• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Majority of Scientist agree with Islamic view of the Universe

Oops, thanks. So, overall eight days, do I see this correctly?

Did you even bother to read the OP?

Total time of creation for heavens and Earth was six days
[Quran 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59] Creation of the Heavens and the Earth in six days

Formation of the Earth was two days
[Quran 41:9] “He who created the earth in two days”
 
What about the egregious conflation of duration of creation and age?

What is your definition of when the earth was completed?

Mine would include when it was first formed and up until the point just before humans/mankind started to appear.
 
Last edited:
Did you even bother to read the OP?

Yes, I did read precisely this stuff:

Total time of creation for heavens and Earth was six days
[Quran 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59] Creation of the Heavens and the Earth in six days

Formation of the Earth was two days
[Quran 41:9] “He who created the earth in two days”

And I had to learn that I gave it much to much credence. ANTPogo put me straight. Here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9388242#post9388242
 
Like most religious books, you got it backwards, It agrees with what science already knows.

I'll get the obvious out of the way, Wasn't Mohammad a pedophile?
 
What is your definition of when the earth was completed?

Mine would include when it was first formed and up until the point just before humans/mankind started to appear.

You still have not addressed the conflation of duration of creation and age in the OP.

The Quran correctly identifies the age of the Earth as being one third the age of the universe.​

Where?? Where is the age of the earth identified? Here maybe:
Formation of the Earth was two days
[Quran 41:9] “He who created the earth in two days”​

Congrats, you have a two days old earth. A third of that of the universe, which is six days old. A little light, if you ask me. But, hey, that is your problem.
 
Last edited:
Like most religious books, you got it backwards, It agrees with what science already knows.

I'll get the obvious out of the way, Wasn't Mohammad a pedophile?

I see, not able to come up with any suitable arguments against the points which have been presented, so you are just resorting to personal attacks against a man that is no longer around to defend himself.

Also by claiming that all of these many scientific discoveries were already known at the time, you discredit all of the hard work and time which was invested by countless scientist over the years to bring us to where we are now.

Your comments are disgusting on multiple levels.
 
I see, not able to come up with any suitable arguments against the points which have been presented, so you are just resorting to personal attacks against a man that is no longer around to defend himself.

Also by claiming that all of these many scientific discoveries were already known at the time, you discredit all of the hard work and time which was invested by countless scientist over the years to bring us to where we are now.

Your comments are disgusting on multiple levels.

I'm saying Science doesn't agree with the Islamic view of the universe.
If any discrediting is happening it's on your part in an effort to champion islam.


Not an attack, Just asking.


ETA the earth didn't form in two days,
 
Last edited:
Care to clarify your argument by providing specifics?
Craig B also made similar claims, but after further evaluation it was easy to see that the claim regarding Genesis 1 being the source of this was quite baseless.
Why baseless? Did I not point out that the verses in Genesis 1 show God separating Heaven and Earth, just as later stated in similar words in the Quran.

The "scientific" statements you refer to are simply vague poetic expressions that you have over interpreted in the light of current scholarly opinion as if they were precise factual statements. As I have said, you are reading a knowledge of stellar nucleosynthesis of iron into a passage which in reality says nothing about the matter. But if, as you say, such expressions are scientifically exact statements, what about this? ANTPogo and I once discussed it in another thread long ago.
18:83 They will ask thee of Dhu'l-Qarneyn. Say: I shall recite unto you a remembrance of him. 84 Lo! We made him strong in the land and gave him unto every thing a road. 85 And he followed a road 86 Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout.
Is that another example of divinely-inspired Quranic scientific knowledge?

@Dog Breakfast: I think you're right about the origin of "steel", and I withdraw my earlier comment on the word.
 
... Muhammad was 5 for 5 when describing the Universe
Another indication that you are reading things into the Quran that aren't there is that people see very different things in it, depending simply on their own prejudices. Here is the notorious case of a prominent Islamic scholar Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz, later Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, who found justification for his own anti-scientific ideas in the Quran and, reading the same book, came to conclusions entirely opposite to yours.
In 1966, when Ibn Baz was vice-president of the Islamic University of Medina, he wrote an article denouncing Riyadh University for teaching the "falsehood" that the earth rotates and orbits the sun. ( ... ) As a result of the publication of his first article, ibn Baz was ridiculed by Egyptian journalists as an example of Saudi primitiveness, and King Faisal was reportedly so angered by the first article that he ordered the destruction of every unsold copy of the two papers that had published it. In 1982 Ibn Baz published a book, Al-adilla al-naqliyya wa al-ḥissiyya ʿala imkān al-ṣuʾūd ila al-kawākib wa ʾala jarayān al-shams wa al-qamar wa sukūn al-arḍ ("Treatise on the textual and rational proofs of the rotation of the sun and the motionlessness of the earth and the possibility of ascension to other planets").

( ... ) Ibn Baz wrote a letter to a magazine in 1966 responding to similar accusations:
I only deemed it lawful to kill whoever claims that the sun is static (thābita la jāriya) and refuses to repent of this after clarification. This is because denying the circulation of the sun constitutes a denial of Allah (Glorified be He), His Great Book, and His Honourable Messenger ... It is the duty of the responsible authority to ask them to repent of this; either they repent or be executed. Thanks to Allah that this issue is not debatable among scholars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Aziz_ibn_Baz
 
Last edited:
Majority of Scientist agree with Islamic view of the Universe
Funny how no scientist ever says "Hey, this religious book has it right!" It's always the other way around. (Yes, I know religious scientists exist--they speak as religious people at that point, inveriably).

As for the description, it's an ink-blot test. You can read anything you want into those statements, bereft of context as presented in the OP. You could make the argument that it's about a child being born, as much as anything in science.

mikeb768 said:
What is your definition of when the earth was completed?
You have the audacity to comment on the formation of the Earth while thinking that this is a simple question? Sheesh. The reality is that the boundary beween "not yet Earth" and "Earth" is very, very fuzzy. The Heavy Bombardment can be considered the final stages of the Earth's formation, or the first stage of Earth as a distinct entity, depending on what argument you want to make. Geochemically speaking, the world wasn't modern until 2.5 billion years ago (the oxygen revolution). Biologically it wasn't modern until 10,000 years ago (the end of the Pleistocene).
 
Alright, I'll peak in and look at these.

Muhammad was 5 for 5 when describing the Universe

I do not claim knowledge of the Quran, so I have to ask a couple major questions. Please regard each of the questions I ask as honest ones, though I fully admit that I am categorically not impressed by the actual "truth" found in any religious book. Islam, in particular, has me distinctly unimpressed after things like hearing an adherent make the claim that the Quran is true because salt water and fresh water do not mix in the ocean, but simply stay separate. Still, that's a distraction, back to the subject at hand, first, were they actually Muhammad's statements? Second, were they the only relevant statements on the topic or is this simply a case of confirmation bias and misrepresentation? There are others that should likely be asked, but... those are the first two and most important, I'd think, for that claim.

Early in the seventh century a illiterate and unlearned man by the name of Muhammad (pubh) stated that the heavens (which include the stars, planets, etc.) and the earth were all joined together as one before God separated everything.

Were his beliefs completely new, special, or otherwise noteworthy? As I recall, there are a number of mythologies that made similar claims about an original state of the universe.

Since the mid 1900's and up until present day scientist are in agreement regarding what has been come to be known as the “Big Bang”.

[Quran 21:30] “Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?”

Scientist agree that early universe mainly existed in a gas like state, also the presence of “smoke” after a large explosion is something which is quite common.

I don't think that this supports your stated position as much as you seem to think it does. It looks a bit like you're grasping around, actually, when you toss in the gas argument, which, frankly, doesn't work very well at all, if you're trying to use that quote from the Quran. That said, is there a particular reason why we should take this as anything more reliable than, say, the primordial chaos referred in other mythologies?

The Quran describes the universe in its early stages can be described as being like “smoke” which then came together to form objects.
[Quran 41:11] “Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly."

As before, is there a particularly good reason why we should count this as more likely to be true than primordial chaos?

Science testifies to the fact that the universe is not something which is static but something which continues to expand. The Arabic word "moosiaaoona" in the term "inna lamoosiaaoona," translated into English as "it is We Who are steadily expanding it", comes from the verb "evsea," meaning "to expand." The prefix "la" emphasises the following name or title and adds a sense of "to a great extent." This expression therefore means "We expand the sky or the universe to a great extent."
[Quran 51:47] “And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.”

Alright. As I asked before, was this a new, unique, or otherwise particularly noteworthy view to hold during that time period?

The Quran correctly identifies the age of the Earth as being one third the age of the universe. The age of the universe is 13.77 billion years, the age of the earth is 4.54 billion years.

13.77 divided by 4.54 = 3.033 or 3:1 ratio, Just as six days divided by two days (simplified) = 3 or a ratio of 3:1

Total time of creation for heavens and Earth was six days
[Quran 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59] Creation of the Heavens and the Earth in six days

Formation of the Earth was two days
[Quran 41:9] “He who created the earth in two days”

Alright. I see your argument, even if it does somewhat torture common uses of the words in question. It requires, after all, that the Earth and the universe either still be being formed or for that to only have stopped extremely recently. Still, I do have to ask, is there a particular reason why we should accept this interpretation over other interpretations that weren't seeming chosen simply out of confirmation bias?


Science agrees to the fact that Iron is something which is of non earthly origin (Iron's non Earthly origin), but something which was sent down.

Although banded iron formations were laid down in the time between 3,700 million years ago and 1,800 million years ago, they were in fact sent down to Earth. Iron's very common presence in rocky planets like Earth is due to its abundant production as a result of fusion in high-mass stars.

[Quran 57:25] “And We sent down iron”

This argument feels weak, as well. By this interpretation, much, if not most or nearly all of the Earth can be considered to have been sent down, unless I'm misunderstanding the relevant subject. The alternate suggestion made in this thread that this quote was likely inspired by the discovery of iron meteorites falling from the sky seems far more likely.


Arguments regarding the measurement of Time
Some like to use the argument that if a day is 24 hours then a six day creation story makes little sense. I agree, and also consider it to a completely baseless and silly argument to try and place God within our own Earth time. Not only that but while we are bound by time, it is only rational to think God operates outside of the boundaries of time, something which was itself created.

This is a remarkably weak argument, you realize, on a number of levels? The only argument that I've seen that even could be counted as reasonable, though, is the claim that the days are metaphorical, and, well, that has its own set of issues.


Major Mistakes regarding the Universe found in the Bible

Irrelevant to demonstrating that Muhammad was correct. The Bible has a number of significant issues of its own, certainly, but attempting to point out errors there in no way supports your claims.

-Age of the universe is Not 6000 years
By attempting to show the genealogy of Adam all the way to Jesus, thereby showing the Christian Creation story to be approx. six thousand years. (The Quran does not provide any specific amount of time as this).

A rather hypocritical and short-sighted argument, given the time related arguments that you've made.

-God needing to rest, as in the “on the seventh day he rested” [Genesis 2:2].
God being all powerful it would be contradictory to his nature that he also requires rest. The Quran does not contain such a statement.

This sounds like another stretch, really. The "God *needing* to rest" premise seems like nothing more than assertion unsupported by the Bible. That's not even going into the rest of the issues with thinking that this is in any way a valid argument.

-Other incorrect assessments which have been identified and are said to be based up Biblical sources include: The Earth as the center of the universe, the Earth having four corners, and the 6000 year old Earth theory which places mankind and dinosaurs within the same period of time, something which some Christians have tried to reconcile sometimes with strange and even somewhat humors results: A Scientist Visits A Creationist Museum.

The arguments for Young Earth Creationism, whether Christian, Islamic, or other are moronic. Yes, Islamic YECs definitely do make a number of the same arguments that Christian ones do. How is this supposed to support your position?
 
Last edited:
Since the mid 1900's and up until present day scientist are in agreement regarding what has been come to be known as the “Big Bang”.


Too bad the Quran makes no mention of the Big Bang theory and doesn't describe anything remotely resembling it.

Muhammad was 5 for 5 when describing the Universe

Early in the seventh century a illiterate and unlearned man by the name of Muhammad (pubh) stated that the heavens (which include the stars, planets, etc.) and the earth were all joined together as one before God separated everything.

[Quran 21:30] “Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?”


Well, that's clearly mistake number one. The "heavens" (stars and space) existed long before the earth or any other planet existed. The matter we're made from was formed within stars.

Scientist agree that early universe mainly existed in a gas like state, also the presence of “smoke” after a large explosion is something which is quite common.


Before the formation of stars, the universe was filled with only hydrogen and some helium. While they may be gas, they are definitely not "smoke".

The Quran describes the universe in its early stages can be described as being like “smoke” which then came together to form objects.
[Quran 41:11] “Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly."


This doesn't resemble the creation of the earth at all. First of all the hydrogen gas was drawn together to form stars, heavier elements were formed inside the stars over billions of years and expelled into space when the stars eventually went nova. Clouds containing these elements were then drawn together to form solar systems with new stars at the center and planets around the outside.

But in the Quran version, God simply tells the the earth to come into existence and it does. No star formation involved. The planet even speaks to him, which is pretty bizarre.

Science testifies to the fact that the universe is not something which is static but something which continues to expand. The Arabic word "moosiaaoona" in the term "inna lamoosiaaoona," translated into English as "it is We Who are steadily expanding it", comes from the verb "evsea," meaning "to expand." The prefix "la" emphasises the following name or title and adds a sense of "to a great extent." This expression therefore means "We expand the sky or the universe to a great extent."
[Quran 51:47] “And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.”

That sounds like a past-tense description to me, saying that it was God that expanded the heavens into the current form, not saying that the heavens continue to expand.

The Quran correctly identifies the age of the Earth as being one third the age of the universe. The age of the universe is 13.77 billion years, the age of the earth is 4.54 billion years.

13.77 divided by 4.54 = 3.033 or 3:1 ratio, Just as six days divided by two days (simplified) = 3 or a ratio of 3:1

Total time of creation for heavens and Earth was six days
[Quran 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59] Creation of the Heavens and the Earth in six days

Formation of the Earth was two days
[Quran 41:9] “He who created the earth in two days”


Even assuming that "day" does not refer to literal days but ages, and even further assuming that these ages are of approximately equal length, this still does not give the slightest indication of the age of the earth.

It only indicates that the creation of the earth took about half the time as the creation of the universe. Utterly meaningless, as you can't really say what dates God started to create the earth and what dates God finished.

Science agrees to the fact that Iron is something which is of non earthly origin (Iron's non Earthly origin), but something which was sent down.

Although banded iron formations were laid down in the time between 3,700 million years ago and 1,800 million years ago, they were in fact sent down to Earth. Iron's very common presence in rocky planets like Earth is due to its abundant production as a result of fusion in high-mass stars.

[Quran 57:25] “And We sent down iron”

:dl:
This has got to be a joke, right?

Do you realize that pretty much all the elements on earth, and not just iron, are "a result of fusion in high-mass stars"? The key word in that sentence in the site you linked to is abundant. In other words, there is lots of iron on earth because the stars that made the elements that formed the earth produced lots of iron.

Iron has been on earth since the earth formed, just like any other element. It wasn't added at a later date. The earth is about 35% iron by mass (much of it is in the core, which is about 80% iron). There wouldn't be much a planet left if you took away all the iron.

Arguments regarding the measurement of Time
Some like to use the argument that if a day is 24 hours then a six day creation story makes little sense. I agree, and also consider it to a completely baseless and silly argument to try and place God within our own Earth time. Not only that but while we are bound by time, it is only rational to think God operates outside of the boundaries of time, something which was itself created.


Major Mistakes regarding the Universe found in the Bible
-Age of the universe is Not 6000 years
By attempting to show the genealogy of Adam all the way to Jesus, thereby showing the Christian Creation story to be approx. six thousand years. (The Quran does not provide any specific amount of time as this).


What a ridiculous double-standard you have!

You don't accept the six days of creation as being literal 24 hour days in the Quran, but then you make an argument that assumes that the six days of creation are literal 24 hour days in the Bible!

The genealogies don't start until after creation, so that figure of about 6000 years doesn't include the creation of the earth and the universe.

-God needing to rest, as in the “on the seventh day he rested” [Genesis 2:2].
God being all powerful it would be contradictory to his nature that he also requires rest.


:confused: Where does it say he required rest?
 
Last edited:
:confused: Where does it say he required rest?

I agree with you and Aridas.

.....................

So, mikeb768, you are arguing that Allah put all sorts of scientific stuff in the Holy Scriptures. That, of course, raises the question: why didn't Allah put any useful scientific stuff in the Scriptures?

Boil water before drinking it.
Use alcohol to clean wounds (even small ones).
Construct telescopes from carefully formed and well polished mirrors.
Avoid using the same knife to cut uncooked and cooked meat.
Forgo making judgements about people based on the color of their skin.
Comprehend and appreciate that men and women are equals.


ETA:
Oh, and retract all that homophobia stuff. It is nowhere as icky as you think it is.

Why couldn't your omniscient, omnipotent God have put any of these things in His "timeless" scriptures?
 
Last edited:
Funny how no scientist ever says "Hey, this religious book has it right!" It's always the other way around.

Do you mean like in the case of Professor Keith Moore, who recognized that the Quran provided accurate details about the embryological stages of which take place in the womb, during a period when microscopes had not yet been invented. Who subsequently accepted Islam.
 
Although the verses have been confirmed they remain malcontent,
But why such aversion to what has been sent?

If naught had come down then this day would be unjust,
But with the revelation thereof the event is must.

Those willfully ignorant will speak “Who has woken us from our sleep”,
While the reprobates and the sinners will wish the earth would them keep.

They will question themselves repeatedly “How was it that we were so greatly deceived?”,
But with the predetermined time now expired, they will wish they would have believed.

As the fetters are bound tightly and various groups led away,
Many will speak out against those who led them astray.

They shall cry out that the penalty of the leaders be greatly increased,
Although the response to their cries will cause double on each.
While this is something which you can’t yet comprehend,
Masses will regret having been heedless to the message he did send.


Muhammad was 5 for 5 when describing the Universe
Early in the seventh century a illiterate and unlearned man by the name of Muhammad (pubh) stated that the heavens (which include the stars, planets, etc.) and the earth were all joined together as one before God separated everything.

Since the mid 1900's and up until present day scientist are in agreement regarding what has been come to be known as the “Big Bang”.

[Quran 21:30] “Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?”


Scientist agree that early universe mainly existed in a gas like state, also the presence of “smoke” after a large explosion is something which is quite common.

The Quran describes the universe in its early stages can be described as being like “smoke” which then came together to form objects.
[Quran 41:11] “Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly."


Science testifies to the fact that the universe is not something which is static but something which continues to expand. The Arabic word "moosiaaoona" in the term "inna lamoosiaaoona," translated into English as "it is We Who are steadily expanding it", comes from the verb "evsea," meaning "to expand." The prefix "la" emphasises the following name or title and adds a sense of "to a great extent." This expression therefore means "We expand the sky or the universe to a great extent."
[Quran 51:47] “And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.”


The Quran correctly identifies the age of the Earth as being one third the age of the universe. The age of the universe is 13.77 billion years, the age of the earth is 4.54 billion years.

13.77 divided by 4.54 = 3.033 or 3:1 ratio, Just as six days divided by two days (simplified) = 3 or a ratio of 3:1

Total time of creation for heavens and Earth was six days
[Quran 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59] Creation of the Heavens and the Earth in six days

Formation of the Earth was two days
[Quran 41:9] “He who created the earth in two days”


Science agrees to the fact that Iron is something which is of non earthly origin (Iron's non Earthly origin), but something which was sent down.

Although banded iron formations were laid down in the time between 3,700 million years ago and 1,800 million years ago, they were in fact sent down to Earth. Iron's very common presence in rocky planets like Earth is due to its abundant production as a result of fusion in high-mass stars.

[Quran 57:25] “And We sent down iron”


Arguments regarding the measurement of Time
Some like to use the argument that if a day is 24 hours then a six day creation story makes little sense. I agree, and also consider it to a completely baseless and silly argument to try and place God within our own Earth time. Not only that but while we are bound by time, it is only rational to think God operates outside of the boundaries of time, something which was itself created.


Major Mistakes regarding the Universe found in the Bible
-Age of the universe is Not 6000 years
By attempting to show the genealogy of Adam all the way to Jesus, thereby showing the Christian Creation story to be approx. six thousand years. (The Quran does not provide any specific amount of time as this).

-God needing to rest, as in the “on the seventh day he rested” [Genesis 2:2].
God being all powerful it would be contradictory to his nature that he also requires rest. The Quran does not contain such a statement.

-Other incorrect assessments which have been identified and are said to be based up Biblical sources include: The Earth as the center of the universe, the Earth having four corners, and the 6000 year old Earth theory which places mankind and dinosaurs within the same period of time, something which some Christians have tried to reconcile sometimes with strange and even somewhat humors results: A Scientist Visits A Creationist Museum.

Curious. Are you joking, trolling, trying to figure out a way to make your religion choice look even mildly functional? Enquirer minds want to NO!!!!!
 
Alright, I'll peak in and look at these.

Aridas what was the point in typing all of that? You have not done a thing to dismantle any of the points which I have put forward. Most of your comments consist of short assessments of what I have posted and vague questions.

Consider what I have put forward:
What Science says + What the Quran says : All in Agreement x 5, (All web references and verses provided so that anyone can read and evaluate the claims for themselves.)

A proper rebuttal would provide some evidence showing that the material was already (locally) available. And that even though Muhammad was not able to read or write, someone who was more knowledgeable and well versed in science/physics/astronomy would have had to separate fact from fiction. Also consider that the Quran was transmitted orally so he would have only had one shot at getting it right, no room for mistakes or to go back and edit his work. Once the words left his lips they were circulated among the people. First draft work, also meant Final draft work
 
Although the verses have been confirmed they remain malcontent,
But why such aversion to what has been sent?

If naught had come down then this day would be unjust,
But with the revelation thereof the event is must.

Those willfully ignorant will speak “Who has woken us from our sleep”,
While the reprobates and the sinners will wish the earth would them keep.

They will question themselves repeatedly “How was it that we were so greatly deceived?”,
But with the predetermined time now expired, they will wish they would have believed.

As the fetters are bound tightly and various groups led away,
Many will speak out against those who led them astray.

They shall cry out that the penalty of the leaders be greatly increased,
Although the response to their cries will cause double on each.
While this is something which you can’t yet comprehend,
Masses will regret having been heedless to the message he did send.

Translation:

I'm a terrible poet, I want everyone to know it,
My mangled, tortured verse will certainly show it.
The majority of scientist (just one) he agrees
That when the Quran speaks, you should fall onto your knees.
I won't be satisfied without a strawman to attack,
So I'll invent some malcontents to keep my point on track.
Muhammad had it right back when Allah revealed all,
And the fate of the unfaithful is one they can't forestall.
You can only blame yourself if you ignore his holy word,
I'll keep on farting louder, until my point is heard.
I don't need structured meter, or proper punctuation?,
The world will soon be ending, so heed my exhortation!
I take delight in knowing that you're shackled to the ground,
For when the prophet's words come true, I won't be around.

And lastly, since I'm smarter, I'll shove it up your nose,
You'll regret your evil ways, and the ignorance you chose.
You'll raise your desperate voices that your leaders had it wrong,
If only you'd all listened to my mangled, tortured song!
 
Curious. Are you joking, trolling, trying to figure out a way to make your religion choice look even mildly functional? Enquirer minds want to NO!!!!!

If by "mildly functional" you mean eerily accurate (considering when and where the information came from) and 100% in agreement with modern science, then yes.
 
Translation:
I won't be satisfied without a strawman to attack

Atheists love to use the term "strawman" to the point that even no such strawman argument exist they will just toss the term into the conversation for giggles and good measure.
 
Atheists love to use the term "strawman" to the point that even no such strawman argument exist they will just toss the term into the conversation for giggles and good measure.

Or maybe the use of the term strawman is accurate, and you are in denial? Certainly the contrived "agreements" you have attempted to establish would suggest the latter.

Anyhow, you are not a scientist. How many scientists have you polled before arrived at your preconceived conclusion?

Using the logic you've displayed here, the title of the thread could just as easily have been:

"Majority of Cookery Book Authors Agree with Islamic View of Universe" except that you have not yet done that search and comparison, no?
 
Last edited:
Do you mean like in the case of Professor Keith Moore, who recognized that the Quran provided accurate details about the embryological stages of which take place in the womb, during a period when microscopes had not yet been invented. Who subsequently accepted Islam.
Please write down for us these accurate details.
 
Translation:

I'm a terrible poet, I want everyone to know it!

Frozenwolf150 you pretty much said it all within just the first line. Although I appreciate the effort, your poem lacks structure, style, depth and meaningful dialogue.

[Easter egg]
Anyone notice that the last four lines of my are not separated as the rest of the poem but grouped together? Hint, this has mainly to do with the second to last line of the poem.
 
Do you mean like in the case of Professor Keith Moore, who recognized that the Quran provided accurate details about the embryological stages of which take place in the womb, during a period when microscopes had not yet been invented. Who subsequently accepted Islam.

No, no, no! Keith Moore doesn't even acknowledge that he allowed his book to be hijacked. What happened was this: Moore wrote a book on embryology. The Saudi Royal family paid him for its use in proving the Koran is true. He allowed it and what was produced was a copy of his book with ever second chapter being commentary by an "scholar" of the Koran on the previous chapter by Moore. It cost Moore a lot of credibility to do what he did and no scientist agrees with the nonsense the "scholar" of the Koran wrote, not even Moore.

Also, the idea that the Koran gets the idea of conception correct is completely idiotic. The "scholar" had to change the definition of words to make it fit. In every other instance the word means "small drop of blood" but the scholar claims that in this instance it means "sperm and egg."

If there is a god, he gave you a brain for a reason and he is going to be very disappointed if you don't use it in this lifetime. Get your head out of your mufti's behind before you lose out on the 72 virgins.
 
Last edited:
Do you mean like in the case of Professor Keith Moore, who recognized that the Quran provided accurate details about the embryological stages of which take place in the womb, during a period when microscopes had not yet been invented. Who subsequently accepted Islam.
I've had a look at some of this stuff myself now, and it is a perfect and ridiculous case of people "reading" their own perceptions or prejudices into the Quran. For example:
"He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness." (Quran 36:6)
"The three veils of darkness" may refer to: (1) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall; and (3) the amniochorionic membrane (Fig. 1). Although there are other interpretations of this statement, the one presented here seems the most logical from an embryological point of view.
So we find an obviously poetic image in the Quran, "interpret" it arbitrarily in terms of current scientific understanding - in a completely ridiculous way, as anyone reading this can see, for Muhammad says nothing at all about the anterior abdominal wall - and then we declare that the Quran teaches us modern embryology. The very passage cited above shows this flawed process in exquisite detail: "the (interpretation) here seems the most logical from an embryological point of view" which means that the "interpretation" has been put into the Quran, not taken from it. Such treatment of a book is a violation of its integrity.
 
Last edited:
Arguments regarding the measurement of Time
Some like to use the argument that if a day is 24 hours then a six day creation story makes little sense. I agree, and also consider it to a completely baseless and silly argument to try and place God within our own Earth time. Not only that but while we are bound by time, it is only rational to think God operates outside of the boundaries of time, something which was itself created.

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. God/Allah/Skydaddy isn't bound by time and operates outside of it so the fact that his supposed book says "six days" is proof that it doesn't mean six days but something completely different. Talk about moronic clap trap. :rolleyes:

What you are saying is that god, and Mohamed, are perfect but couldn't figure out what "day" meant. In other words, they are as ignorant as the people who believe in the koran.

I think it is ironic that you claim the koran is infallible but that you have to correct, and reinterpret, things to make them fit. Ironic in the sense that you are as ignorant as that moronic book is.
 
... [Easter egg]Anyone notice that the last four lines of my are not separated as the rest of the poem but grouped together? Hint, this has mainly to do with the second to last line of the poem.
Could you be more explicit, please? And do I correctly take from your poem, or versification, that people who don't share your strange views about the Quran will all be fried for eternity in Hell?
 
If by "mildly functional" you mean eerily accurate (considering when and where the information came from) and 100% in agreement with modern science, then yes.

So you're admitting that the standard of truth is modern science.
 
Major Mistakes regarding the Universe found in the Bible
-Age of the universe is Not 6000 years
By attempting to show the genealogy of Adam all the way to Jesus, thereby showing the Christian Creation story to be approx. six thousand years. (The Quran does not provide any specific amount of time as this).

No the Christian story has it exactly correct. Like the Koran explanation, a god year is not the same as an earth year. A god year is in fact equal to 229,500 earth years. If you in fact do the conversion, the bible puts the Earth at approx. 13.77 billion years. Which is amazingly close to where science puts the age of the Universe.
 
Atheists love to use the term "strawman" to the point that even no such strawman argument exist they will just toss the term into the conversation for giggles and good measure.
Actually, you invented an opposing viewpoint and then proceeded to tear it down, without addressing what the opposition has actually said, which is the very definition of a strawman.

Frozenwolf150 you pretty much said it all within just the first line. Although I appreciate the effort, your poem lacks structure, style, depth and meaningful dialogue.

[Easter egg]
Anyone notice that the last four lines of my are not separated as the rest of the poem but grouped together? Hint, this has mainly to do with the second to last line of the poem.
Did you even read your poem aloud? It has no meter or rhythm, the rhymes are hard endstops that are all forced, and your imagery consists of nothing more than regurgitated religious rhetoric. I don't think you're in any position to be lecturing me on what makes a good poem. You also seem to have failed to grasp the concept of parody.

Are there any other abject failures of written word you'd like to share tonight?
 
In all sincerity I'm eagerly awaiting an honest rebuttal to the things which I have posted. As it stands not one point which I have presented (on the topic of Science being in universal agreement as to what Muhammad revealed over 1400 years ago) has yet to be debunked or dis-proven.

Most of the comments so far are have been completely asinine, with one guy went so far as to completely throw logic and science out of the window by writing that the "The Big Bang was not a large explosion", smh.



Other posters have referred to original post as:

but provide no bases, context, or specifics.




Even CraigB's post which was well thought out, falls short by providing no source for his claims. Iron a metal which was used throughout the world and especially during the middle ages although there is no evidence that people of early times waiting for small amounts of iron to fall from the sky. The overwhelming majority of this metal was mined from the ground. Can you imagine any King or ruler just sitting around and patiently waiting for iron ore (of random size/amount) to fall out of the sky at some random location, before being able to fit his army with items of warfare. Also if there is evidence that contradicts this just provide it rather than speculate on the frequency of meteorites landing in the desert sands of Arabia.

Even the reference to Black Stone, which thought to be meteorite is incorrect, seeing as it is not composed of iron, not sent down during the time of the prophet, and although it has been placed on the Kabaa it's significance is thought to be more symbolic than religious in nature.

Mike, could you please name that scientist that actually believes - and has posted that information somewhere you can send us to read it - this apparent load of fertilizing material. Also, what part(s) of him/her believe it?

And is it really more than 50% of him/her?


Enquirer minds want to know.................
 
If by "mildly functional" you mean eerily accurate (considering when and where the information came from) and 100% in agreement with modern science, then yes.


100% in agreement... once you've twisted the meanings and redefined the terms of the verses in order to make them agree, and discarded the verses that no amount of creative interpretation can make them fit the facts.
 
A proper rebuttal would provide some evidence showing that the material was already (locally) available. And that even though Muhammad was not able to read or write, someone who was more knowledgeable and well versed in science/physics/astronomy would have had to separate fact from fiction. ]

No. There are several ways to provide proper rebuttals.


If I were in a college-level science class and and professor asked me the age of the Earth and the age of the universe, and I said 2 days and 6 days, do you really think that that could be considered correct in any possible way? Would I deserve credit for giving a correct answer?
 
<snip>
Most of the comments so far are have been completely asinine, with one guy went so far as to completely throw logic and science out of the window by writing that the "The Big Bang was not a large explosion", smh.
<snip>

Was the Big Bang an explosion?
No, the Big Bang was not an explosion. We don't know what, exactly, happened in the earliest times, but it was not an explosion in the usual way that people picture explosions. There was not a bunch of debris that sprang out, whizzing out into the surrounding space. In fact, there was no surrounding space. There was no debris strewn outwards. Space itself has been stretching and carrying material with it.​
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

And how about evolution? What do you think the Qur'an says about that?
 
Last edited:
Rain...Parade, Hate to on yours, BUT: wrong on explosion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Head down to FLRW second para for why. Not explosion, expansion of space. Explosions throw out a mass of material which stops expanding at a certain point where gravity overwhelms it. Space-time did not/does not do that. If YMV, YM is wrong.
 
If by "mildly functional" you mean eerily accurate (considering when and where the information came from) and 100% in agreement with modern science, then yes.
Is the sun setting in a muddy pond in agreement with modern science? Why have you not responded to my post on this? Or indeed to the other points I have made, instead of continually repeating your refrain about the 100% accuracy of the Quran.
 

Back
Top Bottom