creat-volution

This is correct. Jews, Christians and Muslims all draw from the same source material, they just have different interpretations of who, if and when the Messiah came. Genesis's story of creation is *the* story of creation for all the Abrahamic religions (let's ignore for the fact that Genesis itself describes two different creations).

Either way, the Genesis creation story (which is the most common source when talking about 'creationism') is undermined by plenty of fairly concrete scientific evidence. I would say that Genesis and science/evolution are incompatible, which is why people who believe in Genesis attack science/evolution so vociferously. There is nothing contradictory, however, about God and evolution existing simultaneously. We cannot prove what started our planet or universe's existence, no more so than we can prove that God exists (or does not). I'm not sure that's what the argument about creation and evolution ultimately comes down to, though.

 

I'm still searching for the ultimate artifact to prove everyone is right. The first edition of the bible including the New Testament, carbon dated to be 1978 years old, and signed by Jesus himself.

Just like there accuracy of science rarely is 100%, the Bible is also not 100% accurate. A lot of the stuff in the New Testament correlates with other documents, but the Old Testament is a collection of stories, some older than the written language, that has been passed on for generations. The accuracy is questionable, but the message is still valid (IMO).

My biggest gripe is that I cant's see that believing in God as the big creator interferes with evolution - which is based on observations of the universe created by God. I haven't studied the Bible to great extents, and I don't know all about science so there could be something I'm missing.

PS: Just as the stories of the Old Testament should be read with the time/intention frame of reference in mind, the same applies for Darwin's works. A lot of the cultural stances of that time has colored his conclusions (compared to todays social values).

 

Good luck, if that's what you seek. I've yet to hear about anything that Jesus himself authored. The New Testament is a selected collection of works written after Jesus died.

 

Now you made me look dumb
(I'm fully capable of doing that myself)

 

There is only interference if one insists that the Old Testament is an infallible historical record.

 

This attitude shows a fundamental ignorance of the scientific method. To give an answer, you have to have a reason to give it. You've crammed a spectrum into a false dichotomy, acknowledged that there is a middle ground, and demanded that respondents ignore a middle ground and pick one of the two inadequate options with no qualifying statements in order to force any intellectually honest individual with whom you disagree to give an answer that appears to agree with you. That is not a valid question.

 

While my cultural bias is to assume that anyone asking that question refers to the Judeo-Christian deity, I could be senselessly pedantic add to that the near-meaningless of the word "God" stated without qualification.

 

Unless it's just God playing games with us, leading us on by giving evidence - then at some crucial point, scientists will find out he was just kidding.

 

Look around. It's obvious that God has a sense of humor.... sometimes sickeningly sadistic.

I'd prefer to be a germ in an alien's petri dish than in the thrall of a god that gets his jollies by testing, confusing and misleading us with a deliberately falsified fossil record.

 

And from where would have the aliens come?

Suppose God set up all rules on science, got bored, then quit being the almighty, who knows everything, leaving us like a ship without captain.

 

The germs in our petri dishes are wondering from where we came... or are they in that carry-out box in the back of the fridge?

 

There could also be a very simple explanation to all this, but the science is there to distract us. I seem to like the idea, we are being fooled.

It's hard to fathom, how there could be a start or an ending.

 

As far as I know, there is nothing in Islam that rejects the possibility of evolution. We also do not believe (well, the vast majority) that the Earth is 10,000 years old.

We do perceive the testaments as follows: Old Testament (Torah), New Testament (Bible) and Last Testament (Qur'an).

Islam's ideological framework cannot be linked to the story of the first creation described in Genesis. While we believe the Bible to be one of three holy books of our faith, the current Bible (and its hundreds of editions) is widely regarded as a false book. It is believed that the real Bible was obscured by the hands of the Popes and even some of the 12 apostles (especially Peter, if I remember right) over the past 2000 years. Thus the Bibles today's Christians believe in are widely rejected by Islamic scholars.

About the constants in science, which many have understandably taken as "constants" in order to answer Ismmm's (I forget how many m's) questions, I believe there exists quite some doubt on whether they truly remain the same over very long periods of time, or distances.

I clearly remember reading an article on the effects of things such as gravity and dark matter/energy on the speed of light (c), which is after all considered one of the most important constants in modern physics. Empirical data seemed to suggest that the speed of light is most-severely affected when photons cross the "void" between cluster galaxies, as the huge gravitational powers from the clusters show their effect. It also appeared to suggest that light may have traveled slightly slower (which is an extremely important fact, if true), especially in the early ages of the Universe. Unfortunately, can't link you to the article in question.

Instead, I have some others for you:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm

All of the above sums up to become this statement: I like you science goons, I really do. I loved to bury my mind in all sorts of information and theories for years, and I still love to do so occasionally. However, being arrogant about the entire thing towards Ismmm and his questions doesn't make you look like worthy advocates of science. Science, just like anything else (okay, most) of the academic realm, is based on logic as well as the limited understanding and information which we humans possess at any given time when we answer a question. There is nothing wrong with Ismmm's questions and I for one am happy to see him questioning the things as they are told.

 

Thanks for the links, Remixer. They are a great illustration of how science keeps reexamining even widely accepted theories as it strives to get closer to a truth. That there is disagreement is yet another point in favor of the scientific method

I also appreciate the info on the Islamic take on the subject.