Moon Splitting

[Arikay]

Are you serious about not believing the moon landing?
You do know there are refutations to all of the arguments you posted, right?

 

[MorphRC]

Are you serious about not believing the moon landing?
You do know there are refutations to all of the arguments you posted, right?

Yes I am. Just look at the movie.

They can refute it all they like, A flag on a stick, waving in space, when their is no air in space is a little odd, dont you think?

 

[Arikay]

Oh my.

Check out this site, http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
allthough, if you really believe its all a conspiracy, then I guess that site is just part of the conspiracy, right?

The site addresses the flag, however, I will also comment. Your right, its a bit odd that a flag would be moving from wind in space, but not waving from another source. In a low friction environment, when the flag pole is twisted, what do you think will happen to the flag? As the site points out, if it was wind, it must be some sort of magical wind since it can wave a flag yet not move a piece of the dust on the ground.

Yes I am. Just look at the movie.

They can refute it all they like, A flag on a stick, waving in space, when their is no air in space is a little odd, dont you think?

 

[MorphRC]

Oh my.

Check out this site, http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
allthough, if you really believe its all a conspiracy, then I guess that site is just part of the conspiracy, right?

The site addresses the flag, however, I will also comment. Your right, its a bit odd that a flag would be moving from wind in space, but not waving from another source. In a low friction environment, when the flag pole is twisted, what do you think will happen to the flag? As the site points out, if it was wind, it must be some sort of magical wind since it can wave a flag yet not move a piece of the dust on the ground.

Ok Read the article. Interesting. Its just hearsay, just like my comments. I just find many things odd in the clip that dont go together with space. And even if they did land, what has that got to do with that Quran "prophecy"?

 

[Arikay]

Are you sure you read the article?

Most of the arguments that are presented for a hoax landing are very sad, and show a lack of basic knowledge in their field, such as physics or photography. Might I recomend you go back and read it again.

Nothing to do with prophecy, just amazed that someone believes it was a hoax, ive never met someone who seriously believed that.

Ok Read the article. Interesting. Its just hearsay, just like my comments. I just find many things odd in the clip that dont go together with space. And even if they did land, what has that got to do with that Quran "prophecy"?

 

[MorphRC]

I

Are you sure you read the article?

Most of the arguments that are presented for a hoax landing are very sad, and show a lack of basic knowledge in their field, such as physics or photography. Might I recomend you go back and read it again.

Nothing to do with prophecy, just amazed that someone believes it was a hoax, ive never met someone who seriously believed that.

I dont believe it was a hoax, or that it was true. I just see some contradicts of science in it. But I dont really care for it to be honest, its just a moon..

 

[Lyle]

Mo. Mentum-I'll pull out the document and start a new thread on it; because it really wouldn't belong here

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?

Yet you deny the prophets in alot of ways. Does not Islam believe that Prophets cannot majorly sin? The Bible seems to think the opposite. Even so it is with the Christ, you deny Him as the Son of God, though the scriptures vividly point to Him as such.

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

I'm not going to run double standards on you I understand your position on the moon splitting, besides i wasn't even thinking of that one...


Heather Dawn-

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

it would be the same as I. I enjoy to sit down a design houses, most all of the houses I design have some base on where they are the same (in some point or another) to really show my taste in design..... How much do you know about architecture?

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?

First, we have no fur. Second we have thought/logic/reason/conscience and all other things that no animal in the world possess; many thing that go far beyond what science in evolution would be able to master.

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

then tell me in your own words, how so?

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.

First I would like to ask, how do you think things evolved? Do not tell me mutations, because they tend to lean HARD on degeneration, not creation.
But it seems that evolution takes more faith to believe then that of creation... can you prove that the eye evolved? The answer is no, because all eyes tend to rot away (and are of the first) when the creatures dies. And if the eye is so simple, what about the rest of our body..
But I cannot resist to ask/say this. if evolution were true, it would also be true that not everything would evolve the same.... So monkeys would have evolved into about 100 different things (Oak trees have more then one branch).

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

Actually it proves nothing...

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.

The Atheist believes in no god, you believe in alot; There's not that different about you two. But tell me how to YOU ground YOUR beliefs? How can you know what the cosmos are telling you? For haven't they been saying different things to different people.... And on the grounds that humans evolved, what business (or concern) do the cosmos have with people?

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.

Sounds as though you fall into the same place as many others... All it shows is your lack of knowledge about what true Christianity is...... Tis' sad, you condemn Christians on the grounds of what you do not know...

 

[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.

I'm saying that havign a lack of evidence, and attempting to disprove something is weak.. In ordeer to disprove something, you must have somehting to prove it false

quote] 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.[/quote]
There is evidence on everything (or close to it).

 

[vajradhara]

I'm saying that havign a lack of evidence, and attempting to disprove something is weak.. In ordeer to disprove something, you must have somehting to prove it false

quote][/size][/color][/font] 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.

There is evidence on everything (or close to it).


[/QUOTE]
but i don't have any idea of what you are trying to commuinate... though i understand your words.

if i may sum up... you are saying that lack of evidence shouldn't be a reason to disbelieve something. i heartily disagree. i think you are further intimating that if someone asserts that something is true, even though there is no evidence, it is the duty of the person that doesn't agree to provide evidence to falsify the original assertion. i also disagree with this. what is there to refute?

if there is evidence that the moon split, provide it and we can consider it. as it stands, there is no evidence for this event having happened. as such, it is a matter of faith. as it is a matter of faith and not science, it cannot be "proven" and thus there is nothing to "refute".

now..i suppose that i should say that there is no evidence that i would accept, though there are Qur'anic statements to this effect, which serve as evidence for those so inclined.

 

[mo.mentum]

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.

In my post, I show that this verse is actually referring to an event in the future, not a miracle performed by Muhammad.

If it were a miracle, it wouldn't affect the planet since God rules over all and can make the Sun disappear if He wills and still have life on Earth, that's the point of a Miracle!

As for NASA on the moon, we can start talking about conspiracy theories if you want. The point is, the moon, in world consciousness, has been stepped on and a flag planted.

 

[Heathen Dawn]

it would be the same as I. I enjoy to sit down a design houses, most all of the houses I design have some base on where they are the same (in some point or another) to really show my taste in design..... How much do you know about architecture?

Oh, come on! Similarity to apes is the best design the designer could have thought of? I thought he was free to do anything. Wherever we look, we find design based upon previous design, never starting from scratch. That&#8217;s what evolution is about. The vertebrate retina, wired backwards towards the blind spot, is a prime example of dumb design. Have a load of them here:

http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

First, we have no fur.

So we lost the fur. That makes us 180 degrees different from apes? There&#8217;s a cat with no fur, the sphynx cat, yet it&#8217;s not different otherwise from furred cats.

Second we have thought/logic/reason/conscience and all other things that no animal in the world possess

Dolphins come close to us in their intelligence. It all depends on which path evolution took.

First I would like to ask, how do you think things evolved? Do not tell me mutations, because they tend to lean HARD on degeneration, not creation.

I will tell you mutations. Some are harmful, some are neutral, some are beneficial, and those that are beneficial get naturally selected, and that&#8217;s how populations of organisms evolve.

But it seems that evolution takes more faith to believe then that of creation...

It takes no faith at all. We can see evolution happen before our eyes. You&#8217;ll say microevolution, of course. But macroevolution is just microevolution over long ages, and we have the fossil record to prove it. See also:

29 Evidences for Macroevolution

can you prove that the eye evolved?

No fossils, but we have eyes in different degrees of evolution in different living organisms. From organisms with only a light-sensitive cell, through organisms with an eye without a lens, to organisms with eyes like ours.

Actually it proves nothing...

It does. The various creationists can &#8217;t agree which fossil to put in the ape category and which fossil to put in the human category. If there were a clear-cut difference between apes and men, with no evolutionary transitionals, the creationists would not encounter such difficulty.

The Atheist believes in no god, you believe in alot; There's not that different about you two.

And you believe in just one. What&#8217;s your point? Believing in one God or more makes one not an atheist.

But tell me how to YOU ground YOUR beliefs? How can you know what the cosmos are telling you? For haven't they been saying different things to different people....

Correct, and that&#8217;s the beauty of it: there is not one way, but many ways; not one God, but many Gods. The universe is too complex and multi-faceted for there to be only one God.

 

[mo.mentum]

There's quite enough Evolution threads..can we not pollute this one please? MODERATOR??

 

[mo.mentum]

Oh, come on!

You're wrong In what? Everything! Now go to the proper thread for this debate!

 

[MorphRC]

In my post, I show that this verse is actually referring to an event in the future, not a miracle performed by Muhammad.

If it were a miracle, it wouldn't affect the planet since God rules over all and can make the Sun disappear if He wills and still have life on Earth, that's the point of a Miracle!

As for NASA on the moon, we can start talking about conspiracy theories if you want. The point is, the moon, in world consciousness, has been stepped on and a flag planted.

God doesnt contradict natural law.

 

[mo.mentum]

God doesnt contradict natural law.

No. It's the other way around. Natural laws don't contradict God. God is free to do what He Wills. He can suspend the Laws which He created in the first place in order to allow for a special event.

Natural Law IS Divine Law, and only the All-Wise Judge can tamper with them.

 

[MorphRC]

No. It's the other way around. Natural laws don't contradict God. God is free to do what He Wills. He can suspend the Laws which He created in the first place in order to allow for a special event.

Natural Law IS Divine Law, and only the All-Wise Judge can tamper with them.

How can it be the other way around?

Espcially since GOD CREATED NATURAL LAW!...

 

[mo.mentum]

Well ya..thats exactly what I'm saying.

You're saying God doesn't contradict Natural Laws. I'm saying, Natural Laws can't contradict God. God can negate or contradict anything He wants. He can suspend gravity if He wanted to, but gravity can never suspend itself in defiance or contradiction to God.

 

[FutureTeller]

In the Holy Quran, God speaks about the stages of man’s embryonic development:

{We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed-like substance)... 1 (Quran, 23:12-14)}

Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings: (1) leech, (2) suspended thing, and (3) blood clot.

In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity between the two2 as we can see in figure 1. Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others.

Figure1: Drawings illustrating the similarities in appearance between a leech and a human embryo at the alaqah stage. (Leech drawing from Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, p. 37, modified from Integrated Principles of Zoology, Hickman and others. Embryo drawing from The Developing. Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 73.)


The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.” This is what we can see in figures 2 and 3 , the suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother.

Figure 2: In this photomicrograph, we can see the suspension of an embryo (marked B) during the alaqah stage (about 15 days old) in the womb of the mother. The actual size of the embryo is about 0.6 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore, 3rd ed., p. 66, from Histology, Leeson and Leeson.)

The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage4 (see figure 4). Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week.5 Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.

So the three meanings of the word alaqah correspond accurately to the descriptions of the embryo at the alaqah stage.

The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed-like substance.” If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the appearance of a chewed-like substance. This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.”6 (see figures 5 and 6).

Figure 5: Photograph of an embryo at the mudghah stage (28 days old). The embryo at this stage acquires the appearance of a chewed-like substance, because the somites at the back of the embryo somewhat resemble teeth marks in a chewed substance. The actual size of the embryo is 4 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 82, from Professor Hideo Nishimura, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.)



www.islam-guide.com

 

[FutureTeller]

Q. How could Muhammad have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time? Hamm and Leeuwenhoek were the first scientists to observe human sperm cells (spermatozoa) using an improved microscope in 1677 (more than 1000 years after Muhammad). They mistakenly thought that the sperm cell contained a miniature-preformed human being that grew when it was deposited in the female genital tract.

A. Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore is one of the world’s most prominent scientists in the fields of anatomy and embryology and is the author of the book entitled The Developing Human, which has been translated into eight languages. This book is a scientific reference work and was chosen by a special committee in the United States as the best book authored by one person. Dr. Keith Moore is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Moore said, “It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Quran about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God.

”Consequently, Professor Moore was asked the following question, “Does this mean that you believe that the Quran is the word of God?” He replied, “I find no difficulty in accepting this.”10

During one conference, Professor Moore stated, “.... Because the staging of human embryos is complex, owing to the continuous process of change during development, it is proposed that a new system of classification could be developed using the terms mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah (what Muhammad said, did, or approved of).

The proposed system is simple, comprehensive, and conforms with present embryological knowledge. The intensive studies of the Quran and hadeeth (reliably transmitted reports by the Prophet Muhammad’s companions of what he said, did, or approved of) in the last four years have revealed a system for classifying human embryos that is amazing since it was recorded in the seventh century A.D. Although Aristotle, the founder of the science of embryology, realized that chick embryos developed in stages from his studies of hen’s eggs in the fourth century B.C., he did not give any details about these stages.

As far as it is known from the history of embryology, little was known about the staging and classification of human embryos until the twentieth century. For this reason, the descriptions of the human embryo in the Quran cannot be based on scientific embryo in the Quran cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century.

The only reasonable conclusion is: these descriptions were revealed to Muhammad from God. He could not have known such details because he was an illiterate man with absolutely no scientific training.”

www.islam-guide.com

 

[Heathen Dawn]

Hey FutureTeller: get a load of this:

Qur&#8217;anic Embryology