Creation from Clay

[root]

Interesting thought. It is also interesting how paleontologists are capable of finding a single bone fragment. From that fragment are able to reconstruct a likely image of the creature, set up probabilities as to how prevelant the critter was and what it ate. And that is accepted as world belief with no need for further evidence.

A little far fetched and over exagerated, but cool OK.

Now, religious scholars have less things to work with. You are asking them to produce concrete solid physical proof of 3 specific people. I don't know about anybody else, but I have no way of locating the baby teeth I had as a child and they fell out. That is probably the only physical evidence that may exist to prove I was a living 5 year old in 1945. I guess since I have no solid physical artifacts of when I was a child, I must not have existed then and I can not believe the words of my childhood friends and relatives or my own memories..

Let's face it tracing both male Y chromozone ( Y Chromozone Adam) and the mitocondrial DNA of Eve (Mitocondrial Eve) far from even remotely supporting religous scholars, it showed them that DNA evidence simply does not support the biblical adam and eve. The scientific adam and eve (to who we are all descendant) are seperated by thousands of years and yes the dates for Y Chromozone Adam and mitichondrial Eve are known.

Further, far from producing evidence of a world flood. Science only supports a local flood and that is the dead sea, even then. Flood stories are abundant by geographical location of the middle east by multiple cultures.

Perhaps somethings are too far in the past for physical evidence to have remained or is in such minute quantity that it has little chance of ever being found. Perhaps sometimes we have to look upon the passed down words of those who witnessed or caused the events.

Perhaps your just backing a loser.

Actually we are quite satisfied that we know were the physical remains of the alter used by Abraham is and we are confident it was also used by Adam. That in itself is more then sufficient physical proof for us to accept the reality of Adam and Abraham.

I doubt that very much. Let's face it the only evidence is the source itself (your scriptures), nothing else supports it.

Without prejudice

Root

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Let's face it tracing both male Y chromozone ( Y Chromozone Adam) and the mitocondrial DNA of Eve (Mitocondrial Eve) far from even remotely supporting religous scholars, it showed them that DNA evidence simply does not support the biblical adam and eve. The scientific adam and eve (to who we are all descendant) are seperated by thousands of years and yes the dates for Y Chromozone Adam and mitichondrial Eve are known.

I'd like to point out that these bones are refered to as adam's and eve's because they are the oldest ones found so far. Not because we know they were the first. In fact the suggestion that male homo sapiens came a thousand years later then female homo sapiens is absolutely absurd. Homo sapiens have always relied on intercourse to propagate. So given the average lifespan of a homo sapiens...

Further, far from producing evidence of a world flood. Science only supports a local flood and that is the dead sea, even then. Flood stories are abundant by geographical location of the middle east by multiple cultures.

Yes that's one of the cases were Islam turns out to have a better knowledge. It's christians who said the flood was global. Muslims never made that claim. But even then, why think so small? Forget the death sea, try the black sea.
In fact I recently saw a documentary on National geographic, about the discovery of traces of life on the bottem of the black sea. That sea used to be a much smaler lake (about 1/2 of the size as it is now and 50m deeper). At the end of the iceage, when massive polar icebergs began to partially thew, and the sea level rised slightly, seawater from teh mediteranian began to flow into that lake. The pouring water quickly erode the ground and created the bosphorus passing. It might have gonna slowly at first, but they estimate that from that it took more or less 2 weeks to get from the old lake (1/2 size and 50 meters deeper) to get to the current sea. Now that's what I call a flood!

 

[root]

I'd like to point out that these bones are refered to as adam's and eve's because they are the oldest ones found so far. Not because we know they were the first. In fact the suggestion that male homo sapiens came a thousand years later then female homo sapiens is absolutely absurd. Homo sapiens have always relied on intercourse to propagate. So given the average lifespan of a homo sapiens...

(Bolded Above) Is a big misconception with no basis. Actually Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to daughter only which gives a genetic link to all females who carry it. Mitochondrial Eve is the furthest that we are able to go back in generations where they still carry the correct DNA sequence represented in the female mitochondreal DNA. It is NOT as you have suggested (SOURCE PLEASE) the oldest bones found? BTW Mitochondrial Eve is dated at about 150,000 years ago to which ALL females alive today shares ancestory with.

Secondly, Y Chromozome Adam again passes his chromozone in a paternal link to all males in the same manner as mitochondrial DNA. Y Chromozome Adam is our furthest related unbroken paternal ancestor of all human males alive today and is dated between 60,000 - 90,000 years ago. This difference between Scientific Adam & Eve in time is about 85,000 years apart. Of course Humans existed before this date and some of the oldest DNA extractions do not match our scientific Adam & Eve as we go further back we are (as new discoveries are made) able to refine the date. However, do you suppose the biblical Adam & Eve would carry the same DNA Y Chromozone of Adam & Mitochondrial Eve your answer eould be interesting for the following reasons

Biblical Adam & Eve would carry the same gentic markers

The we can give an approxomate date for the biblical adam & eve to the same dates as scientific adam & eve.

Biblical Adam & Eve would NOT carry the same gentic markers

How do you explain that without using the theory of evolution.

yes that's one of the cases were Islam turns out to have a better knowledge. It's christians who said the flood was global. Muslims never made that claim. But even then, why think so small? Forget the death sea, try the black sea. In fact I recently saw a documentary on National geographic, about the discovery of traces of life on the bottem of the black sea. That sea used to be a much smaler lake (about 1/2 of the size as it is now and 50m deeper). At the end of the iceage, when massive polar icebergs began to partially thew, and the sea level rised slightly, seawater from teh mediteranian began to flow into that lake. The pouring water quickly erode the ground and created the bosphorus passing. It might have gonna slowly at first, but they estimate that from that it took more or less 2 weeks to get from the old lake (1/2 size and 50 meters deeper) to get to the current sea. Now that's what I call a flood!

I dont like the term "knowledge" when it comes to Islam or indeed christianity. Certainly some historical information will be a real account of the time that the scriptures were actually written. However, the way that "knowledge" is extracted to me is very questionable:

Firstly, Oral documentation is totally unreliable (I am sure we all agree with this). Additionally, translation problems are an issue even today.

Now, finally. Would anyone deny that knowledge comes to be via the following method.

1. A scientific discovery is made.
2. the Koran & the thousands of hadiths are deeply scrutinised for any remote suggestion that matches the discovery. Where a part match or match occures, then either a miracle is proclaimed or a claim to advanced knowledge is decreed.

My problem with this is that in itself that works for anything from star trek to nostradamus to the Koran and the bible.

However, this is all going off topic. Since the point originally being made is that over the recent years "creation from clay" has lacked much evidence and still does whilst pamspermia and RNA molecules have progressed forward.

 

[Woodrow]

This thread is pointing out some of the difficulties in dialogue between Religious belief and scientific belief. It is similar to trying to establish communication between 2 different language groups.

Different language connontations do exist. Different criteria for proof do exist. There are differences in even the basic concepts as to what does constitue proof.

It is a very challanging task to establish mutualy aceeptable grounds of debate. Simple words have different connontations if used in a religious content or in a scientific content.

I strongly believe that Truth is truth and that what is true in one area is true in all areas. The problem is in trying to find the language that is understood in all areas.

I commend all who are participating in this thread. Nobdy has resorted to pure emotionalism nor showed any direspect to any other persons views.

Perhaps the final conclusion of this thread is it will end up as the only agreement being, we each have reasons for our beliefs and so far we have not seen any evidence that will change those beliefs. Frustrating yes, but acceptable? I believe it should be.