if they do exist, mans going straight to the masjid
What scientific developments can be attributed to the Qur'an?
- Thread starter JohnDoe
- Start date
- Status
Brother, you misunderstand. I wish nothing more than to see a Somali become a Nobel laureate, the pride and joy you would bring to our people is immeasurable. Since you've discovered something that will so radically change the scientific consensus on evolutionary biology, why don't you submit your research, btfo of the entire lying branch of evolutionary biology, and bring da ting home.
Next you can prove humans can reach 950, survive being swallowed by a whale, and being burnt at the stake for your next award
You wasted your time typing @Bahal. Two things you bahal. Adam AS was 90 ft tall and lived up to 930 years.
It does not have any weight at all when the same material can be used to draw alternative conclusions... Lmfao. It does not look promising, it looks like a failed project. Centuries of research and the only evidence gathered are pertaining to microevolution. Do you want to go round in circles again? What a repetitive individual you are honestly.Two words fossil evidence. I have also provided a plethora of evidence for microevolution. This has far more weight than the quran. God made hawwa from the rib of of adam, how unscientific.
In 1954 stanley miller and harrey urey demonstrated that amino acids could naturally form in the environment of the early earth, they replicated the atmosphere and the chemicals in addition to electric sparks, they found new amino acids in the primordial soups. Research is still ongoing. its looking promising.
The only consensus regarding the evolution hypothesis is that it's still considered an unproven hypothesis by ALL scientists. The truth may be a bitter pill to swallow... @Bahal I've noticed that you consider me Somali, many Somalis don't. I'm a Somali national.
There is no such thing as hypothesis of evolution rather it's accumulated enough evidence to now be considered a theory. Saaxib why not just be honest and admit you reject this theory because it's compatible with your faith based beliefs?
Name one alternative assumption. Amino acids are the basis of all life processes, needed for optimal transport and the optimal storage of nutrients. I have parried most of your arguments. I'm sorry but the evolution theory has so much more backup in terms of evidence compared to the creationist argument.
How is the Quran man made? Revelations where revealed to the Prophet SAW, for example Angel Jabril revealed verses to him.
A scientific theory is a theory that is considered authentic due to the experiments that have been carried out to validate that specific theory, this has not been done for macroevolution and for you to claim such thing shows your ignorance about science.
In the words of @supz: "I cannot provide you with evidence of macroevolution".
You have not "parried" anything you liar. You've failed to provide evidence, and this it what you have implied yourself (in a previous post).
Something cannot from from nothing, every code has a coder > all hypotheses and conclusions made by Darwinists. I'm not implying that all creationists have to rebuke Darwinists are the aforementioned statements.
I CHALLENGE YOU ALL TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF MACROEVOLUTION OR STFU.
Irrational fools. Smh...
You didn't answer my question. What other assumption can be drawn from the inception of new amino acids?
Parry that sxb.
@Hitman It's rich for someone to demand evidence for certain claims and happily accept other claims on sheer faith. Macroevolution encompasses our short lifetimes saaxib hence why we can't carry out the "convential lab experiment" you so much crave. But we can observe microevolution (where minor mutations occur) when enough minor mutations occur over this large amount of time then this is what people refer to as macroevolution. It's an absurd position to deny macroevolution solely on the basis our lifespans limit what we are able to see. I'll give you an analogy which demonstrates the falseness of rejecting macroevolution if you respond to this.
PS: If you read any malice in what I've written it's not intentional. I'm merely trying to educate any false preconceptions you have.
PS: If you read any malice in what I've written it's not intentional. I'm merely trying to educate any false preconceptions you have.
No offence, where talking about 'scientific developments than can be attributed to the Quran', and your here talking about Amino Acids. Stop joking around, like I said to your cousin before, make another thread on basic science.
Dude I already mentioned that and I've linked you to an article that indirectly touches on this topic. The supposed "inceptions" of amino acids could have been pre-determined in our DNA, that's one alternative conclusion.
Also, the inception of amino acids does not IN ANY WAY indicate the plausibility of the inception of genetic information. If you say that it does, then you don't know shit about biology, I'm sorry.
Sxb, you already admitted there's no evidence for macroevolution, why are you going round in circles again? Had it been proven, everyone would be aware of it, it will make headlines. Macroevolution would be considered a law of science which it's not.
For you it seems likely that organisms came from nothing, and for us, we are certain that there's an intelligent creator behind design.
We have no "false" perceptions... The only excuse that Darwinists have is that "we can't witness it in our lifetime", well then how the f*ck did you come to that conclusion in the first place?
We consider you irrational.
We have no "false" perceptions... The only excuse that Darwinists have is that "we can't witness it in our lifetime", well then how the f*ck did you come to that conclusion in the first place?
We consider you irrational.
The analogy I'll give is with continental shift. On the whole the continents have diverged away from each other over millions of years. But we only see a fraction of that continental shift. Likewise we see the smallest mutations in organisms because we're only there for part of the show.
Microevolution over millions of years = Macroevolution. And evolution doesn't explain the origins of life but is merely the best explanation for the variety of life that we see on earth. The Qur'an fails to explain either.
its possible. However several tests have proven that the inception of amino acids are possible, without humans as the precursor. Funny thing to say that it is impossible for life to not have emerged from the "primordial soup" when masses of biologists are in agreement over the plausibility of life emerging from amino acids. Anyways, we don't see eye to eye on this matter. Im an avid reader of biological articles btw, so my sources are cross referenced.
Last edited:
.
The Quran explained it, in a very informative way. But people like you always tend follow what fits in their narrow human mind. Evolution is something everyone can understand, and the reason for this is, its a theory that compels with our mind. But things in the Quran are dismissed by people like you, because its 'not logic enough'. Bro, just keep watching Big Bang Theory.
Lol @ that analogy... Macroevolution is not an accumulation of microevolution (this is not an accepted scientific fact). Microevolution displays nothing but the fact that organisms can acquire traits (I don't even know if the word acquire should be used), since these traits may have been pre-programmed in their genetic sequence.
Dude you're honestly wasting my time, your time and everyone else's time.
We consider your beliefs irrational. Believing in the evolution theory is literally a belief. Drawing conclusions from material that can be used to draw various of other conclusions Lmfao. We believe in an intelligent creator whilst you believe that life came from nothing (I lost count on how many times I've repeated this). Keep your irrational views to yourself.
- Status
