scientific observations of the Quran

[gag order]

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html</p>

[morbius]

This seems very interesting, it’s really a shame that autor of the site didn’t go into deeper detail about findings of these scientist. I’ll see if I can find more on this subject.

And gag order, I would really like to point out something to you.
First article on embryology says that human embryo at one stage of its development resembles a worm or a leech (alaqa), just like Quran says, and this is indeed true.
But did you also know that human embrio at one stage of its development also has gills (organs that fish use for breathing)? There are five gill arcs (or in latin – arcus branchiales) on human embryo which later disappear and cells that form them later create muscles of the head, facial bones, larynx, etc. If you think I’m lying then go ahead, ask any medical doctor about this.

Same proto-gills found on human embryo are also found on embryos of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals; whish proves that all of them had the same ancestor – fish. This proves that evolution indeed took place and that more complex life forms became from simpler ones.

And yet, you deny evolution. You call on science when it suites you, and then deny it when it suites you. Geg order, our first love must be the truth. A half-truth is a whole lie.

[Logic lover]

Similarity does not prove a precise genetic code. Fish remains fish as we find today, though some have disappeared.

So, your statement is scientifically illogical.

[gag order]

the topic is not about the unproven THEORY of evolution which is not science by the way since science deals in facts and not elusive 'missing links' that may or may never be discovered! therefore we do not pick and choose between science but will be discussing the scientific data that allah chose to reveal so that we may reflect upon it.

before i present to you the verses of scientific relevance please share your thoughts on the findings and conclusions by the scientists at the link posted above.

[morbius]

Similarity does not prove a precise genetic code. Fish remains fish as we find today, though some have disappeared.

So, your statement is scientifically illogical.
I don’t understand what you mean by this.

Similarity between human and chimpanzee genes is between 95% and 99%, depending on a study and methods used in it. Most modern studies show higher that 98% gene similarity. Even if you throw out all the indels (places where DNA has been added or missing in one of the organisms being compared), similarity is still too overwhelming (over 95%) to be a coincidence.
Anatomically, similarities are even greater. Bone for bone, muscle for muscle, nerve for nerve, organ for organ, the bodies of humans and chimps differ only in subtle ways.

What makes more sense, that we are modified apes or that we are modified clay?

You really need to read more about genetic research.
This is an excellent place to start:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/compgen.shtml

You should also visit these sites:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Compgenomes/compgenomes1.html

As well as recourses on Wikipedia, like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

[Umm Ahmed]

Modified clay makes more sense as we go back to that when we die.

[waziri]

The reason that apes are so similar to humans is because Allah subhana wa ta ala turned humans into apes not because apes turned into humans.

[gag order]

before i present to you the verses of scientific relevance please share your thoughts on the findings and conclusions by the scientists at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

how can you assume muslims seek to use science when it suits them when the work of muslims in science before helped establish various points of modern science, maths and medicine!

[abu-usaama]

I don’t understand what you mean by this.

Similarity between human and chimpanzee genes is between 95% and 99%, depending on a study and methods used in it. Most modern studies show higher that 98% gene similarity. Even if you throw out all the indels (places where DNA has been added or missing in one of the organisms being compared), similarity is still too overwhelming (over 95%) to be a coincidence.
Anatomically, similarities are even greater. Bone for bone, muscle for muscle, nerve for nerve, organ for organ, the bodies of humans and chimps differ only in subtle ways.

What makes more sense, that we are modified apes or that we are modified clay?
"

Typical pagan, unscientific trash. Simply because the DNA of human beings and apes are similar does NOT mean that human beings evolved from Apes. This is youre own unscientific, presumptive conjecture.

The reality is Allah created human beings, and He created apes. Simply because there are many similarities, does not mean that one evolved from the other. "What makes more sense?" What Makes most sense is that Allaah is the Creator of everything and all animals, He is the Shaper and nothing happens except by His will.

"Is not He, Who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the like of them? Yes, indeed! He is the All-Knowing Supreme Creator.

Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, "Be!" and it is!" [Surah yaseen 81-82]


If Allah intends to create something, He doesnt need another animal to create it. At the same time that doesnt mean that He WONT create an animal through some sort of evolution, but since Allah has informed us clearly of how human beings were created(not from apes), there is no room for
debate; unless you are a disbeliever in Allah.

وَرَبُّكَ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيَخْتَارُ مَا كَانَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ وَتَعَالَى عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ

And your Lord creates whatsoever He wills and chooses, no choice have they (in any matter). Glorified be Allah, and exalted above all that they associate as partners (with Him). [Qur'an 28:68]


Once again you have absolutely no arguement against the Qur'an except conjecture, suspicion and doubt. Allah says:

وَمَا يَتَّبِعُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ إِلاَّ ظَنّاً إَنَّ الظَّنَّ لاَ يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئاً إِنَّ اللّهَ عَلَيمٌ بِمَا يَفْعَلُونَ

And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, Allah is All-Aware of what they do. [ 10:36]


-Abu-Usaama

[morbius]

how can you assume muslims seek to use science when it suits them when the work of muslims in science before helped establish various points of modern science, maths and medicine!
Yes, Arabs have in the past made great discoveries in medicine, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy! Arab medical doctors were able to surgically remove cataract in the times when European doctors were killing their patients by bleeding them.

This is exactly why I feel so sad when I see how great nation of thinkers is slowly being turned into mindless drones.

[morbius]

If Allah intends to create something, He doesnt need another animal to create it.
Really? And than why did you during your embryonic development had gills and resembled a fish? Why did you have a tail? Every single animal (including man) in its embryonic development goes through entire miniature evolution of its species, from single cell organism (zygote) to what it is today.

And this stuff is not brain surgery, this is common high-school biology. If you haven’t even finished high-school, then what are you doing here trying to discuss science?

[abu-usaama]

Really? And than why did you during your embryonic development had gills and resembled a fish? Why did you have a tail? Every single animal (including man) in its embryonic development goes through entire miniature evolution of its species, from single cell organism (zygote) to what it is today.

And this stuff is not brain surgery, this is common high-school biology. If you haven’t even finished high-school, then what are you doing here trying to discuss science?

Unfortunately you dont have the intellect to understand anything I say(mainly because youre a pagan disbeliever).
I said that Allaah doesnt need another animal to create someone, I didnt say that He doesnt create some animals through what would be observed as "evolution." And I didnt say that some things in the human being wlil not resemble that of animals. I simply stated Allah doesnt need another animal to create a human being, and because His revelation states that he created human beings from a single soul, then we believe that over what any conjecture or 'theory.' When Allah wants to create something He simply says "Be and it is". Do you think that there is a condition upon the Creator on what He will create and not create? Or that He's limited to youre conjectures and theories?

Id also like to poitn out that the fact human beings were created from a single sperma nd egg and that this is a form of "evolution" is quite clear, but the One who facilitated this process and created is Allaah:

"Did We not create you from a worthless water (semen, etc.)?
Then We placed it in a place of safety (womb),
For a known period (determined by gestation)?
So We did measure, and We are the Best to measure (the things)." [Surah al-mursalaat 20-23]

This is a clear observable phenomenon that can be witnesses by anyone. As for the so-called "evolution of humans from apes" there is no certain proof for this, but simply conjecture.

[morbius]

Unfortunately you dont have the intellect to understand anything I say(mainly because youre a pagan disbeliever).
Well, it’s well known fact that we people with bachelor-level medical degrees know nothing about human anatomy or development, so we always need people who never finished high-school to teach us more about it.

And I didnt say that some things in the human being wlil not resemble that of animals. I simply stated Allah doesnt need another animal to create a human being
Whether God needed animal to create human is not relevant, what is important is that He did do it that way. If He wanted to, He probably could have made us from mud, but He wanted to make us from ape. Get over it.
Muhamed accepted story of Adam and Eve from the Old Testament, but Old Testament was wrong on this one.

Do you think that there is a condition upon the Creator on what He will create and not create? Or that He's limited to youre conjectures and theories?
Of course the Creator is not limited by our scientific knowledge. But why do you think that He is limited by what Muhamed says in Quran?

God creates how He wants, we can not tell him what to do. We can only examine his work and meditate on it. And as a result, we discovered that He makes new life forms from the old ones. There is no reasonable doubt to this. If you can find one, please share it with me.

This is a clear observable phenomenon that can be witnesses by anyone.
I already wrote about mistakes in Quran about human conception, here: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=12367&postcount=123

As for the so-called "evolution of humans from apes" there is no certain proof for this, but simply conjecture.
Clearly you haven’t read a word from the sites I’ve linked, let alone searched for more information on this matter yourself. You are quite content with what you think you know and don’t feel you should know anything else. There is a word for people like you, but I won’t use it here. It’s just like al-Razi said, intellectual laziness is what makes people blindly follow the words of the prophets.

I know that Bible is a good book and I encourage everyone to read it. But if a man in his life would read nothing else except Bible, such a man would truly be an idiot.

[morbius]

Well, if I would wait for gag order to post about scientific revelations in Quran, I would probably die of old age. So I’ve looked up into this mater myself. In quotes are claims from site http://truthline.wordpress.com/quran/ and bellow are my observations on the matter. Where I have put (+) that means that in my opinion Quran indeed contains valuable scientific information on that subject. Where I’ve put (-) it means that I think words of Quran do not mean what is claimed or that they are not true. Where I was unsure, I’ve put (+/-).

1. THE ORIGIN OF LIFE The Koran mentions that all life originated from water (Koran 21:30) and that man himself is “created” of water and so are all the animals on earth (Koran 25:54, and 24:45).
No arguments from me here. (+)

2. MATURITY The Koran mentions that a human being reaches full maturity at age forty (Koran 46:15). This is a very unusual statement. Even today most people accept that full maturity is reached at puberty and laws usually put it between 18 to 21. However, the Koran is scientifically correct where even modern laws are inaccurate. If we analyze the statement based on psychological tests conducted by scientisits, what we find is that the “overall quantity of stored knowledge in the mind of an individual reaches a peak at age thirty-nine and after that it gradually declines.”
This is very questionable, for many studies find that intellectual peak is reached earlier. (+/-)

THE FEMALE BEE The Koran mentions the bee, which leaves its home in search for food, in the verses that discusses honey (Koran 16:68,69). It uses the female verb in describing the bee, in Arabic faslukee. This, to the Arab, suggests that the bee, which leaves its home in search for food, is female.Does anyone except an expert know how to differentiate between a male and a female bee?
This is incorrect. Domestic honey bees that gather nectar are not female or male, they are just drones and they have no gender. This is one of the errors of Quran. (-)

4. EMBRYO SEX DETERMINATION The Koran says that the “ejaculated drop” determines the sex of a human baby (Koran 53:45).
(+)

5. THE INVISIBLE BARRIER The Koran states that there are two seas that meet but don’t intermingle because of a barrier between them (Koran 55:19-20).It is a necessity that seas intermingle through straits between them. The Koran however is aware of a very unusual phenomenon, which scientists discovered only recently. The Mediterranean and Atlantic oceans differ in their chemical and biological constitution. The French scientist Jacques Yves Cousteau conducted various undersea investigations at the Strait of Gibraltar and explaining these phenomena concluded:“Unexpected fresh water springs issue from the southern and northern coasts of Gibraltar. These mammoth springs gush towards each other at angles of 45 degrees forming a reciprocal dam. Due to this fact the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Oceans cannot intermingle (as quoted by Nurbaki).”Did Muhammed do research on the chemical and biological components of seawater to discover this unusual phenomena?
I don’t know much about this subject, but I’ll give it (+)

6. THE GASEOUS ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE The Koran mentions that the universe originated, at a stage, from a “gaseous material.” (Koran 41:11).
This is correct. (+)

7. THE BIG BANG The Koran gives an accurate visual description of the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. In the 21st chapter, verse 30 (21:30), the Koran states:
“Do not the rejecters see that the heavens and earth were a unit joined together then we split them apart (21:30).”
I don’t see how telling that Earth and sky were one relates much to Big Bang, but it doesn’t contradict it either. (+/-)

8. THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE

The Koran talks about a universe that is continually “expanding” (Koran 51:47).
True. (+)

9. THE DEATH OF STARS The Koran mentions the ‘death of stars’ (Koran 77:7-8). Astronomers including Dr. Patterson of Southwest Missouri State are surprised at finding this information in the Koran. They know that at the time of Muhammad, people believed that once a thing was formed, it was permanent. The Koran is very accurate when it mentions dying stars. Our own sun is a dying star.
But Quran doesn’t mention that stars are dying all the time, but infact states that they’ll all go at once at the Day of Decision. (-)

10. PHASES OF THE MOON The Koran talks about the phases of the moon (Koran 36:38-39). There is no book, to my knowledge, that predates the Koran that mentions the modern term “phase” in connection with the moon. Dr. Patterson confirms this. The Arabic word used for “phase” in the Koran is Manazil.
But do you really need Quran to tell you something that is self-evident? (+/-)

11. MOVEMENT OF THE SUN. The sun’s movement is not something that is evident to our eyes or experience but requires specialized equipment. The Koran states in chapter 36, verse 39:

“And the sun constantly journeys towards a homing place for it and for the moon, We have determined phases (36:39).”
Quran also speaks of the traveler who saw place from where the Sun rises and muddy pond where it sets. Forget it. (-)

12. ISOSTACY AND MOUNTAIN ROOTS The Koran states that mountains are like “tent-pegs”, i.e. they have a root extending down into the earth like “anchors” and this gives stability and balance to the earth.

“Have we not expanded the earth and made the mountains as tent pegs” (Koran 78:6-7)” We have cast into the earth anchors lest it shake with you” (Koran 31:10 etc.)
True, mauntains made by tectonic movements indeed have such “roots”, but it’s exactly because of such roots that epicenter of earthquakes is usually at the foot of the mountain. Roots do not help with earthquakes, but provoke them. (-)

13. HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY The Koran is known to be the first book to give microscopic details of human embryology(Koran 23:13-14 etc.), hundreds of years before the discovery of the microscope! The Koran contains information on embryology, which was not discovered till about 30 years back and certain details were new even to modern scientists but were immediately confirmed as being accurate.The Koran mentions that at a certain stage, the developing human is like “allaqa”, a leech-like clot.
Embryo at one time is indeed like “alaqa”. (+)

14.RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
Russian scientists recently discussed reproducing an extinct species of elephant by use of a microscopic unit of long-dead gene material. No one in the scientific community said that that was unreasonable.
Well, when one day “Jurassic Park” becomes a reality, I’ll believe it. Besides, cloning a dead person is not resurrection, because such a person would not be original, it wouldn’t have original’s acquired characteristics or memory. (+/-)

15. CIRCULATION OF BLOOD AND FOOD
“And surely in the cattle, there is a lesson for you. We give you to drink of what is inside their bodies, from between digested food and blood, pure milk, pleasant to those who drink it (Koran 16:6).”
And how does this tell us anything about blood circulation? (-)

16.THE “CONSTANTS” AND THE INITIAL CONDITIONS
“Do they [the disbelievers] not see that God has subjected for them whatsoever is in the heavens and on earth (Koran 31:20)? ” Indeed We have created everything with a set measure (Koran 54:49)
We live in the world of physical laws. Do we need Quran to tell us that? (+/-)



Six pluses. Six places where Quran was right about scientific facts that were not known at the time of its writing. I must say that I was pretty impressed with some of these scientific facts present in the book. Despite of the places where Quran was scientifically wrong, parts of it impressed me very much, especially Muhamed’s knowledge that Universe was in gaseous state and that it is expanding.

[gag order]

Well, if I would wait for gag order to post about scientific revelations in Quran, I would probably die of old age.

you are not here to teach, you are hear to learn. before i can even gather the necassary data of scientific relevance you have already started arguing. this thread is not 'errors in the holy quran'

have patience and restrain yourself, and i advise others not to answer morbius last post since he often misqoutes or misinterprets as we have seen elswhere.

[suhail]

I have already stopped posting to him. A person in search of truth doesnt act like he does. He has no clue whatsoever about the things he is talking off and he speaks like he is a expert in all these fields. Sometimes arrogance knows no bounds and this holds true for morbius. I hope he sees himself in the mirror and acknowledges how is he making fool of himself. Just check his last post if you want to see how pathetic his attempt is. Are you a forum Troll morbius.

He is acting like a judge. Really morbius we dont need a judge go somewhere else.

Jazakallah Khair
Suhail

[Omair]

let's keep childish insults out of this and try to keep this as clean as possible

[Omair]

And morbius, I was wondering if you believe in "random" occurrences?

Because if the Big Bang were true or evolution that that means that one day the universe just decided to *pop* and explode, and that would make our lives pointless because we were made in a random fashion. For evolution, that would mean that a mutation just happened randomly one day, and just as easily for us to "become humans," we could have just as easily have stayed in our state as an ape or monkey. Personally, I don't believe in anything being random or a coincidence.

I think this is a bit confusing but this is how I think =)

Although I think I have idea of what your reply will be, I'm still curious because I'm always wrong.

WaAllahu 'Alam

[Omair]

and also you can check out Shaikh Khalid Yasin's video lecture on "The Purpose of Life" if you want.. http://kalamullah.com/videos.html

[morbius]

And morbius, I was wondering if you believe in "random" occurrences?

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle tells us that randomness is in the nature of this Universe.

For evolution, that would mean that a mutation just happened randomly one day
That is one of the explanations, but I’ve never been one to agree with it. Incredible complexity of all living things leads me to believe that there is some higher intelligence that drives these mutations in the right direction.

Personally, I don't believe in anything being random or a coincidence.
When you roll a dice, do you know on which number is it going to stop?

and also you can check out Shaikh Khalid Yasin's video lecture on "The Purpose of Life" if you want..
I would love to, but unfortunately I’m still on bloody dial-up modem. I can forget downloading video files for now.

Science already answered much of “how” the world and man were created. Unfortunately, it can not answer us “why”. That question was always a playground for religion and philosophy.

[Abu Khalid 2]

Brothersuhail and gag order, you are not alone. Do you see me replying to any of this kaafir's posts? No, La Hawla Walaa Quwwata Ilaa Billah. If someone wants to learn, we are really more than ready to help always. But some people do not have that intention unfortunately. We are not at the loss, my brothers in Islam will understand what I am talking about. By the way, the next story is really funny, and they are the kind of stories people like morbius ignore and avoid, lol, so enjoy brothers. Mind you morbius, this is not a refutation to you; I stopped doing that a long time ago, this is just a story of my own, for my beloved brothers in Islam and for those who love to follow the Haqq.

EVOLUTION FORGERIES

Deceptions in Drawings

The fossil record is the principal source for those who seek evidence for the theory of evolution. When inspected carefully and without prejudice, the fossil record refutes the theory of evolution rather than supporting it. Nevertheless, misleading interpretations of fossils by evolutionists and their prejudiced representation to the public have given many people the impression that the fossil record indeed supports the theory of evolution.

The susceptibility of some findings in the fossil record to all kinds of interpretations is what best serves the evolutionists' purposes. The fossils unearthed are most of the time unsatisfactory for reliable identification. They usually consist of scattered, incomplete bone fragments. For this reason, it is very easy to distort the available data and to use it as desired. Not surprisingly, the reconstructions (drawings and models) made by evolutionists based on such fossil remains are prepared entirely speculatively in order to confirm evolutionary theses. Since people are readily affected by visual information, these imaginary reconstructed models are employed to convince them that the reconstructed creatures really existed in the past.

Evolutionist researchers draw human-like imaginary creatures, usually setting out from a single tooth, or a mandible fragment or a humerus, and present them to the public in a sensational manner as if they were links in human evolution. These drawings have played a great role in the establishment of the image of "primitive men" in the minds of many people.

These studies based on bone remains can only reveal very general characteristics of the creature concerned. The distinctive details are present in the soft tissues that quickly vanish with time. With the soft tissues speculatively interpreted, everything becomes possible within the boundaries of the imagination of the reconstruction's producer. Earnst A. Hooten from Harvard University explains the situation like this:

"To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can with equal facility model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public… So put not your trust in reconstructions."

[Abu Khalid 2]

Asalaamu Alaikum ikhwan. Just another story I came across. Hope you enjoy it, lol.

Looking for Answers to the Generation of Life Well aware of the terrible odds against the possibility of life forming by chance, evolutionists were unable to provide a rational explanation for their beliefs, so they set about looking for ways to demonstrate that the odds were not so unfavorable.

They designed a number of laboratory experiments to address the question of how life could generate itself from non-living matter. The best known and most respected of these experiments is the one known as the "Miller Experiment" or "Urey-Miller Experiment", which was conducted by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953.

With the purpose of proving that amino acids could have come into existence by accident, Miller created an atmosphere in his laboratory that he assumed would have existed on primordial earth (but which later proved to be unrealistic) and he set to work. The mixture he used for this primordial atmosphere was composed of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor.

Miller knew that methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen would not react with each other under natural conditions. He was aware that he had to inject energy into the mixture to start a reaction. He suggested that this energy could have come from lightning flashes in the primordial atmosphere and, relying on this supposition, he used an artificial electricity discharge in his experiments.

Miller boiled this gas mixture at 100 0 C for a week, and, in addition, he introduced an electric current into the chamber. At the end of the week, Miller analyzed the chemicals that had been formed in the chamber and observed that three of the twenty amino acids, which constitute the basic elements of proteins, had been synthesized.

This experiment aroused great excitement among evolutionists and they promoted it as an outstanding success. Encouraged by the thought that this experiment definitely verified their theory, evolutionists immediately produced new scenarios. Miller had supposedly proved that amino acids could form by themselves. Relying on this, they hurriedly hypothesized the following stages. According to their scenario, amino acids had later by accident united in the proper sequences to form proteins. Some of these accidentally formed proteins placed themselves in cell membrane-like structures, which "somehow" came into existence and formed a primitive cell. The cells united in time and formed living organisms. The greatest mainstay of the scenario was Miller's experiment.

However, Miller's experiment was nothing but make-believe, and has since been proven invalid in many respects.

The Invalidity of Miller's Experiment

Nearly half a century has passed since Miller conducted his experiment. Although it has been shown to be invalid in many respects, evolutionists still advance Miller and his results as absolute proof that life could have formed spontaneously from non-living matter. When we assess Miller's experiment critically, without the bias and subjectivity of evolutionist thinking, however, it is evident that the situation is not as rosy as evolutionists would have us think. Miller set for himself the goal of proving that amino acids could form by themselves in earth's primitive conditions. Some amino acids were produced, but the conduct of the experiment conflicts with his goal in many ways, as we shall now see.

# Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed, by using a mechanism called a "cold trap". Had he not done so, the conditions of the environment in which the amino acids formed would immediately have destroyed the molecules.

It is quite meaningless to suppose that some conscious mechanism of this sort was integral to earth's primordial conditions, which involved ultraviolet radiation, thunderbolts, various chemicals, and a high percentage of free oxygen. Without such a mechanism, any amino acid that did manage to form would immediately have been destroyed.

# The primordial atmospheric environment that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. Nitrogen and carbon dioxide would have been constituents of the primordial atmosphere, but Miller disregarded this and used methane and ammonia instead.

Why? Why were evolutionists insistent on the point that the primitive atmosphere contained high amounts of methane (CH 4 ), ammonia (NH 3 ), and water vapor (H 2 O)? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it is impossible to synthesize an amino acid. Kevin McKean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:

Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere of earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. According to them, the earth was a true homogeneous mixture of metal, rock and ice. However in the latest studies, it is understood that the earth was very hot at those times and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N 2 ), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and water vapor (H 2 O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.(14)

After a long period of silence, Miller himself also confessed that the atmospheric environment he used in his experiment was not realistic.

# Another important point invalidating Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when evolutionists thought that amino acids formed. This oxygen concentration would definitely have hindered the formation of amino acids. This situation completely negates Miller's experiment, in which he totally neglected oxygen. If he had used oxygen in the experiment, methane would have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia would have decomposed into nitrogen and water.

On the other hand, since no ozone layer yet existed, no organic molecule could possibly have lived on earth because it was entirely unprotected against intense ultraviolet rays.

# In addition to a few amino acids essential for life, Miller's experiment also produced many organic acids with characteristics that are quite detrimental to the structures and functions of living things. If he had not isolated the amino acids and had left them in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable. Moreover, a large number of right-handed amino acids also formed. The existence of these amino acids alone refuted the theory, even within its own reasoning, because right-handed amino acids are unable to function in the composition of living organisms and render proteins useless when they are involved in their composition.

To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life forms to come into being. The medium in which they formed was an acidic mixture that destroyed and oxidized any useful molecules that might have been obtained.

Evolutionists themselves actually refute the theory of evolution, as they are often wont to do, by advancing this experiment as "proof". If the experiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be produced in a controlled laboratory environment where all the necessary conditions have been specifically and consciously designed. That is, the experiment shows that what brings life (even the "near-life" of amino acids) into being cannot be unconscious chance, but rather conscious will – in a word, Creation. This is why every stage of Creation is a sign proving to us the existence and might of Allah.

He is the One GOD; the Creator, the Initiator, the Designer. To Him belong the most beautiful names. Glorifying Him is everything in the heavens and the earth. He is the Almighty, Most Wise. [59:24]

[morbius]

When religion is involved in an argument, it’s always hard to find out the truth, because there are so many religions out there and people believe in different things. But science is only one, because the truth is only one.
One may not believe in God and I would have a very hard time trying to convince him that there really is God.
But if one doesn’t believe in gravity, I can so easily prove to him that gravity exists.

It’s true what you say that fossils are often incomplete. For instance, one kind of Australopithecus is known to have existed only by a single mandible with few teeth still in it. Naturally, such evidence can not tell us anything about anatomy of arms, legs or spine of its owner. It can only tell us that such a man existed because that lower jaw doesn’t mach those of modern humans or any of the apes.
On the other hand, Neanderthal man is very well known, because we have gathered many full Neanderthal skeletons of people in various stages of their life. From them we were able to reconstruct their height, weight, diet (remains of food on teeth), size of their brain, appearance, habits and way of life. We also found primitive tools and weapons they were using and from their idols and drawings we know that they were religious.
It’s not true that reconstruction of the soft tissues is often flawed because great steps were taken to perfect it. Police today is often able to identify victim only from its scull with no soft tissues on it whatsoever. Facial reconstruction is further improved by gene analysis which tells us things that bones can not, such as color of the eyes or hair.

About your second post. Yes, I too find it almost impossible that life on Earth could have been created without help. Science has no answer on how simple drops of protein in the primordial soup could have become first cells. I believe it’s God who created and continually improves life forms.
Explorations on Mars will be able to give us interesting answers. If we find any trace of unique life in the dry river-beds on Mars it will tell us that processes that create life have high probability because they happened on two planets independently.
But then again, it could also mean that Good seeds life everywhere.

[morbius]

They say that seeing is believing. So see these pictures of early human sculls.
http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/images/australopithicus_afarensis.jpg
This is Australopithecus afarensis. Owner of this scull lived over 3 million years ago.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/images/australopithicus_africanus.jpg
This is Australopithecus africanus. This dude lived about 2 - 2.5 million years ago

http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/images/homo_erectus.jpg
Now we are finally looking at the scull that looks more human than ape. This is Homo erectus.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/images/neanderthal.jpg
And this is our friend from caves near the town of Neanderthal. While Australopithecus had a brain cavity of only 450-500 cubit centimeters (cc), Neanderthal man had a place for a brain of 1500-1600 cc. This is a triple increase in size of brain, but still Neanderthal man brain is much smaller that the brain of modern humans.

[morbius]

Neanderthal and modern human sculls back-to-back.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/biology/biology_images/skull_neanderthal_man.jpghttp://www.einsteins-emporium.com/science/human-anatomy/images/sh214-ca.gif
Notice couple of things:
1. Completely different eye sockets with stronger superciliar arc.
2. Much smaller forehead.
3. Much smaller room for the brain.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

Morbius, take your time and read carefully. I might not agree with everything on this site but it has much good.

http://www.harunyahya.com/

[morbius]

I’ve already seen this web site. As much as I feel I should condone its author for his work that includes gathering and processing a lot of information, I must say that his work is fundamentally flawed.
His starting premises are based on bias, and you can’t arrive to the right conclusion if your methods are not objective. Scientific work that he is referring to is mostly outdated and refuted by more modern scientific discoveries. His knowledge of natural sciences is relatively poor and his logic in many cases is problematic, to say the least. For instance, he goes on to accuse Darwin’s teachings for more-less everything that’s wrong in today’s world, even terrorism. (!)

Therefore, this writing should not be taken seriously, although its author does make several interesting points. We can discuss here parts that you think make sense, if you want.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

His starting premises are based on bias, and you can’t arrive to the right conclusion if your methods are not objective.

Well how many times have scientists found new set of bones, and changed their views on evolution? Almost every year someone finds new bones and new theories and new stories are made up and we are to believe in this as in a revelation from god until some other guy finds another bone and then a new explanation mis made. No, it is this method that is based on bias.

[morbius]

Well how many times have scientists found new set of bones, and changed their views on evolution?
Yes, exactly. With each passing year we learn more about this world. New knowledge of nature sometimes contradicts the existing theories. In those cases we search for the ways to explain this new evidence, which sometimes involves modifying present theories and sometimes throwing out existing theories and making new ones.
In either case, facts that were gotten through observations or experiments are considered absolute, while theories are considered relative truth. Theory is considered good only if it explains phenomena observed in nature.

On the other hand, some religions take writings of their holly books as absolute truth. In their view, religious dogmas are absolute, while facts are relative truth. Instead of creating theories to explain facts, those religions look for the way to interpret facts so they would fit the existing dogmas. But that is not real research, that is what’s usually called apologizing.

What deserves to be called truth must explain the facts of nature. In our case, those facts are these sculls. Quran and Bible offer us no explanation for these sculls, but theory of evolution does. Truth can be only what corresponds to evidence.

[AbuAhmad]

Moribus, are you an atheist?

[morbius]

I declare myself as an Orthodox Christian, but I do not adhere blindly to the teachings of the Church. I’d rather not go deeper into explaining my beliefs for I fear that we might dilute this thread.

I believe that people must seek the truth. And like I’ve said, truth is what evidence prove to be truth.
Story of Adam and Eve can not explain sculls of these half-men. Evolution can.
There are other obvious evidences as well. If we are all ancestors of just one man and one woman, then how come there are different races of men? Evolution can explain this as well – all living creatures adapt to their environment.

Scientists who in 19th century accepted teaching of evolution as an official explanation for the creation of men were not stupid nor atheists. They simply had to give in to the overwhelming evidence that support evolution. And since then, amounts of those evidence only grew.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

Yes, there was evolution but not the kind that you think. From the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) we know that humans were much taller in the times of Adam, and since then they were decreasing in hight. There are many evidences to to prove this, if you are not a muslim, and words of the messenger are not enough for you.

So obviously humnas did undergo changes. But you should also remember that in the time of Nuh (as) most of the population of earth was destroyed.

Look morbius the Lord of the Universe is talking to you:

021.030 Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

You see this is a point on which you and we agree. This has been proved and it is not being constantly changed by new findings, as is the case with rotten bones. Look how Allah is asking the kafirs (i.e. those who are first to prove these facts). Masha Allah, this is a great sign morbius, this is like a book flying from the sky, or like a ladder being put and a revelation being seen as coming down. You see for the arabs of 14 centuries ago, it was a big deal that they could not see how the prophet (saw) receives revelation. Today we know that if you put a radio receiver in a closed room without doors or windows, you would still hear much information flying about in the from of radio waves, so its not difficult for us to understands or imagine receiving revelation.

But today, you know very well that this kind information could not be possibly known by anyone 14000 years ago, unless he actually was the Creator. And the Creator of such strengh and knowledge would certainly not allow anyone who could possible steal this info, speak on His behalf to mislead people.

So forget about a bone, we agree that some sort of evolution did take place, and you yourselves every now and then change your views on how exactly it took place, so better to make your conclusions on something which is not disputed, i.e. the ayat which I mentioned, and there are many similar ayat, but this one is enough for a resonable man. Remember that your Lord does not gain if you believe or unbelieve, and know that those who turn away from His sign will have a bad life in both worlds.

[morbius]

Yes, there was evolution but not the kind that you think. From the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) we know that humans were much taller in the times of Adam, and since then they were decreasing in hight.
I would very much like to see those evidence that people are decreasing in height. All the material I could find on this subject tells us that people are actually becoming taller.
http://www.newscientist.com/popuparticle.ns?id=in166

So obviously humnas did undergo changes. But you should also remember that in the time of Nuh (as) most of the population of earth was destroyed.
Story of Noah was taken from Jews, who took it from Egyptians, who took it from Babylonians. It’s a 5000 years old fairy tale, nothing more.
If you think it’s true, than simply answer me this: How did Noah sail around the world to pick up animals that lived exclusively in America and Australia? How did he travel through large areas of polar ice to find the penguins at the south pole and polar bears at the north pole? :D

It’s a kid’s story Abdullah, and we are not children any more.

This has been proved and it is not being constantly changed by new findings, as is the case with rotten bones.
I know that you want to have an absolute solid truth, it’s in our human nature to desire certainty. That way, life is much easier.

Unfortunately for us, this world is based on uncertainty, as proven by work of scientists such as Heisenberg, Einstein and deBroglie.

You see for the arabs of 14 centuries ago, it was a big deal that they could not see how the prophet (saw) receives revelation. Today we know that if you put a radio receiver in a closed room without doors or windows, you would still hear much information flying about in the from of radio waves, so its not difficult for us to understands or imagine receiving revelation.

But today, you know very well that this kind information could not be possibly known by anyone 14000 years ago, unless he actually was the Creator. And the Creator of such strengh and knowledge would certainly not allow anyone who could possible steal this info, speak on His behalf to mislead people.
I am trying real hard to understand logic behind these words, but I can’t.
Many of 55 Jewish prophets claimed that God speaks to them in a way that others can’t hear long before Muhamed. Most of them are not acknowledged by Quran.

So forget about a bone, we agree that some sort of evolution did take place
Yes, we do agree that there must have been an evolution of life forms. What we disagree in is that man was also created by evolution. So, which is the right answer? The one that has evidence to back it up.
I have already shown you evidence of evolution – genetics and fossils. And you said it yourself, humans undergo changes, which created different races. And evolution of humans is not finished yet – IQ tests show that average intelligence of children is slowly growing with each generation, which in science is known as the Flynn Effect. So, you’ll agree with me that evolution does affect humans as well. If we are subject to it, is it really so hard to accept that we were created by it?

These “rotten bones” of ancient semi-humans are cold hard evidence that man was created through evolution.
Neither Christianity nor Islam were able to provide such evidence for their version of creation of man. They both use the same defense, claiming that their holly books are perfect and without error, so even the parts that we have no evidence for must be true because there are evidence for other parts.

Do not get me wrong, I do think that both Bible and Quran are right in many things. But when it comes to creation of man, they are simply wrong because evidence show otherwise. We must not turn our back to the truth just because we don’t like it.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

I would very much like to see those evidence that people are decreasing in height. All the material I could find on this subject tells us that people are actually becoming taller.
http://www.newscientist.com/popuparticle.ns?id=in166



Firstly, I am busy and dont have time to answer timely, dont think that I have nothing to say. As to evidence then look yourself in the net, I am sure on this I dont need more evidence than a sahih bukhari and muslim hadith where this is stated. Here is a qiuck search results:

http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Lagoon/1345/giants.html

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/


Story of Noah was taken from Jews, who took it from Egyptians, who took it from Babylonians. It’s a 5000 years old fairy tale, nothing more.
If you think it’s true, than simply answer me this: How did Noah sail around the world to pick up animals that lived exclusively in America and Australia? How did he travel through large areas of polar ice to find the penguins at the south pole and polar bears at the north pole? :D

It’s a kid’s story Abdullah, and we are not children any more.



I am trying real hard to understand logic behind these words, but I can’t.


This is the point. You have made up some worldview based on biased of varous kinds and sources and now it is difficult for you to be open minded. You see when I mentioned the arabs of 1400 years ago, you could draw a paralel with them and todays people who think that something is unbelievable. One hundred years ago a person would never believe you if you said to him that a man will walk on the moon. The light balb has been invented just about 100 years ago, so dont jump to conclusions based on a bone found by God knows who, and examined when you weren't there, because in a while someone might come up with new findings and inventions which will prove that what you thought was unthunkable, is infact the case. How can you base your religion (i.e. evolutionism, atheism, make no mistake you are not a christian) on some rotten monkey bones, when every now and then these guys find a new bone and change their opinions?

I gave you clear proofs from the quran, on the matter which is not dissagreed with, solid bulletproof 100% evidence from The Creator Himself, but you choose some rubbish which even your kuffar disagree with!!




Unfortunately for us, this world is based on uncertainty, as proven by work of scientists such as Heisenberg, Einstein and deBroglie.


Einstein believed in God by the way...

[morbius]

Firstly, I am busy and dont have time to answer timely, dont think that I have nothing to say.
And somehow this topic never appears in my “show new posts” search. Weird.

As to evidence then look yourself in the net, I am sure on this I dont need more evidence than a sahih bukhari and muslim hadith where this is stated. Here is a qiuck search results:

http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/...45/giants.html

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/

Please don’t tell me that this is your evidence Abdullah, for this is laughable.
If bones of gigantic Indians were found, it would be in all the important scientific magazines, such as “Nature” or “Science”, not printed in some jerkwater town newspapers and then forgotten. Whoever would make such discoveries would be famous, for it would give a whole new insight in human creation.
I searched thoroughly for more references on the mentioned stories about giant sceletons and found nothing. Not a single photograph of any of those giant skeletons anywhere on the net! Infact, the only mention of them is on a Geocites-hosted site, ran by a guy who obviously likes mistery stories.
Abdullah, you really should know better that to place your trust in such unreliable sources!

This is the point. You have made up some worldview based on biased of varous kinds and sources and now it is difficult for you to be open minded.
Trust me, I’m as open minded as it gets and I’m ready to listen to anybody. However, I’m not going to accept anything without solid evidence behind it.

The light balb has been invented just about 100 years ago, so dont jump to conclusions based on a bone found by God knows who, and examined when you weren't there, because in a while someone might come up with new findings and inventions which will prove that what you thought was unthunkable, is infact the case.
It’s not only a few bones, there are already several hundreds of full skeletons of pre-humans, and the number keeps on rising.
The oldest skeletons of modern humans were found in Ethiopia and were carbon dated to be around 195 000 years old. Anything older than that and we keep running into bones of these half-humans.
What should we do with them? Ignore them because they speak against “truths” that you are comfortable with?

How can you base your religion (i.e. evolutionism, atheism, make no mistake you are not a christian) on some rotten monkey bones, when every now and then these guys find a new bone and change their opinions?
I see that you have a problem with perceiving scientific beliefs.
You don’t have to believe that Earth is round for it to be round. We do not see that world is round with our own eyes, but we have solid evidence for this. In the same way, I haven’t seen evolution take part with my own eyes, but I’ve got strong evidence for it.

Scientific belief is not based on “absolute truths”, but on evidence. We already have enough of it to know most of human evolution, but more is discovered all the time. Sometimes it changes what we thought previously to be true, but usually not in a major way. Scientific knowledge is not a religious dogma – it can change.

I gave you clear proofs from the quran, on the matter which is not dissagreed with, solid bulletproof 100% evidence from The Creator Himself
Either I’m gone blind and I’m unable to see this evidence, or we seriously disagree on the meaning of the word “evidence”. I’ve given you cold-hard scientific facts. You have given me few verses from Quran that are hardly relevant to this matter.
Are you able to bring forward some solid evidence, or at least try to refute mine?

Einstein believed in God by the way...
So do I.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

So do I.

Well if you do believe in God, then your case is not that hopeless. Take your time and CAREFULLY read this material:

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php

http://www.sultan.org/

If you are really searching for the truth, this will give you a good start. Then if you have any questions, you can come back and ask them, and we will try to help you. If you are not searching for the truth, but are just trying to prove to someone here that Islam is wrong because some kafir had found a monkey bone, then you will not succeed. You will not succeed even if you bring back the dead to life in front of my two eyes. Our faith is based not on the fact that there are a lot of scientific proofs to Quran being God's word, although this is a nice bonus, if you like, our faith is based on a life long experience and interaction with God through Dua, prayers, and others things, but mainly on the Mercy of Allah. Whomever Allaah guides, none can lead astray, and whomever Allaah leaves astray, none can guide.

[morbius]

Abdullah, there is God, but He does things differently than you believe He does them.

Christopher Columbus was told by the Church that the world is flat, but he found the evidence that said differently.
Darwin was told by the Church that God created all living things at once, but he found the evidence that said differently.
Both of them were right! And both of them remained Christians and firmly believed in God!

Well if you do believe in God, then your case is not that hopeless. Take your time and CAREFULLY read this material:

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php
Been there, done that.
This site is a place that everyone interested in these subjects should visit.
However, scientific information there is shown in a way designed to lead people to the wrong conclusions. This is classic case of apologetic research where you omit things that speak against your view and present others the way you want them to appear.
Choose a part or a chapter from “Darwinism Refuted” and I’ll demonstrate mistakes in them and easy way to refute their claims (or most of them, since some of the things they are saying are actually true, just shown in the wrong light).

If you are not searching for the truth, but are just trying to prove to someone here that Islam is wrong because some kafir had found a monkey bone, then you will not succeed.
I would like to see your explanation for these bones, please.

Our faith is based not on the fact that there are a lot of scientific proofs to Quran being God's word, although this is a nice bonus
But what do you do when there are scientific proofs that speak against Quran?

It’s a lot like a situation when a someone dear to you is being accused of a crime that you believe he couldn’t possibly commit, but evidence speak strongly against him.
Who do you think that a fair, impartial judge should believe? You who are biased because of your love for the accused, or the cold-hard evidence that shows his guilt?

our faith is based on a life long experience and interaction with God through Dua, prayers, and others things
That’s all nice, but do not forget that soul asylums are full of people who claim that they interact with God. Do not allow your religion to cloud your sense of reality, or your objectivity when we discuss matters of science.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

I would like to see your explanation for these bones, please.


I dont know what bones you mean, but I can guess they are the bones of monkeys, they could be the bones of human tribes, destroyed by God. We know that whole nations were wiped out by God before, so it could well be them. We know that even today there is a great difference between the complexion of people for example in Asia and in Europe. You say that the story of Noh (as) was made up, because he couldn't have carried penguins with him, but firstly the scientists claim that all continents were joined together some time before. Also, we know that Nuh (as) stopped at some mountain, which tells us that not all earth was covered with water. Finally, what stops God from creating some new animals after the flood, or even today? We do know from the scriptures that there were different creatures living on earth before humans. Scientists also say this. So no problem with these things.


But what do you do when there are scientific proofs that speak against Quran?


Which proofs?



That’s all nice, but do not forget that soul asylums are full of people who claim that they interact with God. Do not allow your religion to cloud your sense of reality, or your objectivity when we discuss matters of science.

There are things that science can not explain. There are phenomenons that happen and there is not scientific explanation to them, or the scientific explanation is unsatisfactory, which is confirmed by later discoveries. For example, people had a hard time believing that the prophet (saw) travelled from Makka to Jerusalem then to the heavens then back to Makka, all in a single night. Today this is not something strange, a person can easely travel around the world and in space in a single day. The science of 1400 years ago proved this to be impossible, based on the maximum speed of any transportaion of the time. Similarly what we find impossible today, could be proved as possible in a while.

But even if science doesn't have explanation, it doesnt mean anything. For example I had many cases in my life when I was in a situation from which a saw no way out. Situations when you know from your narrow "science" afflicted mind, that in all probability it is impossible to have a solution. And then, you make Dua, a supplication to God, and everything sorts itself out. How, can science expalin this? It can not, this is expained by God, Who said that He will answer those who call upon Him, those believe in His oneness.

[morbius]

I dont know what bones you mean, but I can guess they are the bones of monkeys, they could be the bones of human tribes, destroyed by God.
Australopithecus looked more-less like a chimp, with the exception that shape of his spine, pelvis and inner ear labyrinth tells us that he walked upright. Early Australopithecines had larger canine teeth (as you can see on pictures I posted earlier), but later they atrophied when he stopped using them as weapons, switching to sticks and stones instead.
Homo Erectus still looked more like an ape than like a man, with his protruding jaw, large zygomatic arcs, short height and relatively small cranium. However, he was already smart enough to make spears, keep fire going and draw on cave walls, as proven by archeological findings. So, was he a man or an ape?

You say that the story of Noh (as) was made up, because he couldn't have carried penguins with him, but firstly the scientists claim that all continents were joined together some time before.
:)
Your chronology is all wrong. Like I told you, the oldest bones of modern-like humans are only about 200 000 years old. Pangaea broke into individual continents much earlier, back in the days when dinosaurs walked the Earth.
I’ll tell you how you can calculate when exactly that happened. Americas keep moving away from Europe and Africa at the speed of 7 meters per year. Take the map of the world and measure how far apart they are now. Divide the two numbers and you’ll know exactly when Pangaea broke apart.

Also, we know that Nuh (as) stopped at some mountain, which tells us that not all earth was covered with water.
By the story, Noah’s arc stopped and the top of mountain Ararat, in modern day Turkey.
Use Google to find out how tall is Ararat and how big radius of Earth is. Then calculate volume of the water needed to cover the Earth up to that height.
If you did your math right, you’ll find out that for such a flood there would be needed about 5 times more water than earth has in its oceans and polar caps.
Where did all that water come from and where did it go if we consider the basic knowledge of physics that tell us that matter can not just appear or disappear, but only change form?

Finally, what stops God from creating some new animals after the flood, or even today?
Absolutely nothing. He is not done with our evolution. He is continually making us taller, more intelligent and giving us longer life. Statistics and examinations of ancient necropolises have clearly proven this.

Which proofs?
Now what have I been talking about here?
Let’s concentrate for now on proofs that man is made from ape. I’ve shown you anatomy, genetics and fossils as proofs, and I can go into more detail, quote references and present you with more images if you want.

There are things that science can not explain. There are phenomenons that happen and there is not scientific explanation to them, or the scientific explanation is unsatisfactory, which is confirmed by later discoveries.
Yes, of course, there are things that modern science still can not explain. But just because some of the Buddhist monks can levitate in thin air doesn’t mean that we should abandon Newton’s laws of gravity. We should study these strange phenomenons and learn from them, not hide them under a veil of mysticism.

But even if science doesn't have explanation, it doesnt mean anything. For example I had many cases in my life when I was in a situation from which a saw no way out. Situations when you know from your narrow "science" afflicted mind, that in all probability it is impossible to have a solution. And then, you make Dua, a supplication to God, and everything sorts itself out.
Hey, I was in exactly the same kind of situations and God was there for me then, so I know exactly what you are talking about.
You should realize that I’m not talking from some personal hate I have towards God, but from the bottom of my heart.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

So, was he a man or an ape?


Why do you assume thatt monkeys couldn't have walked on two legs? Why do you assume they couldn't have used some simple tools? They do it even today!



:)
Your chronology is all wrong.

Its not wrong, I was just giving you examples.

[qoute]
By the story, Noah’s arc stopped and the top of mountain Ararat, in modern day Turkey.
[/quote]

We dont know which mountain it was. Even if it was arafat, why do you assume it was a worldwide flood? Maybe it was a local flood just all people lived in a small area? Maybe the flood wasn't as high as you assume? You know that scientist say that in the place of the Black sea there was formerly a much smaller fresh water lake, and suddenly it was filled by water from the Mediterranean sea. A lot of things happened even according to scientists that wiped almost entirely every living thing on earth. My nation is called Chechens, but this is the name given to us by russians, we call ourselves Nohchi which leterally means "from Noh". If you look at how old the Nohchi are, you will see that this "fairytale" as you say existed well before babylonia.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/077.html


Let’s concentrate for now on proofs that man is made from ape. I’ve shown you anatomy, genetics and fossils as proofs, and I can go into more detail, quote references and present you with more images if you want.


You haven't read the link I gave you have you?



A newly found fossil skull in Chad has confounded the proponents of the theory of evolution. Darwinist scientists confess that this fossil has rocked the very foundations of the theory of evolution. The fairy tale of "an evolutionary chain stretching from ape to man" has once again collapsed.


This new ape fossil found in Chad turned all evolutionary theses upside down.

The new fossil skull found in the central African country of Chad has dealt a heavy blow to the evolutionary claims regarding the origin of man. Given considerable space in world-renowned scientific journals and newspapers, this new fossil has shattered the claim that "man evolved from ape-like creatures" so doggedly maintained by Darwinists for the last 150 years. Discovered by the French scientist Michel Brunet, the fossil was given the name Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

The fossil has set the cat among the pigeons in the world of Darwinism. In its article giving news of the discovery, the world-renowned journal Nature admitted that "New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution." (1)

Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University said that "This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb." (2)

The reason for this is that although the fossil in question is 7 million years old, it has a more "human-like" structure (according to the criteria evolutionists have hitherto used) than the 5 million-year-old Australopithecus ape species that is alleged to be "mankind's oldest ancestor."

Ever since the 1920s, evolutionists have claimed that some characteristics of the Australopithecus genus resembled those of human beings, for which reason they have portrayed these extinct creatures as "man's most primitive ancestor." A great deal of evidence disproving that thesis has emerged. For instance, research in the 1990s revealed that Australopithecus did not walk upright, as had been claimed, but walked with a stooped posture just like other apes. The newly-discovered Sahelanthropus tchadensis fossil, another ape species that lived 2 million years before Australopithecus, is actually more "human-like" according to evolutionary criteria. In other words, it demolishes the "evolutionary scheme."

http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70New_Fossil_Discovery_sci32.php

[morbius]

Why do you assume thatt monkeys couldn't have walked on two legs? Why do you assume they couldn't have used some simple tools? They do it even today!
Alright, but they also drew pictures and carved primitive idols. What monkey knows about art and religion?

Its not wrong, I was just giving you examples.
However, your examples are dead wrong. Make sure to know the matter well before expressing such opinions. If starting parameters are wrong, result can’t be correct.

We dont know which mountain it was. Even if it was arafat, why do you assume it was a worldwide flood? Maybe it was a local flood just all people lived in a small area? Maybe the flood wasn't as high as you assume?
I didn’t pay much attention when reading about the flood in Quran, since I naturally assumed that it says the same things as in Old Testament from which it was copied. If both sources agree on this, then we are talking about flood of the whole world. Why else would Noah/Nuh put all the animals into his arc when they would be able to come back from other places?
But it is an interesting possibility that “world flood” actually refers to the creation of the Black sea.

A newly found fossil skull in Chad has confounded the proponents of the theory of evolution. Darwinist scientists confess that this fossil has rocked the very foundations of the theory of evolution. The fairy tale of "an evolutionary chain stretching from ape to man" has once again collapsed.


This new ape fossil found in Chad turned all evolutionary theses upside down.

The new fossil skull found in the central African country of Chad has dealt a heavy blow to the evolutionary claims regarding the origin of man. Given considerable space in world-renowned scientific journals and newspapers, this new fossil has shattered the claim that "man evolved from ape-like creatures" so doggedly maintained by Darwinists for the last 150 years. Discovered by the French scientist Michel Brunet, the fossil was given the name Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

The fossil has set the cat among the pigeons in the world of Darwinism. In its article giving news of the discovery, the world-renowned journal Nature admitted that "New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution." (1)

Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University said that "This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb." (2)

This is sensationalistic journalism at its worst!
You should have familiarized yourself better with this case before bringing it up. It doesn’t negate human evolution and it doesn’t bring down everything we know about human creation. It only offers us another possible ancestor for our kind.
Let me show you. This is Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/toumai.jpg
This is all that we have of him right now, but we are hoping that one day will find a full skeleton. As you can see, this incomplete scull was reconstructed from the fragments and it was named “Toumai”, which in local dialect means “hope for life”. It’s between 6 and 7 million years old, which makes it the oldest known fossil of any humanoidae. Its brain-box is comparable to that of a modern chimpanzee.
It is possible that Toumai could be our ancestor, because some of his facial features, such as strong supercilliar ridge, resemble that of the later members of hominidae family. Some scientist believe that Toumai comes before human-chimp split, some think that he is closer to us than to Chimps. One explanation is that Toumai is female proto-gorilla, but it’s impossible to say without more bones.

Ever since the 1920s, evolutionists have claimed that some characteristics of the Australopithecus genus resembled those of human beings, for which reason they have portrayed these extinct creatures as "man's most primitive ancestor." A great deal of evidence disproving that thesis has emerged. For instance, research in the 1990s revealed that Australopithecus did not walk upright, as had been claimed, but walked with a stooped posture just like other apes. The newly-discovered Sahelanthropus tchadensis fossil, another ape species that lived 2 million years before Australopithecus, is actually more "human-like" according to evolutionary criteria. In other words, it demolishes the "evolutionary scheme."

Hardly. Australopithecus still remains the strongest candidate for our ancestor, mostly because his pelvis and spine shows that he had upright posture. Research that claims that Australopithecus wasn’t bipedal is based on the position of its inner-ear labyrinth (sense of balance) and is completely invalid if Australopithecus held his head just slightly higher than researchers believed.
Toumai on the other hand has his foramen magnum (the hole through which the spinal cord exits the skull) more toward back, like present day apes, which tells us that he didn’t balance his head on his spine, like humans. That means that Toumai almost certainly wasn’t bipedal, but we can’t be 100% sure without more bones.

This is what I was talking about when I said that site you linked provides true information, but presents them in a wrong way. It tries to confuse people by presenting real scientific research in a way to fit religious dogmas, or to disprove other research that questioned religious claims.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

I didn’t pay much attention when reading about the flood in Quran, since I naturally assumed that it says the same things as in Old Testament from which it was copied. If both sources agree on this, then we are talking about flood of the whole world. Why else would Noah/Nuh put all the animals into his arc when they would be able to come back from other places?
But it is an interesting possibility that “world flood” actually refers to the creation of the Black sea.


First of all this phrase of yours is an attack on Islam, and it is just too much, and I ask the moderators to ban you, since this is not the first time you attack Islam here, and it is obvious that you are nor looking for answers, but are just trying attack the Truth, because you were given answers and you return and make the same assertions. If you would read the link I gave you you found find this:


Was the Flood a Local Disaster or was It Global?

Those who deny the reality of the Flood, support their stance with the assertion that a worldwide flood is impossible. However, their denial of any flood whatsoever is also directed as an argument for disbelief.

Yet the Qur’an was revealed by Allah and is the only unaltered Divine book. The Qur’an gives a very different account of the Flood than the Pentateuch and the other flood legends narrated in various cultures. The Pentateuch, the name given to the first five books of the Old Testament, says that the flood was cosmic and that it covered the whole world. Yet the Qur’an does not offer such as assertion, indeed on the contrary, the relevant verses imply that the Flood was regional and did not cover the whole world but only drowned Nuh’s (as) people who had been warned by Nuh (as)and so were punished.

When the Flood narrations of the Old Testament and the Qur’an are examined, this difference is plain. The Old Testament, which has been subject to so many alterations and additions throughout its history that it can truly be said that almost nothing of the original remains, describes how the Flood began as follows;

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD (Genesis, 6:5-8)

However, in the Qur’an, it is clearly shown that it was not the whole world, but only Nuh’s (as)people who were destroyed. Just as Hud (as)was sent only to ‘Ad (Surah Hud: 50); Salih (as)was sent to Thamud (Surah Hud: 61) and all the other prophets prior to Muhammad (saas)were sent only to their own peoples, Nuh (as)was sent only to his people and the flood caused only Nuh’s (as)people to perish:

We sent Nuh to his people (with a mission): "I have come to you with a Clear Warning: That ye serve none but Allah: Verily I do fear for you the penalty of a grievous day." (Surah Hud: 25-26)

Those who perished were people who totally disregarded Prophet Nuh’s (as)proclamation of the message and persisted on rebellion. Relevant verses are explicit:

But they rejected him, and We delivered him, and those with him, in the Ark: but We overwhelmed in the flood those who rejected Our signs. They were indeed a blind people! (Surat al-A‘raf: 64)

But they denied him so We rescued him, and all those with him, in the Ark and We made them the successors and We drowned the people who denied Our Signs. See the final fate of those who were warned! (Surah Yunus: 73)

Besides, in the Qur’an, Allah remarks that He does not destroy a community unless a messenger has been sent to it. Destruction can only take place if a warner has already arrived among a particular people and the warner is belied. Allah states in the Qur’an:

Nor was thy Lord the one to destroy a population until He had sent to its centre a messenger, rehearsing to them Our Signs; nor are We going to destroy a population except when its members practice iniquity. (Surat al-Qasas: 59)

It is revealed in the Qur’an that Allah will not destroy people to whom He has not sent any messengers. As a warner, Nuh (as)had been sent only to his people. Therefore, Allah did not destroy the communities who had not been sent a warner, but only Nuh’s (as)people.

From these statements in the Qur’an, we can be certain that the Flood was a regional disaster, not a cosmic one. Excavations made in the archaeological region where the flood is supposed to have occurred - which we will examine below - show that the flood was not a cosmic event affecting the whole world, but a very broad catastrophe which affected a certain part of Mesopotamia.

Were all the Animals Taken on Board?

The interpreters of the Bible believe that Nuh (as)took all animal species on earth on board the Ark and that animals were saved from extinction thanks to Nuh (as). According to this belief, a pair of every animal species on earth were brought together and put on board.

Those who defend this assertion doubtless have to face serious difficulties in many respects. The question of how the animal species taken aboard were fed, how they were housed on the Ark, or how they were isolated from each other are impossible to answer. Moreover, the question remains: how were animals from different continents brought together - mammals in the poles, kangaroos in Australia or the bison peculiar to America? Moreover, there follow more questions as to how very dangerous animals - venomous ones like snakes, scorpions and wild animals - were caught and how they could be sustained away from their natural habitats until the flood abated.

These are the accounts in the distorted Old Testament which cannot be answered. In the Qur’an, there is no statement implying that all the animal species on earth were taken on board. As we have noted before, the Flood took place in a certain region. Therefore, the animals taken on board could only have been those living in the region where Nuh’s (as) people resided.

However, it is evident that it is impossible even to collect all the animal species living in that region. It is difficult to think of Nuh (as)and a few number of believers besides him (Surah Hud: 40) going in all directions and setting out to collect two each of hundreds of animal species in their surroundings. It is even more highly improbable for them to have collected specimens of the insect species living in their region, and, moreover, to discriminate the males from the females! This is the reason why it is more probable that the animals collected were those that could easily be caught and sustained, and were, therefore, domestic animals especially useful to man. The Prophet Nuh (as)was most likely to have taken on board such animals as cows, sheep, horses, poultry, camels and the like, because these were the primary animals that would have been needed for establishing a new life in a region which would have lost a great deal of its livestock because of the Flood.

Here the important point is that Allah’s command to Nuh (as)to collect the animals may be directed to the collecting of the animals required for the new life to be established after the Flood rather than to protecting the genus of animals. Since the flood was regional, the extinction of animal species could not have been a possibility. It is most likely that after the flood, animals from other regions would have migrated to that area in the course of time, and re-populated the region with its old liveliness. What was important was the life to be established in the region right after the flood, and the animals gathered would have been collected basically for this purpose.

How High Did the Waters Rise?

Another debate around the Flood is whether the waters rose high enough to cover the mountains. As acknowledged, the Qur’an informs us that the Ark came to rest on "al-Judi" after the flood. The word "Judi" is generally referred to as a specific mountain site, whereas the word appears to mean "high setting or hill" in Arabic. Therefore it should not be forgotten that in the Qur’an, "Judi" could have been used not as a name for a specific mountain site but to indicate that the Ark had come to rest on a high site. Besides, the aforementioned meaning of the word "Judi" may also show that the waters had reached a certain height, but not as high as mountaintop level. That is to say that the flood most probably did not engulf the whole earth and all the mountains as described in the Old Testament, but only covered a certain region.


http://www.harunyahya.com/pernat11.php


This is what I was talking about when I said that site you linked provides true information, but presents them in a wrong way. It tries to confuse people by presenting real scientific research in a way to fit religious dogmas, or to disprove other research that questioned religious claims.

Whatever the case, this bone shows that what you believed before it was found, is rubbish, becasue a few million years before it, monkeys were even more resembling of today`s humans, so simple extrapolation will show us that evolution of these monkeys went the opposite way.

p.s. before you say more stupidity, go and read the link, and in any way I hope you'll be banned sooner.

[morbius]

First of all this phrase of yours is an attack on Islam, and it is just too much, and I ask the moderators to ban you, since this is not the first time you attack Islam here
Abdullah, I was simply stating the obvious. Read the Old Testament and you’ll see for yourself how many things were taken into Quran.

As for the Islamic explanation of the flood, I’ll have to read again those parts of Quran to see whether it is possible that they talk about local flood.

Whatever the case, this bone shows that what you believed before it was found, is rubbish, becasue a few million years before it, monkeys were even more resembling of today`s humans, so simple extrapolation will show us that evolution of these monkeys went the opposite way.
And you can tell that from only one incomplete scull? :) Wow, you must be some great anthropologist. How come then we can’t find bones of modern-like humans in that period, genius?
Oldest found skeletons of Homo sapiens are only about 200 000 years old, shouldn’t we find human skeletons older than that if apes were made from humans and apes are at least 7 million years old?

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

Oldest found skeletons of Homo sapiens are only about 200 000 years old, shouldn’t we find human skeletons older than that if apes were made from humans and apes are at least 7 million years old?

Morbius, I am not claiming anything, I am just showing that your religion is contaradictory. As I said earlier, I do believe that humans undergo changes with time, based on the hadith of Rasulullah (saw). Also I know that different creatures lived on earth before humans. And I dont know when the humans started to live on earth, and when other creatures were wiped out. What I need to know is given to me in the Quran. None of it is contradictory, or is challanged by prudent scientific theories. What you believe. is challanged by the believers of three abrahamic faiths, as well as a lot of science and common sense. There re a lot of questions for which you have no answers, even on that site alone. So dont try to teach me here, I can teach you if you ask kindly...

[morbius]

Morbius, I am not claiming anything, I am just showing that your religion is contaradictory.
You can’t seem to understand that science is not religion. Science doesn’t have some already given facts that it needs to defend. I don’t bow to some “scientific God”, I just try to understand how God operates by using science.
Scientific beliefs are based of evidence. If new evidence is uncovered, we do not just sweep it under a rug, but instead try to construct theories that would explain the new evidence.

None of it is contradictory, or is challanged by prudent scientific theories.
Then answer me what I’ve asked you. If monkeys are made from humans, why are there monkey fossils millions of years older then the oldest human fossils?

There re a lot of questions for which you have no answers
Of course. But at least I look for answers, I do not simply swallow the answers religions serve me with.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

You can’t seem to understand that science is not religion. Science doesn’t have some already given facts that it needs to defend. I don’t bow to some “scientific God”, I just try to understand how God operates by using science.
Scientific beliefs are based of evidence. If new evidence is uncovered, we do not just sweep it under a rug, but instead try to construct theories that would explain the new evidence.


You openly mock the beliefs of three abrahamic faiths, based on some bones and theories changed evere now and then. So this darwinism very much resembles religion. This religion is taught in schools and generally believed in, even though it is a not confirmed by prudent science.



Then answer me what I’ve asked you. If monkeys are made from humans, why are there monkey fossils millions of years older then the oldest human fossils?


Why do you think that it cant be that these bones were of some creatures which resembled slightly humans, but became extinct? And then humans came into existence, and were undergoing some changes, in general they were becoming lower in hight, some more than others, and hence some races today are different to others. Moreover, we know of at least two human tribes, Yajooj and Majooj, which are possible not even discovered yet, although some believe then to be the chinese.

[morbius]

So this darwinism very much resembles religion.
In what way, please tell me.

Why do you think that it cant be that these bones were of some creatures which resembled slightly humans, but became extinct?
So your explanation is basically this:
God is creating creatures, by evolution and by other means. At one time using evolution he creates intelligent ape, smart enough to make weapons, paint, follow religion, etc. But then God decides that this is not the way He wants things to be, eliminates all apes, and creates Adam and Eve from mud. Than later he again creates apes from humans.

My explanation is much simpler and logical:
God created man by evolution from ape.

Moreover, we know of at least two human tribes, Yajooj and Majooj, which are possible not even discovered yet, although some believe then to be the chinese.
No, here we have another example of Muhamed copycatting the Bible. Those nations are mentioned in the Book of Reveletion, but Muhamed didn’t remember their names right, or they were told to him incorrectly. Original names of those tribes are Gogh and Magogh, and by Biblical story Satan is supposed to rally them against the faithful after his release from imprisonment.