is billions of years old?

If we think that the place where the ridge is, is the newest, as I think you suggest, where we can see the billion years of sediments in the ocean floor? If your theory is correct, we should see sediments in such a way that from the edge of the ridge the layers increase so that at one point there is billions of layers of sediments. Can you tell where that is? And how wide is the area of the newest continent, that has not much sediments on it?

You have presented absolutely no evidence for the Biblical flood, and you have failed to respond to the overwhelming evidence for an ancient earth with uniform geologic processes over millions of years,

There is no real evidence for very old earth. And I have pointed out lot of evidence for the Biblical flood (modern continents, orogenic mountains, oil- gas- coal fields, marine fossils on high mountains, Mid-Atlantic ridge, the "ring of fire").

 

[shunyadragon]

The "ring of fire" is a real thing, also the mid-Atlantic ridge and modern continents are a real thing. All of them and many other observations are factual and support the Bible story. However, I understand that the idea of God creating earth as told in the Bible sounds impossible. I think even more impossible is the idea that all this would be by chance, is even more impossible.

If one thinks that without anti God bias, I don't see how that could be logically any evidence for billions of years. What evidence do you have for that the ocean floor is billions of years old?

The ocean floor sediments is not billions of years old because of Continental drift which is constantly creating new Ocean floor over time. The oldest ocean floor is about 380,000 years old. It is the continental rock formations in the mountains and roots of the ancient mountains that have worn away that are billions of years old. The ring of fire is the current region of gradual spreading of the ocean crust, and of course the youngest rocks forming at present as the ocean floor spreads and at present the continents gradually move apart and some collide like India colliding with Asia pushing up mountain ranges. This movement can be directly measured.

If we think that the place where the ridge is, is the newest, as I think you suggest, where we can see the billion years of sediments in the ocean floor? If your theory is correct, we should see sediments in such a way that from the edge of the ridge the layers increase so that at one point there is billions of layers of sediments. Can you tell where that is? And how wide is the area of the newest continent, that has not much sediments on it?

There is no real evidence for very old earth. And I have pointed out lot of evidence for the Biblical flood (modern continents, orogenic mountains, oil- gas- coal fields, marine fossils on high mountains, Mid-Atlantic ridge, the "ring of fire.

You repeatedly state; The Bible tells . . . without any reference to any coherent reference to actual science that is based on evidence. The Noah flood is impossible based on basic High School Physics.

Your intentional ignorance and terrible dishonesty of science based on an ancient tribal worldview precludes any further discussion on this subject with you. It is abundantly clear that not only the present dominant view of Islam is the dishonest rejection of science, but also many Christians that cling to an ancient world view without science,

 

[1213]

The ocean floor sediments is not billions of years old because of Continental drift which is constantly creating new Ocean floor over time. The oldest ocean floor is about 380,000 years old.

How that has been measured?

Allegedly the speed of continental drift is about 2 cm/year. That means, for example 100 m from the edge, there should be 5000 layers of yearly sediments. And 1000 km from the edge, there should be 50 000 000 annual layers (1000 km from the edge of the ridge would be for example still about 1000 km away from Bermuda). If we assume one layer would be 0,01 mm thick, there would be 500 m thick layer of sediments from that time period. Do you think that is true? By what I see, there seems to be no solid evidence for that.

It is the continental rock formations in the mountains and roots of the ancient mountains that have worn away that are billions of years old. The ring of fire is the current region of gradual spreading of the ocean crust, and of course the youngest rocks forming at present as the ocean floor spreads and at present the continents gradually move apart and some collide like India colliding with Asia pushing up mountain ranges. This movement can be directly measured.

I think it is funny how people can believe that the mountains rise by continental drift pushing up mountains, especially when they claim to understand basic physics.

The Noah flood is impossible based on basic High School Physics.

Only if you don't understand correctly how it happened.

 

[shunyadragon]

How that has been measured?

Allegedly the speed of continental drift is about 2 cm/year. That means, for example 100 m from the edge, there should be 5000 layers of yearly sediments. And 1000 km from the edge, there should be 50 000 000 annual layers (1000 km from the edge of the ridge would be for example still about 1000 km away from Bermuda). If we assume one layer would be 0,01 mm thick, there would be 500 m thick layer of sediments from that time period. Do you think that is true? By what I see, there seems to be no solid evidence for that.

I think it is funny how people can believe that the mountains rise by continental drift pushing up mountains, especially when they claim to understand basic physics.

Only if you don't understand correctly how it happened.

and you do not remotely understand what actually happened, because of intentional ignorance of science based on an ancient religious agenda.

Seafloor Spreading

Seafloor spreading is a geologic process in which tectonic plates—large slabs of Earth's lithosphere—split apart from each other.

education.nationalgeographic.org

Seafloor spreading is not consistent at all mid-ocean ridges. Slowly spreading ridges are the sites of tall, narrow underwater cliffs and mountains. Rapidly spreading ridges have a much more gentle slopes. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge, for instance, is a slow spreading center. It spreads 2-5 centimeters (.8-2 inches) every year and forms an ocean trench about the size of the Grand Canyon. The East Pacific Rise, on the other hand, is a fast spreading center. It spreads about 6-16 centimeters (3-6 inches) every year. There is not an ocean trench at the East Pacific Rise, because the seafloor spreading is too rapid for one to develop!

The newest, thinnest crust on Earth is located near the center of mid-ocean ridges—the actual site of seafloor spreading. The age, density, and thickness of oceanic crust increases with distance from the mid-ocean ridge.

 

[1213]

...The Mid-Atlantic Ridge, for instance, is a slow spreading center. It spreads 2-5 centimeters (.8-2 inches) ...

I used that in my calculations. Now the interesting question is, how much sediments falls every year on the bottom of the ocean, because then we could check is the speed true. The whole modern idea of continental drift looks rather silly, if one thinks the implications of it.

 

[shunyadragon]

I used that in my calculations. Now the interesting question is, how much sediments falls every year on the bottom of the ocean, because then we could check is the speed true. The whole modern idea of continental drift looks rather silly, if one thinks the implications of it.

you do not remotely understand what actually happened, because of intentional ignorance of science based on an ancient religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

I used that in my calculations. Now the interesting question is, how much sediments falls every year on the bottom of the ocean, because then we could check is the speed true. The whole modern idea of continental drift looks rather silly, if one thinks the implications of it.

You used biased distances and intentionally ignorant of science, geology continental drift. The region of seafloor spreading is NOT how you are calculating.with your intentional lack of knowledge. It is not the whole ocean. Please not the color coding of sea floor map in the following may explain. The rate described is the average estimate over a period 65 million years. The younger ocean floor slows down as the crust thickens and begins to slide under the older ocean formations.

I there were misunderstandings as to past rates and age this is the best source.

I fully realize that proving you dead wrong will not change your ancient world view, but nonetheless it is done.

Calculating Sea Floor Spreading

www.science.smith.edu

 

[1213]

You used biased distances and intentionally ignorant of science, geology continental drift. The region of seafloor spreading is NOT how you are calculating.with your intentional lack of knowledge. It is not the whole ocean....

It seems to me that you didn't understand my point. I try to explain it with this floor mat parable:

Imagine that you have a 10 m wide floor mat and you drag it 2 cm in a year, and not clean the floor that becomes exposed. After 10 years 20 cm of the floor would be exposed, and there would be 10 layers of dust in the first years segment, 9 layers in the next one... ...and the newest segment would have only one layer. It would form a sloping dust "hill". I hope you understand that it means something else than just bad cleaning habits. Now, the same should happen also on the ocean floor, if it is really true that it moves an inch in a year. I don't think we have anything to support that kind of movement. But, perhaps you could offer some real observation for that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems to me that you didn't understand my point. I try to explain it with this floor mat parable:

Imagine that you have a 10 m wide floor mat and you drag it 2 cm in a year, and not clean the floor that becomes exposed. After 10 years 20 cm of the floor would be exposed, and there would be 10 layers of dust in the first years segment, 9 layers in the next one... ...and the newest segment would have only one layer. It would form a sloping dust "hill". I hope you understand that it means something else than just bad cleaning habits. Now, the same should happen also on the ocean floor, if it is really true that it moves an inch in a year. I don't think we have anything to support that kind of movement. But, perhaps you could offer some real observation for that?

Your analogy is very good, and it is what we see on the ocean floors. With some variation due to how close it is to sources of sediments. Of course, it is not perfect. The sea floor is not flat when it is made. It forms midocean ridges. The further away in time the more sediment has accumulated, just like with your mats. The ridges eventually get buried. Maps of the sea floor reflect this fact:

 

[shunyadragon]

It seems to me that you didn't understand my point. I try to explain it with this floor mat parable:

Imagine that you have a 10 m wide floor mat and you drag it 2 cm in a year, and not clean the floor that becomes exposed. After 10 years 20 cm of the floor would be exposed, and there would be 10 layers of dust in the first years segment, 9 layers in the next one... ...and the newest segment would have only one layer. It would form a sloping dust "hill". I hope you understand that it means something else than just bad cleaning habits. Now, the same should happen also on the ocean floor, if it is really true that it moves an inch in a year. I don't think we have anything to support that kind of movement. But, perhaps you could offer some real observation for that?

Parable does not work for your intentional ignorance of science based on an ancient tribal agenda. Anything you post is based on the assumption you reject science.

Science is science not parables

 

[1213]

Your analogy is very good, and it is what we see on the ocean floors. With some variation due to how close it is to sources of sediments. Of course, it is not perfect. The sea floor is not flat when it is made. It forms midocean ridges. The further away in time the more sediment has accumulated, just like with your mats. The ridges eventually get buried. Maps of the sea floor reflect this fact:

Thanks for the map, really nice.

Is there any evidence for the accumulated sediments on the ocean floor that could be seen? Looking at the surface, it doesn't seem credible that there would be layers of very long time period.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for the map, really nice.

Is there any evidence for the accumulated sediments on the ocean floor that could be seen? Looking at the surface, it doesn't seem credible that there would be layers of very long time period.

There are drilling records all over the world in the ocean floor looking the oil and other resources. Also seismic studies of the earth under the oceans correlated with drilling records.

Hint: Stop looking for rabbits in Cambrian rocks to justify your ancient agenda,

 

[Muffled]

Deliberate dodge of the issue at hand due to your intentional ignorance based on an ancient agenda.

Can you provide any objective evidence for a different explanation for the history of life?

Please address the question based a coherent response.

I don't believe I would even want to since I consider it useless and in some cases misleading.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't believe I would even want to since I consider it useless and in some cases misleading.

The problem is you cannot.

Deliberate dodge of the issue at hand due to your intentional ignorance based on an ancient agenda.

Can you provide any objective evidence for a different explanation for the history of life?

Please address the question based a coherent response.

 

[Muffled]

The problem is you cannot.

Deliberate dodge of the issue at hand due to your intentional ignorance based on an ancient agenda.

Can you provide any objective evidence for a different explanation for the history of life?

Please address the question based a coherent response.

I believe the majority of supposed objective evidence is crap.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe the majority of supposed objective evidence is crap.

It is a given that you cling to an ancient Sumerian, Babylonian mythology as an explanation of the nature of our existence.

It is also obvious you prefer the intentional ignorance of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't believe I would even want to since I consider it useless and in some cases misleading.

 

[Link]

I seldom agree with atheists, but she said this in a pretty eloquent way, so let me quote

I think they have very good reasons to.

What sensible, good and wise God, Who knows what He wants, would use evolution to create the pinnacle of His creation? That is arguably the most inefficient, amoral, wasteful and contingent mechanism I can think of. Relying on natural cataclysms, asteroids, climate changes on a planetary scale, so that a little rodent hiding for millions of years from reptile looking predators, will eventually be allowed to come out of that stinking hole and become the chosen one? I am not sure how any evolutionary Christian could possibly believe that without major cognitive dissonances.

in fact, a little thought should make it obvious that, say, the Christian God and evolution by natural selection, are mutually incompatible. On pure logical grounds.

ciao

- viole