Anti-science madness
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: General
Forum Name: Science & Technology
Forum Description: It is devoted for Science & Technology
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35413
Printed Date: 21 November 2024 at 8:40pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Anti-science madness
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Subject: Anti-science madness
Date Posted: 18 January 2016 at 11:15am
|
In this section of the forum Abu has posted gibberish about the earth being flat or a cube or whatever, that the earth is 6,000 years old and that the moon is somehow traveling throught the atmosphere. There has been a lack of either support for these views or any attack on them by the Muslims here. It has been almost exclusively left to the couple of Atheists here to explain why he is utterly wrong. To explain why we know what we do. To explain how his own observations show that the earth is a sphere etc. Why? And given this how do you think your belief in a god is different to Abu's non-sense? I am genuinely curious. |
Replies:
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 21 January 2016 at 8:36pm
|
It's deeper than just anti-science. We know that there are many different interpretations of the Quran, the hadith, Muslim history, etc.; but once a Muslim has given a response to a non-Muslim regarding a particular topic within Islam, I rarely see alternate Muslim views presented. It's kind of frustrating because I want to hear multiple Muslim perspectives, not just one at a time.
My observation in years of discussion here is that most Muslims are very reluctant to say anything critical of another Muslim in the presence of non-Muslims. (Of course perhaps they have the same reluctance when non-Muslims are not present -- how would I know? -- but I don't think so.) There seems to be an ethic embedded in Muslim culture that the divide between Muslim and non-Muslim supercedes all other divisions, including even such things as the division between truth and falsehood. Apparently, for a Muslim to criticise another Muslim in a discussion, let alone to side with a non-Muslim, would be seen as disloyal to the faith or the ummah or something. I may be wrong, and if so I would be glad to hear it. What do Muslims think about this? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 22 January 2016 at 1:28am
|
Yes Ron. That is exactly how I see it. It is the opposite of the British habit of being very self critical. We constantly moan about the UK and our selves. I think we do this with the objective of improving it situation. It will not change if we don't point out it's failings. I suppose if you have the position of saying that perfection has already been arrived at then any critisim is going to be threatening. |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 22 January 2016 at 5:11am
|
Todays science is not an exact science as almost ALL of it is conjucture. I exclude Mathematics and Medical Science from this s these are based onevidence and which we can test empirically. However, when it comes to Astronomy and Astrology they are the works of satan to fool the human beings into believing that we are insignificant. On the contrary, our Creator Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala created us as a special creation and even asked the Angels to prorstrate to a human being. One thing to remember is that all these things are meant to happen as the Great Deception is part of the signs of the end times. ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 22 January 2016 at 5:15am
You keep connecting Science with religion for some strange reason. There's no need for it, I can worship my Creator without science just perfect thank you very much. You don't see many Muslims joining in in pointless discussions because they know they know better than to join in pointless and sometimes nonsensical discussions. What I'm trying to do however is to highlight the darn right lies within the scientific comunities. The new one being the ninth planet? ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Ron Webb wrote:Posted By: Emettman
Date Posted: 22 January 2016 at 6:55am
Now that's an odd idea, unless a leap is made at the very beginning that the religion is perfect. (in which case any discussion is indeed pointless, as it is closed off by that initial assumption.) Failing that, whenever a religion or its central text makes a statement about physics (or history, biology) these can be compared with other sources of awareness of physics, history or biology. Sources need cross-checking whenever means are available, surely. If a beautiful idea can never be destroyed by an ugly fact then the most unsound and untrue (but beautiful) idea will continue to survive. That doesn't seem healthy or wise.
What's wrong with finding evidence for a 9th planet? Uranus was found in in 1781. Neptune in 1846 and Pluto in 1930, though later, better observations revealed that it was too small to class as a full planet (it was for a while considered the 9th full planet of the solar system. We now know it is only the second biggest dwarf planet. (so if Pluto counts as 9, we already have 10!) This is called progress in knowledge. Better ideas from better observations replace weaker or less accurate ideas. Now where any religion touches on these areas, why should it have some sort of "religious immunity"? (like diplomatic immunity only more so.) If granted for one religion it needs granting for all. Whatever it is. That doesn't seem very palatable given the range of religions that exist. Test the science, history, biology too, of course. But declare any religion "science proof" and you can't tell wisdom from nonsense. |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 23 January 2016 at 3:56am
The trouble with finding evidence is that there is absolutely NO evidence. They just use conjucture, if you look at their statements they say things like 'probable' 'likely' 'could be' etc etc etc. This is not an exact science. There is no way of proving it unless you send a camer up there, which is impossible. ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Posted By: Emettman
Date Posted: 23 January 2016 at 6:25am
I don't know what you call evidence, but evidence there is. Measurements taken do not fit the behaviour of the solar system as we understand it. Therefore (logic step, no conjecture) there is evidence for something that we don't yet know about. Conjecture as to what that might be is perfectly good science, as these conjectures or hypotheses *can be tested* against observations and against predictions made using them, to see which initial idea is a better fit to reality... and refinement or elimination of false ideas can go on from there. What on earth (or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter) can you have against that?
"Probably" sounds good. It means there is work to do closing in on the right possibility. I don't know how you got the strange idea that science is exact, or that it needs to be. It is often remarkably exact but except in bad teaching of it is not *perfectly* exact. It can even make measure of its own uncertainty a lot of the time.
Photography may not be impossible at all If where to look can be refined mathematically, Hubble or even a ground based telescope may be adequate, though that might be just when planet IX (yes if it is as predicted) crosses the line of a star and occludes it. Other sites suggest it would take (only!?) the diversion of several major telescopes for about fifty days to have a very good chance of making a direct visual observation. We've got EVIDENCE, (the "wrong" orbits of several known distant objects) so let's go looking. Science is extremely happy when something doesn't make sense according to what is already known. It means that there is something else to know. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 23 January 2016 at 8:25am
Buy a telescope. Look at Jupiter. If you can't see the moons of it on a clear day you either brought a very poor telescope or have the lense cap on. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 23 January 2016 at 8:29am
|
Still no Muslims here other than the resident nutter. Why do you want you religion represented by this *****? |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 23 January 2016 at 9:46am
Okay, I think I see the problem. You're right that science is rarely (theoretically never) certain of anything. No matter how confident we are, no matter how much evidence we have (and yes, everything in science is based on evidence), we always leave open the possibility, however remote, that we might be wrong. If someone comes along with better evidence or a better theory, we are always willing to listen and perhaps change our minds. You see that as a weakness; but on the contrary, that is its great power. I once read a book called "How Not To Be Wrong", whose main message is that if you want to avoid being wrong, never be too confident that you are right. Excellent advice, IMHO. The acquisition of knowledge is an iterative process, constantly building greater and greater confidence in the truth, but never declaring final victory and never closing the door to the possibility of further refinement or revision. Certainty is the fatal flaw of all religions. The Muslims are certain; so are the Hindus, and the Christians, and the Mormons, and virtually every one of the thousands of other religions humankind has invented over the millennia. Even the most optimistic view would have to admit that certainty about religious opinion is an almost sure sign that you are wrong. Think about it.  ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 23 January 2016 at 11:34am
Certainty is the fatal flaw of all religions except Islam. I know that you and all the other religions will laugh at this statement, so let's examine why. In the beginning there was only one religion, the true religion of Monotheism worshipping ONE God. However, as man 'evolved' into communities, groups and nations they invented their own religions adding and subtracting from the True religion. However, our Creator has sent down various books so that man will get back to the true religion, some people believed in it and others did not. But the thing is that nobody will know what the true religion unless one has been guided to this. Ok now you will ask "so how do you know that the Hidus, Budhists etc are not guided?" Because you have understand what the original religion was. Again we can argue for years and years abotu this but as I believe in the Abrhamiac Monotheistic religion I believe that is the the true one. Man in his nature searches for God. When we are born, we all are born innocent and pure, it is our parents, our communities and the people that we interact wih in our lives that lead as away from God. I can't guide you or anyone to God, only He can. But you can change this by having a change of heart, meaning just be honest and open your heart and search for the truth. ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Posted By: Emettman
Date Posted: 23 January 2016 at 1:46pm
or make it, with the name of their own religion as the exception. The symmetry is near-perfect.
Well that's dubious indeed, given how scattered early humanity was and with groups isolated from each other.
On what grounds declare an earlier unified and pure religion? Those religions that do indeed reference an earlier better or purer time are in no agreement as to its nature.
It's a fair question, and yours is a fair answer provided you remember it is *your belief. The judgement and commitment of a fallible human being, the same as any other. Whence then *grounded* certainty?
I've reason enough to consider that, looking at nature, the world and the universe.
It's a belief, but far, far removed from anything proven.
I did, and I found I couldn't be honest and still be a theist any more. There's too much wrong with the idea, and too much sign of God and religion being a human creation. Very often God as a tribal leader writ large. Of course, faith and belief cuts through all that, and authenticates (self-authenticates) the religion settled upon. Which could be anything: that's how faith operates. But whatever is settled upon tends to be reinforced. As faith doesn't do doubt. Which is the horror of it. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 23 January 2016 at 7:43pm
In philosophy, this is is known as http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html - special pleading .
And you're certain of that, right? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 24 January 2016 at 12:27am
Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Emettman
Date Posted: 24 January 2016 at 1:23am
We're also getting a wonderful illustration of "paradigm in place" "Why are you painting white lines in the middle of the road?" "To keep the tigers away." "But there aren't any tigers around here!" "Good stuff, isn't it?" With no possibility being admitted of the core idea or paradigm being in error, all data will be made to fit, one way or the other, or declared to be false data. A frankly Procrustean methodology. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 24 January 2016 at 1:42am
|
If I throw some light on what bro Abu is trying to say here about science, though I don't subscribe his opinions, when I came across a document where it is admitted that Quantum Mechanics is unique in the intellectual history of the world, because (i)It has no known limits to its validity (ii)Fundamentally, we do not understand it at all! . Interestingly, he posted a philosophical problem in the very end that just want to share here as Some have thrown up their hands and said that Plato got it right all along--that when it comes to understanding physical reality-- we are all in the cave...
Ok, while the 2nd observation is self-explanatory, however, is there anyone who can explain us about the 1st observation? Here is the https://www.phas.ubc.ca/~berciu/PHILIP/CONFERENCES/PWI03/FILES/stamp.pdf - link , in case someone needs it. Is this, any longer, good enough? |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 24 January 2016 at 2:49am
Having done physics to the point where my maths ability gave out. And I droped out of university. I might be one of the best people to act as a guide to all this in that I know with an extremely high confidence that I do not know very much about it but can see the basics of it and it's very weird. This is my basic guide; Isaac Newton started physics. Newtonian physics is very straight forward. It's how we work out where an artillery shell will land and all the rest of engineering. All aircraft and power stations are done using just this simple (well simple-ish) model of the universe. Then along comes stuff smaller than the atom; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVxBdMxgVX0 Decent video. Fun to watch although don't expect manny holywood killings. Other probelms with the basic physics of Newton kept poping up like the orbit of Mercury being wrong. Einstein comes along and explains that whilst the laws of Newton are right, acceleration is proportional to mass and force on that mass, acceleration is a function of time. It turns out that time is not constant. To me this is a mindblowing idea. Have a look at the video. If you have not watched several such things and thought about them before you will not get most of it but when you have watched lots of them and generally talked to people about it all some of it starts to be understandable-ish. It's still all very weird. Have fun. Come back and talk about it all. Thanks for inserting some other Islamic voice that is not mad. |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 24 January 2016 at 5:31am
You are absolutely right. A Hindu or a Budhist or a Christiand can say the same thing. But how dow I know my religion is the right one? Well I know in my heart of hearts that Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala made the heavens and the earth, then created Adam (Alayhi Salaam) and there was only ONE religion. Then when people began to disobey Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala in His Infinite Merrcy sent Prophets and Messengers and books to teach men and to put them back the Straight Path. Some will believe, others will not. How do I know this? God told me.
110% I know this to be true? How? I read His books, have you? ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 24 January 2016 at 7:08am
It's not just a British habit. It's one of the key elements of Western thinking, which liberal Muslims have adopted as well. Almost all Muslims posting on Islamicity have a conservative or even non-violent fundamentalist view of Islam. The reason for the Islamic Golden Age was liberal Muslims dominating over conservative Muslims. Self criticism was encouraged at the time. Alhazen promoted the scientific method. In 1250 CE this ended with fundamentalist Muslims taking control. To this day liberal Islam has never recovered from this blow. Since 1979 the situation has gotten even worse. Abu Loren and others are victims of Saudi Wahhabist propaganda flooding the entire planet. ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 24 January 2016 at 8:41am
Have you read the other religious books? Have you read any science books? Even better have you looked through a telescope? |
Posted By: Emettman
Date Posted: 24 January 2016 at 10:13am
That seems pretty fair. "Phlogiston theory" actually works, for a very limited range of circumstances. Newtonian mechanics works very well, within a framework limited by size and speed. (Go too small or too fast, and the shortcomings appear.) As far as is yet known there are no "limitation clauses" which affect quantum phenomena.
Yes, the problem of obtaining *direct* measurements and *direct* observations is still valid, but there is this big difference. We in many cases *can make the shadows move as we direct.* What things actually are when I pick up a pen, or cause two things to stick together due to static electricity, those mysteries we have not plumbed, not right to the bottom. But our low-level or approximate knowledge is good enough to make the cave's shadows dance to our tune, which strongly suggests that our partial knowledge is on the right track on the way to perfect knowledge, if that can ever be attained. Understanding? That may be impossible, even if we do succeed in working with what we don't understand. As young child I had true knowledge that if a certain button was pressed on a torch, light would appear. More I did not know, then. The difference between true but only working knowledge, and deeper understanding. Later I learned about batteries. Later I learned about the chemistry of (some!) batteries. Later I learned a bit about hoe atomic structure makes chemistry work... But what is atomic structure? Still levels of understanding to go before "I understand" is full, and we haven't hit bottom yet. And this far removed from day-to-day commonsense experience (at the human scale) analogies and picture-language really starts to fail. The good language left is mathematics, and almost that alone, and this starts to go deeper than I can follow. That doesn't mean I don't understand how to use a torch. |
Posted By: Emettman
Date Posted: 24 January 2016 at 10:35am
For 100% (or 110%) that is not good enough, though to the person in that position (Hindu, Buddhist, Christina, Muslim, it will seem that it is... ) Why is it not good enough, because any can hold it, of any content? You speak eloquently of your conviction. And the *conviction* I do not doubt. But that does not objectively settle the question of truth, or every utterly convinced believer who ever lived, died of blew themselves up would have been right about what they believed *whatever* that was. This doesn't work. (except to produce clashes between different convinced believers.)
So you believe. Does belief equate to certain truth? You would, I think, deny that for any other faith, so you are privileging your own faith and your own judgement. That's tempting, and rather natural, but the question is, why do you rate yourself as special?
Yes, enough to know I should not be Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist. To the best of my knowledge and experience. But that has to fall short of 100% certainty. *Whatever* it may *feel* like. But that takes some disciplined dispassionate distancing from one's own perspective to realise. It's not easy. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 26 January 2016 at 12:48am
An article that may find your interest where the http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html - author concludes ...Thus it seems Einstein was doubly wrong when he said, God does not play dice. Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen.... |
Posted By: Emettman
Date Posted: 26 January 2016 at 12:48pm
Yes. If you want to genuinely get uncertainty out of the system, out of the universe, you have an incredibly hard task ahead. A leap to a believed subjective "certainty" is of course possible, and quite widely adopted, uncertainty being unrecognised or denied. And in many ares a high levels of probability can be achieved which, while not the same thing can *usually* be treated as certainties. It is very important that the difference be remembered, though, or events and truths slipping into the gap will cause surprise, discomfort or worse. Engineers have to allow for the one-in-a-hundred-years event that their structure or building might meet. A one-in-ten-thousand-years event might be too expensive to build against. (Any idea what a truly (almost) totally safe car would look like, or cost?) There, a risk is deemed acceptable" or "unavoidable". Except of course, if there is a deity, there is no such thing as risk, randomness or chance. Each lightning strike is personally directed or licensed. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 26 January 2016 at 1:50pm
|
@Ahmad:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html - The article from the atheist scientist Stephen Hawkins you posted was apparently extracted from https://books.google.fr/books?id=LstaQTXP65cC&lpg=PP1&dq=nature+of+space+and+time&pg=PA121&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false - a book he published with Penrose in '94. As a sidenote, I have actually participated in conferences with both (quite spooky for Hawkins due to his handicap). Now, your quotation:
Now, recently, precisely the 25th of August 2015 he presented https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/25/stephen-hawking-believes-hes-solved-a-huge-mystery-about-black-holes/ - his new theory which made him change his own point of view about exactly this prior assumption. This invalidates his/your own conclusion about the dices. The discussion is probably not settled yet, but there is at least one lesson we can already draw: Don't trust old articles and books, especially when they claim to hold universal truth. Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Emettman
Date Posted: 27 January 2016 at 3:53am
Hawking doesn't, fortunately, and his latest suggestion hasn't been widely accepted, yet. It may either resolve a problem, if shown as true, or point to the need to undo a cherished "known" about the universe. Either way it counts as progress I'd add don't trust new articles and books, either, unreservedly. What to trust and why, now there's a problem. First "you can trust me" shuts the door on any others? |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 27 January 2016 at 9:21pm
|
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 31 January 2016 at 12:57pm
Not putting blind trust in [old] statements doesn't make them wrong, it is just a measure of caution. Since our knowledge and understanding is increasing every day the likelihood for a statement to get revised gets higher the more ancient it is. However, Einstein's theories have so far been extremely resilient against the assault of time, opposite to the Quran where the claims about embryology, theories about what we are made of and how we evolved and the statements about celestial motions are now known to be plain wrong. One has to be fair however: In the logic of what I wrote above, we are now 1400 years after Mohamed has composed the Quran whereas it is only 100y for Einstein. And sure: what is new today will be old tomorrow... Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 02 February 2016 at 10:22am
| So your statement Don't trust old articles and books, especially when they claim to hold universal truth. if applied to your own signature as The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses is only valid as long as Einstein's theories are considered 'extremely resilient against the assault of time'? or would you still keep on using it even if his theories no more make sense simply because you might not consider this statement to hold a universal truth? In either case, point remains your 'faith', IMHO is simply as fragile as Mr Albert Einstein's theories are, its just a matter of time, possibly right in your own lifetime you would know it. One can only wish to see science progress beyond Einstein, but would that hurt you? Rationally, that shouldn't; but then why now? |
Posted By: Emettman
Date Posted: 02 February 2016 at 11:25am
|
" In either case, point remains your 'faith', IMHO is simply as fragile as Mr Albert Einstein's theories are,"
I like faith that is fragile, or vulnerable to new information. The other sort has too much potential to be rigid, ossified even in the face of good reason for a change of mind or perspective. And that can do real damage, and not just to the person holding such a faith. If the commitment of faith is to set a position and belief rigidly, against any or all new information or new understandings, then it is as likely to be vice as it is virtue. Though a held faith is rarely able to recognise that. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 02 February 2016 at 1:24pm
Religious people have the tendency to throw terms like "truth", "eternal", "omniscient", "almighty" in the air as if they were popcorn. As I already wrote elsewhere: The more superlatives are used the more suspicious I get. It is for me a rather clear telltale sign of an attempt to cover up the lack of substance - or worse. This is especially the case for groups using the term "truth" in an inflationary way as many in your religion (but also others) undoubtedly do. This is probably the fundamental difference between your thinking and mine. I don't think that "universal truth" will ever be available to us humans, and certainly not by reading a diary somebody wrote 1400 years ago. But I think we can get closer to it by using logic and our senses (May be you should read what Muslim thinker Averroes has to say on this subject) but we'll never reach it. This kind of reasoning may be more painful than yours, because whatever you do there is always a (little) doubt on whether it is right or wrong, but it has the real advantage that it allows you to look at the world outside of rigid schemes - at least to a certain extend. You could also call it mental freedom. Now to Einstein: No, I don't see his work as divine, nor do I see him as a prophet, but I bow my head when I see the deepness of his thoughts. That doesn't make me blind towards the fact that he could be a real ****** towards women and that he didn't care much about his kids. I'd wish that you could develop a similar attitude towards your prophet: Acknowledging the "good" points but also seeing his downsides that are all too obvious in his case. That doesn't imply that we have to agree on him but it would help to overcome some difficulties. Back to Einstein: I don't think his theories will be "wrong" anywhere near (there is far too much proof for it), but there may be aspects that will have to be revised. Einstein never overthrew Newton mechanics either, he only corrected it for some cases, irrelevant for daily life (well, not quite true in my case and of course there are exceptions like the GPS system). To conclude: Yes I would change my mind (and thus my signature) if there was some real ground to adhere to (a particular) faith, but Islam does certainly not rank amongst the candidates. Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 03 February 2016 at 6:39am
To your comment: I'm rather confident that Einsteins theory will survive Islam, simply because there is proof for its claims whereas there is none in the other case. All too bad that I can't bet on it, 'cause we will all be gone by then. Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 03 February 2016 at 12:36pm
|
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 03 February 2016 at 12:49pm
Thankyou bro Airmano for sharing your precious thoughts like ...he could be a real ****** towards women.... and using such word as shown in red, every now and then but with increasing frequency. I think these words are becoming your signature. Why not you use them permanently on this forum as your ID. Is this only with you or should I generalize it to all those who share your faith, though there is no rational evidence, as yet, to suggest such a generalization? |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 04 February 2016 at 1:52am
Using your phrasing; could it be that: "constructing a belief without rational evidence" is something one can generalize to "those that share your faith" ? Back to business: Instead of getting excited about red stars, why not taking position with respect to my 'precious thoughts' ? Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 06 February 2016 at 9:47am
|
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 07 February 2016 at 1:20am
So first: The physical discussion about Einstein's dices is not over yet and he may still turn out to be right in the end, even if the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation - Kopenhagen interpretation of QM is nowadays widely favoured. Independent of whether Einstein is right or wrong with his dices: Apparently you got so excited about the stars in http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35413&PID=202857#202857 - my post that you may have missed my underlying message: Even if you think that somebody and/or his work is great, this shouldn't make you blind to the wrong/negative sides of him/it. In German you say: "Where there is light there is shadow". I.a.W: I never claimed Einstein to be "perfect" or "omniscient", and I explicitly named his negative sides (Yes, exactly where you got a bit nervous about). If you read http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35413&PID=202857#202857 - my post again (in a more unbiased way than last time) you may even notice the sentence: I'd wish that you could develop a similar attitude towards your prophet: Acknowledging the "good" points but also seeing his downsides that are all too obvious in his case... After all, even in Islam Mohamed is seen as human and not as "a son of God". Being human implies that he made mistakes and that we have all the right to criticize him (for that). Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 10 February 2016 at 9:59am
|
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 28 March 2016 at 2:39am
|
AhmadJoyia, Airmano: There is so much violence caused by radical Muslims, because of this notion that God himself recorded the Quran. A good step to improve things would be acknowledging that it was humans who wrote the Quran. And the thoughts of these humans were influenced by the way of thinking prevalent in 7th-century Arabia. At this time there was practically 0% scientific knowledge available in this region. It took another century until greek science began to be rediscovered in cultural centers like Bagdad and later in other places like Andalusia. There is no such thing such as Islamic science or Christian science. There is only science and it belongs to all of humanity. It can help unite us. It can make the planet a peaceful place. ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: rulesoferick
Date Posted: 03 August 2016 at 11:46am
| You need to find the balance between religion and science in your life :) just trust. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 10 August 2016 at 8:58pm
|
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 10 August 2016 at 9:01pm
|
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 11 August 2016 at 10:29am
There is always a problem with just trusting. Don't take anybody's word for it. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 11 August 2016 at 2:27pm
Do rivers flow into the sea and mix with the salt water or remain separate like oil and water? |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 15 August 2016 at 8:28pm
Excellent! This is exactly what is required by all especially the Muslims to understand Quran from all aspects of life. |
Posted By: simple
Date Posted: 21 August 2016 at 1:17pm
|
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 21 August 2016 at 2:19pm
1) The Quran says we are made out of clay, water or sand. This is already a contradiction in itself and even more displaced in the light of modern knowledge. 2) The historical large area (or even worldwide) flooding is impossible, thus Noah - as described in the Quran/Bible never existed. (Not to talk about genetic evidence) Seriously can you believe a neolithic bloke with a stone axe would be able to build such a ship ? 3) The way the human embryonic development is described [in the Quran] is wrong. 4) Interpreting the "Big Bang" into the Quran takes more phantasy than even Mohamed ever had. 5) How was this again ? Everything comes in pairs ? Well... 6) Need more ? Obviously these conflicts can be (partly) avoided by giving these parts an allegoric meaning, so welcome to the Christian world ! But why on earth should Allah talk about embryos in an allegoric way ? Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: simple
Date Posted: 22 August 2016 at 6:36pm
Name this genetic evidence? Show evidence a worldwide flood was impossible? I don't believe you at all.
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. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 23 August 2016 at 2:05am
|
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 23 August 2016 at 10:00am
|
Does water of a river mix with the ocean water? Do salt and fresh waters mix? |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 25 August 2016 at 2:54am
Should anyone start teaching chemistry 101 here? |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 25 August 2016 at 10:57am
A) clay ≠ water ≠ sand => Internal contradiction B) The body does not consist of any of those => second error C) The body does indeed contain water but the chemically driving element is Carbon => If I was Gods teacher, here I would at least subtract some sloppiness point, for not mentioning this fact. D) The body does not even contain clay nor sand and not even their constituent elements (Silicon, Aluminium). They are - if at all- only present in trace forms and even potentially harmful => Another minus point to the Quran. This doesn't look good, isn't it ? ---------------------------------------------------------
Sure can I: 11:40:[So it was], until when Our command came and the oven overflowed, We said, "Load upon the ship of each [creature] two mates and your family, except those about whom the word has preceded, and [include] whoever has believed." But none had believed with him, except a few. A) Each creature ? Any idea of the size of the ship ? The amount of food it took ? The time it took to collect them all (in America the Polynesian islands, Galapagos and so on) with stone age tools ? Do a back of the envelope calculation and then quickly forget it. B) Taking each creature makes only sense if the whole of the world is flooded. Even the altiplano in Peru at 4000m height ? Where shold all the water come from ? C) Don't you think that killing essentially all of mankind and leaving only a handful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck - would not leave any genetic traces ? - Not to talk about [consequences of] the incest God would have provoked ? D) 11:44: "And the water subsided, and the matter was accomplished, and the ship came to rest on the [mountain of] Judiyy. And it was said, "Away with the wrongdoing people." To strand on a mountain I would assume at least 800 to 1000m above sea level (otherwise it's a hill) => Refer to B) and the question about the water. -----------------------------------------------------
23:14 "Sahih International: Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators" Flesh (muscles) and bones co-develop. Look at any scientific web site on embryology. Wiki may be a starting point. Sorry Quran ! Besides being wrong it is so wishy-washy that it is useless anyway. Anybody who witnessed a natural abortion would talk in terms of of a "lump of flesh". Trivialities ! ------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, I appreciate this remark ! Ahmad: But what is this to do with Quran? That's exactly the question I ask myself ! Do me the favour and google " Big Bang and Quran". May be you can explain me why your zealous brothers in faith tell such nonsense ? -------------------------------------------------------
Everything ≠ some things, always ≠ sometimes. QED. What worth would the law of gravitation be if apples flew unexplainedly upwards from time to time ? Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 25 August 2016 at 11:33am
Which is correct? The Koran or the real world? |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 25 August 2016 at 12:05pm
@ Simple:
Glad you told me. Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 30 August 2016 at 11:53am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yusuf Ali: �At length, behold! there came Our command, and the fountains of the earth gushed forth! We said: "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female, and your family - except those against whom the word has already gone forth,- and the Believers." but only a few believed with him.� As per this verse, he was told to get the pair of each on the boat. That is it, simple and straight. Unlike Bible, the verse doesn�t imply that he should go and gather all the creatures of the world and load them in pair onto the boat.
Not necessarily! This would make sense if you realize purely from human perspective, without a boat even a square kilometer flooded area for an unspecified period of time is just too much to survive.
-----------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
What nonsense? What is the objection? It�s you who has to define your concern. -------------------------------------------------------
Ah! Don�t we know that even these laws have exceptions depending upon which theory we take to understand them? Should we go back to Quantum Mechanics?? Or would you like to read more on things like gravitational singularity or for that matter about Schwarzschild radius? |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 31 August 2016 at 12:00pm
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. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 04 September 2016 at 1:25pm
@Ahmad
Take http://www.searchtruth.com/ - this link and search for clay, water and [well, admittedly, dust instead of]sand. Ah, by the way, as I looked trough it I also found this nonsense: Al-Alaq, Chapter #96, Verse #2): He has created man from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood). So again: clay ≠ water ≠ dust ≠ clotted blood => Internal contradiction. The Quran is obviously inconsistent. ---------------------------------------------------
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. Let's face it: why has your prophet chosen clay [besides blood, dust and water] ? Simply because it is an abundant material that often comes in an "flesh like" look (i.e. when iron oxide is present. ------------------------------------------------------
It's not a matter of abundance. Water is of course important but so is sodium, calcium and many others. What I mean by "chemically driving" is [for example] http://www.livescience.com/28698-facts-about-carbon.html - this one . Typing "Carbon + Life" in Google will give you the rest without getting Jibriel involved. But why do I write this ? I'm sure you know but you keep on asking these questions for rhetorical reasons. -------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't help: There is still no clay in our body nor its constituent elements. It's plain wrong ! -----------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense! 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 ? ------------------------------------------------------------ I jump B) and C) to stay focused
It won't surprise you if I "accuse" your prophet to have simply done a copy/paste job from the bible and the jews after some hearsay. So that there are errors in the transmission (you call it "corruption") will probably not surprise you either. To the point: Of course am I aware that major floods do occur all over the world. But your prophet insinuates mass extinction if not total extinction of all (land living) animals (besides those in the ark) - or is it really just about the snails in the back yard ? So forget it, it's a hopeless game. ----------------------------------------------------------
Did you make an honest attempt to inform yourself about this matter ? -----------------------------------------------------------
Did you finally google it ? If you didn't, do the experiment and google "Big bang + Quran" and add possibly "+ miracle". Please tell me what you found and what you think about it. -----------------------------------------------------------
Well, why not talking about Crispr -cas9 or the Michelson Morley experiment ? But what has all this got to do with my question, i.e. can you cite an exception to the universal law of gravity ? I'd be more than happy if you could: it could fulfill one of my childhood dreams and possibly allow me to fly. Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Shirley Pric
Date Posted: 07 September 2016 at 2:18pm
|
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 |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 08 September 2016 at 11:52am
---------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------- I jump B) and C) to stay focused
----------------------------------------------------------
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. -----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 08 September 2016 at 2:36pm
@Ahmad
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. ---------------------------------------------------------
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. -------------------------------------------------------
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. --------------------------------------------------------------
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 ? ------------------------------------------------------------
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 ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: simple
Date Posted: 11 September 2016 at 9:03pm
|
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 14 September 2016 at 1:15am
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. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 14 September 2016 at 1:17am
Whe the religious attempt to convert others or to impose their view of morality onto the world it is just reciprical for those who are on the recieving end of all that to come back and challenge it all. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 15 September 2016 at 11:04am
Good that you have provided specific reference so that we should be more focussed in discussing every verse in its right context and see how we can understand the whole message. ( I shall be using Yusuf Ali�s translation). Now by your own definition of clay being �hydrous (aluminium) phyllosilicates�, you must agree that it is mixture of various elements / compounds and water being one of the dominant one. Now, suffice it would be show how this is important to life. For this kindly refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_minerals - clay_minerals . So, by this, I guess, first 3 of the verses are taken care of unless you insist on arguing about the use of word �dust�. If this is your concern, again, you would realize that not that it is utterly wrong (where dust can be seen simply a vaporized form of clay), but that in the verse it is a quotation of a person in a narration of a story about the people of the cave. So, technically not exactly the words of Allah. As for the last verse (96:02), the accurate translation of word �Alaq� is �a clinging substance� and there is possibility of translational error based on translators� own intellect.
It would have been better if you had replied rather than embarking upon emotional hitting. If you think anything is trivial, why should it be so difficult to answer?
Only half the answer where you forgot to present your counter evidence to prove this wrong! I would reserve my full reply till then, best regards. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 18 September 2016 at 12:40am
|
@Ahmad:
The discussion seems to go out of bonds. I therefore think it is important to summarize the core POV's before we go any further: ================================================-- A) The Quran claims we are made out of clay, but elsewhere that "we are made out of dust" or equally: "We are made out of clotted blood" and "We are made out of water". Airmano: 1) Since clay ≠ water ≠ dust ≠ clotted blood => Internal contradiction. The Quran is obviously inconsistent. 2) The defining element in clay is Silicon. In our body there is neither clay in its molecular/crystalline form nor even the element Silicon (functionally) present. The statement "we are made out of clay" is thus equally untenable. ------------------------- Defense Ahmad: Water is an important element for life. - Clay contains water (and thus a key ingredient of life). The Quran is thus right by saying "we are made out of clay". - The same applies for [clotted] blood and obviously water itself. - Dust contains clay which itself contains water, so it is also correct to say "we are made out of dust". ================================================-- B) Noah's Ark and the verse 11:40:[So it was], until when Our command came and the oven overflowed, We said, "Load upon the ship of each [creature] two mates and your family, except those about whom the word has preceded, and [include] whoever has believed." But none had believed with him, except a few. Airmano: It is nonsensical to believe that a stone age bloke could have built a ship holding a couple of all existent creatures on earth (+ the impossibility to collect them). For a [worldwide] flood there is not enough water on earth anyway. ---------------------------- Defense Ahmad: Who says that the "each" in 11:40: "Load upon the ship of each [creature] two mates" meant "each animal on earth" ? It could have meant (as an instruction to Noah in order to survive): "a pair of each of your household animals " [and that this detail was omitted in the Quran]. In this case it would have been perfectly possible to build such a (small) ship. The flooding would have been local only, hence there would have been enough water for it as well. =================================================== Would you agree on this summary ? Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: simple
Date Posted: 18 September 2016 at 8:48pm
| You kidding? What exactly do you claim we should see in the plates if they moved fast in a past with different forces and laws in place?? |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 20 September 2016 at 1:23am
Really??? You think the rate of deposition of limestone at the bottom of the sea would also increase vastly to avoid it looking like God has been involved? We know how fast the plates have moved from the evidence this process has left behind. We thus can measure the rate in past times. It's not made up!! |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 20 September 2016 at 11:56am
|
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 21 September 2016 at 1:29pm
@Ahmad
Let me nevertheless give it a try (and feel free to put it in a more concise form): Ahmad: Clay contains almost all elements of the periodic table => Therefore also those that are present in our body (albeit in completely different proportions) => So it is correct to say "we are made out of clay" ------------------------------------------------------
Saying "we are made out of some sticky stuff" is almost as precise (iaw. worthless) as saying: "We are made out of something". -----------------------------------------------------
You are perfectly right, there are even theories that life did indeed originate in http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160823-the-idea-that-life-began-as-clay-crystals-is-50-years-old - clay [-like structures] or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Clay_hypothesis - look here . It is for the first time you express that life may have formed without God-screwdriver but out of naturally occurring substances and processes. Having said so, even if this turned out to be true, do you really think the wording "we are made out of clay" would reflect the truth ? Wouldn't you choose a more precise sentence like: "Clay played a key role at the origin of life" ? Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 23 September 2016 at 3:15am
Ahmad: Clay contains almost all naturally occurring elements and compounds => Therefore also those that are present in our body (albeit in completely different proportions) => So it is correct to say "we are made out of clay"
I don't subscribe anything "naturally occurring" to be out side the domain of God. He has power of all things, in this uni/multiverse.
|
Posted By: simple
Date Posted: 25 September 2016 at 2:23pm
|
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! |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 27 September 2016 at 1:54am
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. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 01 October 2016 at 1:44pm
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 ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 04 October 2016 at 4:51am
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. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 04 October 2016 at 7:10am
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. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 04 October 2016 at 1:16pm
------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 04 October 2016 at 10:11pm
Yes, sure, let us see. Best regards. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 06 October 2016 at 11:50am
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. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 08 October 2016 at 9:25pm
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?? |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 09 October 2016 at 4:47am
1, I am my own mentor. 2. The Bible is no more scientificaly useful than any other religious book. 3, Making predictions that are not obvious and come true is not about predicting that a great King will arise in the West because there is no date and not enough detail there for it to be testable. The predictions need to be failable. For example, If I have a catapult and say that if I fire it and shoot a stone it will fly off a long way then I am not predicting anything surprising at all. If I say that I have measured the speed at which the stone will fly off and that by putting the catapult at a particular angle I will get the stone to land exactly on that castle door. That is useful and not obvious. It is also clearly failable. The horse racing thing, well if I am able to consistently win and make a profit then I am onto something. 1 race is not enough though. |
Posted By: asep48garut60
Date Posted: 10 October 2016 at 7:56pm
|
Dear All,
I beg permission to participate in providing a brief overview of the Quran and science. In my point of view that the Quran and science are the two things can't be separated, and the difference is, the descriptions in the Quran are presented in the form of general (not in detail), while science was gained through conditioning process such as experiments, research, studies , analyzes, etc., until finding a conclusion or definition. In the Quran explained that humans are creatures that have the potential to master science, and the people most ideal in view of the Quran is the people who reached the elevation of faith and science as mentioned in His word 58:11. According to the Quran that humans can acquire knowledge through the use of human wits as mentioned in His word, and certainly science doesn't come instantly, but after going through observation and experimentation. The Quran informs about things related to science and humans are commanded to be able to reveal it. The Quran tells to mankind to work earnestly in finding and improving their knowledge both physical and spiritual knowledge, both must be aligned so as not to lame. On the basis of this, for me personally that the science is important for the life of mankind during this science would benefit mankind and not violate the law of God. Regards. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 11 October 2016 at 10:57am
@Asep
But what do you do when the two start to clash with each other ? Do you close your eyes pretending that the Quran is right at any circumstances ? Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 11 October 2016 at 11:29am
What if the things we find out do contradict the word of the Koran? For example there has never been a world flood. I know this as does anybody who has ever done high school river errosion. |
Posted By: asep48garut60
Date Posted: 12 October 2016 at 12:41am
|
Dear Airmano,
--------------- But what do you do when the two start to clash with each other ? Do you close your eyes pretending that the Quran is right at any circumstances ? -------------- I won't despair, and I will continue to await the development of science, I'm sure the scientists will continue to develop their researches to find the certainty of his opinion. And when some of scientists have found the end point of the development of research that can't be refuted by other scientists, then the two things that clash will not happen again. It reminds me of some theories of experts, including: Plato (427 � 347 BC) argued: �Circle and ball are the most perfect geometry forms. Therefore, all the sky objects moved around the earth in tracks which shape is circle.� His theory was not the same as that expressed by Claudius Ptolemy (140 BC), who explained in his book entitled Almagest. He explained that: �all of the sky objects moved surrounds a point.� While Copernicus (1473-1543 AD), argued: �All sky objects move surround the sun in circle tracks.� This is known as the Heliocentric theory which was presented in his book entitled De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium. Their theories perfected by the theory of �Law of Universal Gravitation� from Sir Isaac Newton (1642 AD), and he argued: �Every object in the Universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.� His theory has similarity meaning that the sun also has an orbit to circulate, it's in accordance with the word of God in the Quran 36:38 I don�t close my eyes pretending that the Quran is right at any circumstances, but I believe that all of God's words are true, it depends on human efforts how to interpret and obtain proof of the truth of His words. I am a muslim who supports science, because there is a command of God in the Quran to think and reveal the phenomena of the universe. The advantage to me about science is in addition will add my knowledge, also to strengthen my faith personally. Regards. Asep |
Posted By: asep48garut60
Date Posted: 12 October 2016 at 12:43am
|
Dear Tim the plumber,
With respect to the science, if we find out the things contradict to the words of God in the Quran, in my opinion there are at least two things occur: 1. Experts unfinished in their researches, and maybe someday there will be new discoveries that may challenge the experts opinion before. 2. There are differences in interpreting the verses in the Quran, because there are words of God written in the form of parable sentences, and also there's a command from God to pay attention to such sentences. Regards, Asep |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 12 October 2016 at 1:11am
Asep
The Quran consists to a very high percentage (>> 50%) of: - Unprovable statements of the type: "Those that do not obey will be punished and eternally tortured" - Repetitions: "Allah is above all", "this is a sign...", "Don't they see...", "How deluded they are..." Besides that there are indeed some predictions/statements in the Quran, but they are of the - "King in the West" - type (see Tim the plumber above). Like it or not: Given the rather low information content and the fact there are many contradictions within the Quran, as well as many contradictions with respect to modern science I think that there is a much more likely explanation: A) The error is human B) The Quran is (thus) man made Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 12 October 2016 at 11:23am
Unlucky. The basics of river errosion and deposition tell us absolutely that there has never been a world flood. It just has not happened. All of geology supports this. We do know that Noah's flood story is false. At least in a factual sense. |
Posted By: asep48garut60
Date Posted: 14 October 2016 at 10:23pm
|
Dear Airmano,
---------------- A) The error is human ---------------- I strongly agree that human is the place of the error, for example, the opinion of many experts were not always the same, like Plato, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Sir Isaac Newton. This indicates that human knowledge is always growing towards perfection in their research. Unlike the Quran which only informs a situation or an event, and then the humans who have to prove through his mind. ------------------ B) The Quran is (thus) man made ------------------ If you say that the Quran made by human, for me is not a problem and does not force you to believe in the Quran, but for me that all the contents of the Quran are revelations of God which is written by the companions of the Prophet Muhammad and witnessed by the Prophet himself. I was a Muslim who is not easy to believe if I haven't found an absolute truth, I believe in the theory of Newton's "Law of Universal Gravitation" because according to the word of God that created the universe. I've been studying the Quran from childhood until now I am 56 years old, and the more I learn the Quran increasingly believe that all the contents of the Quran are the words of God. I find a lot of God's words in the Quran relating to science, not only that, I also had the opposite experience with science, like the Law of Gravity and the Law of Inertia of Newton (believe it or not). Regards, Asep |
Posted By: asep48garut60
Date Posted: 14 October 2016 at 10:28pm
|
Dear Tim the plumber,
I'm sorry, because I am not a scientist, but the story of the flood in the days of Noah it's the Word of God, and I believe in the Word of God. Below are some verses about the sequence of events in the time of Noah's flood. QS (11): 37-38 "And make the ark with the supervision and guidance of Our revelations, and do not talk with Me about the wrongdoers. Indeed, they are to be drowned. " "And Noah began to make the ark. Every time their leader walks through Noah, they mocked him. Noah said: "If you mock us, then we will also mock you as you mock us." QS (7): 64 "So, they rejected Noah, then We saved him and those with him in the ark, and We drowned those who belied Our verses. They are people who are blind (blind the heart's eyes). " QS (29): 14 "And verily We sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them a thousand years less fifty years. Then they were hit by big floods, and they are the ones who do wrong.� Unfortunately, no one can live on the days of Noah until now, but whatever it is, I prefer to believe in the words of God who created mankind than to the opinions of mankind whose opinions are often different. I would believe in the mankind opinions, when their opinions according to the words of God in the Quran. Regards, Asep |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 14 October 2016 at 11:12pm
Thanks bro for your work to dig out the relevant verses of Quran to show that nowhere Quran declares the flood to be over whole world, but specifically for those who denied the Ayats of Allah, here implies tribes of Noah and around in a limited sphere. The reason why so many (Christian (disguised) Atheists or vice versa) keeps hammering upon such issues is because they found such absurdities from elsewhere in their religion and assume similar views should exist in Quran as well. However, none of them, not to my knowledge, have shown anything in Quran which is anti science. Kindly refer my discussion with Bro Airmano on the same topic in previous pages. Similarly, although they do allege errors in Quran, but miserably failed to substantiate their allegations, this is especially with Bro Tim The (so called scientist) Plumber. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 15 October 2016 at 1:47am
If you were ever to do the basics of river errosion or geology you would understand that every single river valley in the world, every single place where sediment would have been depositied such as every single sea bed says that there there has never been a world flood. This is not a matter of opinion. It is no more debatable than the fact that it rains. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 15 October 2016 at 1:49am
So, and here I only know the Biblical version, did Noah's boat land on the biggest mountain in Turkey or was it just a small local flood which has often happened especially in the river valleys of the Tigres and Euphrates? If its' the second then I have no trouble believing that this flood happened but then its' not much of a claim. |
Posted By: asep48garut60
Date Posted: 18 October 2016 at 1:38am
|
Dear Tim the plumber,
Due to the flood has occurred centuries ago, the earth's surface has undergone changes naturally, and at that time the humans most were still gathered in the middle east and not as much as now, therefore, some people think that it's a world flood. If I look carefully to the words of God in the 29:14, the interpretation of the word "Aththuufaanu" is "the great flood" not the world flood. So, my personal opinion is: The great flood may include water covered the entire surface of the earth because we can't find a living witness in today, but surely that all the people of Prophet Noah drowned by the great flood (except the loyal followers) although the water did not cover the entire surface of the earth. Regards, Asep |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 18 October 2016 at 4:54am
Please just don't believe me and look at the verses yourself. The misperception is not unique to Christians but among the Muslims as well, but their source is also baised due to biblical accounts. Best regards |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 18 October 2016 at 11:52am
@Ahmad
As told, Ahmad we are not done yet with this discussion. Well, first: No surprise that the Quran doesn't talk of "over the whole world". Nobody, including the prophet had a precise idea of what "whole world" really meant at the time. There are even claims that Mohamed thought the earth was flat and the the sun sets in murky water (18:86). One can however gather facts from the Quran and the exegesis that make clear what was likely to be meant. When looking at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahs_Ark - Wiki entry on Noah you find the sentence under "Noah in Islam": Abdallah ibn 'Umar al-Baidawi, writing in the 13th century, explains that in the first of its three levels wild and domesticated animals were lodged, in the second the human beings, and in the third the birds. On every plank was the name of a prophet. - i.a.W. implicitly a world wide flood. Furthermore if you look at the translation of http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=23&verse=27 - 23:27 in Corpus Quran you'll find that almost all translators imply a worldwide flood (and no one favours a local one). In addition: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=71&verse=26 - in 71:26, Yusuf Ali : And Noah, said: "O my Lord! Leave not of the Unbelievers, a single one on earth! . So either God didn't bother much about Noah's wish, or much more likely: The Quran talks of a worldwide flood ! Now: 5 of the 7 translations of http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=11&verse=44 - 11:44 state Mount Judi, the other two unspecifically of "On the Judi". If you want more http://www.questionsonislam.com/question/it-stated-quran-noahs-ark-mount-judi - have a look here for example. So a clear majority for "on a mountain", implying hundreds of meters high. Again this means a worldwide flood and not a local one. Last not least, looking at the word by word translation of 23:27 in http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=23&verse=27#%2823:27:1%29 - Corpus Quran (omitting parenthesis) you'll read: then put into it of every mates two and your family... So, as already established, no sign of "take only domestic animals" or "just take what you need for your own survival" statements. To summarize: Historical Quran exegesis as well as more recent translators agree on the "worldwide flood assumption". The interpretation as "local flood" came probably from the infamous Mr. Bucaille and can -forced by the now established knowledge that a worldwide flood is impossible- rather safely be seen as a desperate attempt to "float with the tide" - to do the pun. If you still insist on a local flood model, I would like to see some support from the Quran (supposed to be crystal clear) to corroborate your view. Can you ? Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 22 October 2016 at 2:50am
There has never been a time when humanity was gatered around the middle east. The story in the Bible is that the flood was enough that Noah's arc ended up on Mount Ararat in Turkey. No it didn't. There has never been such a flood. If the legend is about a local flood or the flooding of the Black sea then fine. But that means it's not much of a claim and there was no mirricle. |
Posted By: asep48garut60
Date Posted: 29 October 2016 at 2:51pm
|
Well ... dear Tim,
If so, for a while I am not focused on where the flooding occurred and like what the actual incident, but I believe that Allah gives the information in the Quran about in the days of Noah had occurred a big flood. Thank you. Regards, Asep |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 30 October 2016 at 4:08am
I don't understand you. What are you claiming? That there was a world flood, that there was a flood big enough to carry a ship onto the largest mountain in Turkey or that there was a big flood which was not all that unusual? Was there a need to take in a breeding stock of every animal in the world to repopulate after it? |
Posted By: asep48garut60
Date Posted: 31 October 2016 at 2:51pm
|
Dear Tim the plumber,
I claim that in the days of Noah had a big flood, and I believe it because God knows more about it than humans opinions which their statements are often different, even I have personal experience unusual or contrary to science, it shows that most of human's knowledge is only limited to things that make sense of them. Regards, Asep |