IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General > Science & Technology
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Anti-science madness  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Anti-science madness
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112 13>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Tim the plumber View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Male
Joined: 30 September 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 944 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tim the plumber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 September 2016 at 1:54am
Originally posted by simple simple wrote:

Deposition and chemical reactions are involved in limestone. A different state in the past would see differences in those things. Naturally. Your mistake is to assume present forces and laws and processes did it all.
As for moving of continents, in a different state, with thermodynamics not being what we know in this one..they could move very fast without killing heat!


You do understand that you are talking drivel don't you?

There are deposits of such things as muscles. Muscles grow at rates that can be found by looking at their shells. They will have rings of growth a bit like tree rings. It is easy to see how old the muscle was when it died. That othe muscles then grew on it and this process continued for many many years is obvious in lots of fossils. This cannot have happened if the conditions were much different to today.

The same is tre for all sorts of limestone. With an understanding of what you are looking at and the right magnification to see what exactly the fossil is a fossil of you can see how long it took to grow and be deposited.

As for longer time spans, the above is only good for 2 to 3 billion years or so, we can look into space.

There is a thing called gravitational lensing. This is where the path of light is bent by it going past a massive (heavy) object. Such as a galaxy.

There are photos of this. Photos which show the light of a galaxy some 11 billion years away/ago coming straight to us and also being bent around naothe galaxy 6 billion year away/ago. From this evidence and loads of other reasons, we know that the laws of physics were the same 11 billion years ago and 6 billion years ago and all points in between. If they had changed at any point then the stars in those galaxies would not have worked.

To deny this is to say that God has faked the earth's fossils and faked the sky. If so he has done a very good job of it because it looks exactly like the univers has been here doing what it is still doing for 13+ billion years.


Edited by Tim the plumber - 27 September 2016 at 1:54am
Back to Top
airmano View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 March 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 884 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote airmano Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 October 2016 at 1:44pm
Quote Airmano
Regarding Quran 96:2: "Created man from a clot [Alaq]"

Ahmad:
Secondly, I did highlight some variations in the translation of the �Alaq� as �clinging matter� rather than �clot�.

Airmano:
I don't see what this translation should add in value.
Saying "we are made out of some sticky stuff" is almost as precise (iaw. worthless) as saying: "We are made out of something".
-----------------------------------------------------
Ahmad:
I would rather say "something that sticks"

It doesn't help, it's still worthless and shows the whole dilemma of these "Quranic Miracles":

It starts with a rather nonsensical sentence, devoid of any real information (and even more of details).
Just because(!) of its lack of information, it becomes the ideal platform for interpreting whatever you like into it: even a miracle !

...but looking at its real information content it still remains a nonsensical, hollow (and false) piece of information.

Ah, and yes, I know, the Quran is not a science book - and it never will be! ....


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 01 October 2016 at 1:52pm
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
Back to Top
AhmadJoyia View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AhmadJoyia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2016 at 4:51am
Originally posted by airmano airmano wrote:

....
Ah, and yes, I know, the Quran is not a science book - and it never will be! ....
Airmano


So who claimed it to be a book of science??? But it was you proving that anything that you find in this book is antiscience. Thus I don't think you have done your job, not at least about these verses. So, what else do you have to throw such allegations??

Best regards.

Back to Top
Tim the plumber View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Male
Joined: 30 September 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 944 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tim the plumber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2016 at 7:10am
Originally posted by AhmadJoyia AhmadJoyia wrote:

Originally posted by airmano airmano wrote:

....
Ah, and yes, I know, the Quran is not a science book - and it never will be! ....
Airmano


So who claimed it to be a book of science??? But it was you proving that anything that you find in this book is antiscience. Thus I don't think you have done your job, not at least about these verses. So, what else do you have to throw such allegations??

Best regards.



Does the Koran claim that the whole world has been flooded at one time?

Is this a claim that it actually happened and not that it is a fable, a fairy tale?

Because the earth has never been flooded. It has not happened. Anybody who understands anything about river errosion and deposition cannot look at any river valley in the world and not know this.
Back to Top
airmano View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 March 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 884 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote airmano Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2016 at 1:16pm
Quote Ahmad:
So who claimed it to be a book of science???
Neither you nor me - and this is exactly what I wrote.
------------------------------------------------------
Quote But it was you proving that anything that you find in this book is antiscience.
I never said the Quran is anti-science. All I say and said is that the Quran does not contain any scientifically useful and innovative information. It reflects -at best- the thinking of 1400 years ago.
-------------------------------------------------------
Quote Thus I don't think you have done your job, not at least about these verses. So, what else do you have to throw such allegations??
Slowly, we're not done yet.

Airmano
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
Back to Top
AhmadJoyia View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AhmadJoyia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 October 2016 at 10:11pm
Originally posted by airmano airmano wrote:

Quote Ahmad:
So who claimed it to be a book of science???
Neither you nor me - and this is exactly what I wrote.
------------------------------------------------------
Quote But it was you proving that anything that you find in this book is antiscience.
I never said the Quran is anti-science.
Good to know that for you "Quran is not anti-science".

Originally posted by Airmano Airmano wrote:

All I say and said is that the Quran does not contain any scientifically useful and innovative information.
Wow! If Quran is not anti-science, hence its validity in today's scientific world is all the more logical, unlike any other religious book (to my limited knowledge). Secondly, I don't know what is your definition of "Scientifically useful and innovative information"? What is useful and not, how can you quantify it to gauge any book?

Originally posted by Airmano Airmano wrote:


It reflects -at best- the thinking of 1400 years ago.
Maybe, But more important to know that surprisingly it is still valid (Not anti-scientific as far as today's knowledgebase is concerned).
Originally posted by Airmano Airmano wrote:


-------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ahmadjoyia Ahmadjoyia wrote:

Thus I don't think you have done your job, not at least about these verses. So, what else do you have to throw such allegations??
Slowly, we're not done yet.
Airmano

Yes, sure, let us see. Best regards.
Back to Top
Tim the plumber View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Male
Joined: 30 September 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 944 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tim the plumber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 October 2016 at 11:50am
Originally posted by AhmadJoyia AhmadJoyia wrote:

  Wow! If Quran is not anti-science, hence its validity in today's scientific world is all the more logical, unlike any other religious book (to my limited knowledge). Secondly, I don't know what is your definition of "Scientifically useful and innovative information"? What is useful and not, how can you quantify it to gauge any book?


The Koran is just scientifically irrelivant.

The basis for decieding if something (an idea) is scientifically useful is that it has to make predictions that are not obvious and turn out right.

So Darwin's book on the origins of species is uesful because it makes the prediction that a mechanism for the passing on of information (of how the living thing is to be) from the parents of an individual will not be 100% accurate always and result in deviation from the species.

That this mechanism will be heartless and uncaring in it's working.

That those deviations that don't give an advantage of some sort will generally result in death for the offspring. And that those deviations that give an advantage will result in this deviation spreading and growing in numbers.


Edited by Tim the plumber - 06 October 2016 at 11:50am
Back to Top
AhmadJoyia View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AhmadJoyia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 October 2016 at 9:25pm
Originally posted by Tim the plumber Tim the plumber wrote:



Originally posted by AhmadJoyia AhmadJoyia wrote:

� Wow! If Quran is not anti-science, hence its validity in today's scientific world is all the more logical, unlike any other religious book (to my limited knowledge). Secondly, I don't know what is your definition of "Scientifically useful and innovative information"? What is useful and not, how can you quantify it to gauge any book?
The Koran is just scientifically irrelivant.[COLOR="#000099"]The basis for decieding if something (an idea) is scientifically useful is that it has to make predictions that are not obvious and turn out right.

O dear! Tim the Plumber my brother, please don't bother yourself too much on science. Nevertheless, your zeal and spirit to dwell into science is well appreciated. Can you please provide any authentic reference to support your definition of Scientifically useful stuff when you say "The basis for decieding if something (an idea) is scientifically useful is that it has to make predictions that are not obvious and turn out right." Without any qualification of 'Prediction', IMHO, your definiton is highly unscientifc. For example,if we find my brother Tim betting in a horse race and winning, should we consider him a scientist? or his prediction as scientifically useful, just because it came out to be true? I don't think so, but if you persist, please don't bother replying back but invite your mentor to help you understand what I meant here.

May be your next step, by using this definition of sceience, is to prove that the Bible is scientifically useful, simply because, accord ing to you, all its predictions turned out to be true, or if not yet, would turn out to be true in near future. Hence, as per your difinition, the bible is more scientifically relevent than any other book? Am I correct??
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112 13>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.