EzioAuditore:


If something is a hypothesis then that already makes it plausible. But as a Muslim, whose confirmation is greater than that of God?

excuss me who is a muslim? me

So if dinosaurs are recent then it can follow, from your proofs, that it have not been long the earth was small. And judging from that angle we can assume that from that "not to long time" the dinosaurs existed till now, the earth must have been expanding at a rate that will be clearly obvious!

Again if you feel dinosaurs are recent, why use them as an example for something that have not been recent? If you feel dinosaurs are recent and existed when the earth were smaller but today the earth is bigger they are extinct, what do you have to say about humans who have been existing before dinosaurs but still not extinct? If humans were bigger in the begining but smaller today, why do we not have dinosaurs that are smaller today as well? If as you claim invariably that fossil records are recent, why can't they give us a record of when humans have reduced to about 30ft?

EzioAuditore:



How many fossils existed? Bear in mind that dinosaurs are even more recent. How long ago did Adam live? A sane person should presume that the reason for this is the time differential. Besides, if there were fossils then That won't be a clear sign would it. Anyways, the point is this claim is plausible and as a Muslim I believe it to be true.

johnydon22:


excuss me who is a muslim? me

I was referring to myself and other muslims reading this. No muslim is named "johnnydon".

EzioAuditore:
It is plausible, infact most scientists believe it. So yeah, if scientists that have nothing to do with islam believe it then to a muslim like myself it's more than plausible, it's true.

Okay, great! Now, as I have asked several times before, in-between the name-calling and childish rants, give a citation from an accepted scientific journal perhaps on that. You can't make an assertion and ask me to go look for "reputable" sources(which I did) while you can't even give one yourself.

johnydon22:


exactly and since yours doesnt bare the name of theirs and theirs doesnt bare the name of yours. . dont you now think name is an irrelevant determinant in this regard?

really! name is not relevant? ok oh. any way peace( i believe u understand what peace is?) bye.

ChigbunduE:
So if dinosaurs are recent then it can follow, from your proofs, that it have not been long the earth was small. And judging from that angle we can assume that from that "not to long time" the dinosaurs existed till now, the earth must have been expanding at a rate that will be clearly obvious!

Again if you feel dinosaurs are recent, why use them as an example for something that have not been recent? If you feel dinosaurs are recent and existed when the earth were smaller but today the earth is bigger they are extinct, what do you have to say about humans who have been existing before dinosaurs but still not extinct? If humans were bigger in the begining but smaller today, why do we not have dinosaurs that are smaller today as well? If as you claim invariably that fossil records are recent, why can't they give us a record of when humans have reduced to about 30ft?

How many animals have gone extinct in the last 10years while the humans are still living? What's your point here? Dinosaurs are probably one of the oldest creatures science has knowledge of, that's why I used them, but one would presume Adam lived long before that.

EzioAuditore:


Both, mate. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Hope you realize you are validating all other religions' usefulness to science.

EzioAuditore:


99% of statistics are made up, including mine. The expanding earth theory is one that has been accepted by reputable scientists around the world.

Okay now it's obvious that you're lying [size=1pt]for Jesus[/size]

Abstract from Wikipedia -

[size=13pt]Scientific consensus[/size]

The hypothesis had never developed a plausible and verifiable mechanism of action.[10] During the 1960s, the theory of plate tectonics — initially based on the assumption that Earth's size remains constant, and relating the subduction zones to burying of lithosphere at a scale comparable to seafloor spreading — [10] became the accepted explanation in the Earth Sciences.

The scientific community finds that significant evidence contradicts the Expanding Earth theory, and that evidence used in support of it is better explained by plate tectonics:...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth#Scientific_consensus

Kay17:


Hope you realize you are validating all other religions' usefulness to science.

To a Muslim like myself, there is only one religion in the eyes of the creator. I don't understand "usefulness to science".

DProDG:

Okay now it's obvious that you're lying [size=1pt]for Jesus[/size].

Abstract from Wikipedia -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth#Scientific_consensus

Lol! Wikipedia? You do know I can edit Wikipedia right? The point is the fact that the theory was once considered and is still considered and the fact that it was mentioned in the Quran and that its in line with how the size of Adam might be according to the prophet 1400 years ago can't be a coincidence. Most scientific theories are not definite, heck! They still can't prove the Big Bang (string) theory, some have rejected it, but a good number still accept it.

Why does Science have to validate Islam? Can't Islam stand on its own?!

EzioAuditore:


How many animals have gone extinct in the last 10years while the humans are still living? What's your point here? Dinosaurs are probably one of the oldest creatures science has knowledge of, that's why I used them, but one would presume Adam lived long before that.

my point is that your scientific proof is invalid! If your holy book says first man was about 90ft on creation and after so many years man is now about 6ft we can extrapolate that the little creatures we see today like hen, rat, cat, goat, etc were once very big. If that is to be true then we should have fossil records of these little creatures when they were a bit bigger. Can we also assume that according to your proof, plants were extremely big in the begining? Or is this your proof only applicable to only humans and not other creatures?

DProDG:

Okay now it's obvious that you're lying [size=1pt]for Jesus[/size]

Abstract from Wikipedia -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth#Scientific_consensus

The fact that there are a lot of websites dedicated to proving it, and the fact that there are still scientists that still believe in it is enough to tell you its plausible, like I said, most scientific theories are never really proven! They are just plausible explanations.

DProDG:

Okay now it's obvious that you're lying [size=1pt]for Jesus[/size]

Abstract from Wikipedia -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth#Scientific_consensus

The fact that there are a lot of websites dedicated to proving it, and the fact that there are still scientists that still believe in it is enough to tell you its plausible, like I said, most scientific theories are never really proven! They are just plausible explanations for certain phenomenoms, because face it, even they don't totally agree with each other because even they don't know where were headed or where we're from.

Kay17:
Why does Science have to validate Islam? Can't Islam stand on its own?!

I reiterate, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

EzioAuditore:

-The fact that there are a lot of websites dedicated to proving it, and the fact that there are -still scientists that still believe in it is enough to tell you its plausible, like I said, most -scientific theories are never really proven! -They are just plausible explanations for certain phenomenoms, because face it, even they don't totally agree with each other because even they don't know where were headed or where we're from.

-I can say the same about Islam.
-I'm not going to bother asking you to name 1 'scientist' the believes such because I know you can't.
-It becomes a theory when it's proven beyond reasonable doubt.
-What phenomenon does the expanding earth hypothesis explain?

EzioAuditore:


I reiterate, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

I see no point in integrating science with Islam. Would accept Islam is blind and probably false for the lack of science?!

DProDG:

-I can say the same about Islam.
-I'm not going to bother asking you to name 1 'scientist' the believes such because I know you can't.
-It becomes a theory when it's proven beyond reasonable doubt.
-What phenomenon does the expanding earth hypothesis explain?

Lol! Can you see how silly you can be? World renowned geologist james maxlow is still a strong believer in this.
There are many more but I thinking he is the most influential person under this topic.

Are you kidding me? Do you know what a theory is? The big bang theory is generally referred to as a theory, it is a theory, when it is proven beyond doubt then it becomes a fact! has the big bang theory been proven?

Kay17:


I see no point in integrating science with Islam. Would accept Islam is blind and probably false for the lack of science?!

Lol! Alright mate! But I suggest you read my topic on embroylogy, and I will surely create more topics under the scientific miracles of the Quran! I hope you will be there to cringe. But for now, read my previous topics, be sure to let me know if you have any objections.

EzioAuditore:


Lol! Can you see how silly you can be? World renowned geologist james maxlow is still a strong believer in this.
There are many more but I thinking he is the most influential person under this topic.

Are you kidding me? Do you know what a theory is? The big bang theory is generally referred to as a theory, it is a theory, when it is proven beyond doubt then it becomes a fact! has the big bang theory been proven?

It's almost pointless addressing you. I like how you tagged "world renowned" to the name of a Geologist that you just found after you googled "scientists that believe the earth is expanding". Nonetheless, the dude has no accepted scientific publications on the matter(prove me wrong).

It's a bit hypocritical and ironic saying that I do not know what a theory is. Please tell me 1 scientific theory that went on to become a scientific fact.

Lastly, I'm not gonna discuss the Big Bang theory with someone who believes the earth is 'expanding' and is yet to cite a peer-reviewed paper to back up his claims. It will be equally redundant to ask for such regarding the Big Bang Theory.

skyhighweb:
really! name is not relevant? ok oh. any way peace( i believe u understand what peace is?) bye.

James Maxlow, he's a world renowned australian geologist, I think you'll find his videos very educative.

EzioAuditore:



Lol! Alright mate! But I suggest you read my topic on embroylogy, and I will surely create more topics under the scientific miracles of the Quran! I hope you will be there to cringe. But for now, read my previous topics, be sure to let me know if you have any objections.

I doubt if I would be surprised at the suggestion that the Quran happens to include all the present modern scientific theories.

DProDG:


It's almost pointless addressing you. I like how you tagged "world renowned" to the name of a Geologist that you just found after you googled "scientists that believe the earth is expanding". Nonetheless, the dude has no accepted scientific publications on the matter(prove me wrong).

It's a bit hypocritical and ironic saying that I do not know what a theory is. Please tell me 1 scientific theory that went on to become a scientific fact.

Lastly, I'm not gonna discuss the Big Bang theory with someone who believes the earth is 'expanding' and is yet to cite a peer-reviewed paper to back up his claims. It will be equally redundant to ask for such regarding the Big Bang Theory.

Lol! You're dancing around the point here. James Maxlow by every definition is a world renowned scientist, and I can promise you that I didn't google his name until I saw his work, even before I wrote this article, I just had to go back to the article I read about it before writing this topic to pick his name. You should google him. You'll see that he is indeed a world renowned scientist. What you're also saying is that the expansion theory has not been accepted, and now you're asking me which theory has been accepted? Can you see how barmy you are? You're shooting yourself in the leg here. Like I said you're dancing around. The big bang theory is a theory that most scientists believe but just like the expansion theory it has not been proved. Also if you knew anything about science then you'd know every scientififc fact starts out as a theory, but of course you don't. The current fact about rain formation was once only a theory, now it has been proven, that's your example. (Rain formation in the Quran is a topic I will surely create quite soon), like I said, I would also like to refer you to my topic on embryology, be sure to make any objections to that heard if you can, because embryology is a fairly done and dusted topic and few contradictions can be defended. You are not going to discuss about string theory because you clearly know nothing about it. Smh! Charlatan! You simply don't know anything about science, so I don't expect you to understand, the sooner you pull your head out of your arse the better for you.

EzioAuditore:


You are free to confirm at any reputable website or book, but the earth is still expanding. Proving Allahs claim 1400 years ago, that it is he who expands the earth.

crap, Allah must have got this idea from the book of job, isaiah and psalms. The bible first made this claimed.

malvisguy212:
crap, Allah must have got this idea from the book of job, isaiah and psalms. The bible first made this claimed.

Proof? And did it talk about embryology, rain formation, black holes, and other scientific facts ? Smh

Kay17:


I doubt if I would be surprised at the suggestion that the Quran happens to include all the present modern scientific theories.

Not all, some. That is enough for one who wants the truth. That a book written 1400 can boast of such knowledge.

The entire body of scientific evidence disproves the idea of a 90-foot-tall human, and there is zero, I repeat zero, evidence of what you claim about the height of early humans.

And these 'scientific miracles' you talk about regarding embryology and other things have been thoroughly debunked. Even the stuff that Muhammad borrowed from the Romans (like the steps of the embryo, which has errors)

Didn't Muhammad say that when a man and a woman are having relations, the child which results will look like whoever had orgasm first? Insanity.

EzioAuditore:
Lol! You're dancing around the point here. James Maxlow by every definition is a world renowned scientist, and I can promise you that I didn't google his name until I saw his work, even before I wrote this article, I just had to go back to the article I read about it before writing this topic to pick his name. You should google him. You'll see that he is indeed a world renowned scientist.

And apparently, you can't cite any of his publications on expanding earth theory.

What you're also saying is that the expansion theory has not been accepted, and now you're asking me which theory has been accepted? Can you see how barmy you are? You're shooting yourself in the leg here. Like I said you're dancing around.

Not only has it not been accepted, it has been debunked and isn't even considered a scientific theory by any reputable institution. You obviously do not know what that means.

The big bang theory is a theory that most scientists believe but just like the expansion theory it has not been proved.

Only the uneducated and/or the intellectually dishonest reject the Big Bang Theory. A 'theory' that has not been proven is considered a hypothesis and one which has been debunked and rejected is a joke.

Also if you knew anything about science then you'd know every scientififc fact starts out as a theory, but of course you don't. The current fact about rain formation was once only a theory, now it has been proven, that's your example.

This is almost to absurdly ridiculous for me to respond to. You really think that there's something like 'the scientific fact of rain formation' or thereabout? Scientific theories are comprised of facts.

(Rain formation in the Quran is a topic I will surely create quite soon), like I said, I would also like to refer you to my topic on embryology, be sure to make any objections to that heard if you can, because embryology is a fairly done and dusted topic and few contradictions can be defended. You are not going to discuss about string theory because you clearly know nothing about it. Smh! Charlatan! You simply don't know anything about science, so I don't expect you to understand, the sooner you pull your head out of your arse the better for you.

Why create more topics when you cannot defend the current ones? Why should I waste my time reading another of your write ups when you've...
1) Not given any citations to support anything you've said.
2) Lied in a desperate attempt to defend your OP.
3) Resorted to insults when asked for citations.
4) Clearly shown lack of understanding of basic definitions such as 'scientific theory' and 'hypothesis'.
5) Been red-herring half of the time...

EzioAuditore:


Proof? And did it talk about embryology, rain formation, black holes, and other scientific facts ? Smh

Of course, the Bible was not written as a work of science nor was its purpose to describe the workings of the physical world. It was written to explain spiritual principles - the nature of mankind, the
nature of God, and how people can have a personal relationship with God

However, when the Bible describes the
physical world, it is accurate. The
purpose of this page is to illustrate some of the remarkable examples of scientific principles described in the Bible hundreds to thousands of years before they were proved to be true by science.

Time had a beginning
2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, 1 Corinthians
2:7
The universe had a beginning
Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, etc.
The universe was created from the
invisible
Hebrews 11:3
The dimensions of the universe were
created
Romans 8:38-39
The universe is expanding
Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:16
Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory)
Genesis 2:3-47
The universe is winding down and will
"wear out" (second law of
thermodynamics ensures that the
universe will run down due to "heat
death"-maximum entropy)
Psalm 102:25-27
Describes the correct order of creation
Genesis 1 (see Day-Age Genesis One
Interpretation)
Number of stars exceeds a billion
Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22
Every star is different
1 Corinthians 15:41
Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally
bound star groups
Job 38:31
Light is in motion
Job 38:19-20
The earth is controlled by the heavens
Job 38:33
Earth is a sphere
Isaiah 40:22 Job 26:10
At any time, there is day and night on
the Earth
Luke 17:34-35
Earth is suspended in space
Job 26:7
The physical laws are constant
Jeremiah 31:35-36
Earth Sciences
Earth began as a waterworld. Formation
of continents by tectonic activity
described
Genesis 1:2-9, Psalm 104:6-9, Proverbs
3:19, Proverbs 8:27-29, Job 38:4-8, 2
Peter 3:5
Water cycle described
Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10, Job
36:27-28
Valleys exist on the bottom of the sea
2 Samuel 22:16
Vents exist on the bottom of the sea
Job 38:16
Ocean currents in the sea
Psalm 8:8
Air has weight
Job 28:25
Winds blow in circular paths
Ecclesiastes 1:6
Biology
The chemical nature of human life
Genesis 2:7, 3:19
Life of creatures are in the blood
Leviticus 17:11
The nature of infectious diseases
Leviticus 13:46
Importance of sanitation to health
Numbers 19, Deuteronomy 23:12-13,
Leviticus 7-9

malvisguy212:
Of course, the Bible was not written as a work of science nor was its purpose to describe the workings of the physical world. It was written to explain spiritual principles - the nature of mankind, the
nature of God, and how people can have a personal relationship with God

However, when the Bible describes the
physical world, it is accurate. The
purpose of this page is to illustrate some of the remarkable examples of scientific principles described in the Bible hundreds to thousands of years before they were proved to be true by science.

Time had a beginning
2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, 1 Corinthians
2:7
The universe had a beginning
Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, etc.
The universe was created from the
invisible
Hebrews 11:3
The dimensions of the universe were
created
Romans 8:38-39
The universe is expanding
Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:16
Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory)
Genesis 2:3-47
The universe is winding down and will
"wear out" (second law of
thermodynamics ensures that the
universe will run down due to "heat
death"-maximum entropy)
Psalm 102:25-27
Describes the correct order of creation
Genesis 1 (see Day-Age Genesis One
Interpretation)
Number of stars exceeds a billion
Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22
Every star is different
1 Corinthians 15:41
Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally
bound star groups
Job 38:31
Light is in motion
Job 38:19-20
The earth is controlled by the heavens
Job 38:33
Earth is a sphere
Isaiah 40:22 Job 26:10
At any time, there is day and night on
the Earth
Luke 17:34-35
Earth is suspended in space
Job 26:7
The physical laws are constant
Jeremiah 31:35-36
Earth Sciences
Earth began as a waterworld. Formation
of continents by tectonic activity
described
Genesis 1:2-9, Psalm 104:6-9, Proverbs
3:19, Proverbs 8:27-29, Job 38:4-8, 2
Peter 3:5
Water cycle described
Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10, Job
36:27-28
Valleys exist on the bottom of the sea
2 Samuel 22:16
Vents exist on the bottom of the sea
Job 38:16
Ocean currents in the sea
Psalm 8:8
Air has weight
Job 28:25
Winds blow in circular paths
Ecclesiastes 1:6
Biology
The chemical nature of human life
Genesis 2:7, 3:19
Life of creatures are in the blood
Leviticus 17:11
The nature of infectious diseases
Leviticus 13:46
Importance of sanitation to health
Numbers 19, Deuteronomy 23:12-13,
Leviticus 7-9

Let me ask you an honest question, are you ret*rded? Honestly, where did it mention anything about expansion of the earth? Science in the Quran shows Allah has knowledge of the universe he created. Everything you wrote there....rubbish!

Oh just don't know why people are arguing with a muslim when they know they have already failed that's why they are trying to be relevant by accepting part of the bible that can bend to suit them and condemn the ones they can't. When they see that's not enough they make use of their book of poem to support islam lol they want to stand by fire by force. Instead they should seek the true path of God than comparing and contrasting. Remember the verse in john ch.16 vs 2 that says: they shall put you out of the synagogues: yeah , the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service .3 And these things will they do unto you , because they have not known the father nor me. Ah when I read the verses it makes my heart skip a beat how Jesus prophesy about this isis,boko haram,alquada, alshabab,taliban, almujahedeen and many more all them from different Countries from the same religion with one vision and one slogan.allah I match you with my foot forever amen.

DProDG:


And apparently, you can't cite any of his publications on expanding earth theory.



Not only has it not been accepted, it has been debunked and isn't even considered a scientific theory by any reputable institution. You obviously do not know what that means.



Only the uneducated and/or the intellectually dishonest reject the Big Bang Theory. A 'theory' that has not been proven is considered a hypothesis and one which has been debunked and rejected is a joke.



This is almost to absurdly ridiculous for me to respond to. You really think that there's something like 'the scientific fact of rain formation' or thereabout? Scientific theories are comprised of facts.



Why create more topics when you cannot defend the current ones? Why should I waste my time reading another of your write ups when you've...
1) Not given any citations to support anything you've said.
2) Lied in a desperate attempt to defend your OP.
3) Resorted to insults when asked for citations.
4) Clearly shown lack of understanding of basic definitions such as 'scientific theory' and 'hypothesis'.
5) Been red-herring half of the time...

And how many scientist have rejected the Big Bang theory? Again, you're contradicting yourself here! You should know scientists never agree on a theory, for instance some believe in alien life, some reject that claim! Where did I lie? I'm always surprised when I put pure facts in front of someone with evidence and he desperately accuses me of lying! Lo! Keep in mind that the fact that the prophet alone said it is enough for me to believe, this is just a possible scientific way of proving it! The same person who said a confirmed hypothesis is a theory is accusing me of lack of knowledge? Lola! I find that quite offensive! As for me, I know I have given enough facts for this theory to be plausible and any sane person would research rather than blindly criticism. And finally! Dude! Red herring? Really? Do you even know what a red herring is? How does it apply to this situation? Smh! Like I said, charlatan!