TopeEmma15:


Mr logic can u explain how d universe was created from nothing with ur logic lets hear

How does this relate with what i said? Seeing you choose emotions over tested reason, it might be best if I just ignore you.

DabELLs:


It is easier for atheist to pick Christianity because the bible was written by many selfish people which some of them are even anonymous and it's full of contradictions and mistakes.

It's easier to pick on Christianity because they're more tolerant then other religion.


One of the First book to ever come from the first printing press (Johannes Gutenberg) is the Bible.

Even the Quran, made reference to the old testament of the Bible

OBAGADAFFI:


It's easier to pick on Christianity because they're more tolerant then other religion.


One of the First book to ever come from the first printing press (Johannes Gutenberg) is the Bible.

Even the Quran, made reference to the old testament of the Bible

Quran made reference to the bible as the book that was currupted and full of contradictions.

OBAGADAFFI:


It's easier to pick on Christianity because they're more tolerant then other religion.


One of the First book to ever come from the first printing press (Johannes Gutenberg) is the Bible.

Even the Quran, made reference to the old testament of the Bible

The Noble Qur’an says the following of the books that came before it:"Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates,who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those whowrite the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' to traffic with it for a miserable price!Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.”(The Noble Qur'an, 2:77-79)The Book refers to the book of the People of the book(aka Men of Faith), which section 9 in Chapter 2 talks about. The Noble Qur'an clearly says that the Book was corrupted by men, “those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,”. It can’t get anyclearer then that!

DabELLs:


...The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was aguess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

Where is it said in the Quran that the earth is spherical?

AgentOfAllah:

Where is it said in the Quran that the earth is spherical?

“And the earth, moreover, hath He made egg shaped.”[Al-Qur’an 79:30]
The Arabic word for egg here is dahaahaa which means an ostrich-egg. The shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth. Thus the Qur’an correctly describes the shape of the earth. But your bible said the shape of earth is flat.

This should explain better to you.

DabELLs:


“And the earth, moreover, hath He made egg shaped.”[Al-Qur’an 79:30]
The Arabic word for egg here is dahaahaa which means an ostrich-egg. The shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth. Thus the Qur’an correctly describes the shape of the earth. But your bible said the shape of earth is flat.

This should explain better to you.

First of all, the earth is an oblate spheroid, and an ostrich egg is a prolate spheroid, these two shapes aren't equivalent, so your analogy is wrong.

Secondly, the word "دَحَاهَا" ("dahaahaa" ) was translated by all the classical translators of the Qur'an to mean "spread out", that is, a verb, not a descriptive word. This means this is how it has always been understood by scholars of the Qur'an. The suggestion that the Qur'an claims the earth was spherical is a convenient modern day reinterpretation of something that was at best vague. This is a form of cognitive bias, confirmation bias, to be precise. That is, affirmation after the fact!

To put this dahaahaa nonsense to rest, the word "dahaahaa", like "duhiya" ("ostrich egg" ), comes from the same root word, "دحاوا" ("dahawa" ), and it literally means "spread". Look it up in any major Arabic dictionary or translator (google, bing) if you don't agree. That word is simply not derived from ostrich egg. No serious Arabic speaker thinks it is, only phony, desperate apologetics.

AgentOfAllah:


First of all, the earth is an oblate spheroid, and an ostrich egg is a prolate spheroid, these two shapes aren't equivalent, so your analogy is wrong.

Secondly, the word "دَحَاهَا" ("dahaahaa" ) was translated by all the classical translators of the Qur'an to mean "spread out", that is, a verb, not a descriptive word. This means this is how it has always been understood by scholars of the Qur'an. The suggestion that the Qur'an claims the earth was spherical is a convenient modern day reinterpretation of something that was at best vague. This is a form of cognitive bias, confirmation bias, to be precise. That is, affirmation after the fact!

To put this dahaahaa nonsense to rest, the word "dahaahaa", like "duhiya" ("ostrich egg" ), comes from the same root word, "دحاوا" ("dahawa" ), and it literally means "spread". Look it up in any major Arabic dictionary or translator (google, bing) if you don't agree. That word is simply not derived from ostrich egg. No serious Arabic speaker thinks it is, only phony, desperate apologetics.

I don't know why Christians always lie and twisting things
ح-ى The root, its derivatives may be used to mean "expand-extend" or"egg دحية"Most arabic speakers use the word baid بيض for eggs while dahya دحية is still used in many countries

DabELLs:


I don't know why Christians always lie and twisting things

I am not a Christian, and I have neither lied nor "twisted things". Actually, the only person doing the twisting here is you.

ح-ى The root, its derivatives may be used to mean "expand-extend"

Or by synonymous substitution, 'spread'! And this is the context of the Qur'ans usage, as attested to by all classical translations. By the way, you forgot the 'Dal' and 'alif'. The root word, as I said, is "د-حا-وا", not "ha-y" as you have written.

...or"egg دحية"Most arabic speakers use the word baid بيض for eggs while dahya دحية is still used in many countries

I've not come across any reference where "دحية" ("Duhiya" ) is used to describe "egg", as you claim, but if you have, please share! It is specifically used to describe the place in which an ostrich lays its eggs because before ostriches lay eggs, they "spread out and flatten" ("الأُدْحِيُّ" or "ud-hiy" ) the earth, which goes back to the root, "د-حا-وا". I believe ostriches are the only birds that do this, which is why some desperate apologetic wrongfully synonymised the word with the egg of an ostrich.

Please read about the proper interpretation of that verse HERE, before you callously spread falsehood out of desperation!

Like I said earlier, even if that word meant ostrich egg, it would definitely be wrong because an ostrich egg is a prolate spheroid, while the earth is closer to an oblate spheroid. These two shapes are markedly distinct. So you're better off sticking to the classical interpretation of that verse. At least, this way, you can always assert the earth is somewhat spread out, and no one will dispute that. Even though, it's not exactly a remarkable revelation.

I believe that God created the universe

professore:
I believe that God created the universe

Only an irrational person wouldnt.

AgentOfAllah:

Winner01, the quote above is correct. If you are mathematically inclined, I did a modest proof that demonstrates the equivalency between micro & macro evolution a long while back, on a thread about the subject of evolution on this very forum. I thought you might find it interesting, so I'll shamelessly plagiarise my work and post it here, complete with personalised and graphical demonstrations for your pleasure sir.




So to say micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution is to make a mathematically illogical statement, which shifts the burden of proof on you. Hence, you must show that the LIM(t→ ΔT) (m) =/=M according to equation 5. For example, if you were accumulating brown grains of sand in a De rica can, one after the other, eventually you'll have a heap of brown sand. A heap of brown sand looks nothing like a grain of brown sand, yet you know one results in another. Supposing you continue to accumulate into another De rica container, and high winds come and mixed your brown sand with white sand, by the time your next De rica can is filled, you'll have a mixture of white and brown heap of sand, which will look nothing like the brown heap of sand or the initial brown grain. Now consider the following example:

Assuming your name is Winner01 Methuselah the third, and you have been gifted with two superpowers, namely the power of longevity which will make you live for more than 10,000 years, as well as the power to make someone sleep for a long time before waking them up. Now, because you will live for so long, you wished to kill boredom, so you develop a hobby, breeding red-Birdy. Now, while you're busy with your breeding, your naughty son saw your red- Birdy and started startling it, so you sent you naughty son to sleep until your breeding experiment is done. Your breeding experiment, represented by the matrix below, is carried out with especial interest in three different features as follows:

Try A: Mate only the off-springs of red Birdy with the largest bone structures.
Try B: Mate only the off-springs of Red Birdy with the largest bone structures and darkest colours.
Try c: Mate only the off-springs of Red Birdy with the largest bone structures, darkest colours and Biggest beaks.

Find the result below:


Red-Birdy Matrix

10,000 years later, you're happy with the outcome of your breeding experiment. You now have three new species of red Birdy: Big-red-Birdy (BRB), Big Black-red-Birdy (BBRB) and Big-Beaked-Black-red-Birdy (BBBRB). So you decide to wake little Winner01 up and show him your beautiful birds. Little Winner01 will say "Oh daddy, when did you buy these three different kinds of birds". But you know better, so you'll say "Son, I didn't buy them. They are off-springs of a common ancestor 'S' the red-Birdy". Your son says, "No, I don't believe that such a small red-Birdy can produce a BBBRB that looks nothing like it, unless you prove it to me at this instant". You will have no way of proving this to your son in a lab because if you take two little red-Birdies, they will never be able to produce one BBBRB. You'll need exactly the same amount of time and similar conditions to reproduce BBBRB to your son. Alternatively, you show your son that there are DNA signatures of little red-Birdy in BBBRB, and your son is thenafter, satisfied.

Likewise, when you ask for instantaneous evidence for speciation, that is not a reasonable request, not only because of the length of time involved in evolution, but also the fact that many of the conditions have since changed, which cannot be replicated. For example, there once was an ice-age, which for sure, caused living organisms to evolve so as to survive the harsh climate. Such evolutionary events cannot be replicated today, without the ice-age conditions. As such, to prove evolution, we depend on DNA signatures that all living organisms share, as well as fossil records. DNA signatures and fossil records are scientifically observable and repeatable. So the question one has to ask is: Why do all living things share these signatures? The answer to that question is that the differences in the DNA of all living things were micro-evolutionary events (mutations) which were acquired over time, which then became macro-evolutionary. Everyday, we observe the micro-evolutionary events take place in the lab and in nature, and we have no reason to assume it just stops there. Since you're the one assuming it stops there, the burden of proof is on you to show that such an assumption is valid.

I hope you understand evolution better now.

No , I missed the magical transformation from ape to man part

KingEbukasBlog:


No , I missed the magical transformation from ape to man part

I dont bother quoting such people.
When he wrote "micro-evolutionary events (mutations) which were acquired over time, which then became macro-evolutionary. "

And couldnt give a single benefial mutation that has ever occured or been observed in nature. I had to ignore his lame pseudoscience.

winner01:
I dont bother quoting such people.
When he wrote "micro-evolutionary events (mutations) which were acquired over time, which then became macro-evolutionary. "

And couldnt give a single benefial mutation that has ever occured or been observed in nature. I had to ignore his pseudoscience.

Exactly bro . Pseudoscience ! In fact , he shifted from observation to belief - exactly what evolution requires .

KingEbukasBlog:


No , I missed the magical transformation from ape to man part

But man is not any more or less an ape than a lion is any more or less a cat. The suggestion of a magical transformation is as ridiculous to me as it is to you.

AgentOfAllah:

But man is not any more or less an ape than a lion is any more or less a cat. The suggestion of a magical transformation is as ridiculous to me as it is to you.

Isn't that why evolution theory is a joke ?

In coming years we would laugh at the theory and wont believe time was actually spent making researches on myths

winner01:
I dont bother quoting such people.

My intention was clearly to have a civil academic discussion with you, and while you are entitled to feel justified in not "bothering to quote such people", it is no less unfortunate that you consider dismissal a virtue over seeking mutual understanding through clarifications. This disposition is telling on your general attitude towards science.

When he wrote "micro-evolutionary events (mutations) which were acquired over time, which then became macro-evolutionary. "

And couldnt give a single benefial mutation that has ever occured or been observed in nature. I had to ignore his lame pseudoscience.

I cannot read your mind to know what kind of examples you require, which is why you need to be forthcoming and ask before characterising people's work as "lame pseudoscience". Actually, the fact that the clarification you accuse me of not providing is completely irrelevant to my original point (i.e. that micro-evolution is an inexorable precursor to macro-evolution) suggests you didn't really understand the point in question, which makes me wonder what yardstick you've used in your unfair charaterisation.

Nevertheless, I will, at this time, address the specific topic of "beneficial mutation", since it seems to trouble you. Actually, you are on the right track if you believe no mutation is beneficial. Mutations happen on DNA strands all the time, and are caused by a number of reasons, including by spontaneous alterations {Beth Montelone (1998)}, Error from strand repairs {Michael Lieber (2011)}, induced alterations (chemical {A. Pfohl-Leszkowicz and R. Manderville (2006)} and UV radiation {S. Kozmin et al.}). The vast majority of these mutations are believed to be ineffectual (neutral mutations in Bio-speak), although, the position that mutations can be "neutral" in the true sense of that word is quite polemic. This is however, the best case scenario. In the worst case, evidence has suggested that most mutations are harmful. One estimate by S. Sawyer et al. puts this value at ~95% in a specified species, while attributing 5% to beneficial/"neutral" mutation.

To me, "neutral" mutation simply means "we haven't detected any effect yet", and since neutral mutations are more likely to be harmful than beneficial, I think even the 95% is probably an optimistic estimate. As you can see, you are mostly correct, and only slightly off the mark to think mutations are harmful. The statistics are stacked in your favour! In simple short terms, nature conspires to kill every living thing! This is so because living things are highly ordered systems. An ordered system is any system that creates negative local entropy by consuming energy. In nature, entropy must be positive, everything tends towards positive entropy, so if nature is to deal with living things, it will mostly be by trying to kill us in order to increase our entropy (Second law of thermodynamics). This, in fact, is the reason why it is estimated that 99.9% of all species are extinct {W. Kunin and K. Gaston, "The biology of rarity:Causes and consequences of rare common differences" (1997) Ch. 7}

Existing species are the anomaly, and they only exist because every now and then, however improbable, beneficial mutations do happen, and when they happen, they do what they do best: allow the living thing that should naturally not exist another go at survival. But make no mistake, we are only among the lucky 0.1%.

Now, back to your 'almost' question. Are there observable examples of beneficial mutations? Most Definitely! One such example is the increasing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics as a result of reproduction by lucky bacteria species whose random mutations allowed them to become resistant to current antimicrobial formulas {Center for Disease Control and Prevention}. These mutation, while providing no benefit to human populations, is obviously beneficial to the bacteria species that acquired them. For obvious reasons, mutations are a lot easier to spot in unicellular organisms that in multicellular ones, which explains why many lab experiments are able to demonstrate evolution more effectively on such small scales.

KingEbukasBlog:


Isn't that why evolution theory is a joke ?

In coming years we would laugh at the theory and wont believe time was actually spent making researches on myths

A joke? Obviously, the point of my analogy is lost on you. You are gravely mistaken to think evolution suggests some magical transition. Let me be clear: Lions are cats! Humans are apes! There is NO magical transition. Transition is a continuum that has been happening, is happening and will continue to happen till we all eventually go extinct...Evolution is a game of extinction nature will inevitably win. We, the survivors, are merely buying time.

AgentOfAllah:

Existing species are the anomaly, and they only exist because every now and then, however improbable, beneficial mutations do happen, and when they happen, they do what they do best: allow the living thing that should naturally not exist another go at survival. But make no mistake, we are only among the lucky 0.1%.

" bolded, Several improbabilities happened and we got lucky right? . You see, this is exactly why i wont waste my time with you.

AgentOfAllah:

Now, back to your 'almost' question. Are there observable examples of beneficial mutations? Most Definitely! One such example is the increasing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics as a result of reproduction by lucky bacteria species whose random mutations allowed them to become resistant to current antimicrobial formulas {Center for Disease Control and Prevention}. These mutation, while providing no benefit to human populations, is obviously beneficial to the bacteria species that acquired them. For obvious reasons, mutations are a lot easier to spot in unicellular organisms that in multicellular ones, which explains why many lab experiments are able to demonstrate evolution more effectively on such small scales.

Adaptation!!!. Just like bacterial populations grown for thousands of generations in a lab became more and more genetically adapted to their environment each generation (experiment done by Dr. Richard E. Lenski, Michigan State University).

Despite all your wishful thinking, all offspring of the tested Unicellular organisms no matter how long or how many generations, have always resembled their parents. What has never been observed is the change from one distinct species to another. Observation is key in science. Don't redefine science. Good luck.

Oluwaseytiano:
Am not an atheist. I just don't believe in religion. So am sure the God that created me is not manmade like Yahweh, Allah, Zeus or Buddha.

So why does that make you?

Judas2013:


I am against anyone who ask me to worship a god.

Your moniker tells the tale.

ifenes:


The stories in the bible never occurred. The Biblical characters represent astrological signs of the zodiac and the stories are allegories of the movements of the sun, the moon and the constellations.

These signs do not represent actual persons or even actual events, rather, these allegory's tell the stories of the movements of these constellations, the sun and the moon, therefore, the same astronomical signs can can represent different people and events.

The Sun goes to every house of the Zodiac and had effect on them.

Example when we get to Late October,we start getting winter in the time when the sun gets in contact with Scorpio. Sagittarius the archers kills the sun in November/December and 21th of December/January the son is dead in Capricorn(when we usually have heavy snow and winter) This moment the sun is hardly seen. Then it starts rising during Easter(April)Back to Aries. If you have been to Europe you will notice the sun is hottest in August(Leo) AKA the Lion of Judah.

Different allegories around the world. Even the book of the Mayans showed the end of the world in 2012,which was the end of one the age of Pisces.

Learn and get more knowledge. Don't remain ignorant.

This man don craze finish Ooo. Dey people wey get this man no no say the case don serious?

winner01:
" bolded, Several improbabilities happened and we got lucky right? . You see, this is exactly why i wont waste my time with you.

Luck was a poor choice of word, on my part, but I'll explain why I used it deliberately. First, let me clarify that this is not really luck, it is a statistical inevitability known as "Regression to the mean". Random mutations happen all the time, most deadly, some beneficial! About 99.9% of all species weren't lucky enough to acquire the beneficial random mutations that a statistically insignificant 0.1% got, which enabled them survive. Evolution killed the 99.9% off. Though they are semantically equivalent, I can't help but feel "extinction of the weakest" would have communicated the point of evolution theory better than "Survival of the fittest". Evolution ultimately conveys the improbability of existence, and suggests why the improbable 0.1% still exists.

If you had a big die with 100 faces, the chances of you landing on face 20 after a throw is 1%. It is highly improbable that even after 100 throws, you will have recorded 20 once. However, if you throw the die 1,000 times you will be closer to the mean expected value of 1% than after the first hundred throws. 10,000 throws will even get you closer to 1% and so on. Ultimately, given enough throws (or time), and this is the crucial bit of information, you will definitely regress to the mean 1%. Eventually, getting the expected value of 1% after 1,000,000 tries becomes less of an improbability, and more certain. The implication of this is that certainty of expected value grows with time (or number of tries if you like). "Time" is that thing which evolution has had in order to make the improbable expectation of 0.1% a certainty, so that the 0.1% that survived didn't result from luck, but from probabilistic certainty.

Why did I use luck? Because from the point of view of any of those 0.1% that survived, there was always a 99.9% chance that their species wouldn't have! Remember I am part of the 0.1%, so I consider myself extremely lucky to not have suffered the same fate of the dead majority!

Adaptation!!!. Just like bacterial populations grown for thousands of generations in a lab became more and more genetically adapted to their environment each generation (experiment done by Dr. Richard E. Lenski, Michigan State University).

Despite all your wishful thinking, all offspring of the tested Unicellular organisms no matter how long or how many generations, have always resembled their parents. What has never been observed is the change from one distinct species to another. Observation is key in science. Don't redefine science. Good luck.

As per the emboldened, what is evolution if not adaptation of organisms to their ever evolving environments? To be fair, your comment to which I responded begged for a single occurrence of beneficial mutation, and I gave you one. Call it adaptation if you like, it was still mutation, and it was beneficial...at least, to the species in question. If these species become impervious to the potency of the very medicine that killed them, then they can be said to have evolved. When you say the organisms "have always resembled their parents", you should be careful about digging yourself into a hole! Appearances can be quite deceptive, as a cheetah will assert that it is not running mates with the leopard! Nor is a Lion the same as mountain lions, or Bonobos and Chimps. I can go on and on. My question to you is why you think, given enough time, the mutations would not cascade into speciation?

You mentioned R. Lenski's ongoing experiment. Clearly, you are out of touch if you think the E. colis haven't changed appearances {N. Philippe et al.}. One particular species has even changed its metabolism process too!! Check their WEBSITE. Please, actually read about this experiment in the links I shared before you make factually defective statements such as the one you made above. Thanks

DabELLs:


"What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods. If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion,it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about I slam, that non-Muslim may Insha Allah accept Islam.Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.

QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE
The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all. Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God. If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don't grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

THEORY OF PROBABILITY
In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equalto 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that allyour three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.At the time when the Qur’an 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 aguess 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 Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is1/10,000 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 Qur’an 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 Qur’an is Divine.

CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN
The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and itscontents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’.

QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE
Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book ofayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is theFurqani.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.But for an educated man who is an atheist,scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstickwhich was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.

SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD
Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are noteliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it isLa illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).Surah Fussilat:"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in theirown souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enoughthat thy Lord doth witness all things?"[Al-Quran 41:53]

Maybe you should read the OP again, there's nothing Islam in it. Take a rest.

DabELLs:
Bible has issue with modern science because it was wrote by selfish individual which some of them are even anonymous.

Really? It was "wrote by selfish individual"? Even you will stand to trash the Holy Bible? You? Na waooo. because you see people talking, you sef go put ur mouth?

TopeEmma15:
Out of all religions in the world atheist seems to pick more interest in Christianity most

That's because atheism is the Devils own religion.

DabELLs:


tell me the verse of Quran that says that and I will prove to you that most pastors lies about that verse.

I suspected u r a Muslim from the way you talk. When you got in here, did you find anyone abusing and calling people names? Intelligent people tackle issues, but fools attack persons instead of the issues.
Am very sure you have never even read your Koran by yourself, if you still don't know that your prophet instructed you muslims to enquire from Christians and Jews incase you are lost about issues in the Koran.

Cc: Parisbookaddict, pls come help teach this gutter mouth Muslim a little of his Koran.

analice107:

That's because atheism is the Devils own religion.

if u can understand that atheism is there to make u stronger in your theism.
U will agree that with few head to head with atheist, somehow after the encounter it somehow solidify your belief in your saviour.
So my dear u need the dark , to appreciate the light.. U need the law to appreciate the grace of the saviour, and Never allowing yourself to be brought back to it.

Anyway i may be wrong.

analice107:
So why does that make you?

someone who is not mentally enslaved

AgentOfAllah:
If you had a big die with 100 faces, the chances of you landing on face 20 after a throw is 1%. It is highly improbable that even after 100 throws, you will have recorded 20 once. However, if you throw the die 1,000 times you will be closer to the mean expected value of 1% than after the first hundred throws. 10,000 throws will even get you closer to 1% and so on. Ultimately, given enough throws (or time), and this is the crucial bit of information, you will definitely regress to the mean 1%.

Sorry dude, this die is not even 1,000,000,000,000 faces for the simplest of cells. Dont try to downplay the impossibility of something arising from nothing.

AgentOfAllah:
You mentioned R. Lenski's ongoing experiment. Clearly, you are out of touch if you think the E. colis haven't changed appearances {N. Philippe et al.}. One particular species has even changed its metabolism process too!! Check their WEBSITE. Please, actually read about this experiment in the links I shared before you make factually defective statements such as the one you made above. Thanks

Changed appearances huh? People can read those papers and see for themselves.

Ill just repost my challenge to you. What has NEVER been observed is the change from one distinct SPECIES to another. Observation is key in science. Don't redefine science. Good luck again.

winner01:
Sorry dude, this die is not even 1,000,000,000,000 faces for the simplest of cells. Dont try to downplay the impossibility of something arising from nothing.

"Something arising from nothing"? Not sure what you're on about. But to the best of my knowledge, evolution is silent on the origin of life. If you don't know this, then your knowledge of the subject is severely defective. I suggest you educate yourself on the subject matter instead of debunking the imaginary "flaws" you've fabricated.

Changed appearances huh? People can read those papers and see for themselves.

Yes, I encourage people to read the papers themselves, which is why I have included links at any given opportunity.

Ill just repost my challenge to you. What has NEVER been observed is the change from one distinct SPECIES to another. Observation is key in science. Don't redefine science. Good luck again.

I'm not sure I understand your challenge, but if your reference to "distinct species" is about the biological taxonomic rank, then your statement makes you out to be utterly ignorant about the subject you so ferociously disdain. I want you to ask yourself what you mean by species, then spend some time pondering upon the product of crossing a panthera Leo and a panthera Tigris, which are clearly "distinct species".

Listen, you seem confused about the basics of this subject, and to be sure, ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing though. I'm also ignorant about a lot of things. It only becomes dangerous when it is mixed with arrogance, in which case you're in danger of promoting fallacies with confidence. I recommend you take a breather and actually do some reading, so that even when you disagree, it'll not be on silly fabricated assumptions that a high school biology student shouldn't make.

AgentOfAllah:
"Something arising from nothing"? Not sure what you're on about. But to the best of my knowledge, evolution is silent on the origin of life. If you don't know this, then your knowledge of the subject is severely defective. I suggest you educate yourself on the subject matter instead of debunking the imaginary "flaws" you've fabricated.

Yes, I encourage people to read the papers themselves, which is why I have included links at any given opportunity.

I'm not sure I understand your challenge, but if your reference to "distinct species" is about the biological taxonomic rank, then your statement makes you out to be utterly ignorant about the subject you so ferociously disdain. I want you to ask yourself what you mean by species, then spend some time pondering upon the product of crossing a panthera Leo and a panthera Tigris, which are clearly "distinct species".

Listen, you seem confused about the basics of this subject, and to be sure, ignorance is not necessarily a bad thing though. I'm also ignorant about a lot of things. It only becomes dangerous when it is mixed with arrogance, in which case you're in danger of promoting fallacies with confidence. I recommend you take a breather and actually do some reading, so that even when you disagree, it'll not be on silly fabricated assumptions that a high school biology student shouldn't make.

Exactly, the expected reaction.
Just cut the crap and provide examples of one distinct specie changing to another. 40,000 generations was not even enough to DELIBERATELY/CONSCIOUSLY change one specie of bacteria to another distinct specie. It becomes funny how you then try to downplay the impossibility of BLIND/UNGUIDED process to change one specie into another under the guise of time.

What has been OBSERVED in reality are the coelacanth, the horseshoe crab, the caddisflies, the trilobite and other embarrassments to evolution which have each lived for not less than 200 millions years and have been thought to be extint millions of years ago until re-discovered. Normally, they have retained their wonderful features and have disgraced evolutionists.

There is no point wasting anyones time, when evolutionists actually OBSERVE one specie changing into another distinct specie and not rely on blind faith that macro-evolution must be true, then you can continue with your pro-evolution epistles.