Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 44 of 44

Thread: Bible and Science

  1. #31
    (THOAT-wob-lur MAN-grove)
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hell on the Border
    Posts
    5,002

    Default Re: Bible and Science

    Quote Originally Posted by hawk
    Hey Yahya, how does evolution fit with your understanding of Islam?
    Surah 71 refers to the human race having been made through various grades. That sure sounds like evolution to me.

  2. #32
    (THOAT-wob-lur MAN-grove)
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hell on the Border
    Posts
    5,002

    Default Re: Bible and Science

    Quote Originally Posted by mule
    Hello Yahya. I hope you are having happy holidays. I hope your schooling is going well.
    The holidays are fine over here. My sister, brother-in-law and niece have flown here from Maryland for Christmas, and it's good to have them around.

    Show me from the bible that God evolved people from animals.
    It indeed says no such thing, but I don't think it necessarily rules out evolution either. We've discussed this before, on the Christianity board you used to moderate. Do you want to go through it again? I'm game if you are.

    I believe that they had a common designer and that's why we look sorta alike.
    The Mona Lisa and the Last Supper had a common designer, but they don't look a thing like each other, now do they?

    I know a person that looks like a turtle yet I don't believe that this person is related to one.
    While that person's facial attributes may resemble a turtle somewhat, they will still look much more like a chimpanzee than like a turtle. Even the shape of their body should give that away. Incredible as it may seem, the DNA of chimpanzees and the DNA of humans are 99% the same.

  3. #33
    Ansar Al-Haq
    Guest

    Default Re: Bible and Science

    Incorrect.

    THE "99 %" MYTH IS DEAD
    Evolutionists Admit That Humans and Chimps Are Not Genetically Similar



    For a very long time, the evolutionist choir has been propagating the unsubstantiated thesis that there is very little genetic difference between humans and chimps. In every piece of evolutionist literature, you could read sentences like "we are 99 percent equal to chimps" or "there is only 1 percent of DNA that makes us human". Although no conclusive comparison between human and chimp genomes has been done, the Darwinist ideology led them to assume that there is very little difference between the two species.


    A recent study shows that the evolutionist propaganda on this issue-like many others-is completely false. Humans and chimps are not "99% similar" as the evolutionist fairy tale went on. Genetic similarity turns out to be less than 95 %. In a news story reported by CNN.com, entitled "Humans, chimps more different than thought", they report the following:



    There are more differences between a chimpanzee and a human being than once believed, according to a new genetic study.


    Biologists have long held that the genes of chimps and humans are about 98.5 percent identical. But a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, said in a study published this week that a new way of comparing the genes shows that the human and chimp genetic similarity is only about 95 percent.


    The biologist based this on a computer program that compared 780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.


    This led him to conclude that there is a fundamental genetic difference between the species of about 5 percent. i



    New Scientist, a leading science magazine and a strong supporter of Darwinism, reported the following on the same subject in an article titled "Human-chimp DNA difference trebled":



    We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps. ii



    The researcher and other evolutionists continue to assess the result in terms of the evolutionary theory, but in fact there is no scientific reason to do so. The theory of evolution is supported neither by the fossil record nor by genetic or biochemical data. On the contrary, evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors and that their complex systems prove the existence of an "intelligent design".



    Common Design, not Common Ancestory


    But what does the genetic similarity between man and chimps - even as 95 % - mean? To answer that question, one has to look at the whole picture.


    When we look at genetic comparisons in general, we find surprising similarities which do not fit within the alleged evolutionary relationships between species. For example a genetic analysis has revealed a surprising 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man.iii According to the family tree made by evolutionists, the Chordata phylum, in which man is included, and Nematoda phylum were unrelated to each other even 530 million years ago. Thus, the % 70 similarity - a very high figure for humans and nematode worms, completely different and dissimilar life forms - does not imply any evolutionary relationship.


    On the other hand, the analyses carried on some proteins show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of terrestrial vertebrates were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile. iv


    These results, along with many others, shows that genetic similarities between man and animals, and animals themselves, do not fit in any evolutionary pattern. In other words, the reason of similarity can not be "common ancestory" as the theory of evolution suggests.


    Then what is the reason? When we rethink the subject, we can see that the similarities stem from the fact that all life forms have similar functions and thus similar necessities. As we have explained in one of our previous articles, "Darwinists Misrepresentations About the Human Genome Project", it is surely reasonable for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.


    But in that case what kind of scientific explanation can be given for similar structures and genes in living things? The answer to that question was given before Darwin's theory of evolution came to dominate the world of science. Men of science such as Carl Linnaeus and Richard Owen, who first raised the question of similarity in living creatures, saw these structures as examples of "common design." In other words, similar organs or similar genes resemble each other not because they have evolved by chance from a common ancestor, but because they have been designed deliberately to perform a particular function.


    Modern scientific discoveries show that the claim that similarities in living things are due to descent from a "common ancestor" is not valid, and that the only rational explanation for such similarities is "common design," i.e. Creation.




    (i) http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science....ap/index.html
    (ii) http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833
    (iii) New Scientist, 15 May 1999, p.27
    (iv) New Scientist v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19




    In fact, none of the genetic similarities between different species point to an evolutionary relationship. In recent years, scientific discoveries have refuted many evolutionist assumptions. Comparisons that have been made of proteins, rRNAs and genes reveal that creatures which are allegedly close relatives according to the theory of evolution are actually totally distinct from each other. Molecular biologists James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera elaborated on this in an article in 1999:



    …[S]cientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone. 1



    Neither the comparisons that have been made of proteins, nor those of rRNAs or of genes, confirm the premises of the theory of evolution. Carl Woese, a highly reputed biologist from the University of Illinois, admits that the concept of "phylogeny" has lost its meaning in the face of molecular findings in this way:



    No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves. 2



    The fact that results of molecular comparisons are not in favor of, but rather opposed to, the theory of evolution is also admitted in an article called "Is it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" published in Science in 1999. This article by Elizabeth Pennisi states that the genetic analyses and comparisons carried out by Darwinist biologists in order to shed light on the "tree of life actually yielded directly opposite results, and goes on to say that" new data are muddying the evolutionary picture":



    A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from more than a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the accepted plot lines of life's early history. But what they saw confounded them. Comparisons of the genomes then available not only didn't clarify the picture of how life's major groupings evolved, they confused it. And now, with an additional eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation has gotten even more confusing.... Many evolutionary biologists had thought they could roughly see the beginnings of life's three kingdoms... When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes, researchers expected that they would simply add detail to this tree. But "nothing could be further from the truth," says Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead, the comparisons have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well.... 3





    1. James Lake, Ravi Jain ve Maria Rivera, "Mix and Match in the Tree of Life," Science, vol. 283, 1999, p. 2027
    2. Carl Woese, "The Universel Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 95, (1998) p. 6854
    3. Elizabeth Pennisi, "Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" Science, vol. 284, no. 5418, 21 May 1999, p. 1305
    Source: http://www.DARWINISM-WATCH.com
    by our beloved Harun Yahya

  4. #34
    Ansar Al-Haq
    Guest

    Default Re: Bible and Science

    I agree with mule on this one. ( surprising eh?)

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,311

    Default Re: Bible and Science

    Ansar,

    you are left with the problem that the earth was not possibly created in 6 days. Besides, it took 100 million years for it to settle down before any life could form at all.
    It may be solved 2 different ways. I'm just going to give you one way. Adam and Eve were created fully grown as were the animals and the plants why wouldn't God have created the earth to be "fully developed" or adult. Why do you assume that God created adult people and animals and plants and put them on a planet that was not mature enough to hold life?

    You forget I think how extraordinary the creation was.

    Mule

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,311

    Default Re: Bible and Science

    I agree with mule on this one. ( surprising eh?)
    I am most impressed that you don't believe in evolution. That's not a popular thing. I am impressed that there are muslims that dont believe in evolution.

  7. #37
    Ansar Al-Haq
    Guest

    Default Re: Bible and Science

    Quote Originally Posted by mule
    It may be solved 2 different ways. I'm just going to give you one way. Adam and Eve were created fully grown as were the animals and the plants why wouldn't God have created the earth to be "fully developed" or adult. Why do you assume that God created adult people and animals and plants and put them on a planet that was not mature enough to hold life?
    I believe Science has shown that the Earth was not created fully developed. We know that it took 100 million years for the Earth to settle down. You would have to admit that the Bible favours an unscientific notion.

    I am most impressed that you don't believe in evolution. That's not a popular thing. I am impressed that there are muslims that dont believe in evolution.
    I am equally surprised to find Christians who don't believe in the theory as well.

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,311

    Default Re: Bible and Science

    It indeed says no such thing, but I don't think it necessarily rules out evolution either. We've discussed this before, on the Christianity board you used to moderate. Do you want to go through it again? I'm game if you are.
    Yahya Sulaiman,

    No. because you get mad at me. I am just visiting anyways. Please have a safe Christmas.

    mule

  9. #39
    (THOAT-wob-lur MAN-grove)
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hell on the Border
    Posts
    5,002

    Default Re: Bible and Science

    Quote Originally Posted by mule
    Yahya Sulaiman,

    No. because you get mad at me.
    I'm getting very weary of explaining to you over and over again that I'm not the grouch you think I am. I suppose you have annoyed me somewhat on certain occasions, but I've never been mad at you.

    I am just visiting anyways.
    You've been on the board for an awfully long time for someone who's just visiting, if I understand you correctly.

    Please have a safe Christmas.
    I will, of course, do my best.

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    159

    Default Re: Bible and Science

    No it doesnt, if a human is evolved from a species of ape that is now extinct like i think you said then that makes the ape it came from not human, just as if birds came from dinosaurs the dinosaurs arent considered to be a different grade of bird.

  11. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    47

    Default Re: Bible and Science

    Oh dear, this looks like another bible bashing

    Right bible and science take your pick here, faster than speed of light, holographs, space being ripped and warped, 9 dimensions on string theory, smart weapons. Cloning, all mentioned in the bible.

  12. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    47

    Default Re: Bible and Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-Haq View Post
    I believe Science has shown that the Earth was not created fully developed. We know that it took 100 million years for the Earth to settle down. You would have to admit that the Bible favours an unscientific notion.



    I am equally surprised to find Christians who don't believe in the theory as well.
    How would the bible favor uan unscientific notion when science has proven that the speed if light was never been constant

    Why would we favor evolution, when the very nature of it flawed, as we are just made up of carbon, therefore thought is just a by product of our evolution, if thought is just a by product how can one trust it? Therefore how can one trust human mind

  13. #43
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default Re: Bible and Science

    How would the bible favor uan unscientific notion when science has proven that the speed if light was never been constant

    Why would we favor evolution, when the very nature of it flawed, as we are just made up of carbon, therefore thought is just a by product of our evolution, if thought is just a by product how can one trust it? Therefore how can one trust human mind
    You could be scepticle about it. After all the big bang theory - the long process. In some sense dosen't make sense at all. If you were to belive one massive explosion started this chain reaction - this chain reaction would then cause new life to be born form one dying star. Kinda odd if you ask me? Black holes them selfs can be created fairly easy once a massive star emplodes then explodes on itself. There would be more than enough energy for a black hole to be created - thus making the explosion/after math - confusing. The black hole itself should have devoured pretty much everything. Mabe a ultra massive black hole was made once the big bang started. Are we that far away from that ultra massive black hole? We already know black holes have insane ammounts of gravitational pulls. But because its so big - its gravitational pull should be more than enough to make the current ultra massive black holes we've discoverd to seem insignificant. Maybe its so big we cant see it? Maybe it was never created. But when you look on the god side of things. How do you expect for someone like me - to just "Go with it" as most religous people would tell me. I can't just GO with it. I wan't proof.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •