Program of Creation of Man on Earth, in light of Quran.

[Hassan A]

This common ancestor - what do you/science think it looked like?

As Br. Hamzeh has already alluded to, the common ancestry could be anything from sounding clay (Arabic: salsalin) from black mud (Arabic: ham-in) altered.

With respect to the verses you cited me, please bear in mind that I have never stated that God cannot do things (anything) instantly; indeed He can. My argument was simply that what may have occurred at an instant with/to God may, not have come about so instantly to us. So, I was calling you out on your usage of the phrase Be and it is as example of the instant creation of the universe.
By the way, 2:259 actually supports my argument that God is outside the bounds of time and space.
Furthermore, no-where in those verses you cited suggest that those things which occurred, occurred in an instant; nor that they occurred over a long period of time. Those verses are mute as to the process and length said acts had to undergo.

With respect to the scientific evidence I was referring to in earlier post, I am going to need to ask you to bear patient with me and I shall cite you ample evidence.

[samson]

With respect to the verses you cited me, please bear in mind that I have never stated that God cannot do things (anything) instantly; indeed He can.

I accept that you never denied that God can't do things in instant. I was simply responding to the below.

Also in other verses of the Quran it says God brings the dead back to life in moments or cures those who are ill/blind instantly.

Would you be so kind as to cite the verses which suggest that those acts occur in an instant?

As Br. Hamzeh has already alluded to, the common ancestry could be anything from sounding clay (Arabic: salsalin) from black mud (Arabic: ham-in) altered.

The above is very vague.

My argument was simply that what may have occurred at an instant with/to God may, not have come about so instantly to us. So, I was calling you out on your usage of the phrase Be and it is as example of the instant creation of the universe.

As I said earlier, I believe "six" days is of significance and the fact that there is no further confirmation that those days are thousands or tens of thousands of years or more. It's "six" days because it confirms Genesis in the Bible and something we can relate to in terms of a week.

Science is already shaky on Big Bang theory, just a matter of time before it's thrown in the bin.

With respect to the scientific evidence I was referring to in earlier post, I am going to need to ask you to bear patient with me and I shall cite you ample evidence.

Just one or 2 evidences will do for now as if too many is listed it's hard to take it all in and respond to them.

Thanks

[Hassan A]

As I said earlier, I believe "six" days is of significance and the fact that there is no further confirmation that those days are thousands or tens of thousands of years or more.

But again, on what grounds can you assert that the word ayyamin (as in 6 ayyamin) automatically means six(6) human days? I am of the opinion that the word ayyamin (as in 6 ayyamin) means six periods or epochs, and not six human days; but if you say otherwise, then the burden is on you to prove said assertion from the Quran.
So when the Quran says that Allah created the universe in six days, that would mean six days with Allah, but for us it would be mean six periods or epochs.

Just one or 2 evidences will do for now as if too many is listed it's hard to take it all in and respond to them.

I will bear that in mind.

[Hassan A]

Salaam samson,

Off topic question: Do you know anything about the OT and the NT?

[samson]

Salaam samson,

Off topic question: Do you know anything about the OT and the NT?

Yes i've read them.

[Wakas]

With regard to 2:73 I strongly recommend point 13 here:
http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part1

And as for 2:260:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15458.0

[samson]

With regard to 2:73 I strongly recommend point 13 here:
http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part1

And as for 2:260:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=15458.0

Both interpretations are weak and bizarre in my opinion. Thankfully they're not common.

[hicham9]

Six Millennia (22:47)
for the heavens, the earth, and that which lies in-between.

[hicham9]

With that said, I would like to ask why you (and hicham9) insist on throwing-out the window ever (science related) issue which the Quran either fails to speak on (or is silent on)?

The messenger of ALLH, the Qurān, does not "fail" at conveying the Truth, andor accurately describing Reality !!! Heliocentricity, the big bang, (macro)evolution, dinosaurs, and the rest of BUNK (that you & the Maj. adhere to) belong to PSEUDO-science.

Wakey wakey :\/

[Hassan A]

The messenger of ALLH, the Qurān, does not "fail" at conveying the Truth

Ok, considering I have never mad such statement, so...
The fact that I was trying to convey, which you'll have a hard time disputing, is the fact that the Quran does not (nor was it intended) to touch on every subject under the sun. The Quran is neither a book of history nor of science; it is book of guidance. Its subject matter is not to record or present history of humanity or of a certain people. The purpose of its revelation is also not to teach people science of the things that they can explore and learn on their own through observation, experimentation, and trial/error. Its subject matter is guidance – teaching human being how to live in this world so that they have the most optimum personality (individually) and the most optimum society (collectively) in this world and so that they will be successful in the Hereafter.
One should not foolishly dismiss an issue simply because the Quran is silent on said issue.

Heliocentricity, the big bang, (macro)evolution, dinosaurs, and the rest of BUNK (that you & the Maj. adhere to) belong to PSEUDO-science.

You're more than welcome to hold to your diluted beliefs (as am I), but, with all due respect, don't expect me to squander my time debating someone who (as evident in a previous debate) presents "evidence" (manly pictures) when it suites his interest but dismisses the evidence/pictures others present.

[hicham9]

The messenger of ALLH, the Qurān, does not "fail" at conveying the Truth

Ok, considering I have never mad such statement, so...
The fact that I was trying to convey, which you'll have a hard time disputing, is the fact that the Quran does not (nor was it intended) to touch on every subject under the sun. The Quran is neither a book of history nor of science; it is book of guidance. Its subject matter is not to record or present history of humanity or of a certain people. The purpose of its revelation is also not to teach people science of the things that they can explore and learn on their own through observation, experimentation, and trial/error. Its subject matter is guidance – teaching human being how to live in this world so that they have the most optimum personality (individually) and the most optimum society (collectively) in this world and so that they will be successful in the Hereafter. One should not foolishly dismiss an issue simply because the Quran is silent on said issue.

Why did you cut out the part about the Qurān accurately describing reality ?!?

Heliocentricity, the big bang, (macro)evolution, dinosaurs, and the rest of BUNK (that you & the Maj. adhere to) belong to PSEUDO-science.

You're more than welcome to hold to your diluted beliefs (as am I), but, with all due respect, don't expect me to squander my time debating someone who (as evident in a previous debate) presents "evidence" (manly pictures) when it suites his interest but dismisses the evidence/pictures others present.

Actually, beside Q88:20, i also presented you with a clear and stable, RAW footage (with a rectilinear lens) showing the FLAT earth from a high-altitude of 120,000 ft, along with a scientific paper by the Optical Society of America, testifying that the required elevation for detecting earth's alleged curvature is somewhat between 14,000 and 35,000 ft high !

You couldn't even address this one single argument :/

[Hassan A]

Why did you delete the part about the Qurān accurately describing reality ?!?

Ok. Apologies, I guess? Nonetheless, my (previous) argument still stands.

Actually, i also presented you with a clear and stable, RAW footage (with a rectilinear lens) showing the FLAT earth from a high-altitude of 120,000 ft, along with a scientific paper by the Optical Society of America,

I am not here to re-engage you regarding the shape of the earth and its position in our solar-system. But I will say this: for every "evidence" you presented, I (and others) have presented evidence of our own yet you fail deaf to them by either failing to address them nor acknowledged that they were legitimate proof; rather you invoked a conspiratorial argument and dismissed them as part of the Freemasons.

With respect to 88:20, go back and re-read my explanation of it in our previous "debate", because I find it unfit to waste my time regurgitating that argument I made.

You couldn't even address this one single argument

Go back and visit that debate t and you know that I ( and others) have done the best we could to address those arguments you presented. Furthermore, you're being dishonest in suggesting I/we were the only once failing to address the arguments you presented. If, again, you go back and revisit that "debate" we had, you will realize that you, as well, shrunk from addressing some of the arguments/evidence we presented.

[hicham9]

Why did you delete the part about the Qurān accurately describing reality ?!?

Nonetheless, my (previous) argument still stands.

Nop.

I am not here to re-engage you regarding the earth being flat. But I will say this: for every "evidence" you presented, I (and others) have presented evidence of our own yet you either failed to address them nor acknowledged that they were legitimate proof; rather you invoked a conspiratorial argument and dismissed them as part of the Freemasons.

Go back and visit that debate t and you know that I ( and others) have done the best we could to address those arguments you presented. Furthermore, you're being dishonest in suggesting I/we were the only once failing to address the arguments you presented. If, again, you go back and revisit that "debate" we had, you will realize that you, as well, shrunk from addressing some of the arguments/evidence we presented.

You still can't refute this one single argument !
Nor this one, for that matter.

Plz don't waste my time.

[Hassan A]

You still can't refute this one single argument

Sure. Whatever helps you sleeper easier at night, sr.

"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." -L e o n  F e s t i n g e.

Plz don't waste my time

I ask the same of you.

[hicham9]

Parroting "Festinge" doesn't refute the arguments at hand, body !