Moon Splitting

[Heathen Dawn]

Can you prove this;

The evidence from fossils and DNA traces our ancestry to ape-like creatures, most closely related to chimpanzees, and not to one male and one female Homo sapiens; for more info see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

maybe try and explain away the laws of morality....... You'll have a whole bunch of fun at that

What’s that got to do with anything?

 

[Lyle]

What’s that got to do with anything?

It's scienctist biggest falter point in the whole theory of evolution. because if we evoulved, there would be no right or worng; Or laws of moality for that matter. there would be no reason to feel bad, or really feel anything about anything. There would be no complex emotional system.....

The evidence from fossils and DNA traces our ancestry to ape-like creatures, most closely related to chimpanzees, and not to one male and one female Homo sapiens; for more info see:

yet the missing link is still.... missing. men have yet to find any evidence that shows we came from monkeys (also through DNA; It shows strong suggestions that we are closer related to the chicken and the garden bean). Might I add that even Darwin himself thought it "highly unlikely that man could evolve from an anaimal."
There's problems too with the theory that Hubble tried to prove with a Big bang; About everything moving away form the earth. But isn't it true, everyhting in the universe is in motion?

 

[Heathen Dawn]

It's scienctist biggest falter point in the whole theory of evolution. because if we evoulved, there would be no right or worng; Or laws of moality for that matter. there would be no reason to feel bad, or really feel anything about anything. There would be no complex emotional system.....

What you’re committing is the pragmatic fallacy: you want things to be so for a pragmatic reason, therefore you think they are so. Now, I don’t think evolution means there is no right or wrong; but even if it does, that doesn’t make it any the less true. Evolution is what the evidence says, therefore it is true.

yet the missing link is still.... missing.

Yes indeed. So much so that various creationist apologists can’t decide which fossil to assign to ape and which to human. See here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

men have yet to find any evidence that shows we came from monkeys (also through DNA; It shows strong suggestions that we are closer related to the chicken and the garden bean).

We share 99% of our DNA with chimps. How more evidence could you ask for?

Might I add that even Darwin himself thought it "highly unlikely that man could evolve from an anaimal."

Reference please. Creationists have a habit of quote-mining.

There's problems too with the theory that Hubble tried to prove with a Big bang; About everything moving away form the earth. But isn't it true, everyhting in the universe is in motion?

Hubble’s theory doesn’t say everything is moving away from the earth; it says the universe is expanding, period. To say Hubble theorised that the earth is the centre of the universe is to erect a strawman.

 

[Lyle]

We share 99% of our DNA with chimps. How more evidence could you ask for?

So in just one percent of DNA, can make almost 180 degrees different from them?

Hubble’s theory doesn’t say everything is moving away from the earth; it says the universe is expanding, period. To say Hubble theorised that the earth is the centre of the universe is to erect a strawman.

Haha, i never said he said the earth was at the center of the universe, did I? You're making implications of what was not said.

Reference please. Creationists have a habit of quote-mining.

Seems you have aproblem with quotes yourself..... But

To suppose that the eye.. could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exsisted, which could not have possibly been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifcations, my theory would absolutely break down.

Those are two that I was thinking of.... Originally I was not quoting them word for word, but for their meaning.... Which is implied.

Yes indeed. So much so that various creationist apologists can’t decide which fossil to assign to ape and which to human. See here:

Forgive me, but what does that prove?

What you’re committing is the pragmatic fallacy: you want things to be so for a pragmatic reason, therefore you think they are so.

Know they are so; And any rational human can see them as so as will. How is it a practical fallacy in any way?

Now, I don’t think evolution means there is no right or wrong; but even if it does, that doesn’t make it any the less true. Evolution is what the evidence says, therefore it is true.

me thinks you need to study the line of where truth originates. You'll trace it back a god of some kind. Because it's by the power of a higher being (God) that dtermines right or worng. And if the world has evolved to what it is, and there is no god; Therefore there is not right or wrong, and no truth at all. but looking deeper then truth as factiaul..... But rather more along the lines of morality.
we would be as the animals that see no right or wrong. But praytell, can you disprove that truth coems from a god? Let's let you use science for that.

 

[mo.mentum]

If the Qur’an is true, why doesn’t it mention evolution? Why does it mention Aadam (Adam) and Haawah (Eve), who never really existed?

Well maybe Evolution is at fault? Check out my long debates in the Science section about Evolution and how it's not proven. Muslims are Creationists, but not with the Genesis account.

And who's to say Adam and Eve never existed? They've foudn that the genetic information of all mankind can be narrowed down to about 12 Eves, a few more years and they will retrace it to one Eve.

 

[mo.mentum]

Mo. mentum: Not to disregard the scholars and such; But how about we put them aside for a minute.. Let the Qu' ran speak for itself. Though this is not the only error (if one at all in the Qu' ran), I have seen bigger ones that would be more profitable to point out.. Many that collapse islam on itself...

Oh I beg you...go ahead...show me!

Our faith doesn't rest on whether the moon was split or not. We still don't understand all of God's miracles that He's done through many prophets before Muhammad, why should this be any different? The star of Betlehem wasn't witnessed by that many poeple, yet you guys base an entire belief on it too. So please no double standards

IF we are to rely SOLELY on the Qur'an, then it goes to show that it is a sign of the End Times. And this has been fulfilled since the Arabic word used for splitting, also means to put a hole in the ground as though planting something in it. Kinda like astronoauts planting a flag. So in this regard, IT HAS BEEN FULFILLED.

I invite you to read the Surah 54 in question, the Moon: http://oregonstate.edu/groups/msa/quran/quran/54.html

 

[mo.mentum]

The evidence from fossils and DNA traces our ancestry to ape-like creatures, most closely related to chimpanzees, and not to one male and one female Homo sapiens; for more info see:

I can show you just as much proof for otherwise.

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/index.php
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

 

[Heathen Dawn]

So in just one percent of DNA, can make almost 180 degrees different from them?

We’re 180 degrees different from chimpanzees? How did you get to that? Just because we’ve got a bigger brain than them, that makes us 180 degrees different?

Haha, i never said he said the earth was at the center of the universe, did I? You're making implications of what was not said.

Hubble didn’t theorise everything was getting away from the earth either; all he theorised was that the universe is expanding.

Seems you have aproblem with quotes yourself..... But

To suppose that the eye.. could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree

And he subsequently outlines a model of how the eye did evolve by natural selection: from a simple light-sensitive cell, in successive stages, to the complex system we have today. And that’s just what we find. We find creatures that have just a light-sensitive cell; creatures that have an eye without a lense; and finally, creatures like us, with an eye with a lens. All through cumulative steps, bit by bit.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exsisted, which could not have possibly been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifcations, my theory would absolutely break down.

Well? Has such an organ been found? None, notwithstanding Michael Behe’s pontifications to the contrary.

Forgive me, but what does that prove?

It proves that the various fossils are indeed intermediates between ape and man.

me thinks you need to study the line of where truth originates. You'll trace it back a god of some kind. Because it's by the power of a higher being (God) that dtermines right or worng. And if the world has evolved to what it is, and there is no god; Therefore there is not right or wrong, and no truth at all. but looking deeper then truth as factiaul..... But rather more along the lines of morality.
we would be as the animals that see no right or wrong. But praytell, can you disprove that truth coems from a god? Let's let you use science for that.

First of all, I’m not an atheist, I’m a pantheist and pagan. As for the truth, it is found in the cosmos; it doesn’t need any external source. And as for morality, give me moral realism any day, instead of the perverted Christian scheme that says that the majority of mankind being consigned to eternal torture is perfect justice.

 

[mo.mentum]

We share 99% of our DNA with chimps. How more evidence could you ask for?

That can just mean that we were designed by the same architect, with the same rules and laws. Tell me how Evolution gave you finger prints, how Evolution gave you emotions and love and sympathy and mercy. Tell me how Evolution colored your eyes.

Tell me how Evolution makes EVERY SINGLE creature unique, even within a species. No two humans are alike in ANY way.

 

[Heathen Dawn]

Well maybe Evolution is at fault?

No, evolution is not at fault. Evolution is fact and theory; creationism is neither. The evidence screams evolution.

And who's to say Adam and Eve never existed?

The hominid fossils that trace our ancestry to ape-like ancestors.

I can show you just as much proof for otherwise.

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/index.php
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

Load of creationist quote-mining crapola.

That can just mean that we were designed by the same architect, with the same rules and laws.

Care to tell why the architect made us so similar to apes? So similar that we even have the same nonfunctional genes?

Tell me how Evolution gave you finger prints, how Evolution gave you emotions and love and sympathy and mercy. Tell me how Evolution colored your eyes.

Take an intro book to genetics.

Tell me how Evolution makes EVERY SINGLE creature unique, even within a species. No two humans are alike in ANY way.

Is evolution supposed to have every creature exactly the same? Goddess, this is the most blatant strawman of evolution I’ve ever heard!

 

[mo.mentum]

No, evolution is not at fault. Evolution is fact and theory; creationism is neither. The evidence screams evolution.

Something cannot be fact and theory at the same time. It's still a theory for a reason.

The hominid fossils that trace our ancestry to ape-like ancestors.

There have been hundreds of ape ike creatures that wnet extinct..all evolutionists had to do was organize them in the order of skull size and voila! You got evolution.

Load of creationist quote-mining crapola.

Oh ok..so ur not gonna even go see the informaiton..here's ur 99% DNA myth of Ape and Men, dissovled: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/article_99.html

Care to tell why the architect made us so similar to apes? So similar that we even have the same nonfunctional genes?

We don't have the knowlewdge yet, but as humans, our knowledge always increases.

Is evolution supposed to have every creature exactly the same? Goddess, this is the most blatant strawman of evolution I’ve ever heard!

No stupid. That's the point, if evolution really existed, then we'd all still be microbes cuz thats them ost efficient life form. The fact that there is so much variety and art in the variety tells you otherwise. Just read what i have to show you instead of blidnly denying it. I do the effort to read on up on evolution, you do the same.

 

[Heathen Dawn]

Something cannot be fact and theory at the same time. It's still a theory for a reason.

There’s the fact of gravity and a Theory of Gravity that explains the fact; similarly there’s the fact of evolution, and the Theory of Evolution (currently, the neo-Darwinian one) that explains the fact. It is a fact that organisms evolve; the Theory of Evolution explains that natural selection acting on random mutations is behind that evolution.

There have been hundreds of ape ike creatures that wnet extinct..all evolutionists had to do was organize them in the order of skull size and voila! You got evolution.

But note that each ape-like creature, in succession of time, shows greater and greater anatomical similarity to the modern human. Now why do you think that is?

here's ur 99% DNA myth of Ape and Men, dissovled: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/article_99.html

I can’t verify or falsify it yet; even so, the similarity of chimps and humans is striking. Why did the All-Wise Creator do it that way?

We don't have the knowlewdge yet, but as humans, our knowledge always increases.

We do have the knowledge, right now: the similarity, to varying degrees, of living organisms, is the result of evolving from a common ancestor.

No stupid. That's the point, if evolution really existed, then we'd all still be microbes cuz thats them ost efficient life form. The fact that there is so much variety and art in the variety tells you otherwise.

ROFLMAO! If I’m not mistaken, this is the old “no new information” canard, and it’s been refuted a zillion times. Here’s a hint:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

I do the effort to read on up on evolution, you do the same.

You get your info on evolution from creationist sources, which write everything from the preconceived position that evolution is false.

 

[IronEagle]

You get your info on evolution from creationist sources, which write everything from the preconceived position that evolution is false.

If you get the info from creationist sources you will get creationist point of view, if you get the info from evolutionist you will get evolutionist point of view. Depending on which one you read first you may make up your mind for that. Properly analyzing both without any preferences might help.

However, if you look at the both argument through facts than you will see the Darwin’s theory of evolution has not been proven, but it has been revised again and again to satisfy the new discoveries unlike theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.

Second, why only the Apes evolved to an intelligent animal? According to the random probability concept at least few other animals should have evolved with them to the human intelligence levels.

Third, there is no fossil record to support the claim of macro evolution. Otherwise, we would have found at least one record by now.

Forth, 2(nd) law of thermo dynamics doesn’t support the development of a cell from non-living materials, even the survival of the first cell would be at risk without its survival and reproductive mechanisms. In other words, its survival and reproductive system must develop together if the first living cell has to carry on.

Fifth, we haven’t been able to create a living cell on it’s own in laboratories.

 

[Heathen Dawn]

If you get the info from creationist sources you will get creationist point of view, if you get the info from evolutionist you will get evolutionist point of view.

That’s right, but you have to consider what each view is based upon: evolution is based on going where the evidence leads, whereas creationism starts with a preconceived theory and finds facts to support it. In evolution, as science should be, facts are first and theories follow; in creationism, as in all pseudoscience, the theory comes first and the facts follow.

However, if you look at the both argument through facts than you will see the Darwin’s theory of evolution has not been proven, but it has been revised again and again to satisfy the new discoveries unlike theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.

Proven? Only in mathematics are things proven. But in science, when one calls something a theory, it means it’s well-established, it means it’s passed numerous tests. To call something a theory in science is akin to calling a swimmer a gold-medal winner.

Second, why only the Apes evolved to an intelligent animal? According to the random probability concept at least few other animals should have evolved with them to the human intelligence levels.

We don’t know why and I don’t think we could ever know. There’s no “why” in evolution; evolution has no purpose or plan.

Third, there is no fossil record to support the claim of macro evolution. Otherwise, we would have found at least one record by now.

False. See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Forth, 2(nd) law of thermo dynamics doesn’t support the development of a cell from non-living materials, even the survival of the first cell would be at risk without its survival and reproductive mechanisms. In other words, its survival and reproductive system must develop together if the first living cell has to carry on.

False again. See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

Earth round is fact. Earth round the Sun is fact. Evolution is fact. Accept it.

 

[Arikay]

1) Heathen is right, many creationist groups like AIG make their scientists sign and agreement that basically says that no matter what the evidence AIG is correct. Not very honest IMHO. Real science on the other hand does not claim to be infallible, and thus looks at all the evidence, if new evidence presents itself that doesn't work with the current theory, its revised or falsified and a new theory takes its place. This is what happend to creationism 150 years ago.

2) the 2LoT argument is funny, you do realize that if the 2LoT prevented abiogenesis (not even part of the theory of evolution mind you), it would also prevent things like the formation of snowflakes.

3) Still a theory for a reason. Yep and I bet you have refused antibiotics or other modern medicine because germ theory is "still a theory"

4) Inteligence, there are still some mysteries with how things evolved, however, we are not the only inteligent animal on the planet, or even the only self aware animal on the planet. We are just the most inteligent because thats how we adapted. Evidence points to the neanderthals being almost as inteligent as our ancient ancestors, we just survived and they didn't.

 

[mo.mentum]

Evolution doesn't disprove Creation anyway.

 

[Arikay]

Your Right.

Evolution does not disprove the theology of creation, matter of fact, they can walk hand in hand together.

However, evidence does disprove creationism, a scientific theory that says how god created. The evidence also supports evolution, a scientific theory that says how god created.

 

[vajradhara]

That is nothing more then a REALLY weak arguement......

Namaste Lyle,

you're saying that the lack of evidence is a weak argument for the event not being true? i can only imagine why you may have that point of view, though it's not one that most people would share.

if there is no evidence, what more could one say about it? what is there to refute? what is there to even discuss? no evidence means no evidence... it's that simple.

now.. of course, we can take it as a matter of faith and then no evidence is required at all. in that case, i wouldn't argue with it in the least. if you want to believe that the moon was split for a few moments, that is up to you, however there is no evidence that this has ever happened.

it's a matter of faith

 

[mo.mentum]

Your Right.

Evolution does not disprove the theology of creation, matter of fact, they can walk hand in hand together.

However, evidence does disprove creationism, a scientific theory that says how god created. The evidence also supports evolution, a scientific theory that says how god created.

Well by Creationist, i suppose you mean the Biblical Genesis account? Not the Qur'anic account of Creation.

 

[MorphRC]

The wonders of the Qur'an never finishes.

Allah said in the Qur'an [41:53] :
'We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their ownselves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur'an) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things?'.


Here's another miracle mentioned in the Holy Quran fourteen centuries ago...

(Split of the moon)

[54:1] 'The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has been cleft asunder (the people of Makkah requested Prophet Muhammad SAW to show them a miracle, so he showed them the splitting of the moon)'.


cleft = divided, split.
asunder = into two or more parts, into pieces.


The miracle existed only at that time for the people of Quraiesh when they challenged the prophet Muhammmad (SAW) to show them a miracle, or a proof that he is the messenger of Allah. The challenge was to split the moon in to two pieces when it is full.




The amazing and wonderful phenomenon of the splitting of the Moon when it was full was a manifest sign of the truth that the Resurrection, of which the Holy Prophet was giving them the news, could take place and that it had approached near at hand. The great sphere of the Moon had split into two distinct parts in front of their very eyes.


Then in an instant the two had rejoined. This was a manifest proof of the truth that the system of the Universe was neither eternal nor immortal it could be disrupted.


Itis widely known BBC showed a program where there was a debate between three experts.
The discussion was about if the amount of money paid by NASA to send a human to land on the surface of the moon to study the inner structure of the moon was worth it or not?? The American government authorised a budget of $100, 000, 000, 000 (one hundred thousand million dollar) for this project.

One of the discoveries of that project was that there is a layer of material that splits the moon into two halves and the only explanation to this discovery that the moon was split at some times in its history and rejoined !!!!!!!!!!!!!


Do you need more scientific proofs?!?!

Pax Christi.

If the moon was split, the gravity and tides would be warped permantly, and we'd be in deep trouble. So why would God allow Muhammad to endanger the whole World with this stunt?

Also. You mention the US landing on the moon. I dont think so. There are so many contradictions on the film.

- The flag is waving from side to side and slightly up and down. Is their breeze in space?
- There was no blast creator when the ship lifted up.
- In one scene their are 3 different shadow directions. Are there 3 suns?
- When you speed the film down, the men are walking with slight jumps and drags.
- In one scene, there is a sun reflection in one of the astronaunts Viser, but there is a shadow, coming from the back of him. IE:

->>> o{Viser} >>> Shadow.
But: <<<<< Shadow that way to.

Sorry to burst ur bubble but neither of these things happened and also, if Muhammad split the moon, Wed be a very unstable planet ecologically.