AlBaqir:

If you check the page of your history well, you will find out that Ibn Hisham and Ibn Sa'd were first Islamic historian. al-Bukhari, who was not an historian per se but a Muhadith (collector of hadith), came later. So I wonder what was Bukhari's inference with Historical record and calculation.

There are lots of Historical references in Sahih al-Bukhari that are mathematically wrong.

Ibn Hisham (d. 212AH)
Ibn Sa'd (Birth 168AH - d. 230AH)

Al-Bukhari (birth 194AH - d. 256AH)

Interestingly ALL of them were SUNNI not SHIA.

Ibn Hisham in his ancient "Sirat Rasul" and Ibn Sa'd in his "Tabaqat al-kubra", maintained the age of Aisha mathematically to be 18 in 2nd Hijra. Later Historian like Tabari, Baladhuri, Ibn Athir et al also maintained the same.

Bukhari in his collection of hadith, Jami Sahih claimed it to be 6. Apart from his book Sahih, Bukhari too wrote another Historical book which does not politically into limelight as Jami sahih. Unfortunately, there are lots of contradictory reports between the two books of the same author.

Here's a modern superweight Salafi Scholar's opinion about Sahih al-Bukhari:
'Allamah al-Albani writes:

"But, whoever is in doubt concerning the verdicts I have given concerning some hadith (in Sahih al-Bukhari), let him refer to Fath al-Bari, and he will find there lots and lots of things (in Sahih al-Bukhari) which have been criticized by al-Hafiz Ahmad b. Hajar al-Asqalani, who is rightly named the Amir al-Muminin in Hadith, and whom I believe - and I suppose that anyone who has this knowledge (i.e science of hadith) would agree with me - that no woman has ever given birth to anyone like him after him."

~Abu 'Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudi al-Albani, FATAWA (cairo: Maktabah al-Turath al-Islami; 1st edition, 1414H), p. 525.

PLS for the sake of whatever you believe in STOP mentioning Albaqir. You can simply write your cabbage and we shall respond in sha Allah.

Okay, can you give us Ibn Hisham and Ibn Sa'd account of Aisha age?

golpen:

it is the same historical answer you have gotten times and time again

And which historical answer will that be?

golpen:

then lts start to ask reasonable xtians who have their own culture and lineage why they decide to name their children jewish and english names?

You stated that Muslims are separate from Arabian culture but just confirmed by turning 360 degrees and mentioning similarities between Christians and the teachings in the Bible. There is no denial that a fair amount of Christians use Biblical names. That is because Christian teachings influence Christians. However, Christians don't dress like 1st century Jews or Christians. Christians don't wear sandals to cross the desert because early Isrealites did it - they use plans and cars .

vedaxcool:

How a reasonable and sensible christian reacted on reading the post;

Bros, can't you answer a simple question. How old was Aisha when Mohammad married her and slept with her?

AbdH:

Please, can you and Macof start another thread on this? Let us not derail any further, I don't like my posts being hidden.

I didn't intend to derail, I was responding to your statement. It's hard to be a Muslim and not identify with Arab culture - that was my point

AlBaqir:

Its like you are a Yoruba man but slave of the western world just like your ancestors (no offense but reality).

You speak and write English! Na your Yoruba father language be that? Language slavery!

You wear T-shirt and trousers; covered shoe and trainers with socks! Na your father code of dressing be that? Clothing slavery!

Ancient Yoruba used to build their homes with clay soil and paint it with bull-shit (igbe maalu called eboto)! Why did you changed bro?

It is interesting in the Yoruba myth that Oduduwa, Yoruba Adam, migrated from Mecca, an Arab-land, to ile-ife

I can go on and on. Your slavery knows no bound. Just as your ancestors were made slave, you are also into modern slavery.

Islam is a universal religion though started in Arabia. Looking at the structure of the Quran, the golden book talks in a general terms to accommodate mankind of all ages and all nations. The sayings of the prophet of Islam is also the same except in few occasions where he was specific about the Arabs. He had companions from all races - African, Persian, Asian etc. Islam has its own code of conduct while the Arabs has there though people mix it together.

Kindly be a gentleman and stop derailing this thread.

If we use this logic, we can say if you 'AlBaqir' drive a car, use a telephone, have flown in a plane, use electricity - you are a Western slave

AbdH:

Reasonable Muslims all over the world behave like Muslims and not like Arabs.

Really, let us start by asking why "reasonable" Muslims who have their own culture and lineage decide to name themselves Arabic names.

AlBaqir: "AN OUTCRY - that the holy prophet married A'isha at the age of six and consummate the wedding at the age of nine. (Sahih Bukhari) A minor

Some of this so-called 'authentic hadith' even quoted A'isha or her cousin Urwa that she was a minor who was still playing with doll when she married the holy prophet of Islam (peace be on him and his family). And in most cases she will sleep on the floor whilst playing with her doll.

Historical Fallacy!
Abubakr (A'isha's father) had Asma as his first child who was born 27years before Hijra. Aisha was the last born and history had it she was 10years younger to her eldest sister, Asma. (Sirah Ibn Hisham, Ibn Sa'd 'Tabaqat, Tarikh al-Tabari et al)

Asma died at the age of 100years in the 73rd year of Hijra. Meaning she was truly 27+years in the 1st year of Hijra. Same History however had it A'isha married the Prophet in the 2nd year of Hijra.

If Asma was 27years in the 1st year of Hijra, and was 10years older than Aisha and then A'isha got married to the holy prophet in the 2nd year of Hijra, how old was A'isha? 18years Old.

Here is a Shiite view of the matter. He is claiming that Al-Bukhari is wrong. Based on his Historic calculation, Aisha was 18. Unfortunately for him, he has no early Islamic source to back him up . If you can provide an earlier account before Bukhari that claimed Aisha was 18; then we can take you seriously. However, your opinion doesn't change the view of nearly 90% of all Muslim jurisprudence on this matter

golpen:

nonesense! typical christian

so out of all I said, the only thing you derived is I called you a blasphemer. simple english you can't understand. what a pity?

for the record, I was only giving you an advice not to dwellbin blasphemy, but as we can all see, you have chosen a name for yourself. ..I don't care.

as to my point, if I am to follow jesus because I believe in him as a prophet of Allah. jesus christ never wasted his time on an unyielding fig tree, instead, we all know what he did to it. that's another point for you, if you are wise.

peace!

Can you provide a historical answer to the poster question?

noblezone:

So what was her correct age?

Besides, Mohammed is not no longer here and likewise Aisha!

Let us talk about today! Even if such practices were done in those days because of their primitive ways of thinking, how can somebody in todays world give out a a little girl of 14 to a man of 50 for marriage?

Common sense says it is child abuse!

History no dey lie. Islamic history is clear on this subject. Most Muslims think Mohammad was perfect so if he married a child then it is the right thing to do. Al-Bukhari clearly narrated that Aisha was 6 or 7 when Mohammad married her and was 9 when he slep.t with her.

vedaxcool: Clean the log off your eyes,

And where in the Bible did you see any of God's prophet marrying a Child? You have started with your evasive tactics again. So if a someone that claims to be a Christian cheats on his wife then it means that adultery is taught in the Bible abi? Your reasoning is always opposite of the subject at hand

chiedu7: WIth Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Hamas, ISIS killing people; does anybody still call islam peaceful?

One must be a lunatic to claim that the teaching in the Quran and Al-Hadiths are peaceful. Can there be peaceful Muslims? Yes! To be a peaceful Muslim means you don't interpret the jihad verses in the Quran and Hadiths literally.

BrotherJohn: [size=14pt]cloudstar took all the arguments of diarra94 and DESTROYED them one by one![/size]

Thanks Bro. It isn't hard if you poke the claims of evolution that it will begin to crumble under it's own weight. Evolution is a theory that isn't based on scientific laws. It requires blind faith on any evolutionists part to claim that we originated from single cell organism yet prove that Apes are humans closest relatives.

usba: usba

usba: I like misrepresenting Cloudstar because I am unable to hold an intelligent discussion

That's more like it

diarra94

I would not write long sentences any longer because its clear your problem is you have no understanding of evolution. all these misconceptions you have are well evaluated and discussed in books and videos. go figure. you never answered my question, what does biology say about the evolution of angiosperms.

please educate yourself: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html.

Can tell me what "Biology says about angiosperms" in summary and how that is related from humans coming from single cell organism. Again, the case of evolution is based on blind faith, you have confirmed that several times.

the problem is Christians try to indiscreetly change the words in the bible to suite present day scenarios, the bible clearly said everything that creeps on the ground which is not a distinction of animals on any basis.

You are insisting it is - the interpretation is clear but you keep arguing from silence. I have made this point several times but you keep poking holes in your argument

this is a direct quote from you " Then God said, " Let the earth bring forth
living creatures after their kind : cattle and creeping things and
beasts of the earth after their kind "; and it was so. God made
the beasts of the earth after their kind , and the cattle after
their kind , and everything that creeps on the ground after its
kind ; and God saw that it was good." you should also know that cattle were domesticated from wild aurochs and bisons around 10000 years ago so I don't get that. you should also check out the definition for a beast before you rush to defend such nonsense.

The issue here might be the language used in 16th century. Let us give you something more modern. Taken from Genesis

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth" 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

So, you can continue to argue of silence and misrepresentation - it is clear that is your position

the link is in the text. http://bib.irr.org/todays-bible-real-bible. please learn to read quotes before dismissing them.

The link shows that the "Page is Not Available". Please confirm and provide the correct link

I did exactly that. seeds are produced in flowers and so you you can't explain one ignoring the other. go back and read that more concisely.

So an apple and mango seed are grown from flowers?

I don't believe in faith but reason. I never said evolution is not a theory. I made myself clear when I said just as the foundation for modern chemistry was laid centuries ago, so is evolutionary science being developed today. A lot of new findings will be made and many misconceptions will also be resolved. This is pure science.

I think you have made an honest statement. You have conceded to one of my points - evolution is a theory and DOESN'T follow the laws of science. If evolution theory is proven and can be replicate, studied, diagnosed, observed and repeated, then yes - evolution can then be called a science.

And this is why I can't bring myself to believe in god. Everything has a source and god can not be excluded as I am sure he must be made up of matter.

I don't expect you to believe in God, it's your personal choice. However, suggesting there is no evidence of God because of evolution doesn't hold water. You confirmed evolution is a theory and not based on facts but you rather believe it than God - so, it's a matter of choice after all.

I stated that God is not bound by time and space. He is not bound by limitation or laws of science. God exceeds and predates the "Big Bang". So, since nothing can produce nothing, it's logical to conclude that there was an intelligent being that started it all i.e. life produces life.

You are drifting from our argument. Your misconceptions on the big bang are not my problem to solve as you have Google and physicists for that. No one said the big bang theory was triggered by nothing. Go figure.

Okay. Can you please the origin of the universe from your evolution stand-point.

I would not say much please do read this
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
and just to let you know evolution theories are without exceptions.

Then there is a conflict on your stand. Can you explain your evolution in terms of the law of bio-genesis

And yet he destroyed a tower cos humans were trying to build up to heaven. I don't think he is beyond space then. How can you claim god is beyond time and space when you can't prove his existence.

You are the one diverting from the main argument now. You are talking about the tower now when you are ignoring His existence. I logically proved God's existence when you conceded that you are not all knowing and it's possible that God exist.

Like I've said countless times I am not here to change your concept of our existence but to make you understand that evolution is already well established and major breakthroughs are continuously made

I am not debating on my concept of existence. I am asking about using present day laws of science to compare evolution as you explain creation. You have always stated that evolution is coherent with present day science. I am saying if that is the case, we can use these laws to easily test if the case of evolution is likely or not. For example, the law of bio-genesis states that all life comes from life. You are saying evolution claims that we came from non-life i.e. non-life to living organism. I am asking you to throw more light on that.

Why do plants use carbon dioxide while animals use oxygen. Why can't humans live in water or very high terrains. We have adapted to living on land. I understand what you mean by the earth having the right conditions and resources for our existence but adaptation enabled us make the best use of those resources.

We are saying the same thing. The earth is designed so life as we know if can exist and be sustained. It is only the earth that possesses the right factors in order for human life to adapt. If we humans can adapt no matter the environment, then we should be able to live on other planets but that is not the case because those planets can't sustain life. Hence, it's only the earth that is unique when it comes to human survival - why is that?

hahaha you're knowledge on mutation and genetics is also very shallow. please make sure you check out these links

http://www.icr.org/article/fruit-flies-face-macroevolution/

http://news.yale.edu/2013/10/17/researchers-rewrite-entire-genome-and-add-healthy-twist

Again, you are misunderstanding me. The mutation you are referring to is based in the lab, attempts by scientist to make changes,humans are experimenting. The evolution you have been explaining is based on nature only. So, you are explaining two different things i.e. one is a lab test and another is claimed over time and by nature.

Take for example, most of the tomatoes and other fruits in the grocery stores have been re-engineered and genetically modified i.e. bio-foods. The truth here quite obvious - natural mutation than human engineered mutation. In summary, none of these mutations in the insects are changing the insects into different insects.

Here is a statement from one of the links:

[]Since 1910 geneticists have documented over 3,000 mutations in this creature, yet science journals have not documented a single fruit fly evolving into something else, no matter how often and badly they're mutated. Indeed, the late evolutionist Pierre-P. Grassé said, "The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.

Decades ago, an example of a "good mutation" was given by a Denver University biologist during a public debate with this author. It involved the bithorax gene that produces an atypical four-winged fruit fly. Unfortunately, the evolutionist failed to tell the audience that the fruit fly's ability to fly was severely impaired. What would natural selection do to such mutated creatures?[/i]

As you can see - natural mutation is not possible Bros insomuch that such mutation has to be engineered in labs. Even they mutated in the labs, they can't function appropriately.

its called a scientific law . evolution is not a law. you haven't answered my question on the elephant man.

How is evolution scientific law when it can't be tested? Also, what is your question on the elephant man?

So just because evolution takes millions of years to occur simply means it is not scientific. Yes evolution is a theory. Like I said we presently lack the tools and knowledge to replicate or prove evolution in a lab. We are not dealing with chemicals here but living cells which are much more complex to manipulate. I like your last statement because the bible is a classic example.

Your explanation of evolution is an exception to scientific laws as we have it. That is why it's not a plausible explanation. You always claimed that evolution is scientific yet you can't use any scientific method to measure or prove any part of it. 250 millions of years isn't "just because". 250 millions years means you don't know for sure and you are basing evolution on blind faith

they were apelike but more upright and with slightly larger brains.

What about their DNA, where it 100% like humans?

but you hypothesized the earth being several million years old. You should be able to back that estimate with a proof. Besides I said the new testament gives Jesus' genealogy up to Adam and that information does not reflect even a 100 thousand years.

Yes I did and I said it was based on theology. Theology can't be proven, it is based on interpretation of events. Here is my stand:

http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html

of course you'll find a Mercedes if you won the lottery.

I wonder how lottery came into the scene. If evolution is similar to lottery then we all have no hope

Like I said you lack complete knowledge of evolution. You agreed in a previous post that humans adapt to their environment, now you'll have to explain that. If a Mercedes could just appear out of thin air you'll officially be the next Houdini.

Of course we do, we adapt to our environments, we do not mutate. You can take me from sunny Lagos Island and put in in freezing cold Russia. I will adapt to the cold. I will get use to the minus zero freezing temperatures than people who haven't lived there. However, I will not mutate or "evolve and grow furs.

What if I said yes in 250 million years you will find a Mercedes SLR in that garage, would you argue that. Hahaha you are a classic joker
its quite apparent that this argument is going nowhere. please stick to your ideals.

Bros, you have no case. 250 millions of years is based on blind faith something you have admitted to. It's funny that you rather place your blind faith in evolution that doesn't submit to scientific laws yet make fun of others that hold theist views of creation. I rest my case.

In between, when you ever have an off-spring with the ape; please let us know so we can test your theory

diarra94

like I said evolution is a young science and therefore not extensive research has been done. just as the foundation, theories and equations for chemistry were laid down centuries ago, so are we laying the foundation and grid for evolution. it seems you skipped biology lessons in school because last time I checked biology is firmly built on evolution and disproving evolution also disproves biology. you can check out what plant angiosperms evolved from biologically and quote it right here.

Evolution is not science; it's a theory. This theory has no scientific basis that can be tested, measured or controlled. It is based on belief that something happen. Chemistry can be tested and chemistry developed by others confirming and observing it's basis. That is why no one argues or can disprove Chemistry methods as a science. Evolution on the other hand claims to have happened over hundreds of millions of years, we can't measure it, we can repeat it, we can't test it. So, how is evolution scientific if it can't be observed? How can we observe a fish turning into a snake? Can you please throw more light on how the science of biology is similar to evolution. Biology doesn't claim that humans came from fish Bros. Biology doesn't claim that human life came from a single cell organism. You are the one using Biology concept as a face to evolution.

hahaha, but you failed too see that this verse basically puts all beasts of the earth as one kind or family which is completely false. using this reasoning a bear and a tiger can copulate. "everything that creeps on the ground" is not a classification for animal or insects in any way. I can't believe you refuse to comprehend evolution but put your faith in such nonsense.

If I could make it any clearer for the sake of a discussion I would. You like to argue from silence and I have tried several times to tell you that it has no bases. The Bible used the word beasts and their kind. There are hundreds of beasts each after their own kind. You have formatted your brain to refuse this explanation but would rather believe that all living creatures came from a tadpole

but the bible just said everything that creeps on earth is of the same kind. remember the bible made it clear not to corrupt god's work. if this is the Bible's classification of animals, then I think it requires a well deserved update.

Another mis-representation. The Bible never claimed that everything that creeps is of the same kind. The two verses clearly categories that animals are listed under their own kind. Beasts i.e. lions, dogs, horses, elephants are unique to their own kind. You comprehension level really shows your ignorance or direct misrepresentation on the narrations.

I told you that text was never from Wikipedia but directly from an archeological site. this shows you never even read the text but just rushed to Make comments

Please post the link then if that was the case

of course it will make a difference. you need to prove your assertions just as you have requested proofs from me. so I can also safely conclude that it wouldn't make any difference explaining myself if you are skeptic from the start.
Seed-making in flowering plants is a little more complicated.
Most flowers contain both male and female sex cells. The
typical flower has four main parts: an outer cup of leaflike
sepals, a ring of petals within the sepals, and inside, male
reproductive organs surrounding female parts. Male cells
develop in structures called stamens and travel enclosed in
the hard shell of pollen grains. Female cells, or ovules, develop
deep in a flower's ovary, enclosed in a structure called a pistil.
The top of the pistil-known as the stigma-is long and sticky
and a good target for pollen. After it reaches the stigma, a
small tube grows out of the pollen grain. The male cells travel
down the pollen tube, eventually reaching female ovules. Then
fertilization occurs and seeds start to grow.
Since flowers possess both male and female parts, some
flowers can fertilize themselves (or fertilize another flower on
the same plant), which is called self-pollination. Or the ovules
of one flower may be fertilized by the pollen of a different
flowering plant of the same species, a method called cross-
pollination. The wind, water, insects, and other animals help to
carry pollen from one flower to another. Cross-pollination
usually produces a better plant: the offspring of cross-
pollination possesses the genetic traits of two parents, which
may give it new characteristics that will help it survive in an
always-changing environment. Cross-pollination is so desirable,
in fact, that many flowering plants have developed different
ways to keep self-pollination from happening. In the flowers
of a spiderwort plant, for example, the stamens are ready to
release pollen grains before the pistils are ready to accept
them, so the pollen has to travel to other spiderwort plants in
search of a ripe pistil. I don't really see the relevance of this question. you should know that there are plants which don't produce seeds.

I never asked you about flowers Bros - please pay attention to the question. I said a seed. For example can you scientifically explain how a seed of say an apple or a mango is made. Can you also use evolution to explain how a such a seed is made. I am not talking about germination. I will like you to use evolution to explain how we get a simple apple seed.

You have answered my question - since you are not all knowing; you can't claim there is God. You can't decide with your limited knowledge and within the confines of biblical teachings that a God is feasible and does exist. My stand is simple - the biblical explanation is not plausible as it leaves major gaps on our origin. Also, evolution can be proven scientifically as it is the basis of biology. like I said evolution is a relatively new field compared to other well established fields such as chemistry. we need more critics like you to enable use research extensively and build up evolutionary science into a separate discipline.

Again, you have repeatedly confirm my position even though you are using the same reasoning you have been refuting all along . The question was never about if there was a God. I have conceded that I believe there is a God on faith - I never once took the stance that I can prove the origin of our universe or that the Bible can be 100% proven historically. You were the one that stated authoritatively that life is as a result of chance and yet you have confirmed that such a view might be wrong. So, from your argument you confirmed:

1. There there is a possibility that God exist since you are not all knowing
2. That your grounds on evolution is based on faith and not on proven scientific methods

From the above, I rest my case

not just evolution but core science such as physics is based on the big bang. with that knowledge I guess you should be able to address what, who and how god came into existence because as you said something can't come out of nothing. I want you to quote exactly where the big bang was compared to a nuclear bomb, I guess your problem is you lack an understanding of science completely. a tornado rather increases entropy that's the only similarity it shares with the big bang. At this point, I have to refer you to a psychologist because its apparent you are comparing science to magic. evolution occurs in living cells, and no one ever said it involves order so you can keep shaking that Rolex for a gazillion years and nothing will change.

Asking who and how God came into existence is similar to asking "what does blue smell like?". Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is un-caused and un-created—He simply exists. How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

The big bang is a theory Bros, it is not proven science. I can measure gravity, I can test and record it. You can't measure the big bang, you can't test or replicate it - that is why it is called a theory. Your problem is that you are mixing up theory with facts. No scientist can tell you the genesis of the big bang or the origin of our universe simply because they can't peek into time. So, they come up with a theory with a "Big Bang" our universe was born. I accept that it is a theory but to claim that it is fact when it can't be proven is the issue. You have to have blind faith to believe that our world was as a result of a big bang as it cant be proven. In the same way I believe that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"

A scientific law has no known exceptions, or else it would not be a law in the first place. A "theory - as in evolution" on the other hand, is merely an "attempt to explain" phenomena by deduction from other known principles . A theory may not be true, but a law, by definition, is always true. Since there are no known exceptions to scientific laws, would it not be unscientific for evolutionists to assert, without any scientific evidence, that there have been exceptions to the laws of science in the past?

Furthermore, As far as science can tell, its laws have never been violated. They are without exception. From a scientific perspective, the evolutionary model falls short of being able to account for the origin of the Universe. Indeed, it contradicts the known laws of science that govern the Universe.

You keep shouting that Biology and Evolution are linked and similar, NO THEY ARE NOT. For example, look at the Law of Bio-genesis. It is accepted and proven that the Law of Bio-Genesis is a scientific and Biological fact. So, how does such law fits into evolution. Evolution suggests that living things like you and I came from non-living things. Can you please explain that.

just as I said you should be able to explain god and his existence because I still can't believe you requiring evidences and proofs for evolution yet believe in something as unfeasible as god. the earth is not fine tuned perfectly for human existence, we have adapted to the all treacherousness and ills of the earth and fine tuned ourselves to exist here, and now with technology we're doing that much faster than ever before. like I said you confuse evolution for magic, you can't just change a fish into human. that is the job of nature, the environment and mutation. so far a lot of success has been achieved on mutation studies, I am sure you've seen insects with legs on their heads instead of antennas on their heads created in the lab. that is just the tip of the iceberg on mutation. evolution is different fom coventional sciences as it requires the effects of time, a lot of time. if you want to see evolution in action, you can decide to live for a million years. now I want you to explain the elephant man based on an intelligent design and God's perfection.

Proof there is a Creator doesn't explain evolution. You have conceded that you are not all-knowing and since you are not all-knowing that it is possible there is a God. The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. God is the first cause and is entirely self existent, meaning the reason for God’s existence is contained within the very definition of God. God is beyond time and space so He wasn't created

If we want to prove God's existence we should agree to a standard that you and I submit to i.e. the laws of cause and effect, the law of teleology. In the same way if we want to prove evolution, we have to agree to scientific laws i.e. the laws of cause and effect, the law of teleology, the second law of thermodynamics, the law of bio-genesis. If you agree on these common grounds we can explore the if evolution or God provides a better answer to the origins of the universe using existing laws of science.

We survive here because the earth is perfect for human life. Go and adapt on Mars, Saturn or Pluto. The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life. The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day. So, it is not because we can adapt but because this earth is fine tuned exactly for life as we have it.

I am not confusing evolution with magic. Your basis of evolution is lots of time and faith in mother nature. Faith and time are not ingredients of scientific laws. Insects with legs on their heads is not based on environment or mother nature. Also, these insects are not changing into other insects; their DNA is not re-written Bros. That been said, can you please provide an authoritative reference to this claim.

You have confirmed that evolution requires millions and millions of years so in other words, we can't test for evolution. In scientific terms, if you can test a phenomenon to prove it's theory; what is that called?

you see evolution is already established, you not accepting it doesn't change a thing. with more research and outstanding studies being carried out on evolution, I am positive that future generations and even your children will accept evolution. if only we could make cells replicate at a very fast rate and in the required conditions, we can watch evolution in action. for now that is impossible but I am positive your descendants will enjoy that privilege.

If you accepted evolution for what it is, there wouldn't be any disagreement. The issue here is that you are claiming it is proven science when it is not. I am not faulting evolution as a theory - it is EXACTLY that, a theory. But to claim that this theory is true and proven when you need millions of millions of years and chance to not even come close to proven it is not scientific. Everyone can decide what they want to believe, any fool can make a rule and every fool can believe in it.

they were African natives in Niger. their records showed they did evolved from an apelike creature. their offsprings looked like the average African child.

By ape-like creatures are you saying the existing apes we have now or another kind of apes?

please, do prove your assertion, because the biblical genealogy of Jesus never pointed to that. you said you can't prove God's existence or creation yet you want to use historical accounts to evaluate the earth's age since creation, wow. like you said since nothing can create nothing, it is safe to assume god is nonexistent else you should be able to explain god's source.

You are mis-representing me. I said I can't prove God created the Universe and the question of how old the earth is a theological one. You stated that some Christians believe that our earth and universe is 6000 years old. I said that time-frame is when the author started telling the story of God creation. When I mentioned historical evidence, I was referring to historical evidence that can be traced i.e. the early manuscripts, Roman account and documented account of Jesus crucifixion. These are events that can be proven historically. Events such as the creation of the world can't be proven historically. So please, do not misrepresent what I said.

Try this interesting experiment: Empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Nothing. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. Try it. If it doesn’t appear, leave it for 20 years. If that doesn’t work, try it for 100 years. Then try leaving it for 10,000 years. Here’s what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: leave it for 250 million years

usba - My daily dose of stupidity has begun

It sure has

usba

fixed

- yes, you need to be fixed

USBA = Universal Student of Baffuns Association. You will prove it by editing this post

diarra94

you haven't explained the success of evolution in biology cos last time I checked biology is based on evolution and its success is a logical evidence. why don't you start a biological field based solely on creationism.

Please check again. Biology is proven science - evolution is faith based theory. They are mutually exclusive. Mind you, your claim of single cell origin of life from a single cell to the complex human DNA can't and haven't been proven. Hence the reason you come up with evolution. There is NOT one evolution claim that you can re-produce in a lab.

the science of evolution is very easy to understand except your brain is choked. as you have pointed out yourself, a lion and a tiger can produce an offspring, being of the same evolutionary ancestor. this however disproves the biblical notion of every animal independently created by god. its funny how you mentioned you only believe in proven yet you believe all the bedtime stories in the bible which are utmost crap.

It's evident you are deliberately trying to misrepresent the Bible. Here is the Bible account about the creation of animals according to their kind:

Genesis 1:24-25: Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

It is clear that God made animals after their kind - the lion and tiger are of the same species and kind; that is why they can mate and have off-springs. The fish and lizard are not of the same kind. The hippo and crocodile are not of the same kind. Man and apes are not of the same kind. You have claimed so many things of the Bible but as always it comes back to bite you.

that quote is not from wikipedia, it is from an archeological website. this shows you never even read the text but swiftly refuted it.

Bros, you quoted an article that was captured on Wikipedia. My point was if you are providing authoritative references, please don't use wikipedia

I told you I have also seen a paralyzed woman walk with electrical stimulation so what is your point. do you have any recording of the incidence, please do share. you also should be able to explain why people are born with deformities from a biblical and creationist stance.

You asked me if I have experienced any miracles as related to the Bible and I gave you my account. I didn't record it. I don't see what difference it would have made if you are a skeptic from the jump start. What explanation are you expecting Bros? Let me ask you a question, can you scientifically explain how a seed is made?

I never claimed to know all and science is an aptitude that involves constant learning and research to gain more knowledge on a subject. me not knowing simply does not imply the presence of a creator but rather a quest to answer our existence which so far evolution has proved to be outstanding. based on that reasoning, there isn't proof for god either and from the same logical reasoning, you can't eliminate evolution either.

You have answered my question - since you are not all knowing; you can't claim there is no God. You can decide with your limited knowledge and within the confines of evolutionary theory that a God isn't feasible and doesn't exist. My stand is simple - the evolution explanation is not plausible as it leaves major gaps on our origin. Also, evolution can't be proven scientifically. There is not one evolution claim you have made that can be reproduced using scientific methods.

Evolution claims that the universe originated from nothing - scientifically, that is an impossible statement. Evolution is saying that if you take one million nuclear bombs and they blow up, it will create a perfect, beautiful and wonderful country called America. Or, if a tornado hits a town and destroys all the houses and spins them around over 200 miles per hour - it will produce a perfect air-plane. It I take metal junk from the scrap-yard, put it in a box and shake it hard for 10 months, it will produce a Rolex.

I have conceded that it takes faith to believe in an all intelligent being. An intelligent being that is more intelligent than us that He created the earth and fine tune it perfectly for human life. You tend to take the stand that evolution can be proven scientifically yet if we use any scientific method; not one evolution claim can be proven. You said man came from fish yet it can't be proven using scientific method. Instead you believe someone else account of it not because it is true but because it is an alternative to intelligent design.

So, if tomorrow we can trace our origin with proven facts that we can test and reproduce that we came from fish; I will become an evolutionist. Until then, the evolution theory lacks any scientific merit, IT IS BASED ON BLIND FAITH - not any different that believing in Alladin's magic Genie lamp.

unfortunately it was such a remote location and I had no charge on my phone. but not to worry there are other videos online of the evolving human structure and frame.

Where did you meet these people? Did they mate with apes? If yes, what did their off-spring look like?

come on, you should be able to give a biblical evidence for that. I also want to know if the bible talks about the meteor which hit the earth.

.

I can only give evidence of historical account. For example, I can't prove God created the world - that is a theological perspective. So, I have faith that God created our universe by all the evidence of His creations. For example, science can't prove the universe just created itself out of nothing?; I am sure about that because nothing can create nothing. So, if you believe that matter came out of nothing and everything we have came out of nothing; you are conceding that it is based on faith and not science.

usba

Try harder

Abdulsalam20: U NO GET MB ON UR PHONE ABI

Bros - na simple question now.

diarra94

just as you have put your faith in the bible which was written by men like you and i. hello, we are on a forum, if not text and images what do you want me to use? a 3d printer?

In summary, evolution is not proven science but blind faith. That is all I wanted you to admit and you have done you several times. So, whenever you tell yourself that evolution is true and more plausible than creationism, remember that both rely on faith. I rest my case .

You can't prove science with text and images. For example, I can prove gravity by taking a stone and dropping it; if it falls to the ground, I can repeat the experiment, document it, observe it and even have others confirm it - THAT IS SCIENCE. The same way, if I put concentrated sodium on H2O, I will get a combustive reaction; I can repeat such action and everytime get the same result. Unfortunately, the "science" of evolution doesn't fall into that category. Yet, people like you want us to accept it as true even when it's not even a theory but it is based on blind faith.

then are you insinuating that the bible was never edited or translated and it's content is accurate. if so you should be able to give substantial evidences.

You claimed it was. You inferred that the present Bible is the work of men because it is full of errors and have been edited and the entire theme corrupt. I challenged you to prove it by showing what was changed, when it was changed and by whom. I even asked you to refer to the earliest manuscript in question. You have refused to because you have little understanding on the subject.

I never shied away from your request, I quoted a text from an archeology site but you dismissed it.

You quoted from wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an authoritative reference when it comes to New Testament history. To prove a manuscript written in the 2nd century is corrupted; you will have to provide multiple attestation from several sources that can confirm that the manuscript in question was corrupt.

then why have you been unable to highlight any form of miracle you have observed excluding those in the bible

It appears you have reading comprehension. I told you that I have seen a crippled woman walk. You made fun of it and said you have seen the same with artificial limbs. I am referring to a lady that I saw over the course of a week that walked in clutches everyday and was healed by prayers. She got up and walked.

but then from a logical stance, there isnt proof for god either. if god really created the earth I don't think the bible is necessary. from the same logical reasoning, you can't eliminate evolution either.

You refused to answer my question. Are you claiming that you are all knowing? Your answer will logically decide if there is a possibility that God exists or not.

I told them that Jesus is their lord and personal saviour even though he never knew of the existence of subsaharan Africa. but they rather got mad and told me the story of how their ancestors evolved even showing me the skeletons of their ancestors clearly depicting the change in skull size and backbone structure. when I insisted that god created humans from clay and air without water or blood they took their weapons and chased me out.

Do you have any proof of this encounter i.e. a video or audio recording?

then based on your understanding of the bible, how old is the earth? if you also don't mind shelling the old earth theory

From my understanding, I would say several hundreds million years

diarra94

its now pretty clear you know nothing about evolution. I tried coming down to your level but its of no use to someone already brainwashed by the bible. why would they change from birds to reptiles? please go and study evolution because at this point, i understand that you have no idea of evolution but yet dismissed it. you can check out the island of Galapagos on Google and if you can explain to me how that happen, please do. I can't keep uploading images and quoting texts which you just dismiss without proof.

I haven't used the Bible to prove anything Bros, you are the one bringing it in and comparing it with evolution. I have made my stance clear - I believe in intelligent design. The evolution you have tried to market here doesn't exist outside the confines of this thread. You have proven that your evolution is based on faith which is what I wanted you to admit all along. Whether you believe in God, the Bible or taking an ape as a wife is your cup of tea. Your problem is that you have given over your common sense to the "experts" of evolution - people who will rather die than admit in creationism or an intelligent design. Images and texts aren't proof if you are claiming we originated from fish and single cell organism. Science is observing, test, reproducing such tests and confirming if they are true. All you have done is talked about theory that can't you can only prove with images - you should do better than that.

yes I knew you'll bring that up, but this is the source from which Wikipedia got the text. irr.org , if you are unreasonable enough to ask me such a question, I think its only fair for me to be also unreasonable... please can you find all the ancient manuscripts and compare its accuracy with the Bible and tell me how many times the bible was translated before it was finally translated into English.

I wasn't the one that claimed the Bible was edited and updated and had many errors in them - you did. I posed the challenge for you to prove it by confirming which of the earliest manuscripts where edited or updated yet you are here shying away from the challenge. It shows you know little about the subject

personally, I have also seen a crippled woman walk with artificial legs so I don't know what you mean??

The God of the Bible doesn't use artificial legs when He heals people. Apparently, you have confined God to your limited exposure of what a miracle actually is

okay then a logical proof.

let us stick to the confines of logic, here goes:

1. Logically, it is impossible for you to know everything and since you don't know everything, you can't claim that there is no God
2. To rebuff the statement made in step 1; you will have to admit you know absolutely everything.

Please share your thoughts on the points raised above and we will proceed

they tried to kill me, so I came to you to explain that to me with your bible regarding your previous argument

Really, did you tell the police? What did you ask them, did you try to sleep with one of their females?

this is a text from a christian website supporting that the earth is not more than 6,000 years old.
" The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 goes from Jesus to Adam, a period of 4000 years showing the total age of the earth to be just over 6000 years. Young earth creationists readily accept the fact that the earth is a sphere; God “sitteth upon the circle of the
earth” (Isaiah 40.22). But they will not believe the sun orbits the
earth daily: “when the sun riseth” (2 Samuel 23:4). “the earth
abideth forever.” (Eccl 1:4) The earth is stationary in the center
of the universe. They believe one circle, but not the other." geocentricbible.com

The Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, "The earth is 6,000 years old". There are proponents of a young earth and proponents on an old earth theory. It boils down to a theological decision as it can't be proven historically. What you quoted above are proponents of a young earth.

golpen:

and how does this say that the shape of the earth is flat? .. you know you're quoting out of context.

Is a bed round or circular?

Abdulsalam20: AT LEAST WHAT I POSTED IS CORRECT EXCEPT USING CHAPTER FOR BOOK

You said the Good news Bible has 81 books - can you please show me where you saw that?

diarra94

haha, then, you just made yourself clearer, I can't put my faith in a belief that cannot be proven. only evolution can explain the diversity of animals on the islands of Galapagos. go figure.

Oh you just did - you believe we came from fish. I have asked you to prove it and you showed me an image . Can you show us on the Island of Galapagos if any of the animals changed from one kind to another different kind i.e. from bird to alligators?

these are quotes from wikipedia made by archeologist studying ancient manuscripts:
"Every year, several New Testament manuscripts handwritten in
the original Greek format are discovered. The latest substantial
find was in 2008, when 47 new manuscripts were discovered in
Albania ; at least 17 of them unknown to Western scholars. [5]
When comparing one manuscript to another, with the exception
of the smallest fragments, no two copies agree throughout. There has been an estimate of 400,000 variations among all these manuscripts (from the 2nd to 15th century which is more than there are words in the New Testament. Somewhere variations involve apparently intentional changes, which often make more difficult a determination of whether they were corrections from better exemplars, harmonizations between readings, or ideologically motivated. Palaeography is the study of ancient writing, and textual criticism is the study of manuscripts in order to reconstruct a probable original text. An important issue with manuscripts is preservation."
"The earliest New Testament manuscripts were written on papyrus ,made from a reed that grew abundantly in the Egyptian Nile. Delta. This tradition continued as late as the 8th century. Papyrus eventually becomes brittle and deteriorates with age. The dry climate of Egypt allowed some papyrus manuscripts to
be partially preserved, but, with the exception of P 77, no New
Testament papyrus manuscript is complete; many consist only
of a single fragmented page."

Using wikipedia as your source of defense is at best laughable. I can go online and change the entire page. I asked you a simple question. If the early manuscripts have been altered as you suggest; can you tell us which ones, when they were altered and by whom. It is a simple question enough

I asked for any miracles or signs the bible talks about in reality or which you have observed yourself.

Jesus performed many miracles. Personally I have seem a crippled woman walk. I don't know if that is enough evidence of you

I gave you an open field.

Your call, your choice determines my response

I asked how do you explain the savages and isolated tribes of Africa and south America who have no concept of life if we came from Adam and eve?

Have you tried asking them?

usba:

Fixed

usba - unintelligent show of baffuns association

Rilwayne001:

You should ban me for not engaging in a futile argument with some bunch of fooolz

You banned yourself when you started crying like a baby

diarra94

this is from wikipedia " Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection appears to be involved in
the development of more than 90% of cases. Most people
who have had HPV infections; however, do not develop cervical
cancer. Other risk factors include: smoking, a weak immune system , birth control pills , starting sex at a young age and having many sexual partners, but these are less important."
however this Is just one of several cancers.
"Most cancers are thought to arise from a single mutant precursor
cell. As that cell divides, the resulting 'daughter' cells may acquire
different mutations and different behaviors over a period of time.
Those cells that gain an advantage in division or resistance to cell
death will tend to take over the population. In this way, the
tumor cells are able to gain a wide range of capabilities that are
not normally seen in the healthy version of the cell type. Mutations in key regulatory genes (tumor suppressors and proto-
oncogenes) alter the behavior of cells and can potentially lead to
the unregulated growth seen in cancer.
For almost all types of cancer studied to date, it seems as if the
transition from a normal, healthy cell to a cancer cell is step-wise
progression that requires genetic changes in several different
oncogenes and tumor suppressors. This is one reason why cancer
is much more prevalent in older individuals. In order to generate a
cancer cell, a series of mutations must occur in the same cell."
culled from cancerquest.org

You and I can go on wikipedia right now and change that statement. This is taken from [url]cancer.org[/url]:

Just a few types of HPV are the main causes of cervical cancer, which is the second most common cancer among women worldwide. Cervical cancer has become much rarer in the United States because the Pap test has been widely available for many years. This test can show pre-cancerous changes in cells of the cervix that might be caused by HPV infection. These changed cells can then be treated or removed, if needed. Treatment can keep cancer from developing. Doctors may now also test for HPV, which can tell them if a woman might be at higher risk for cervical cancer.

and yet prominent scientists and astronomers like Galileo were arrested for proposing the earth orbited the sun which was against the Bible's teaching of the earth being the centre of the universe.

Bros, who arrested him? The Catholics or is it in the Bible to arrest free thinkers? You are here again confusing the pope and Catholics who ruled most of Europe and wielded massive political power.

you ignored my question " I asked you of adaptation and you mentioned the internet, is adaptation a human creation? like I said racial differences have been the root of most wars in history, if the bible is really a form of guidance for humans don't you thinkthe bible would have addressed the issue of race and adaptation, the Bible's failure in doing that discredits its importance."

I didn't ignore your question. This is another case of arguing from silence. I have repeated several times that silence or non-mention of an argument in the Bible doesn't mean the Bible is irrelevant on the subject. It was at that time that I gave examples of the Internet. The Bible talked about the golden rule - "Treat others as you would expect to be treated". The Bible doesn't care about the color of your skin - there is only one race that is relevant in the Bible and that is human-race.

The Bible claim the earth was round centuries before scientist agreed it was. The norm was that the earth was flat.

then why don't you give me any biblical proof that suggests humans existed for over 250 million years.

Again, you are arguing from silence. The Bible wasn't the one that claimed man never existed before the dinosaurs - it's you and evolution that claimed it. The Bible describes creatures as big as dinosaurs thousands of years before they were discovered but you will ignore as usual

just as you weren't there to see god create the earth

You have just conceded that evolution is based on faith Bros. I told you that no one can prove God created the universe at least not historically. In the same way, claiming that we came from fish without proper historical and objective trace is based on faith as well. While I am basing my faith on an intelligent design; you are basing your faith on random chance.

this is a quote from bigcatrescue.org
"Since lions and tigers do not exist in the same areas, this is not
something that happens in the wild. It is done in captivity by disreputable carnies to produce a freak that ignorant people will pay to see. These cats suffer from many birth defects and usually die young. Because ligers are usually larger than either parent, it also puts the tigress at great risk in carrying the young and may require C-section deliveries or kill her in the
process."

I also suggested that you can do artificial insemination, if you don't want to sleep with the female ape. Either which way if we are of the same DNA and gene; you guys should be able to conceive. The reason tigers and lions can't physically mate is because structurally it will be hard hence the reason they are artificially produced. To you it is a freak, to others it is evidence that they are of the same gene and type. I asked you about the Horse and Donkey and you never responded. There are several different breed of dogs that mate and give off-string but you ignored those as well.

bottom line is that its unnatural. FYI this is possible because they are of the same family, try that with a fish and a lion. I wouldn't mate with an ape not because it is impossible but unnatural just as a gorilla wouldn't naturally mate with a chimpanzee.

You keep proving my point - how can a man come from a fish or tadpole if we are not of the same family? How did we originate from fish we can can't mate with a fish and produce off-spring? You keep poking holes in your evolution theory. All the same - it is is possible and since we are 98% similar to apes; please artificially produce an off-spring with an ape to put this matter to and end

Of course, that is a reasoble step, creationism has no place in an educational institution. evolution has proven to be successful in biology and essentially all spheres of life. if you can use your creation ideologies to explain any feasible phenomenon, please the stage is yours!!

Coming from someone who claims a fish and a lion can't produce yet we all came from a fish - that is how the mind of an evolutionist works

what I was going at is the fact that testing drugs on animals to determine their effects effects on humans destroys the biblical notions that humans are unique.

It's not an issue of been unique - it is avoiding the legal battles and high insurance bail-outs of failed drug tests. As a result, they go with the alternate and cheap route - testing on animals. If drug A kills an ape, it's better and it killing a human - it's not good publicity for the company.

please can you upload the images of the cave paintings you are talking about?

I will give you an authoritative reference accordingly

some of this creatures are extinct but their fossils were perfectly preserved. if you find that to complex for your understanding, below is an image depicting the different stages of a frog's development.

I am interested in every single step i.e. when a fish changed at stage one to stage 10 when it became a human. If you can provide authoritative references to each fossil that you have personally confirm; we can then look into it together. If you are talking about the fossils that are stuffed with cotton at the museums, I urge you not to waste your time

The AD/BC notation was first proposed by the monk Dionysius
Exiguus (Dennis the Little) in the year 525 CE. He used it to
identify the years in the Easter tables that he prepared. He did
not use the notation to date historical events. "Dionysius implied,
but never stated, that Jesus was born 25 December 1 BC ."The
basis on which he linked the divide between BC and AD to the
birth of Jesus is unknown. There is general agreement that he
guessed incorrectly. Most theologians and religious historians
believe that Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) was born during a Fall --
or less likely during a Spring, sometime between 7 and 4 BCE.
However, we have seen estimates as as early as the second
century BCE and as late as 4 CE. "Another calculation had been developed by the Alexandrian monk Annianus around the year AD 400, placing the Annunciation on March 25, AD 9 (Julian) -- exactly 8 years after the date that Dionysius later calculated. This Era of Incarnation was dominant in the East during the early centuries of the Byzantine Empire, and is still used today in Ethiopia, accounting for the 8 or 7-year discrepancy between the Gregorian and the Ethiopian calendar."The Anno Domini era became dominant in Western Europe only after it was used by the Venerable Bede to date the events in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People , completed in 731" CE."Even though Anno Domini was in widespread use by the ninth
century [CE] Before Christ (or its equivalent) did not become
widespread until the late fifteenth century....In 1422 [CE],
Portugal became the last country of western Europe to adopt the
Anno Domini ..." notation.

Does that change the fact that BC - before Christ and AD - after Christ death is used to measure history everywhere today?

you seem to be getting pretty aggressive and insulting but I don't mind

Not aggressive, passionate . No harm intended by the way. Also, the picture about a tapole shows how it develops into a frog, it never turns into a snake or fish. Your fish to human explanation can't be proven Bros and you have conceded that it is based on faith

Empiree

I am not going to go over this again, please. We are human and our knowledge is pretty much limited compare to our Creator. As for what we know not we say "Wallahu alam" And God know best. You have to stop pounding on us.

Bros - all I am asking for is some kind of evidence.

Now regarding above claims, i don't think Qur'an makes direct reference to Adam's height. And as far as I know it was only reported in solitary hadith. I am not in position to ascertain the authenticity of a particular hadith. I understand your primary 'concern' is that no fossil of such gigantic human ever unearthed by scientists. Maybe instead of pounding on Muslims on NL to answer your question, you should join us in harmony to research the study. Muslims are not All Knowing. Only Allah is. We seek knowledge until we return to Him.

I think this is an honest statement. I am saying humans i.e. 90 feet tall that Mohammad referred to ever lived or existed; there should be some form of evidence. Is it possible they existed - perhaps. However, in the light that we haven't found a single evidence that they existed; we can say "for now" that the statement shows no truth to it

However, you can not deny that huge humans have lived on this planet earth. We see footprints of that.

I am not denying that huge humans lived on the earth. There are evidence of people as tall at 18 feet in 16th century France. However, 90 feet is way over the charts.

The height of Adam was sixty cubits according to this hadith but other hadith reports clarify that[color=#000099] it was so in the heavens.

Allah created Adam on earth and not in the heavens. So, we are sure that Mohammad was referring to Adam on earth.

Scholars like Imam Abu al-‘Abbas al-Qurtubi[1] and lately Shaykh Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri[2] have said that it means the inmates of Paradise will have the height of their father Adam who was sixty cubits in the heavens.

Again, did Allah say this or did some cleric say this? Who are we to believe?

This clarifies the first point that Adam’s height was 60 cubits in the Paradise according to this hadith and it does not say anything about his height after he landed on this planet.

That is not true. Adam was created on earth Bros, we have already determined that

But if you are still looking for 90ft fossil in order to ascertain or disprove alleged Hadith, be my guess brother. You and I can mobilize a campaign, raise funds, and embark on probably, journey of no return. And if anyone asks us where we are going you should tell them we are looking for Adam's 60 cubits fossil.

You have conceded that there is a slim chance of finding a 90 foot human fossil. I doubt that we would find any. But to explain it away and say it was in heaven is a direct mis-representation of the Hadith

Cutekemitola: The Bible is the only Book that is always read by millions of people around the world: every day,every hour,every minute and every second.....

It is the international best-seller every single year

Abdulsalam20: Catholic bible is 73 chapters..Protestant bible is 66
chapters...Good news version is 81 chapters......now ask
urself.....IS BIBLE WORD OF GOD?

Cha - the Bible is made up of Books Bros. It is 66 books and not 66 chapters. Posting before reading