Jayb wrote: <<The "Rules" were important for the Peace & Good Governance in these early Villages. These "Rules" grew into Religion. Different Villages/Peoples, different Gods. Then came the Warfare over whose God was more powerful, or just who won the Battle which was really over Land, Possessions & Power/Control over people.>>

Jayb, for the Muslims the Qu’ran is itself a miracle and a sign pointing to the existence of God.

To get a feel for why, the following link provides the recitation, along with a translation of Surah Maryam verses 1 to 21 (6:50 minutes).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euqv3p0HFYs

In these versus, particularly from 16 to 36 onwards ( from the 3:05 to 8:15 minute marks), the Qur’an tells the story of Maryam, how she went into seclusion, the conception of Jesus, the birth pains she experienced, how she was accused by her community of being unchaste and the response that came from her new born son, Jesus.

This is for all the Christians out there.

A second point: the Qur’an itself declares that it will be preserved, uncorrupted by man. This opens the Qur’an up to refutation in the sense that if you can prove that there has been tampering, then it follows it cannot be the word of God. I’m not asking you to try but only giving an example of the level of certitude that the Qur’an offers Muslims (that it is the word of god).

After listening to the verses consider how you would explain the qur’an as anything but the word of God. If it was so easy why hasn’t someone been able to produce something similar? Why is it unique, one of a kind? Or is it? I'm open to discussion based on the evidence.

We can always return to what science has to offer in terms of evidence for a creator unless you want to explore this topic further.

AJ,
You ask the question, what is the evidence for there being a God, and want to start from a presumption that there is no god. Well, that is one perspective to start from.

Don Batten is looking at a different (but related) question; investigating origins. He puts it like this (in his own words):

"Note that when it comes to the origin of things there are three possibilities:
1. They always existed. This can be ruled out for the origin of life and species (but also the universe.)
2. They made themselves
3. They were created

That leaves two possibilities. Evolution is the materialists’ myth about how things made themselves. If the materialist explanation of origins is shown to be inadequate, then that leaves creation [or vice versa]. Creationists did not invent this line of reasoning; evolutionists have been using it since Darwin. The modern day hero of God-haters, Richard Dawkins, uses the argument all the time. For example, he argues that the human eye is badly designed, so therefore it could not have been created by an omnipotent Creator; it must have evolved (the details of how are sidestepped)."

AJ, you claim that God is not being rational, or that he "wasn't interested in revealing himself to me in any way that belief in him could be rationally justified." I would suggest that the fault in your logic is that you've put yourself at the centre of it. God is not revealing himself "to me". Yet the evidence is there, and is sufficiently rational and convincing, at least to others, such as Flew. As in the present article, Batten quotes Flew, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

Batten elaborates -

"The problem of how early biochemical processes led to an organism is further from solution than ever and gets more difficult every day. More knowledge just adds to the evidence that life could never form itself.

(cont...)

"Take for example, the research into what could constitute the minimal first cell. This has consistently shown that the first cell is more complex than anyone wanting to believe in abiogenesis ever believed. 480 proteins (+) are essential. Do you know that not even one of these proteins could ever form, even in the whole universe, even with 14 billion years?
(See the calculations here, http://creation.com/who-created-god
and the admissions of evolutionists here, http://creation.com/origin-of-life).

"If this does not provide sufficient evidence for you that life could never make itself (the problem is insoluble for the materialist), then it shows that no amount of evidence would convince you. I would debate this issue on any university campus. Evolutionists are lately trying to say that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution because they haven’t the foggiest idea how life could have made itself." - Don Batten.

-

Rhian,
You say that if the Great Flood was an historical event, then you would expect this would be physically evident to geologists and biologists. I agree. And it is evident to many. Yet all evidence is interpreted through a framework of understanding, or paradigm. Evidence must be viewed and argued. It doesn't just speak for itself.

Similar with evidence for a 'young' universe, you say astronomers should see evidence. They do. Take, for example, the disintegration of comets. From this we expect comets should have a relatively short shelf life. So why haven't they extinguished themselves over the vast ages? Long age believers adjust their theories to suit their philosophical outlook, often despite the evidence, not because of it. 'Earth made itself over long ages' (evolution) happens to be the current dominant philosophical paradigm.

David F says the only way to interpret the astronomical evidence is with the Big Bang. Yet certain acclaimed astronomers such as Halton Arp see it otherwise. In the decades to come, we look forward to hearing many different proposals as to how to explain the evident red shift and other measurable phenomena.
(cont...)

(Rhian cont ...)
The main problem I had with your last post was the overriding impression you gave that, in science, the majority must be right. Yet I'm sure even you could give examples from the history of science where things scientists had assumed to be true and unquestioned have later been demonstrated false. But you use the word 'consensus', which implies the idea of general agreement. What percentage does it take to make or break a 'consensus'? 1% or 51% or something else? I put it to you that when it comes to biological, geological, or astronomical research into origins, there is no consensus; there is only minority and majority views. There are plenty of dissenters for every theory.

When it comes to the Noah's Flood, I put to you (again) certain evidences, which anyone can see, if you are prepared to look at the evidence with the right perspective, or prepared to wear an alternative set of glasses (paradigm).

"Geomorphology is a subfield of geology which specializes in studying and explaining the shape of the earth’s surface—its mountain ranges, plateaus, and plains. It includes study of small-scale features such as hills, valleys, slopes, and canyons. Although we all see and enjoy the beauty of the mountains, rivers, and valleys of the earth, it is amazing how difficult it is for secular science to explain their origin. Their difficulty arises because they begin with an incorrect assumption about what happened in the past. They reject the biblical Flood and assume uniformitarianism, which insists the earth’s rocks, fossils, and surface features may only be explained using present slow-and-gradual processes over millions of years.

"Elevated flat-topped landforms such as plateaus and mesas are no less difficult for the uniformitarian to explain.

"The Genesis Flood clears up these apparent mysteries. The majority of the erosion and deposition of the Earth’s surface took place during the runoff of the Flood water, when the mountains and continents rose and the ocean basins sank. The water first flowed as wide currents during the Abative Phase.
(cont...)

"Then as more mountains and plateaus were exposed above the Flood water, the water was forced to channelize around these obstacles. This later phase is called the Dispersive Phase.

"Erosion beyond anything we can imagine today scoured the Earth during Flood runoff. Landforms were first carved by the wide flows of the Abative Phase and then by the channelized flows of the Dispersive Phase. Rapidly-flowing, wide currents planed the surface flat and deposited hard, rounded rocks that were transported hundreds of kilometres from their source. Plateaus and mesas were created in two stages: first, the top sediments were planed flat by sheet flow. Then lower, channelized flow cut away surrounding sediments as the continents rose relative to sea level, and the ocean basins sank, causing the water level to drop. These landform remnants were thus isolated, and left with steep sides. Occasionally, tall inselbergs were spared from destruction [e.g.Uluru,] leaving them dotted over some planation surfaces. The eroded debris was swept off the continents and deposited where the currents slowed—in deep water at the continent margin, forming the continental shelf and slope.

"As the water became more channelized in the Dispersive Phase, valleys and vertically-walled canyons were rapidly carved. Some of these gorges cut down through rock that was soon to form mountain ranges, ridges, and plateaus. This explains how water gaps are often found today cutting through mountains and other high areas—in ways that make no sense to uniformitarian geomorphologists. Of course, in normal rivers and streams today, water always takes the easiest course—it never flows into mountains, but flows around them.

"Rapid, channelized currents flowed down valleys forming wide, flat pediments, capping them with rounded rocks. The channelized currents did not stop as they exited the continents, but were strong enough to cut deep submarine canyons into the newly deposited sediments on the continental margin.

"The Genesis Flood explains the ‘mysteries’ of geomorphology. And these ‘mysterious’ landforms are found worldwide, providing powerful confirmation that the Flood was global, as the Bible records." - Michael J. Oard.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

You wrote: "The modern day hero of God-haters, Richard Dawkins, uses the argument all the time. For example, he argues that the human eye is badly designed, so therefore it could not have been created by an omnipotent Creator; it must have evolved (the details of how are sidestepped)."

Dear Dan,

Atheists do not hate God, tooth fairy, Zeus or Santa Claus. Why hate what does not exist?

Your statement above is false and reading “Climbing Mount Improbable” will tell you why it is false.

In “Climbing Mount Improbable” Dawkins describes the evolution of the eye in exquisite detail. Not only does Dawkins describe a scenario for the evolution of the eye from light sensitive cells, but he also supports every step in that scenario by citing actual creatures found to have light sensitive organs which are constructed as described.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/248764.Climbing_Mount_Improbable

"Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins

“The human eye is so complex and works so precisely that surely, one might believe, its current shape and function must be the product of design. How could such an intricate object have come about by chance? Tackling this subject in writing that the New York Times called "a masterpiece" Richard Dawkins builds a carefully reasoned and lovingly illustrated argument for evolutionary adaptation as the mechanism for life on earth.The metaphor of Mount Improbable represents the combination of perfection and improbability that is epitomized in the seemingly "designed" complexity of living things. Dawkins skillfully guides the reader on a breathtaking journey through the mountain's passes and up its many peaks to demonstrate that following the improbable path to perfection takes time. Evocative illustrations accompany Dawkins's eloquent descriptions of extraordinary adaptations such as the teeming populations of figs, the intricate silken world of spiders, and the evolution of wings on the bodies of flightless animals. And through it all runs the thread of DNA, the molecule of life, responsible for its own destiny on an unending pilgrimage through time. Climbing Mount Improbable is a book of great impact and skill, written by the most prominent Darwinian of our age.”