quran and science

Wrong ? How can a question be "wrong" ?

I asked QE 5 times he never gave an answer to my request to supply more [credible] names than Moore. What is "Wrong" in asking 5 times ?

Than: If I interpret the sentence Ron put in correctly (I did not check for more/other sentences):

"I see no evidence for the fact to refute the concept that this individual, Muhammad, had to be developing this information from some place. So I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved in what he was able to write.

Here he only says that he sees "no conflict" (I can't exclude the possibility that he said something different elsewhere though).
This is about as saying: "I see no [logical] conflict between the birds singing and the stock market going down".

Well, I don't see a conflict there either !

Needless to say that there is even an error in his sentence, Muhammad was illiterate, so it was certainly not him writing anyway. I.a.w.: he doesn't seem to know much about the Quran either.


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 06 November 2014 at 2:04am

airmano wrote: Wrong ? How can a question be "wrong" ? I asked QE 5 times he never gave an answer to my request to supply more [credible] names than Moore. What is "Wrong" in asking 5 times ? Than: If I interpret the sentence Ron put in correctly (I did not check for more/other sentences): "I see no evidence for the fact to refute the concept that this individual, Muhammad, had to be developing this information from some place. So I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved in what he was able to write. Here he only says that he sees "no conflict" (I can't exclude the possibility that he said something different elsewhere though). This is about as saying: "I see no [logical] conflict between the birds singing and the stock market going down". Well, I don't see a conflict there either ! Needless to say that there is even an error in his sentence, Muhammad was illiterate, so it was certainly not him writing anyway. I.a.w.: he doesn't seem to know much about the Quran either. Airmano

As NABA said, he has already given you names other than Moore. So your statement that there is nobody else other than Moore endorsing the Quranic references on embryology is proved wrong. I have also given a list of experts, just to stop your excuses. You can find this if you scroll further down along the comments.

Now coming to Johnson's comment, I'm not sure whether it is a case of you being confused (as it seems always) or you are trying to use the age old strategy "if you can't convince then try to confuse". In either case it comes out as such a poor attempt. For anyone who reads the statement, the crux of the matter is clear that he is pointing at the divine origin of Quran.

NABA wrote: U asked names other than moore, I gave it!!!! Its upto u what u want to interpret

I interpret that you were reluctant to give these names at first because you knew what a weak response it would be.  All these guys attended the the same conference and all of them were bribed and tricked in the same way by al-Zindani.  And as far as I can tell none of them stand by their initial statements.

Ron Webb wrote: No, he is saying that the evidence presented to him does not refute and is not conflict with a divine origin. I'm not surprised that you can't see the difference, though. That's exactly the kind of logical confusion that leads to irrational beliefs.In fact, it may be the fundamental difference between science and religion, come to think of it. A scientist says, "I won't believe it until you can prove it." A theist says, "I'll believe it until you can disprove it."

Now, let's look at this a bit closer:

When Johnson says the evidence presented to him does not refute and is not in conflict with a divine origin, it clearly means that he is eliminating the possibility of any other source from where this information could have come in the Quran, because in such case that possibility would have been definitely in conflict with a divine origin of Quran.

Now you are saying for a man of science that is not enough - you need proof. Below are the questions that I raised before regarding the proofs in a different thread, but never got a credible answer:

Now coming to the �proof business� which seems to be the last resort of escape for the proponents of science and reason:

Having already seen both human reason and science when applied alone are not good enough even to explain or prove many things in the human world, please give some credible answers to below questions if you are serious about the proofs:

1.    What proof are you looking at for you to believe in Quran and Allah?
2.    What mechanism do you suggest to establish this proof having already seen the failure of both human reason and science to fully establish such proofs even in the much limited human world, let alone the realm of Allah?


Edited by Quranexplorer - 08 November 2014 at 10:00am