Anti-science madness

simple wrote: Metal working was here since the garden of Eden era actually, so no need for stone tools. God gave the blueprint and detailed instructions, so of course He could build such a ship.

If that's the case and there were no humans before the garden of Eden who made all those stone tools?

Who was it that cut down the trees on British upland areas with stone tools and then over grazed them resulting in the formation of peat bogs?

Peat bogs which would have floated off if there had ever been a world flood.

I don't know why people combine religion with science these are two different matters
Peoples have their own why should we talk about anyone's believe

@Ahmad

Airmano: So again: clay ≠ water ≠ dust ≠ clotted blood => Internal contradiction. The Quran is obviously inconsistent. Ahmad: If you don't give specific verses of such conflicts, I guess, we are only wasting time by hitting in darkness. IMHO, you are only hitting on variation by different translators interchanging use of clay/ dust, but that is only my guess work and can't be sure of your actual issue in conflict, if any.

Nope, using the link I gave it took less than one minute for each term:

Clay: Al-An'aam, Chapter #6, Verse #2
Dust: Al-Kahf, Chapter #18, Verse #37
Water: An-Noor, Chapter #24, Verse #45
Clot: Al-Alaq, Chapter #96, Verse #2

There are much more, the fact that you do not even make an attempt to look for it is not a good sign.
---------------------------------------------------------

Ahmad: What if I say clay = mixture of naturally occurring elements and if I say everything (living or non living) in this world is made of clay, am I wrong? Airmano: Yes, indeed, you'd be wrong ! Marshmallows do not only consist of carbon. So if I take your logic to the [bitter] end I'd be entitled to say "we are made out of marshmallows". (actually marshmallows would definitely be closer to the truth than clay). Sure it's humbug and you know it. Ahmad: Nope, your example is far from my explanation. Consider that Clay is a mixture of varying constituent elements in its composition and if any one of its elements is removed from the mixture, the mixture would still be called, more or less, as clay. On the contrary, your "Marshmallow" is a mixture of very well defined constituent elements (btw what's the chemical formula for Marshmallows?) and if anyone of its element is removed from it, the mixture would not be called as 'Marshmallow" (and you would definitely not like to eat it anymore)

Again, plain wrong. The term "Clay" is defined as " hydrous (aluminium) phyllosilicates". Furthermore there are structural/crystallographic/mineralogic classification of the different types of clay.

Take for instance the silicon away and you have no clay anymore (not even to talk about the structural change).

Opposite to that: Take away the few atoms of Silicon that there are in a healthy living human and -surprise- you still have a perfectly healthy and living human.

So again: We are not made out of clay. The Quran remains wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------

Airmano: It doesn't help: There is still no clay in our body nor its constituent elements. It's plain wrong Ahmad: May be you could explain about the decaying process of flesh into soil and through regenerative process, birth of new life in this world or simply put, Law of conservation of Mass. If the total human population of this world is ever increasing, from where the extra mass is coming? Please don't tell me the Neutrino effect.

Ahmad you're a strange guy. On one side you throw terms like "Schwarzschild radius" or "gravitational singularity" into the discussion and on the other hand you ask utterly primitive questions like this one.

I have great difficulties in getting the two "Ahmads" to match: Either you look up terms like "Schwarzschild radius" and "gravitational singularity" and use them without understanding their meaning or you ask questions like the one above simply to wear me out.
If you really want to know the answer to your question I'm willing to help, if it is just to fool me it is a waste of time.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Airmano on the Ark story: First you must have been looking hard to find a translation that omits "creature" in "each creature". But even your translation equally says: "We said: "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female" So what does "each" mean if not "each" ? Is your prophet trying to tell me that a guy called Noah saved a pair of snails from his back yard ? As I said, if you are fixated by the biblical account, no matter what explanation I provide, your mind wouldn't accept the alternate understanding. Nevertheless, I shall try one more time by asking you to consider an example in which you suddenly realize that your house is on fire and realizing the gravity of the situation you ask your family member (whosoever he/she may be) to please evacuate everyone from the house. Now, would this imply each and every creature in your house to be evacuated? Maybe those mosquitoes, ants, or other bio-creatures co-living in your house without much of your approval, should also be evacuated? I don't think so. What I am hinting at is that this phrase of 'each' could imply those pets whose number of females are usually more than their male counter parts such as cows, hens, goats etc for their obvious benefits such as milk or eggs etc. But, in such situations where the capacity of the boat is limited, one can't afford the luxury of all animals so only the very essentials are required to brought into it. This implies a pair of each (household) animal should be sufficient to sustain life for longer periods. I think, this understanding is very natural especially with reference to the example that I tried to explain. You wouldn't be worried about the crawling creatures under your mattress, in case of a fire emergency. Would you?

Your attempt to explain the problem away doesn't make it any better, essentially you really reduce it to the snails:
The case you constructed could have been easily expressed by modifying "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female" to something like "Take your animals along". Obviously this is not what is written in the Quran. Or do you think that God gives misleading advice to his prophets ?
Furthermore: If Noah had really followed the (unwritten) advice and took only one male and one female of each (domestic) animal he would have been in trouble if one of them had died.
Even worse if he had taken a couple of each animal on earth: There would have been dozens of species being wiped out due to the likelihood of one of the two dying during the trip.

It is funny to watch that in order to embellish the [logic of] the Quran the wildest theories are brought forward - which you would never accept under normal circumstances.

So, no, neither have you found a [better] explanation nor I'm not "blinded by the bible" and I still have no reason to assume that "each" ≠ "each". The rest is (wild) speculation. By the way, most of the translators implicitly agree on my logic by adding [creature] after "each".

In the end you are trying to bend (corrupt ?) the Quran until it fits your desired interpretation. May be that stretching the meaning of arabic word "each" is the next attempt ?

Ah, by the way: you also didn't react on my logic:

"Mount Judi! = several hundreds of meters high.
Looking at the kind of flood you mention (monsoon): have you ever seen an area filled to several hundreds of meter of water (high) by monsoon rain ? No !

And since we are already there: As you rightly comment the same story shows up in the bible but also in older tellings (Thorah, Babylonians) Obviously Mohamed was not the first one to get impressed by it.

Now, if God wanted to address this message to all mankind why did he (supposedly) protect Mohamed's version only ?

------------------------------------------------------------

Ahmad: I think you have not provided any evidence to support your hypothesis that Quran is wrong. Co-development implies start of both bone and flesh structure together which is not correct especially if it has to start with single cell. Isn�t it? Airmano: That cells diversify got nothing to do with with bones and muscles developing in parallel. (opposite to the Quran that suggests a sequential bones -> muscles development). Did you make an honest attempt to inform yourself about this matter ? Ahmad: You haven't yet quoted any verse of the Quran and neither the scientific evidence to support your allegation. So, please complete your homework before you ask others.

I knew it. As soon as your believe system gets threatened you refuse any collaboration.

OK,
Al-Muminoon, Chapter #23, Verse #14:
Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation.

So the time structure is clearly indicated as successive steps:
a)"Nutfah" -> b) thick coagulated blood -> c) This clot transforms to lump of flesh -> d)This flesh transforms into to bones -> e) These bones stay and get surrounded by flesh (muscles), (followed by more mumble mumble).

So can you tell me any scientific source confirming: c->d and d->e ?
Sure you can't and you will send the problem back to me.

BTW: b) is already perfect nonsense in itself.


More when I have time:


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 13 September 2016 at 1:50pm

simple wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: simple wrote: Metal working was here since the garden of Eden era actually, so no need for stone tools. God gave the blueprint and detailed instructions, so of course He could build such a ship. If that's the case and there were no humans before the garden of Eden who made all those stone tools?Who was it that cut down the trees on British upland areas with stone tools and then over grazed them resulting in the formation of peat bogs?Peat bogs which would have floated off if there had ever been a world flood. Probably all that was post flood.

Also post flood was the formation of the various techtonic plates that make up the earth's crust and show no signs of this massive event which would have left huge evidence behind. Of course lots of other mucch lesser events are all about the place.

So that's before 4 billion years ago.....

There has never been a world flood.