[LordLink]

Originally Posted by OmegaRED

Atheism is no more of a belief or faith than being bald is a hair color.

Faith and religion are nothing but lies and superstition sugarcoated to ease the fears of the unknown, since we no longer live in the dark ages we can toss them aside in favor of more reasonable solutions.

I had to call your atheism belief something and maybe my choice of the word faith was not optimal but excuse my limited english vocabulary

Yeah we're no longer in the Dark Ages but the more reasonable solutions you say don't give convincing answers either: take for example the creation of Universe, atheists say it's by chance but the problem is that it's not a single chance hit but rather a succession of very precise phenomenals.

I don't remember who said that the probability that the creation of Univers came by chance is like the probability that you put all the pieces used for the making of a Boeing 747 plane in a field then a tornado pass on that field and take all the pieces and give in the end an intact well manufactured Boeing 747

The most obvious example again is the soul: with all the scientifical advances, they still don't know what soul is. What is soul? Why even if we keep the organs working people die? Why every living thing have to die in a precise cycle?

Every scientist know that if you leave everything to chance you will never get anywhere. How can something comming fully by chance have so much precise rules and guidelines, so much creatures obeying very strict rules sometimes the optimal (bees, ants...)???

Originally Posted by cozumel

I just had to enter the fray as this appears to have developed into a debate between those who may have read the Quran and those who have not.

The Quran, like the Torah and the Christian bible contain a number of very positive morals and principals that all of mankind should follow. Now the fact that some politicians and others chose to corrupt the words contained in the Quran does not make Islam bad. There is no such thing as an evil muslim. But there are evil people.

The newpapers and media in most western countries (and many politicians) routinely lie about what is written within the Quran as it sells their products. The only way to find the truth is to read all of the Quran yourself. I have read many fundamentalist magazines that a daughter of a friend kept before they left for Afghanistan in the late 1990s. The fundamentalist magazines leave me with the same disgust as many European and US newspapers. They are based on lies and distortions of the truth.

I do not follow any religion but have read (and own) a Quran and the Old Testament. I can't be bothered to read the new testament as it will probably just contain the same morals though I realise that this may be ignorant of me.

Thanks a lot Mr. cozumel, that's exactly the point: you don't have to be Jew, Christian or Muslim to be good as it's a personal choice and all the result can only be seen after death. On the other hand you don't have to take a position on a religion just by reading some newspaper & books or watching tv.

[OmegaRED]

Originally Posted by LordLink

Yeah we're no longer in the Dark Ages but the more reasonable solutions you say don't give convincing answers either: take for example the creation of Universe, atheists say it's by chance but the problem is that it's not a single chance hit but rather a succession of very precise phenomenals.

It's scientists who work hard to give us the best understanding of how the Universe began, not Atheists. They come up with theories and then prove them over and over again while religion makes one claim and never proves it.

I don't remember who said that the probability that the creation of Univers came by chance is like the probability that you put all the pieces used for the making of a Boeing 747 plane in a field then a tornado pass on that field and take all the pieces and give in the end an intact well manufactured Boeing 747

I've heard this "Ultimate 747 Gambit" before in The God Delusion, here's what wikipedia has to say about it:

Dawkins' name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. This is an allusion to Hoyle's fallacy. Fred Hoyle reportedly stated that the "probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747."[2] The basic argument against empirical theism dates back at least to David Hume, whose objection can be popularly stated as "Who designed the designer?", but according to Daniel Dennett the innovation of Dawkins' argument is, first, to show that where design fails to explain complexity, evolution by natural selection succeeds and is the only workable solution, and, second, to argue how this should illuminate the confusion surrounding the anthropic principle.[3]

The most obvious example again is the soul: with all the scientifical advances, they still don't know what soul is. What is soul? Why even if we keep the organs working people die? Why every living thing have to die in a precise cycle?

There is no proof that a soul even exists, it's something made up by religions. I'm not sure I understand the next questions. People are kept on life support long after their brains have ceased functioning and only machines kept them alive. Which cycle would that be?

[LordLink]

Originally Posted by OmegaRED

It's scientists who work hard to give us the best understanding of how the Universe began, not Atheists. They come up with theories and then prove them over and over again while religion makes one claim and never proves it.

There is no proof that a soul even exists, it's something made up by religions. I'm not sure I understand the next questions. People are kept on life support long after their brains have ceased functioning and only machines kept them alive. Which cycle would that be?

Yeah that's for sure: that's scientists work who is used by most atheists to back their theories but the fact is that religions "claims" are more and more proved by scientists.

Here's a 2 small documentaries explaining this more throughly
The Creation Of The Universe

With the verification of the Big Bang theory, which maintained that the universe was brought into being with a big explosion, the concept of ‘eternal matter’ that constituted the basis of the materialist philosophy is thrown into the trash-heap of history.

In this film,you will see how modern astronomy and physics imply a fact that materialists are unwilling to accept, that is, the existence of a Creator.

The Fact Of Creation part 1
The Fact Of Creation part 2
The Fact Of Creation part 3

There is a marvelous design in all these living things. It is not possible to claim that the glorious picture on a butterfly’s wings has come about as a result of coincidences. No coincidence can produce such a perfect pattern or harmony in color and symmetry. The exact resemblance of an orchid to a female wasp and moreover its knowing the scent that will attract the male wasp and its ability to secrete it, imply a flawless design that cannot be attributed to random and unconscious changes. The claim of evolutionists that everything originated through coincidence is utterly refuted in the face of these examples of design. It is out of the question that a creature could play with its own colors and designs or make a drawing surpassing even that of an artist. And if there is design, then there surely is a designer.

[OmegaRED]

Yeah that's for sure: that's scientists work who is used by most atheists to back their theories but the fact is that religions "claims" are more and more proved by scientists.

Do you even look at the stuff you're posting? Those links are a joke, a kid with a basic understanding of grade school science could debunk them. Please, if you wish to get respectful responses don't waste time posting Creationist videos which have absolutely no scientific content in them.

What you are talking about is "irreducible complexity", an argument by Intelligent Design proponents and it's been thoroughly destroyed in the American courts when they had evolution vs creationism on trial in 2005.

Let me sum up the faulty logic you and other creationists use:

Step 1: This [animal or plant] is far too complex to have evolved.
Step 2: It must have been created by God.
Step 3: [Allah, God, Yahweh] must have done it.

No where in that logic is there any reason to suspect God created something and that it is your God who did it. The first vid you posted was Muslim, and claims Allah created the Universe. I could post a ton of vids saying the same thing using the same faulty logic claiming the Christian God did it. Both base their claims on scripture and complete ignorance of how evolution works.

[OmegaRED]

And if there is design, then there surely is a designer.

Link, answer me this: If everything which has a design has a designer then who created the Creator? Specifically, who made Allah?

This is fundamentally why all Creationist theories fall apart.

[cozumel]

I don't believe there is any scientific theory that can show where the elements came from to create the big bang and life. One minute it wasn't and then it was. That is where the science always falls apart lol.

Any answers or links Omega?

[LordLink]

Originally Posted by OmegaRED

Link, answer me this: If everything which has a design has a designer then who created the Creator? Specifically, who made Allah?

This is fundamentally why all Creationist theories fall apart.

That's a good one: if you create something that was not there before then the question is not "who created you?" the real question is "how you created it?"

If there was more than one Creator then nothing would last long because there will be conflicts, there's one and only Creator which is God.
When you say "design" it's the Designer who created the concept of design thus the Creator cannot be compared to the design He created.

Originally Posted by OmegaRED

Do you even look at the stuff you're posting? Those links are a joke, a kid with a basic understanding of grade school science could debunk them. Please, if you wish to get respectful responses don't waste time posting Creationist videos which have absolutely no scientific content in them.

What you are talking about is "irreducible complexity", an argument by Intelligent Design proponents and it's been thoroughly destroyed in the American courts when they had evolution vs creationism on trial in 2005.

Let me sum up the faulty logic you and other creationists use:

Step 1: This [animal or plant] is far too complex to have evolved.
Step 2: It must have been created by God.
Step 3: [Allah, God, Yahweh] must have done it.

No where in that logic is there any reason to suspect God created something and that it is your God who did it. The first vid you posted was Muslim, and claims Allah created the Universe. I could post a ton of vids saying the same thing using the same faulty logic claiming the Christian God did it. Both base their claims on scripture and complete ignorance of how evolution works.

Give just one example of something that evolved from something else backed by scientific research or archeological fossiles: guess what nothing. Every living thing on earth was and still is exacly the way it was created in the begining.

You'll tell me "Darwin's Theory", yeah I had this too in the natural sciences course in school (yeah even if I'm in a muslim country) and we was teached as if it was true but later I realised it was not.
The Collapse Of Darwinism And The Fact Of Creation

In Arabic, Allah means literally the one God. It is pretty easy to understand how different languages give the same thing different names. Is it that unusual to hear Muslims call God another name, like "Allah", while you call him God or Lord?

When Arabs call Allah in prayer they say: “Ya Allah” or “Allahoma”. Aren't these words familiar to you? “Alleluia” and “Elohim” are the words used to call Allah in the Bible. In Hebrew, the suffix im means many. So Elohim literally means many Allah(s). This is a known way to express dignity and respect to almighty Allah by calling Him pleural. This phenomenon is known in Hebrew, Arabic, English and other languages. In Quran, the same pattern is seen many times. For example, God says in the holy Quran:

[ We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). ]15:9.

In the English translation of the Bible, you read, "Let us make man in our image”-Genesis 1:26-KJV.

The word Allah is used in all Arabic translations of the Bible. It was used in some English translations of the Bible like the original "Scofield Reference Bible"-reference: what is his name? by Deedat. In the New Testament, Jesus is believed to cry before his death "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” Eloi is the exact Arabic word "Elahi" which comes from the same root as Allah.

I have no doubt that the word "Allah" is the oldest known name man called God with. For those who choose to ignore this fact and transgress, Muslims have nothing to offer. Allah says in the holy Quran:

[If any, after this, invent a lie and attribute it to Allah, they are indeed unjust wrong-doers.] 3:94

For Muslims, Allah is perfect. He has no partners. We worship Him and Him alone. Our faith is summarized in the holy Quran:

[Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.] 112:1-4

[Mousey]

Right all this reading is really doing my head in, i'm gonna break it down by presenting my arguable opinion in as fewer words as possible..

(imo) Religion is BS.

[Zelig]

Originally Posted by LordLink

Give just one example of something that evolved from something else backed by scientific research or archeological fossiles: guess what nothing. Every living thing on earth was and still is exacly the way it was created in the begining.

Just one example: Quick evolution leads to quiet crickets

If anyone was motivated, they could easily find thousands...

Originally Posted by LordLink

The Collapse Of Darwinism And The Fact Of Creation

I'm not going to watch an hour of that, the minutes of annoying music and drivel about "perfect design" was bad enough. I watched over six minutes of the movie without a single piece of evidence being presented, and am not going to watch more.

I stopped watching when they started talking about the origin of life. The theory of evolution does NOT deal with the origin of life, that belongs in a separate argument completely.

[LordLink]

Originally Posted by Zelig

Just one example: Quick evolution leads to quiet crickets

If anyone was motivated, they could easily find thousands...



I'm not going to watch an hour of that, the minutes of annoying music and drivel about "perfect design" was bad enough. I watched over six minutes of the movie without a single piece of evidence being presented, and am not going to watch more.

I stopped watching when they started talking about the origin of life. The theory of evolution does NOT deal with the origin of life, that belongs in a separate argument completely.

Are you sure this is what you want to call evolution? Are you sure the mutant cricket is a new specie? In the article the mutant cricket can't attract female so he's condemned not to reproduce
So basicly if we take your example as true evolution then white humans are the evolution of black humans or vice versa because there's between blacks and white some minor changes but they're all in the same DNA so it's surely adaptive evolution already programmed in the DNA. Isn't it?

The evolution I want examples for is the kind when there's something species not perfect then step by step evoluting to perfection
For example "Bees" what was the sequence of imperfect species that evolved to the perfect result of Bees

[OmegaRED]

Originally Posted by cozumel

I don't believe there is any scientific theory that can show where the elements came from to create the big bang and life. One minute it wasn't and then it was. That is where the science always falls apart lol.

Any answers or links Omega?

It's a great question and I don't know the answer. Here's one interesting explanation.

from Cosmic Evidence by Victor Stenger:

In The Comprehensible Cosmos, I presented a specific scenerio for the purely natural origin of the universe, worked out mathematically at a level accessible to anyone with an undergraduate mathematics or physics background. This was based on the no boundary model of James Hartle and Stephen Hawking. In that model, the universe has no beginning or end in space or time. In the scenario I presented, our universe is described as having "tunneled" through the chaos or Planck time from a prior universe that existed for all previous time.

While he avoided technical details in A Brief History of Time, the no boundary model was the basis of Hawking's oft-quoted statement: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place then, for a creator".

[OmegaRED]

Originally Posted by LordLink

That's a good one: if you create something that was not there before then the question is not "who created you?" the real question is "how you created it?"

If there was more than one Creator then nothing would last long because there will be conflicts, there's one and only Creator which is God.
When you say "design" it's the Designer who created the concept of design thus the Creator cannot be compared to the design He created.

What does any of that mean? I asked who or what created God.

Give just one example of something that evolved from something else backed by scientific research or archeological fossiles: guess what nothing. Every living thing on earth was and still is exacly the way it was created in the begining.

The theory of evolution is the most scientifically proven theory in the history of mankind...and you can't find a single example. Don't waste my time.

You'll tell me "Darwin's Theory", yeah I had this too in the natural sciences course in school (yeah even if I'm in a muslim country) and we was teached as if it was true but later I realised it was not.
The Collapse Of Darwinism And The Fact Of Creation

If you rely on Youtube for your scientific knowledge then you'll believe anything.

For Muslims, Allah is perfect. He has no partners. We worship Him and Him alone. Our faith is summarized in the holy Quran:

This is not really true. Islam and Christianity are both very similar to polytheisms which they despise. For example, Muslims worship Muhammad and various angels like Gabriel not just Allah.

[LordLink]

Originally Posted by OmegaRED

from Cosmic Evidence by Victor Stenger

The problem with this theory is that Hydrogen is consumed non stop and scientists now know how much Hydrogen in the Sun (and stars) so they know aprox. when it's going to end (all Hydrogen converted to Helium). If it was there eternaly then how come it's going to end?

In the modern universe almost all new helium is created as a result of the nuclear fusion of hydrogen in stars.



I think you're basing your argumentations on science not some old theories now refuted.

[OmegaRED]

Originally Posted by LordLink

The problem with this theory is that Hydrogen is consumed non stop and scientists now know how much Hydrogen in the Sun so they know aprox. when it's going to end. If it was there eternaly then how come it's going to end?

.

No one said the Sun is eternal, it was formed at some point and will die out. I think you are confusing the creationist theory that the sun is only a few thousand years old thus proving the Bible creation story.

I think you're basing your argumentations on science not some old theories now refuted

Yea, that sounds about right, religious explanations have all been refuted whereas science does not declare it has the truth, it searches for it and offers the most reasonable explanation.

[LordLink]

Originally Posted by OmegaRED

The theory of evolution is the most scientifically proven theory in the history of mankind...and you can't find a single example. Don't waste my time.


If you rely on Youtube for your scientific knowledge then you'll believe anything.


This is not really true. Islam and Christianity are both very similar to polytheisms which they despise. For example, Muslims worship Muhammad and various angels like Gabriel not just Allah.

But there's always missing pieces. I can't call it scientific if there's place for a lot of suppositions.

I'm just making you life easier instead of giving you download links
Please debate the content of the vids not the site they're hosted on.

From where did you came with something like this? ohh let me guess, it's our friend Ibn Warraq isn't it?
THIS IS ALL FALSE. We didn't worship Mohamed PBOH, He's was a prophet, he delivered his message and he died. We believe in angels but no one is worshiping any of them. Muslims worship the one and only God.

Excuse me the expression but this is what I call complex ignorance: You don't know about Islam and you don't know that you don't know about it.

[LordLink]

Originally Posted by OmegaRED

No one said the Sun is eternal, it was formed at some point and will die out. I think you are confusing the creationist theory that the sun is only a few thousand years old thus proving the Bible creation story.

Yea, that sounds about right, religious explanations have all been refuted whereas science does not declare it has the truth, it searches for it and offers the most reasonable explanation.

If universe is eternal then how come things like stars will come to an end? Everything that's gonna end had a beginning. That's the rule.


I don't know about the Bible but there's nothing in Quran stating that the sun is a 1000 years, nothing.

And actually all the reasonable explanations science has offered converge exactly with what's written in Quran.

[OmegaRED]

And actually all the reasonable explanations science has offered converge exactly with what's writen in Quran.

It's nice that you included a smiley face with that otherwise I'd think you were actually serious. Surely you don't mean even the silly crap like man being created from an extract of clay as the Koran says? The Koran is so vague and contradictory just like Nostradamus that it's easy to apply it to any scientific discoveries. Of course, only the science which doesn't contradict the Koran is allowable...the rest (like evolution) is ignored by Muslims.

[LordLink]

Originally Posted by OmegaRED

It's nice that you included a smiley face with that otherwise I'd think you were actually serious. Surely you don't mean even the silly crap like man being created from an extract of clay as the Koran says? The Koran is so vague and contradictory just like Nostradamus that it's easy to apply it to any scientific discoveries. Of course, only the science which doesn't contradict the Koran is allowable...the rest (like evolution) is ignored by Muslims.

The theory of evolution is more and more proved to be false. Yeah it's still not proved that humans (sons of Adam and Eve [Haoua] ) are created from clay as Jins are created from fire and angles from light. But I'm sure even if it's proved there'll be always people saying it's by chance or ignoring it. Yeah there's always in science some theories that are found false after many years. So basicalyin the Medieval Age Christians were saying Earth is flat and Quran said earth is spherical. When it was proved by irrefutable science no one praised that except muslims as they were the only ones against the "scientists" even if they didn't prove it by them selves.

So I have the right to refute things that are contradictory with what's on Quran.

You are the only one finding contradictions in Quran and you didn't even read it. It's full of stories and advices and if you're going to take sentences out of their context then you have false meanings and your understanding is altered.

[COLOR=silver]ps: Good night Omega, it's already too late and I'm waking up early [/COLOR]

[Zelig]

Originally Posted by LordLink

Are you sure this is what you want to call evolution? Are you sure the mutant cricket is a new specie? In the article the mutant cricket can't attract female so he's condemned not to reproduce
So basicly if we take your example as true evolution then white humans are the evolution of black humans or vice versa because there's between blacks and white some minor changes but they're all in the same DNA so it's surely adaptive evolution already programmed in the DNA. Isn't it?

The evolution I want examples for is the kind when there's something species not perfect then step by step evoluting to perfection
For example "Bees" what was the sequence of imperfect species that evolved to the perfect result of Bees

Points answered in order from your post:

It's not a matter of what I want to call evolution. By definition, the process in the linked article is evolution. If you read it carefully, you'll see that the mutant cricket is not unable to reproduce, it's simply unable to chirp, which results in it not getting eaten by maggots.

Yes, it's likely that white human beings are evolved from human beings with black skin, originating in sub-saharan Africa. Humans with black skin are also evolved from these same beings. Evolution has no "up" or "down", and no goal in mind, and is an ongoing process for all groups of living beings.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the DNA bit...

Regarding "perfect" bees, like I mentioned regarding humans, evolution has no goal, and there is no "perfect" species. There are simply pools of individual being at certain points in time with the ability to reproduce with each other. When a population, separated by time, geography (or otherwise) is unable to succesfully reproduce to create viable offspring with the originating population, it can be considered a new species.

[OmegaRED]

So I have the right to refute things that are contradictory with what's on Quran.

Good luck, that's a never ending struggle

I actually respect your ability to believe in the literal truth of the Koran but it's dishonest to make false statements about evolution simply because it is contradictory to your faith. You don't have to believe in evolution, but do not say it is false when scientific evidence does not say that (although your "scientific" community on youtube would differ ).

Why can't you just fit evolution into the Koran like the discovery of electricity and the rest of the stuff the Koran seems to predict? That's a missed opportunity.

[SFOSOK]

Go go Gadget Jesus!

[Maddogg6]

That's a good one: if you create something that was not there before then the question is not "who created you?" the real question is "how you created it?"

Soo. you avoid the question with another question - which was 'who' not 'how'.
Straw man tactic.

[LordLink]

Originally Posted by Zelig

Points answered in order from your post:
Yes, it's likely that white human beings are evolved from human beings with black skin, originating in sub-saharan Africa. Humans with black skin are also evolved from these same beings. Evolution has no "up" or "down", and no goal in mind, and is an ongoing process for all groups of living beings.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the DNA bit...

Regarding "perfect" bees, like I mentioned regarding humans, evolution has no goal, and there is no "perfect" species. There are simply pools of individual being at certain points in time with the ability to reproduce with each other.

Are you serious? it's not the evolution you want to talk about because it's now preved scientificaly that all Humans are from the same DNA. That's only variability on the same that give the different results between for example chinese, hispanic, black...

So basically all the differences you see between humans on earth were already programmed in the DNA. The fact is that species can adapt to the environment they're living in the way they were supposed to adapt.

Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens sapiens.

Source

But for example Humans can never evolve to have wings for example because it's not in their DNA.

Take for example lions: they're all called lions every where in the world, they have the same DNA and they have some specificities depending on each region. That's the same thing for all creatures on earth.

The evolution I want you to prove to me is the one stating that somehow the source Whale evolutes to the end result Elephent through series of "temporary" steps.

When you find this kind of theories they're all full of "may have resulted" "can be the origin" and this is what I can't call bullet proof science. So there's still a lot of room for research in these areas.

Originally Posted by OmegaRED

Good luck, that's a never ending struggle

I actually respect your ability to believe in the literal truth of the Koran but it's dishonest to make false statements about evolution simply because it is contradictory to your faith. You don't have to believe in evolution, but do not say it is false when scientific evidence does not say that (although your "scientific" community on youtube would differ ).

Why can't you just fit evolution into the Koran like the discovery of electricity and the rest of the stuff the Koran seems to predict? That's a missed opportunity.

ok maybe I went too far but as I stated before there's still a lot of room for research in these areas and there's always relativity in understanding, so I apologies if I played with our dear evolution theory but hey it's still a theory

again I made youtube links just to make your life easier, but the vids are not made by youtube posters as they're more busy posting music clips and msn & webcam stuff

[COLOR="Silver"]ps: you're always using Koran but it's false Quran is more apropriate and it's read Qur'an[/COLOR]

[Maddogg6]

So there's still a lot of room for research in these areas.

No one will argue that here really - but to say 'god made us all' does *not* induce further discover but is instead designed to squelch further study.

Proof enough to me that science and evo are definitly on to something is to witness a tadpole morph into a frog, and a catepillar turn into a butter fly - it demonstrates to me that radical changes in physiology *are* possible. But I wont make claim I understand it all. It just makes more sense to me than any scripture I seen that supposedly proves evo as wrong (and makes no sense, with what we *do* know).

How hard is it to understand that if you find just 1 false statement - credibility for *anything* else asserted is also lost - its true in court, and for me - its true in life in general.

[OmegaRED]

[Maddogg6]

**Edited... as it followed off topic comments...**

[Zelig]

Originally Posted by LordLink

Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens sapiens.

Yeah, because that's the definition of a human... similar to how all chairs are classified as being chairs.

Originally Posted by LordLink

The evolution I want you to prove to me is the one stating that somehow the source Whale evolutes to the end result Elephent through series of "temporary" steps.

There's no permanent sources or end results, all species are temporary steps on the road to extinction.


Everyone does not have the same DNA, only identical twins have the same DNA... I'm not sure what you're getting at here. And individuals' DNA does not change or adapt throughout there lifetime, the DNA of any individual is fixed from birth to death.

If you're saying that everyone simply has differing alleles, that's false in any case, look up SETMAR for a recent human gene that did not exist in recent human ancestors.
SETMAR at wiki
Easy guide to the evolution of SETMAR

Originally Posted by LordLink

The evolution I want you to prove to me is the one stating that somehow the source Whale evolutes to the end result Elephent through series of "temporary" steps.

Large evolutionary steps take millions of years, after which relatively little evidence is laid out in obvious and chronological order.

Here is a source with lots of examples of speciation.

Here is a source explaining transitional fossils, and giving some examples of well defined "species-to-species transitions".

A quote from the last link:

Rose & Bown (1984) analyzed over 600 specimens of primates collected from a 700-meter-thick sequence representing approximately 4 million years of the Eocene. They found smooth transitions between Teilhardina americana and Tetonoides tenuiculus, and also beween Tetonius homunculus and Pseudotetonius ambiguus. "In both lines transitions occurred not only continuously (rather than by abrupt appearance of new morphologies followed by stasis), but also in mosaic fashion, with greater variation in certain characters preceding a shift to another character state."

[LordLink]

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

No one will argue that here really - but to say 'god made us all' does *not* induce further discover but is instead designed to squelch further study.

Proof enough to me that science and evo are definitly on to something is to witness a tadpole morph into a frog, and a catepillar turn into a butter fly - it demonstrates to me that radical changes in physiology *are* possible. But I wont make claim I understand it all. It just makes more sense to me than any scripture I seen that supposedly proves evo as wrong (and makes no sense, with what we *do* know).

How hard is it to understand that if you find just 1 false statement - credibility for *anything* else asserted is also lost - its true in court, and for me - its true in life in general.

No research MUST go on and more and more research is approving the signs in Quran. Quran is not a book of science, it's rather a book of signs. Like I said before there's more than 6000 verses in Quran in which more than 1000 speak about science.

And the matter of fact is that a lot of the scientific "claims" found in Quran are proved now scientifically

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Quran, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Quran which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Quran was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Quran rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.


The Quran speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Quran is Divine.

[OmegaRED]

Example of the Quran's scientific knowledge :

The earth is fixed and does not move. 27:61
Allah made the stars as missiles to throw at devils. 67:5

"And hath made the moon a light"
This verse implies that the moon produces its own light, rather than reflecting light from the sun. 71:16
Someday the stars will fall. 81:2
Humans are formed from "a gushing fluid" that issues "from between the loins and the ribs." 86:5-7
Humans created from a single man. 7:189

[Maddogg6]

The Quran speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation.

Have you been given the opportunity to examine the *original* Quran?
So can you personally verify that the version you are going on has *not* been modified in any way or at any time? Or do you just take the word that 'it is authentic - period' ?

Either way Please explain this 'scientific' error *without* using the word 'interpretation':

2:261 The likeness of those who spend their wealth in Allah's way is as the likeness of a grain which groweth seven ears, in every ear a hundred grains. Allah giveth increase manifold to whom He will. Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing.

Science proves that an ear of corn is not 100 grains. Nor is a 'grain' guaranteed to provide 7 ears. Instead, growing conditions and genetics more influence the outcome from a grain of corn. It *is* a scientific error.