PDA

View Full Version : Quran And Science


chinaman
November 20, 2003, 05:27 PM
Given the magnitude of interest shown in the other thread, I think, some might be interested in discussing the Quran in the context of science.

For ages man has been looking for answers and the science has become the main if not the only indispensible tool in the quest.

Quran claims to be the book without error. Let's find out through the share of knowledge with the right tool, infact the only tool equally acceptable to the believers and the nonbelievers alike.

Please keep your discussion clear, short, to the point and include reference where applicable. Please do not make personal attack and be sensible. Thank you.

Arnab
November 20, 2003, 05:31 PM
This should be interesting, considering how much flak the Bible is getting nowadays.

Ehsan
November 20, 2003, 05:52 PM
Quran claims to be the book without error.


Ofcourse, no doubt in that. Scientists (including non-muslims) are now researching on Quran to find out many uncovered facts, one of them I believed is the milky way.

Quran said that the earth revolves round the sun and that is stated from a Book which was revealed 1400 years ago. Many scientists are now embracing Islam just for the Science in it.

Doing ablution (wudhu) helps keep our blood pressure low as this is said in the water therapy. Namaz is just another kind of exercise with a devotion to Allah. Islam is the most scientific Relgion. Quran is a manual for human beings on how to live on earth and contains guidelines on how to be successfull in here and here after. If you do a google search on : Quran and Science or Islam and Science then you'll find tons of useful things expalining the relationship of Islam, Quran and Science. Remember Islam is NOT science, Science IS Islam.

I would love to discuss about Quran/Islam and Science but right now the time is not permitting me. Inshallah after we get done with the exams we can hopefully get an interesting discussion going on.

Chinaman bhai I really appreciate you for bringing up this topic, JazakAllah. Brothers like Pompous bhai and Nasif bhai can definitely contribute a lot here. May Allah give us the understaning of the Quran and His closest religion, Islam.

At the last, hopefully this wasn't too long.

[Edited on 20-11-2003 by ehsan]

Nasif
November 20, 2003, 06:21 PM
Just reposting what I posted in other thread. This is more appropriate thread:


=============================
The following picture was taken on Oct. 31, 1999. It is named "Cat's Eye Nebula", a dying star 3000 light years away.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/catseye_hst.jpg
<font size=2 color=green>[Quran 55:37-38] When the sky disintegrates, and turns rose colored like paint. Which of your Lord's marvels can you deny? </font>

It is my understanding that the more knowledge we acquire about our universe, the more we will be forced to incline towards God.

String theory and (mem)brane theory creates a picture of universe that is too marvelous to be there by itself.

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 01:54 AM
Have any of you read Jules Verne, the French science fiction writer from late 1800s? He actually predicted a lot of scientific stuff that came true in the 20th century.

But does that mean he was omniscient? No, it just shows that he had the basic ideas of science and a very imaginative mind.

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

Nasif: That picture is very nice. But you know that the colors in the astronomical photographs aren't 'real', right?

Read this:

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/I14/I14.HTM

It's written by an astrophotographer whose job is to beautify/doctor these photos so that there is a pleasurable emotional response from the viewer. (In your case, the fact that the color matched a description in Quran has produced a strong emotional response, i.e., a sense of miracle or whatever, even though it is NOT based on the real color of the thing.)

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 21, 2003, 02:36 AM
Arnab, you could do better than that. Giving reference to a person who works as a staff photographer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, specializes in shooting sporting events and calls himself "Used to be a cartoon super-hero in a pervious life, now is a hunka-hunka-burning funk"?

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 03:38 AM
Umm and your point is?

How does that refute the case that those are not real colors?

Here's another article:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/color_universe_020625-1.html

"Ridiculous" is how Kenneth Brecher, a professor of astronomy at Boston University, views the question of the color of the universe. "Meaningless and absurd," he calls the whole affair. "It's very nearly white." But even that view depends on a viewer's point of view.

Brecher complains that "color is not what most astronomers and physicists think it is." It involves hue, saturation and brightness, he instructs, and it can't be thought of as just a wavelength or a frequency.

On a more popular note, Brecher suggests the very vocabulary of astronomy is riddled with misleading color terms. Red giant stars like the bright and popular Betelgeuse, for example, are not really red, though they can sometimes appear so from Earth.

"If you could walk up to Betelgeuse, it would look white," he says.

That's because the star's light would overwhelm the color-sensing cones in your eyes. Only from a great distance, when the star is relatively dim, can the cones sometimes detect a hint of red. The vast majority of red giants, however, set off only the rods in your eyes, which cannot detect color at all. So most stars appear white, regardless of how they are classified.

The quintessential Hubble photograph is a 1995 image of the popular Eagle Nebula, also known as M16 or the Pillars of Creation. The soaring structures had one of their red emissions converted to green -- by the astronomers who took the picture -- in order to highlight scientific detail. In "reality," no green was detected coming from the Pillars.

Interestingly, all Hubble images are created with black-and-white cameras. Ones and zeros are sent to Earth. Color is dropped in later with the popular Photoshop program.

"The color of objects that astronomers release are not really representative of a thing one might imagine exists, which is the objective color of a star or a galaxy," Brecher said in an interview last month during a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Albuquerque, where he made his case before his peers.

"Color is a very, very subjective phenomenon," he said. "Color is in the eye of the beholder."

Levay and his colleagues sometimes take the editing process another step. Images made with Hubble's infrared camera, called NICMOS, have no intrinsic color values in the visible spectrum. To these photos, the image specialists typically apply a corresponding range of colors from the visible realm in a logical pattern -- red for longer wavelengths and blue for shorter.

"Color is a somewhat fuzzy term," Levay admits in relation to the infrared pictures. "We are artificially applying a perceptual color to light that we cannot perceive." One astronomer would not necessarily apply the same colors to a given infrared image as another, he said, but the same logic with respect to wavelength shifts is typically employed.

Levay points out that what he does is nothing more than an extension of two manipulation techniques that transformed modern astronomy.

"We've been manipulating our view of the universe since the advent of black-and-white photography," he said. "And even before. A telescope manipulates your view of the universe, because it expands the size of your eyes."

This Hubble image of four colliding galaxies, released in earlier this month, was created mostly with infrared light. Astronomers mixed some visible light taken with the telescope's optical imager, too. The visible light was recorded as yellow but made blue before being combined with this picture:


http://www.space.com/images/color_nicmos_020625_02.jpg



[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

oracle
November 21, 2003, 09:05 AM
Actually, in the Quran it is in medicine, the embryo development of humans which is quite scientific.
-The Quran/Sura 39 on the development of the human embryo.

But Christians use these sort of arguments abundantly too.
Ripping texts from the Old Testament to give some sort of scintific validity. Hindus also.I could come with various examples which were written literally 1000 years before the Christain Judaic ones. So what?

No. I think there is no slam dunk proof of creation.
As one Sufi qoute brilliantly captures the theme of ultimate truth, " It is hidden, hidden , and hidden." The more this Science and Religion nexus is explored the more insecure these texts look.

However, I personally would like to see a more open intellectual climate in the Muslim world. At the least trying to capture the spirit of "enquiry" that was present during the days of Ghazali or Averoes.

If we are going to have religion in society then a Liberal religion is the only option that might have a chance because it would rectify a lot of the latent chauvinism found in the islamic world.

Nasif
November 21, 2003, 09:23 AM
Arnab its a red giant. And the picture is 100% optic RGB from Hubble Space Telescope, captured by detecting RGB wavelenghts.

Visit: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/cycle1/1220/1220_hand.html

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/cycle1/1220/1220_hand.jpg
The above image was taken by two telescopes, left one is from Chandra Observatory and right one is from Hubble Space Telescope. Chandra image was taken 100% X-ray shown in orange. The right image (hubble) has the X-Ray part (the blue part) and optical part(red and green part) from the Hubble. This composite image was taken with RGB detector as well as other detectors.

For full information on Cat's Eye Nubula please read this (explains Hubble image taking process):
HUBBLE PROBES THE COMPLEX HISTORY OF A DYING STAR (http://www.xtec.es/recursos/astronom/hst/ngc6543a.txt)

Hubble's image does not come like regular camera. Using different wavelenght detectors Hubble can give the color contents of the source, which then can be recomposed. Details from Hubble site: RGB recomposition (http://hubblesite.org/sci.d.tech/behind_the_pictures/meaning_of_color/rgb.shtml)

But ultimately a red giant, Cat's Eye Nebula, is obviosly red, even if we see black and white. :)


Red Giant Info:
Because it has run out of fuel, the star begins to cool, and contract. The outer layers of the star fall inwards under gravity, and as they fall they heat up. A shell surrounding the central core becomes hot enough to fuse protons into alphas. So the star gains a new source of energy. The core of the star is now hotter than it was during its normal life and this heat causes the outer parts of the star to swell. The star becomes a giant. The radiation from the fusing shell has grown weak by the time it reaches the surface of the star. Weak radiation is red, so the star becomes a red giant.

This is the fate of the sun in about 5 billion years. You might want to mark your calendar!



The Quran verse here is taking about Red Giant. When sun becomes a red giant in 5-7billion years, it will engulf Earth, including Mars. And when that happens our "sky" will burn up with heat and earth will be destroyed. The sky will seem to be disintegrated and sky color that we will see (if someone is alive) will be reddish/rose like color.. This is what is meat by "When the sky disintegrates, and turns rose colored like paint."

The End: http://www.nature.com/nsu/010510/010510-7.html

It is very simple to understand. No denying it.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by nasif]

oracle
November 21, 2003, 09:30 AM
He makes you in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness."
This statement is from Sura 39. . . .

chinaman
November 21, 2003, 09:43 AM
Seated side by side, two gentlemen from two different world... And there they were, on a flight from Cape Town to Durban, ....... After the formalities were covered, the conversation continued........

Read the full story (http://www.allaahuakbar.net/atheist/religion_and_the_scientist.htm)

or

Here (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/7368/science_religion.htm)

[Edited on 11-21-2003 by chinaman : URL changed]

Zobair
November 21, 2003, 11:07 AM
The difference between Muhammad (PBUH)' book (the Creator's Word) and Jules Verne was one is describing the mechanism of processes which can theoretically be investigated right at the moment it was mentioned and the other one predicted and imagined way into the future. A fake prophet would have been much safer just guessing about the future rather than describing in detail how he thought things creation worked and risk being exposed as a crank! What would care if people found out after his death?! Jules Verne had a one track mind...just like you would expect humans to be...he was interested in technology, exploration...and that showed in his novels...the Quran talks about a multitude of things from various aspects of life and creation...There is no "may be" or "ifs" or "buts" at all. Every thing is said with simple and firm conviction.

In any case, if the Quran is a big lie..and Muhammad (PBUH) was a crank....he was the best damned actor in the whole world...he lived a life of complete and utter deception...lied through his teeth...could break into a sweat and act strange and the wierdest of times...impressed people with his honesty and truthfulfess (all of which was fake and yet perfectly orchestrated)..gave up what was a very comfortable life for perpetuating some lies and persisted with them come hell of high water....half-starved himself to death and almost got killed on numerous occasions, all for some fake God he had created in his mind....not only that...he got a quite a few people killed because of his deception...came up with wierd stuff about babies in the womb...and mountains...and galaxies which no one understand for quite a while after that ...what a super-crook! nauzubillah!

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 11:13 AM
1. Nasif: "But ultimately a red giant, Cat's Eye Nebula, is obviosly red, even if we see black and white."

Dude, a red giant isn't RED, what part of the following did you not understand?

On a more popular note, Brecher suggests the very vocabulary of astronomy is riddled with misleading color terms. Red giant stars like the bright and popular Betelgeuse, for example, are not really red, though they can sometimes appear so from Earth.

"If you could walk up to Betelgeuse, it would look white," he says.

That's because the star's light would overwhelm the color-sensing cones in your eyes. Only from a great distance, when the star is relatively dim, can the cones sometimes detect a hint of red. The vast majority of red giants, however, set off only the rods in your eyes, which cannot detect color at all. So most stars appear white, regardless of how they are classified.

2. And what point did you want to prove with the RGB composition link from the hubble site? Let's read some of the stuff from the very site you gave me.

a. Representative color helps scientists visualize what would otherwise be invisible, such as the appearance of an object in infrared light.

b. Enhancing the visible colors in an image often brings out an object's subtle structural detail.

c. We use color:

• To depict how an object might look to us if our eyes were as powerful as Hubble

• To visualize features of an object that would ordinarily be invisible to the human eye

• To bring out an object's subtle details.

Color in Hubble images is used to highlight interesting features of the celestial object being studied. It is added to the separate black-and-white exposures that are combined to make the final image.

Creating color images out of the original black-and-white exposures is equal parts art and science.

Which is exactly my point.

And you know what's funny? The example of this art of color doctoring they give us is none other than your cat's eye nebula. haha!

3. This is how it's done, again, taken from the very site you gave me:

Taking color pictures with the Hubble Space Telescope is much more complex than taking color pictures with a traditional camera. For one thing, Hubble doesn't use color film — in fact, it doesn't use film at all. Rather, its cameras record light from the universe with special electronic detectors.

These detectors produce images of the cosmos not in color, but in shades of black and white.

Finished color images are actually combinations of two or more black-and-white exposures to which color has been added during image processing.

The colors in Hubble images, which are assigned for various reasons, aren't always what we'd see if we were able to visit the imaged objects in a spacecraft. We often use color as a tool, whether it is to enhance an object's detail or to visualize what ordinarily could never be seen by the human eye.

There is NO RGB detector in hubble! Where did you find that info? Did you just make that up? There are, however, RGB manipulation techniques that scientists use on these black and white photos to 1. enhance technical details 2. visual pleasure. Let's say, hypothetically, they wanna measure the intensity of light in the photo. Instead of using just brightness as a measure they use the color red. The more intense a part, the redder it is. The less intense, more pinkish it becomes. But it doesn't REALLY mean that the thing is red! The color is used to aid our understanding. And scientists may use different colors for the same property they wanna highlight in different photos. Maybe in other photos, intensity was shown with blue color. It's COMPLETELY ARBITRARY and SUBJECTIVE to the Color Enhancing Person's personal artistic choice.

So my question is:

Why do you say there is an optical RGB detector in Hubble when there is none? Why are you bent on bending the truth? Is your faith SO strong that you have to brainwash yourself like that?

Here's what happened when they were producing your famous pic. First they took an x-ray pic from Chandra observatory of the nebula. (This is the pic on the left of yourpost) Now I don't know about you, but X-rays don't have orange color. WE CAN'T EVEN SEE X-RAYS! They ADDED that color so that we can get a FEEL for what's happening.

And then they took two images from hubble, which were initially BLACK-and- WHITE images ALREADY color-doctored with red and green.

Notice how the chandra image on the left all on a sudden was converted from orange to blue in the composite pic on the right.

That's because they wanted to compare the "hotness" of different parts of the nebula. But OUR HUMAN EYES are NOT capable of seeing such stuff. So they color coded the hotness with more hot being red and less hot being blue.

It's ALL subjective. They could have easily color coded hot being green and cold being red.

It's color doctoring. As simple as that.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 11:40 AM
In any case, if the Quran is a big lie..and Muhammad (PBUH) was a crank....he was the best damned actor in the whole world...he lived a life of complete and utter deception...lied through his teeth...could break into a sweat and act strange and the wierdest of times...impressed people with his honesty and truthfulfess (all of which was fake and yet perfectly orchestrated)..gave up what was a very comfortable life for perpetuating some lies and persisted with them come hell of high water....half-starved himself to death and almost got killed on numerous occasions, all for some fake God he had created in his mind....not only that...he got a quite a few people killed because of his deception...came up with wierd stuff about babies in the womb...and mountains...and galaxies which no one understand for quite a while after that ...what a super-crook! nauzubillah!

You know what, these exact questions stump me too. But you know how history gets distorted right? Ask an Awami supporter about Sheikh Mujib and you will get all these Rong-chorano Galgoppo about his life.

Now, I am not so much of a fool to say the history of Islam is a big lie. There's a lot of truth out there in the annals of history. The main question is are these truths being tainted by the zealous followers along the process?

History is rife with examples of schizophreninc religious leaders. We have seen them in 21st century as well. And the more weird they act, the more important they become in normal public's eye.

If Muhammad calmly produced the verses in a homely family dinner among friends, people probably would have taken him as a joker. So maybe he had to do theatrical stuff like swooning and stuf.

Pompous, you know that people are superstitious, right? And as you go back in generations, the more superstitious people seem to be. Your mom is less superstitious than your grandma, who is less superstitious than her mom. When you grandma talks about causes of some illness from jin bhoot, or makes up stupid reasons why your stomach is cramping, you laugh at her, right? Because you now know what's really happening inside your body thanks to the science of medicine.

And this is going back only one generation. If people can be so superstitious and ignorant in just one generation, imagine what the poeple would be like in 600 A.D.? I mean if you read some of the hadiths, you can clearly see Muhammad knew nothing about how the body worked internally (obviously), he just applied common sense and spouted off whatever was in his mind with an air of conviction.

Now, my guess is, a LOT and I mean a LOT of these stories regarding Muhammad (or any other prophet, for that matter) is folklore. Made up stories that sound so awesome but I'm sure if you dig deep, you'll come up with something very different.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

oracle
November 21, 2003, 11:45 AM
The difference between Muhammad (PBUH)' book (the Creator's Word) and Jules Verne was one is describing the mechanism of processes which can theoretically be investigated right at the moment it was mentioned and the other one predicted and imagined way into the future


Describing the mechanism that can theoretically be investigated sounds pretty much like the core of western scintific exploration since the renaissance. That is using measurement and experimentation to arrive or debunk a hypothesis.

Early Islam was actually quite adept at this having taken to heart the findings of the Greeks (mainly Aristotle) and establishing a nascent Islamic culture of science and philosophy. However, the foremost Islamic scholar of the time Ghazali did not go beyond this stage of science and make "applied" paramount in Islamic thought. Scientific study was secondary to the submission to God.

The big rift between Science and Religion in Europe occured because of adapting Science for utilitarian purposes, thereby abandoning quest for truth or nature of god. As a result of which bringing in the "modern" western society. At some point in History the European countries radically developed their societies differently from Islamic ones. It is this divergence which is interesting and worth analyzing.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by oracle]

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by oracle
The big rift between Science and Religion in Europe occured because of adapting Science for utilitarian purposes, thereby abandoning quest for truth or nature of god. As a result of which bringing in the "modern" western society.

I think a bigger rift took place in the 20th century when a majority of the scientists realized that science has nothing to do with God. Science is still pursuing truth. But, God is a subjective entity that science has nothing to do with. God doesn't even fit in the model of science. It's for people of blind faith.

But again, some scientists live a dual life. When they are doing science, they switch off their blind faith mechanisms in their head. And when they go back home and say their prayers, they are back in irrational blind faith mode again. It's pretty cool.

Nasif
November 21, 2003, 11:56 AM
Why do you say there is an optical RGB detector in Hubble when there is none? Why are bent on bending the truth?

Here's what happened when they were producing your famous pic. First they took an x-ray pic from Chandra observatory of the nebula. (This is the pic on the left of yourpost) Now I don't know about you, but X-rays don't have orange color. WE CAN'T EVEN SEE X-RAYS! They ADDED that color so that we can get a FEEL for what's happening.

And then they took two images from hubble, which were initially BLACK-and- WHITE images ALREADY color-doctored with red and green.


Before you accuse someone of bending the truth please analyze the material. If you have read the Dying Star article you would have known the following:
This color picture, taken with the Wide Field Planetary Camera-2, is a
composite of three images taken at different wavelengths. (red,
hydrogen-alpha; blue, neutral oxygen, 6300 angstroms; green, ionized
nitrogen, 6584 angstroms).

Even the Hubble Site explains RGB detection with different wavelenght detectors. http://hubblesite.org/sci.d.tech/behind_the_pictures/meaning_of_color/rgb.shtml


Dude, a red giant isn't RED, what part of the following did you not understand? That's because the star's light would overwhelm the color-sensing cones in your eyes.

Dude, no one will be alive to see sun's red giant. Earth will burn up long before red giant engulfs earth. Residents of earth may only see the initial stage (beginning process) of the red giant and that will appear as red/rosy.

Here's what happened when they were producing your famous pic. First they took an x-ray pic from Chandra observatory of the nebula. (This is the pic on the left of yourpost) Now I don't know about you, but X-rays don't have orange color. WE CAN'T EVEN SEE X-RAYS! They ADDED that color so that we can get a FEEL for what's happening.

Please don't make up a story to justify your logic. No one is stupid here. We know we don't see X-Ray. I mentioned the orange to let you know that it was created color. X-Ray isn't orange. This was to show constrast with the cat's eye's color which was generated from 3 (RGB) wavelength detectors.


And you know what's funny? The example of this art of color doctoring they give us is none other than your cat's eye nebula. haha!

And you think I didn't see that? I knew you were going to say this. Just shows how quick you were to write up an answer without giving any thought. Please read the caption under that cat's eye picture:
From Hubble Site
http://hubblesite.org/sci.d.tech/behind_the_pictures/meaning_of_color/graphics/g-enhanced.jpg
Enhanced Color
Enhancing the visible colors in an image often brings out an object's subtle structural detail.

They are just saying that they enhance picture's color. That doesn't mean that the picture was black and white. It just means the colors were weak and they enhanced it, to make to more distinct.

Jumping into conclusion too soon is a big mistake for everything in life. Let it soak...

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by nasif]

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 12:01 PM
For the LAST time:

These detectors produce images of the cosmos not in color, but in shades of black and white.

Finished color images are actually combinations of two or more black-and-white exposures to which color has been added during image processing.

I am not saying you're lying. You are just not READING carefully!

They are just saying that they enhance picture's color. That doesn't mean that the picture was black and white. It just means the colors were weak and they enhanced it, to make to more distinct.

They are enhancing the color they ADDED in the previous step. Those are not real colors they are enhancing. They are taking black and white photos, adding color to them (which depends on what colors THEY, the photo doctors, like to see) and THEN they are enhancing the colors they just added to show subtle features more clearly.

The colors aren't REAL!


[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

Unknown
November 21, 2003, 12:02 PM
It is well evident that arrogance leads mankind away from Allah.

Even here we see vivid examples of arrogance.

SCIENCE itself is "yet" not an accurate means by which we can derive every bit of information about our world and this universe.

My main point... it is utter ARROGANCE to believe that WE(all that exists in the universe) came to being by a "universal" accident.

Arnab: "dude" your arrogance is why you fail to see the obvious.

As it is stated in the Quran... Allah guides those who he pleases and misguides those who he wills.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Unknown]

oracle
November 21, 2003, 12:03 PM
I think a bigger rift took place in the 20th century when a majority of the scientists realized that science has nothing to do with God. Science is still pursuing truth


Yes, I agree. However, the case is not closed and I really doubt it will be. Actually, I will agree to disagree with you on the second sentence because the pursuit of truth may have been compromised by the pursuit of big money.

Secondly,



And when they go back home and say their prayers, they are back in irrational blind faith mode again. It's pretty cool.


Actually, that interaction between irrationality and rationality, i.e the creative process, has produced quite a number of scientific breakthroughs and religious belief of the scientist may have spurred this. So why suppress or belittle it if it benefits man?.
:-/

Zobair
November 21, 2003, 12:09 PM
Can you provide any examples of such hadith? Are they sound?

And this is going back only one generation. If people can be so superstitious and ignorant in just one generation, imagine what the poeple would be like in 600 A.D.? I mean if you read some of the hadiths, you can clearly see Muhammad knew nothing about how the body worked internally (obviously), he just applied common sense and spouted off whatever was in his mind with an air of conviction.



Is this speculation on your part or do you have any other reason to believe this happened?


If Muhammad calmly produced the verses in a homely family dinner among friends, people probably would have taken him as a joker. So maybe he had to do theatrical stuff like swooning and stuf.



Start of with a guess...end with conviction...nice work! :)

Now, my guess is, a LOT and I mean a LOT of these stories regarding Muhammad (or any other prophet, for that matter) is folklore. Made up stories that sound so awesome but I'm sure if you dig deep, you'll come up with something very different.


History, particular of Muhammad's life, as is recorded by Muslims and Non-Muslims, is based on his actions, and accounts by modern historians are almost symmetric in content, though they may diffeer in their speculation of intentions. As for superstitions, I am guessing you are referring to the hadith. Actually, most, and I mean overwhelmingly MOST hadith deal with day to day sayings and rulings of the prophet, very much non-superstitious...superstitions are generally associated with unnatural events...miracles...of which only a handful are associated the prophet. As for his state when he received the revelations...many non-Muslims had speculated that he was epileptic..only to dismiss these as not plausible later...well you seem to know how to break into a sweat cold sweat on demand...next time I need a deferral for my exam I will ask for some tips ;)

Nasif
November 21, 2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Arnab
For the LAST time:

These detectors produce images of the cosmos not in color, but in shades of black and white.

Finished color images are actually combinations of two or more black-and-white exposures to which color has been added during image processing.

I am not saying you're lying. You are just not READING carefully!

Obviously you have never worked with image processing. When you seperate a color image into its component colors, it gets seperated into 3 grey scale images. Its very simple in computer to produce a color image from 3 RGB component grey scale image. They do this all the time in publishing industry with 4 channels CMYK.

Yes, they take the image in grey scale (its not black and white, that is an incorrect term). But they have 3 different grey scale for 3 channels of RGB. From these 3 grey scale image a color picture can be composed. Its as if you have taken a color image. There is no practical difference.

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 12:10 PM
Actually, that interaction between irrationality and rationality, i.e the creative process, has produced quite a number of scientific breakthroughs and religious belief of the scientist may have spurred this. So why suppress or belittle it if it benefits man?.

I am not belittling it. I am saying it's cool.
It's pretty interesting to observe what you dub as "the interaction between irrationality and rationality."

I think human brain is not capable of being rational all the time. It's not a defect. It's just how we have evolved. Our brain was developed to the extent that we were able to live and propagate. Not anything more than that. It's the legacy of evolution.

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by nasif
Originally posted by Arnab
For the LAST time:

These detectors produce images of the cosmos not in color, but in shades of black and white.

Finished color images are actually combinations of two or more black-and-white exposures to which color has been added during image processing.

I am not saying you're lying. You are just not READING carefully!

Obviously you have never worked with image processing. When you seperate a color image into its component colors, it gets seperated into 3 grey scale images. Its very simple in computer to produce a color image from 3 RGB component grey scale image. They do this all the time in publishing industry with 4 channels CMYK.

Yes, they take the image in grey scale (its not black and white, that is an incorrect term). But they have 3 different grey scale for 3 channels of RGB. From these 3 grey scale image a color picture can be composed. Its as if you have taken a color image. There is no practical difference.

Obviously, you don't seem to understand that space photography as done by Hubble is completely different from normal photography.

Hubble is basically collecting various types of data, some of which is visible, most of which isn't. The scientists are taking these data, which are in binary form and making images out of them.

They are not initially collecting an RGB inage and then seperating the colors. They are taking an image that resembles a grey scale image (but in fact has much more info than that) and then ADDING colors to it to their whim.

Nasif
November 21, 2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Arnab
Hubble is basically collecting various types of data, some of which is visible, most of which isn't. The scientists are taking these data, which are in binary form and making images out of them.

They are not initially collecting an RGB inage and then seperating the colors. They are taking an image that resembles a grey scale image (but in fact has much more info than that) and then ADDING colors to it to their whim.

You are posting before I can even read whats been posted. :) Fast indeed.

Ok lets give it in step by step:

1. Turn the hubble on :)
2. Face it towards cats eye
3. Get digital image from Wide Field Planetary Camera-2
4. Digital image data has different channels of data for each of the different detector. Three of these detectors are red, blue and green wavelength detectors. There are other detectors, we will disregard them.
5. Digital data of each of these wavelength is in grey scale.
6. Turn your computer on :)
7. Load the grey scale digital images for three wavelenghts.
8. Re-combine these three grey scale into RGB color image.
9. Now we have weak color image.
10. Enhace image colors so the it has high constrast.
11. Post it on your website :D
12. Discuss about it in BanglaCricket.com

oracle
November 21, 2003, 12:30 PM
Our brain was developed to the extent that we were able to live and propagate. Not anything more than that. It's the legacy of evolution.


Yes quite right. Psychology and the study of the brain are the least developed areas of science. It is truly astonishing how the human race has survived and got this far. I mean compliance in society and social proof is an element in every religious practice, but it would be interesting to see if evolution is capable of taking humans to another level than what has been witnessed in the past. I am alluding to new found studies in the area of Meditation and it's effects on the brain.

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 12:30 PM
This page tells you exactly how it was done, including step by step pictures:

http://hubblesite.org/sci.d.tech/behind_the_pictures/meaning_of_color/catseye.shtml

The Cat’s Eye Nebula consists of glowing gases ejected into outer space by a dying star. Individual chemical elements in the nebula emit light at very specific wavelengths.

The three black-and-white images used to construct this image represent light from hydrogen atoms, oxygen atoms, and nitrogen ions (nitrogen atoms with one electron removed).

All three images correspond to different shades of red light, so we enhanced the color differences to make the nebula’s delicate structures more obvious.

In this case, light from hydrogen atoms is shown in red, light from oxygen is shown in blue, and light from nitrogen is shown in green.


On a different note: I partially take back my point that Hubble doesn't have RGB detectors. It doesn't have such a thing per se but it does detect the whole visible spectrum and much more.

This is how it works, it basically can filter a specific wavelegth of light when it's processign an image. That means it can produce infinite number of images of the same picture with infinitely different wavelengths. The scientists pick SOME of these images, the ones that THEY deem most important, and then ASSIGN colors to those (not according to their corresponding wavelgths mind you).

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

Unknown
November 21, 2003, 12:34 PM
Arnab... I knew you would bring Evolution into this.... Evolution is an unproven theory which Darwin came up with, now, you believe in evolution... the UNSEEN, THE UNKNOWN.

You can never prove for certain that Evolution occurred becuase there are too many erronous details in the evolution theory.

Natural selection is a load of garbabe that makes as much sense as XYZ itself.

You see, for evolution to work, you need to have many assumptions. Not only that, but many things that evolution relies on is taken for granted and is left to "CHANCE"

Let us investigate the "chances/probabilities" here:

1. Universe created by accident

2. The solar system came to being with the Sun (energy source) being the centre of all planetary bodies that revolve round it. (by chance?)

3. Planet earth formed at a convenient distance from the SUN with a moon that has dramatic effects on the oceans of the Earth. (by chance?)

4. An atmosphere known as the Ozone (O3) existed that shielded planet earth from harmful properties of Solar and Cosmic radiations. (by chance?)

5. Life sustaining elements such as Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen found on earth. (by chance?)

Now let us consider that evolution has undergone, and that from simple single cell organisms life evolves to larger and more sophisticated beings. Speed up evolution and we end up with Humans, other animals, Plants.

Now let us study what chances we must take to live on planet earth.

1. Humans and other creatures breathe Oxygen, without which we shall die. Need foods (exclusivly carbon based).

2. Plant life takes in Solar radiation, Carbon Dioxide, water, and undertakes the process of photosynthesis to produce foods.

Is it by chance that the food source for this whole world is traced back to PLANTS? Is it also by chance that Plant life produces Oxygen (we inhale this) and that plant life inhales what we exhale (Carbon Dioxide)?

It must have become obvious for you how much for evolution and even for the formation of the universe and life itself, we have to rely on "CHANCE". My friend, what is the PROBABILITY OF THIS CHANCE TAKING PLACE?

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Unknown]

Tintin
November 21, 2003, 12:46 PM
3. Planet earth formed at a convenient distance from the SUN with a moon that has dramatic effects on the oceans of the Earth. (by chance?)


There is an obvious argument against this. We are at a convenient distance from the sun because if we were not, we wouldn't have been here; and the earth would have been like the other dead planets.

Same about ozone layer etc.

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 12:49 PM
I am not going to write another essay on some of the stuff you wrote. It's full of "anthropocentric" arguments, one of which Tintin has pointed out already.

But yes, it is VERY mind-boggling and we have to research A LOT to actually find out what is going on. Only by exploring more and more and collecting more data can we get an ever increasingly accurate picture what REALLY happened. That is the LOGICAL thing to do.

But what is ILLOGICAL is you, instead of trusting and supporting the ongoing research of scientists searching for what really happened, are saying that I should fully trust what some prophet said thousands of years ago without ANY research, and without any logical reasoning whatsoever.

Why are YOU taking the infinitely bigger risk of believing something that is so ILLOGICAL?

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

Unknown
November 21, 2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Tintin

3. Planet earth formed at a convenient distance from the SUN with a moon that has dramatic effects on the oceans of the Earth. (by chance?)


There is an obvious argument against this. We are at a convenient distance from the sun because if we were not, we wouldn't have been here; and the earth would have been like the other dead planets.

Same about ozone layer etc.


What part of this argument do you not understand... it is blatantly obvious... My point was exactly as you said. You fail to so read this again.

"3. Planet earth formed at a convenient distance from the SUN with a moon that has dramatic effects on the oceans of the Earth. (by chance?) "

Herein I am saying that "is it also by chance that the earth is at a convenient distance from the sun". As we know, if we were any closer or any further, this could affect our green planet dramatically!

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Unknown]

Nasif
November 21, 2003, 12:58 PM
Are you reading what you just posted?

Thats the same thing I have been saying. Moreover, if you notice the specturm analysis you would know that most of the stuff there is hydrogen. And hydrogen can only emit red color. All three are in red color because stars lack heavy elements that emit other colors. Hubble detectors use only hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen (all of which emits red zone color of visible spectrum). They use these three to make 3 channels of RGB to create a color image. Because of high quantity of hydrogen cat's eye is red. Thats is its true color. Hydrogen always emits color in red zone. That what spectorscopy tells us.

http://zipamp.virtualave.net/catseye.jpg

That is why at initial stage of red giant, you will see the sun is buring as red and disintigrating our sky :)

Unknown
November 21, 2003, 01:04 PM
Arnab, can you provide a case which shows that I believe in what is "ILLOGICAL"? I should think not. And you seem to believe in the ILLOGICAL too...

If I am not mistaken, it is you who believes in EVOLUTION which is not PROVEN, yet RESEARCH IS DONE based on a SCIENTISTS THEORY made hundreds of years ago.

So what is wrong in researching the Quran written thousands of years ago that provides us with more scientific evidence than DARWIN could provide?

If you advise someone else to follow LOGIC, you should follow LOGIC too. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Unknown
Arnab, can you provide a case which shows that I believe in what is "ILLOGICAL"? I should think not. And you seem to believe in the ILLOGICAL too...

If I am not mistaken, it is you who believes in EVOLUTION which is not PROVEN, yet RESEARCH IS DONE based on a SCIENTISTS THEORY made hundreds of years ago.

So what is wrong in researching the Quran written thousands of years ago that provides us with more scientific evidence than DARWIN could provide?

If you advise someone else to follow LOGIC, you should follow LOGIC too. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Dude, you are deluded, but perhaps not beyond redemption. Are you aware of hundreds, no, thousands of scientific reaserch papers published in educational research institutions on evolutionary biology since Darwin? Do you know that Evolution is regarded as a FACT in the scientific community: a community comprising of thousands of scientists? If scientists are researching on a theory and constantly finding proof that it's valid, then what's illogical about it?

Come on now.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 21, 2003, 01:17 PM
Guys, may I?

Nasif's quranic reference points to an event which is yet to be experienced or atleast yet to be proved without the shadow of a doubt and not necessarily points to the particular picture in question. What the picture, wheather it is real or doctored, does is to give us some sorts of preview of that event.

Remember, this thread is about Quranic claim of being error free and the discussion of the claim in the context of science.

Does the said picture, wheather it is real or doctored, make that claim invalid?

Please do not forget what we are discussing and why. I hope to see more reasonable and sensible post.

Unknown, welcome to the board. Hope you will enjoy our company. Cheers.

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 01:22 PM
Read this:

http://www.donaldedavis.com/2002_addons/DEEPCLRS.html

The Hubble is the greatest leap in seeing the Universe since Galileo. However, with all due praises for the missions many accomplishments, It seems odd that the Hubble telescope rarely does the very thing hundreds of dedicated professional and amateur astronomers try to do with their equipment-to take RGB color pictures of the sky. I do not wish to criticize the excellent work that is being done so much as to lament what is being neglected. While the obscure wavelengths ususlly emphasized in their studies have information to give, I find it sad that RGB images of deep sky objects are rarely considered worth obtaining. There are things we also can learn in those wavelengths with better coorelation available to existing groundbased photography. I realize part of the advantage of having a space telescope is access to wavelengths you can't study from the ground, but at least as compelling an advantage is the big gain in resolution over the familiar views of astronomical objects. Part of the bridge between the familiar and the revelatory is seeing the image as we have known it transferred from a very defocused prelude to the 'real thing' in its full detail.

I would like to encourage those getting Hubble Space Telescope time and those approving such applications to consider visible light images as a viable option.



Although the captions in photo releases generally declare the differences between the presented and true colors, only those familiar with the colors of the skies through experience are likely to catch such stylization without such disclaimers, which are often not relayed when reproduced.

http://www.donaldedavis.com/PARTS/CATSEYE2.jpg

This HST photo is of NGC 6543, the 'Cat's eye' nebula. It is located near the North Ecliptic pole, and is among the brighter of the so-called 'Planetary nebulae'.

The initially released version is at the left. To the right is my attempt to 'bring back' something closer to the actual colors as can be photographed from ground based telescopes. The April 1995 Sky and Telescope Magazine features the initially released version on the cover, but on page 98 of that issue a ground based CCD image in 'enhanced color' by Bruce Balick shows this object in a color scheme nearly the 'inverse' of the Hubble image. NGC 6543 also appears greenish in older color film images. A later version of the Hubble image reprocessed by Mr. Balick better suggests the telescopic colors, and can be seen at his site. Balick's revised HST image appeared on the October 1998 cover of Sky and Telescope.

Here's a link to the image:

http://www.astro.washington.edu/balick/6543.montage.jpeg

Which again proves my point, the color is mainly there to stylize the pics.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 01:25 PM
Does the said picture, wheather it is real or doctored, make that claim invalid?

What claim? Look, there very well may be a reference in ancient Chinese legends that there are colorful dragons in the sky. So if a pic is taken by Hubble, color enhanced nonetheless, happens to match the outline of a dragon, does that mean the ancient chinese were omniscient?

chinaman
November 21, 2003, 01:31 PM
Arnab, kidding who? Read before you reply. If you don't know what the claim is all about, then do not reply.

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 01:34 PM
OK, I just refuted the claim that an ayat in the Quran somehow relates to the cat's eye nebula. Happy?

Here's the claim:

"When the sky disintegrates, and turns rose colored like paint."

1. The sky did not disintegrate. As a matter of fact, there is no "sky", it's space. And it's not "disintegrating."

2. And the color of the nebula is not rosey. In fact, it's true color may be more like greenish. The sky(or space) didn't "turn rose colored like paint", the paint was thrown on the black and white photo and enhanced to make it look "cool."

Color is a subjective human trait. The sense of color is happening inside our brain. Universal phenomena don't CARE what colors we see.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 21, 2003, 01:35 PM
Yes, of course. Thank you very much.

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 01:40 PM
Awesome. Next? :)

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by oracle
Yes quite right. Psychology and the study of the brain are the least developed areas of science. It is truly astonishing how the human race has survived and got this far. I mean compliance in society and social proof is an element in every religious practice, but it would be interesting to see if evolution is capable of taking humans to another level than what has been witnessed in the past. I am alluding to new found studies in the area of Meditation and it's effects on the brain.

What newfound studies? What do you mean by another level? Do you have any interesting links?

Zobair
November 21, 2003, 01:44 PM
Arnab, There is a difference between refutation and posting a possible alternative. Refutation negates a notion completely. You just posted a view from one person suggesting an alternative view.




Color is a subjective human trait. The sense of color is happening inside our brain. Universal phenomena don't CARE what colors we see.



Of course it is! Quran was revealed for the Humans...not chimps...not aliens...nor any other "creatures"...

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 01:49 PM
Of course it is! Quran was revealed for the Humans...not chimps...not aliens...nor any other "creatures"...

I know! How conveniently anthropocentric!

We humans need to stop treating ourselves so important. Somebody mentioned "arrogance." Well THIS is arrogance. We are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO worthless in terms of the greatness of the universe. Just another species.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

Zobair
November 21, 2003, 01:54 PM
All the same Arnab...I am jsut referring to the fact that Quran was revealed to Humans i.e. expect the colors described in there to match Human perception. Nothing to do with who is superior or inferior.

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 02:02 PM
I know what you're talking about. I personally take great pleasure in circular reasoning myself:

1. Daddy, why are we humans so important?

- because the Quran(or Bible or whatever) was revealed to us and it says so.

2. But daddy, why is the Quran (or Bible, etc.) referring to things that only humans can comprehend?

- because we are important.

3. But WHY are we important?

- what are you a jackass? Look at point 1, Dummy!


And on and on the circular logic goes.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

Zobair
November 21, 2003, 02:06 PM
nice speculation but not quite there. Lets assume for a second you are actually right. There are chinese texts which talk about colourful dragons in the sky. But you realise that when the chinese talk about dragons...they actually mean REAL FIRE-BREATHING DRAGONS. Its part of their culture, their tradition, folklore. If the hubble does find some nebula ressembling a dragon, even the chinese won't go so far as to claim its their fire-breathing dragon...haha.. In the Quran no such claim is made. The ayat you refer to uses an analogy to explain the visual of a phenomenon...may be the Cat's eye nebula demonstrates the effect...may be it doesn't...thats all.


Look, there very well may be a reference in ancient Chinese legends that there are colorful dragons in the sky. So if a pic is taken by Hubble, color enhanced nonetheless, happens to match the outline of a dragon, does that mean the ancient chinese were omniscient?

Zobair
November 21, 2003, 02:11 PM
huh! dude! I am just saying if some one gives you a book to explain something to you, it will be given in a language...using a logic...using examples that you can understand and perceive...thats all...whats that to do with circular reasoning...

You are too full of yourself man :)


I know what you're talking about. I personally take great pleasure in circular reasoning myself...

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 02:15 PM
Haha!

Hey if Nasif can make a rose out of that doctored space photo, then I bet a Chinese guy can make a dragon out of some other space photo. May be the dragon is made of fire itself. And those HOT HOT hydrogen clouds could be its firey breath!

Haha! This is fun. Do you see how meaningless this can get?

That's what all it is. Meaningless. But fun nonetheless.

Allegory? Heh. If everything is allegory and can be connected to anything, then it's pretty meaningless isn't it? If you try really hard, you could probably allegorically connect taking a piss with the origin of the universe.

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 02:22 PM
huh! dude! I am just saying if some one gives you a book to explain something to you, it will be given in a language...using a logic...using examples that you can understand and perceive...thats all...whats that to do with circular reasoning...

You see no circular reasoning eh?

Why is the Quran in Arabic? Because it's the prophet's language.

Why is the Prophet's language Arabic? Because his would-be followers speak in Arabic. If the prophet was born and raised in England, he would be talking anglo-saxon.

But why was the prophet born in Arab land? Why couldn't he be born in some other land which was as backward as the Arabs?

Uhhhh. I don't know. I just blindly believe.

And stop asking me these intellectually interesting but irritating questions. Or I will cut your throat, you godless infidel!!

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

Zobair
November 21, 2003, 02:22 PM
That easy to dismiss everything eh? What are you talking about?!?! if you don't appreciate what Quran has to say about creation, no need to deman it like that (though I don't think that was intentional on your part). The examples, allegories that are used in the Quran are not at all that far fetched that you can campare them "to taking a piss is connected to creation somewhat". Can you give me one allegory in the Quran that makes such preposterous connections? or illogical similitudes? Dude! when was the last time you touched the Quran (if you allow me to be presumptous?)


Allegory? Heh. If everything is allegory and can be connected to anything, then it's pretty meaningless isn't it? If you try really hard, you could probably allegorically connect taking a piss with the origin of the universe

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 02:37 PM
I have to admit that the piss reference it was a little demeaning on my part. But I did it to drive home the point of ludicrosity.

All I am saying is Islam/Christianity/Hinduism, etc -- all religions have attempted to make sense of the world we live in. The preachers didn't have scientific tools at their disposal back then, so they must have relied on poetic allegories.

Now allegories are all nice. But it's NOT the real thing. Today is different. We are educating ourselves more and more and rejecting outdated, outmoded ideas of the past.

Does that mean poetry/art/nebulous and vague allegorical religious interpretations are all useless or invalid? No. It's just another way, an unreal way, of interpreting our world. It's our right brain functioning. And we all know the left logical brain cannont survive without the creative right brain.

I am sure someday in the future Islam and all the contemporary religions will be cherished as hiostorical relics, just like we are doing it now to the Roman and Greek mythical stories and legends.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

Nasif
November 21, 2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Arnab
OK, I just refuted the claim that an ayat in the Quran somehow relates to the cat's eye nebula. Happy?

Here's the claim:

"When the sky disintegrates, and turns rose colored like paint."

1. The sky did not disintegrate. As a matter of fact, there is no "sky", it's space. And it's not "disintegrating."

2. And the color of the nebula is not rosey. In fact, it's true color may be more like greenish. The sky(or space) didn't "turn rose colored like paint", the paint was thrown on the black and white photo and enhanced to make it look "cool."

Color is a subjective human trait. The sense of color is happening inside our brain. Universal phenomena don't CARE what colors we see.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

Sad to say you haven't refuted anything. First you were thinking it was one single grey scale picture which was colorized, then when that didn't work you went to some sites to find a green version of it.

1. Sky = space for the inhabitants on this earth. Its is the same. When sun becomes a red giant the sky will look RED.

2. True color of Cats Eye cannot be greenish. Bro, are you familier with spectroscopy? If you were then you will notice that the most of the content of Cats Eye is hydrogen (thats why its grey scale is the brightest). And read this carefully: The hydrogen atom only gives off strong RED color. It is the same reason that Sodium light (from the element sodium) is yellow! That is spectroscopy.

There isn't too many elements in large quantity to produce any other colors. Check the Mars picture from hubble site. You will see that there are other elements present that produce colors from R and G and B part of the spectrum. Thats why they can create a complete image of Mars. On the other hand Cats Eye doesn't have other elements that produce G and B part of the spectrum. Most abundant elements in Cats Eye all produce colors in Red specturm. Thats why Red Giant will be SUPER RED.

And no, its not green and neither can you take a visible spectrum color picture of Cats Eye with telescope.


P.S: I won't be on a computer until late night, so can't post reply until then.

Zobair
November 21, 2003, 02:42 PM
The questions you have posed are redundant....whats the point...they are not circular reasoning...the answers make logical sense...The Quran was revealed in Arabic and not in Swahili because the prophet was born in in an arab land....thats not circular reasoning...

Prof Office hours:

Student: Why are my textbooks written in English?

Prof: Because I am a native speaker of English. Did language did you expect me to write it in?

Student: Why do you speak English Sir?
Prof.: What?!!! Its my mother tongue stupid!

Student: Why were you born in Toronto sir? Couldn't you be born in some other place?
Prof.: I don't know and why would I care?! What does that have to do with the quality of the book?...no no! actually I just blindly believe (what?!?!?!)

Prof: Stop asking me these intellectually stimulating (?!?!?!? hahahahaha) but irritating (you bet!!!) questions...or I will give you an F....


Oh my God! did you see all the circular reasoning in those questions?! unbelieveable....


Arnab! seriously you have lost it. I have come across some circular reasoning in my time...but your version takes the cake. :)




You see no circular reasoning eh?...

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 02:50 PM
Nice copy pasting caricature but no cigar. Bad analogy. :)

You didn't get it. Or you get it, but don't want to admit it. :)

Lemme give you a more apt analogy:

Prof: This book says I am the greatest professor in the world who makes no errors.

Student: Who wrote it Sir?

Prof: Why! I did.

Student: But why would I believe what you say?

Prof: Because the book says so.

Student: But why would I believe the book?

Prof: Because I, the great non-error-making Prof wrote it!


THAT, my friend is circular reasoning.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

say
November 21, 2003, 02:58 PM
"holy men and priests come and teach and mock the teachings of others. The others come and do the same thing. As a result, whenever we listen to holy men and priests, we are full of doubt and do not know who is speaking the truth."

"it is understandable that you do not know who is speaking the truth. But do not be swayed by report or hearsay, or what is said on the authority of your traditional teachings. Do not be impressed by those who are proficient in quoting the scriptures or by logic, nor mere opinion or theory. Do not follow blindly out of respect of a holy man or priest. Only when you know for yourselves: such things are good, they cause no harm, they are accepted by the wise, when performed they produce positive benefits and happiness - then people, you may accept and abide in the teachings."

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 03:10 PM
It is mainly green!

Here's what Professor Bruce Balick of Universoty of Washington, who actually reprocessesd the picture in 1999, has to say:

The first image shows a comparison of the HST images with a good ground-based image, which illustrates the power of the HST. Like the images above, red shows the location of singly ionized atoms. The green light arises from doubly ionized oxygen. In this image blue is the light from neutral oxygen.

Here is the picture Balick processed:


http://www.astro.washington.edu/balick/WFPC2/catseye.jpeg

Read more about it here:

http://www.astro.washington.edu/balick/WFPC2/index.html

some more quotes regarding the pic above:

1. Generally blue represents highly ionized material, and yellow and red are less ionized gas.

2. In the case of cat's eye nebula, red shows the location of singly ionized atoms. The green light arises from doubly ionized oxygen and blue is the light from neutral oxygen.


[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 04:00 PM
OK I have finally found the source of confusion.

The picture Nasif is showing is the initially released version of the thing. If you look at the bottom left corner of the pic, it says the date is Jan, 1995.

Now, the April 1995 Sky and Telescope Magazine features this initially released version on the cover, but on page 98 of that issue a ground based CCD image in 'enhanced color' by Bruce Balick shows this object in a color scheme nearly the 'inverse' of the Hubble image. NGC 6543 also appears greenish in older color film images. A later version of the Hubble image reprocessed by Mr. Balick better suggests the telescopic colors, and can be seen at his site. Balick's revised HST image appeared on the October 1998 cover of Sky and Telescope.

chinaman
November 21, 2003, 04:06 PM
Now that the confusion is gone, care for a nice conclusion?

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 04:14 PM
YES!!

Here's a fitting conclusion:

http://www.space.com/images/blue_dot_010925_03.jpg

Pale Blue Dot:

One of the most famous images ever taken from space could be considered a lousy photograph even by the least skilled amateur who wrestles with today's unthinkably complicated cameras.

That is, if it weren't a picture of our planet. From more than 4 billion miles away.

"Scientifically, it didn't teach us a single thing," Van der Woude says of the Pale Blue Dot, snapped by Voyager 1 in 1991. "But historically, it's priceless."
-------------------------------------------------

"The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light."

-- Carl Sagan

From "Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space," Random House, 1994

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 21, 2003, 04:18 PM
Never mind.

Unknown
November 21, 2003, 04:46 PM
[Quran 55:37-38] When the sky disintegrates, and turns rose colored like paint. Which of your Lord's marvels can you deny?

Referencing the document of Bruce Balick(http://www.astro.washington.edu/balick/WFPC2/index.html), let me present a case which should prove without a doubt the accuracy of the Quranic definition of a dying star.


"At noon the huge bright red Sun will fill half the sky."

Balick writes that the "red" sun will half fill the sky, does this not then suggest that the sky will aslo appear red (as it very much does in our time- at sunrise and sunset).

The verse from the Quran states "turns rose colored". Herein the Quran uses the metaphor of "rose coloured" to define the colour.
This is similar to what Balick writes above.


Balick further writes:

"The oceans will boil and evaporate into space, along with the atmosphere."

Now let us compare this to the Quranic verse:

"When the sky disintegrates"

The "sky" stated in the Quran is the "atmosphere" stated by Balick.
(The Concise Dictionary of Oxford bares witness to this)

The meaning of sky given by the Oxford dictionary is as follows:

"Sky - the region of the atmosphere and outer space seen from the earth."

The Quranic verse therein says that the SKY(atmosphere) will disintegrate(evaporate).

The Quranic definition here of the SKY disintegrating is in accordance to what Balick writes.

Furthermore, let us examine the issue of:

"...turns rose colored like paint"

The Quran states here that the sky will turn red coloured like "paint".

Note the use of "paint" paint does not necessarily denote a liquid. The conotation here is of "gas".

Let us then compare this new information with Balicks document which states:

"The highly energetic forms of light emitted by the hot white dwarf interact with the electrons attached to the atoms in the gas cloud, resulting in a colorful nebula much like the thousand planetary nebulae that have been catalogued already"


Indeed all of the verse from the Quran:

[Quran 55:37-38] When the sky disintegrates, and turns rose colored like paint. Which of your Lord's marvels can you deny?

is in direct accordance to what Balick writes. Therefore without a shadow of a doubt, the Quranic verse is scientifically accurate!

Arnab, let me now ask you this, is Balick but not a scientist???

I am sure you will try to refute the argument presented herein, so good luck Arnab!

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Unknown]

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Unknown]

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 05:26 PM
Hmmm...I gave that link to refer to the part Balick wrote about the "Cat's Eye Nebula." That part is further down the page.

We are not talking about the death of our sun here. We are talking about the pic of the "cat's eye nebula" that Nasif posted and tried to connect it to the ayat.

Now you're trying to connect the ayat to the death of our sun, which just happens to be the first section of the webpage link I gave. You mistakenly thought that was the section I was talking about.

Do you see what you just did? You just showed that one can connect any astronomical event to that ayat, if the guy is brainwashed enough and his mind is imaginative enough. After all, it's a vague allegory. You can interpret it whatever way you like. Like poetry. But allegorical poetry is not the real thing.

Unknown
November 21, 2003, 05:33 PM
Arnab, you seem to be very, very -EDIT- adament

OUR SUN IS A STAR!

Need I say more? If you are unable to comprehend this basic fact, let me know...:-/

All stars behave in a similar fashion when they die. The "cat's eye nebula" was a star once upon a time... So the "cat's eye nebula" is a result of a star dying, similarly the sun shall die in such manner.

So you see, as I said before, the Quranic definition of a dying star is scientific. Now, do not be wise again.

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Unknown]

[Edited on 21-11-2003 by Unknown]

[Edited on 11-22-2003 by chinaman : Moderation (watch your language) ]

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 05:40 PM
Yes. I am very stupid. I believe you. Every star in the universe has a planet like Earth orbiting around it, full of atmosphere and Humans who can see how it dies with their naked eyes. Every star dies the same way, like a blooming rose.

What was I thinking? I am soooo stupid.

Unknown
November 21, 2003, 05:43 PM
Poor sense of sarcasm...:duh:

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 05:46 PM
I know! I am so poor at everything! Not only am I stupid, I can't even make decent sarcasms. :)

OK enough fun. No hard feelings, man. :)

chinaman
November 21, 2003, 05:47 PM
Unknown, I cannot appreciate your guesture towards Arnab. We must show reasonable respect to every poster. Please edit your post with appropriate language. Thank you.

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 06:00 PM
Ah yes! Adamant. That's a way better word. And you know what, it's a pity too that I am like that. Because it is mostly useless. I am not changing anyone's mind here. Just going on and on in a seemingly futile debate.

And here's another very interesting psychological nature of humans. Humans try to avoid arguments as much as possible. And they also tend to antagonize and shun the person who debates a lot. Thinking and producing logical arguments is such a chore.

I should have kept my mouth shut and let you guys revel in the miracles of Quran. That would have been such a nice, flowery, cinematic atmosphere. :)

[Edited on 22-11-2003 by Arnab : can't believe i misspelled admant]

Zobair
November 21, 2003, 08:59 PM
Nice copy pasting caricature but no cigar. Bad analogy.

You didn't get it. Or you get it, but don't want to admit it.

Lemme give you a more apt analogy:

Prof: This book says I am the greatest professor in the world who makes no errors.

Student: Who wrote it Sir?

Prof: Why! I did.

Student: But why would I believe what you say?

Prof: Because the book says so.

Student: But why would I believe the book?

Prof: Because I, the great non-error-making Prof wrote it!


THAT, my friend is circular reasoning.




yes! finally! this is indeed circular reasoning. But the context is all wrong?!I am curious where did you learn your Islam and Quran from?

If anything the following seems like a better analogy to me :)

Programmer: I have created you program to execute this certain objective. You have a certain amount of "artificial intelligence" (pun very much intended :)) for the purpose. I have given a set of rules and some procedure in a "library" (read book) you can peruse.

Program: How would I know you are not bullcrapping me?

Programmer: boy! now that is hard. Since I have created you for a specific purpose and I intended it as a "test-run" (pun intended again!) and so you are very limited in your abilities and knowledge. But hey here it is what you can do! I have put a whole lot of hints and clues in the help section! That should help you along nicely. Its going to be hard. I have meant it that way.

Program: So did I get you right?! you are kind of giving me a choice to take you on your word or not?

Programmer: Well..yes! But I must warn you there might be some consequences, based on your choice.

Program: Well! you gives you the right?!

Programmer: Are you listening or what? I created you so I make the rules. So deal with it.

It doesnot sound too implausible does it...In fact I can even imagine myself having such a "convo" with a program that i may create as a programmer :)

Now that... how ever loosely...is more in tune with what the Quran is about...the question of circular reasoning doesnot arise...because the flow of information is assymetric...the relationship in terms of knowledge of things is "defined" as unequal! Humans are invited to reflect on the signs provided and to "submit" themselves i.e. be Muslims...their mission objective in this "run". The choice is clearly given and the merits discussed in depth...and its not at all " you do it because I said so".

I actually enjoyed this arguement..its all good as long as people are respectful and pleasant. Like Arnab said...most people don't want to argue about such things..and I would like to add that those who do mostly just harp on their own points and often ignore what they cannot refute...sometimes avoid them quite cleverly. Often thus its just an arguement between debaters and one with the better skills or patience may gain the upperhand but he/she may not necessarily be right! Thats Humans for you. Humans are an amazing creation with some serious Artificial Intelligence :)

Program:

Arnab
November 21, 2003, 10:11 PM
Ahh you're presupposing there is a programmer already. Your whole analogy rests on the premise that the existence of the programmer is undisputed.

Kinda like Bush telling Iraq: "Destroy your WMDs!" Iraq says:"But how can I destroy them if I don't have any?" Bush says: "Destroy your WMDs or I am going to attack you."

How can he be so sure of that Iraq had WMDs? He can't be. He just blindly believed that. He doesn't even care that if there is no WMD, his whole argument falls apart. He just has to invade Iraq, WMD or not.

Similarly, I just know there is a God. And I have to pray to him. But how do I know? Well, I just know.

Orpheus
November 21, 2003, 11:26 PM
I must give props to Arnab. He is fighting a lone battle with all of these mollahs. I am also impressed by the promptness of his reply. The first couple of pages were interesting indeed (killed my time for sure). To my religious brothers here, go to the Mosque and cry your heart out (today is a special day) instead of fighting here... Do not commit sins!

I must agree that Quran's text are very vague. Some of the connection between the text and the scientific datas seem very ludicrous.



"[Quran 55:37-38] When the sky disintegrates, and turns rose colored like paint. Which of your Lord's marvels can you deny?"
-------------------------------------------------
written by Unknown:
The Quran states here that the sky will turn red coloured like "paint".

Note the use of "paint" paint does not necessarily denote a liquid. The conotation here is of "gas".
--------------------------------------------

How in the world am I gonna know for certain that they are talking about gas here? These are some weird metaphors and similies. Think about an explosion, it looks like a rose and paint. Explosion is a good disintegration.

Moreover, the text mentioned rose here. How do I know which rose it is talking about. Is it red rose, white rose or some other rose?

you see, fighting over the composition of colors is just futile if you are opposing it. If you can successfully rebut it, our brothers will then carp and harp over different looks of rose, smells of rose, they will eventually move to a definition of rose that suits their belief.

I am sorry but the very fact that a single ayat in the Quran can be analyzed so many different ways only accentuates its vagueness.

Sometimes we hear very absurd reasoning when all fails! "you have to understand Arabic here to grasp the main idea, in Arabic such word mean such and such". Since Quran was written for the whole mankind and not particularly any race, I believe it was not wise of God to use such esoteric words....

In any case, while some portions of Quran seem ridiculous (explanations are even worse), there are portions where you stumble upon and think. You wonder, how can a man write this? Just the rich text - the beuatiful rhyming alone gives you an undescribable feeling. The teaching there, some science - in particular the development of embryo text is a wonder and you wanna believe it's God's own text. But then you think to yourself - the likes of Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein etc gave us something intriguing too. Not all of them are fond of God.

In either case, Quran is a wonderful text - no doubt. It is today that Quran was revealed to our prophet. So the ones who believe - pray. One who doesn't, show some respect.

Stick to the rules that was put forth by chinaman (was it he?) .... There are no acceptable conclusion for this sort of debate ...

Now, Let's discuss the embryo developement portion - interested anyone?

DAMN THAT WAS TOO LONG... DIDN'T MEAN TO WRITE THAT MUCH.. SORRY!

[Edited on 22-11-2003 by Orpheus : acknowledging something]

[Edited on 22-11-2003 by Orpheus]

Arnab
November 22, 2003, 12:45 AM
Which reminds me of a (now late) Douglas Adams joke. "To illustrate the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow pre-ordained for us, because we are so well-suited to live in it, he mimed a wonderfully funny imitation of a puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the same shape as the puddle."

Haha!

Here's a (6 MB size mpg) video of Adams telling the joke to an audience:

http://nicelytoasted.net/adams.mpg


And if you do have time, please read the full transcript of that speech here:

http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

His explanations are very lucid. Here are some quotes:

On how the idea of God emerged:

Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point of view on an awful lot of things, but let’s try and see where our point of view comes from. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he’s begun to take a little charge of; he’s begun to be a tool-maker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he’s made and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes in his environment. To give an example of the way man operates compared to other animals, consider speciation, which, as we know, tends to occur when a small group of animals gets separated from the rest of the herd by some geological upheaval, population pressure, food shortage or whatever and finds itself in a new environment with maybe something different going on. Take a very simple example; maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is rather colder. We know that in a few generations those genes which favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore and we’ll come and we’ll find that the animals have now got thicker coats. Early man, who’s a tool maker, doesn’t have to do this: he can inhabit an extraordinarily wide range of habitats on earth, from tundra to the Gobi Desert—he even manages to live in New York for heaven’s sake—and the reason is that when he arrives in a new environment he doesn’t have to wait for several generations; if he arrives in a colder environment and sees an animal that has those genes which favour a thicker coat, he says “I’ll have it off him”. Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day’s tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in—mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can’t get you; in front of him there’s the forest—it’s got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by, which is full of water—water’s delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here’s cousin Ug and he’s caught a mammoth—mammoth’s are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it’s fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, ‘well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in’ and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says ‘So who made this then?’ Who made this? — you can see why it’s a treacherous question. Early man thinks, ‘Well, because there’s only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he’s probably male’. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , ‘If he made it, what did he make it for?’ Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, ‘This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely’ and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there’s plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that’s a very dangerous thing to say. Look at what’s supposed to be going to happen on the 1st of January 2000—let’s not pretend that we didn’t have a warning that the century was going to end! I think that we need to take a larger perspective on who we are and what we are doing here if we are going to survive in the long term.


On evolution:

So, suddenly, evolution ceases to be such a real problem to get hold of. It’s rather like this: imagine, if you will, the following scenario. One Tuesday, a person is spotted in a street in London, doing something criminal. Two detectives are investigating, trying to work out what happened. One of them is a 20th Century detective and the other, by the marvels of science fiction, is a 19th Century detective. The problem is this: the person who was clearly seen and identified on the street in London on Tuesday was seen by someone else, an equally reliable witness, on the street in Santa Fe on the same Tuesday—how could that possibly be? The 19th Century detective could only think it was by some sort of magical intervention. Now the 20th Century detective may not be able to say, “He took BA flight this and then United flight that”—he may not be able to figure out exactly which way he did it, or by which route he travelled, but it’s not a problem. It doesn’t bother him; he just says, ‘He got there by plane. I don’t know which plane and it may be a little tricky to find out, but there’s no essential mystery.’ We’re used to the idea of jet travel. We don’t know whether the criminal flew BA 178, or UA270, or whatever, but we know roughly how it was done. I suspect that as we become more and more conversant with the role a computer plays and the way in which the computer models the process of enormously simple elements giving rise to enormously complex results, then the idea of life being an emergent phenomenon will become easier and easier to swallow. We may never know precisely what steps life took in the very early stages of this planet, but it’s not a mystery.

So what we have arrived at here—and although the first shock wave of this arrival was in 1859, it’s really the arrival of the computer that demonstrates it unarguably to us—is ‘Is there really a Universe that is not designed from the top downwards but from the bottom upwards? Can complexity emerge from lower levels of simplicity?’ It has always struck me as being bizarre that the idea of God as a creator was considered sufficient explanation for the complexity we see around us, because it simply doesn’t explain where he came from. If we imagine a designer, that implies a design and that therefore each thing he designs or causes to be designed is a level simpler than him or her, then you have to ask ‘What is the level above the designer?’ There is one peculiar model of the Universe that has turtles all the way down, but here we have gods all the way up. It really isn’t a very good answer, but a bottom-up solution, on the other hand, which rests on the incredibly powerful tautology of anything that happens, happens, clearly gives you a very simple and powerful answer that needs no other explanation whatsoever.

On Science and Religion:

Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I’m sure we’ll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn’t withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn’t seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That’s an idea we’re so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it’s kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is ‘Here is an idea or a notion that you’re not allowed to say anything bad about; you’re just not. Why not? — because you’re not!’ If somebody votes for a party that you don’t agree with, you’re free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’, you say, ‘Fine, I respect that’. The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking ‘Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?’ but I wouldn’t have thought ‘Maybe there’s somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics’ when I was making the other points. I just think ‘Fine, we have different opinions’. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody’s (I’m going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say ‘No, we don’t attack that; that’s an irrational belief but no, we respect it’.

[Edited on 22-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 22, 2003, 03:33 AM
Was is really necessary to quote a large portion of the text? You already provided the URL.

It would have been nice if you had provided a brief introduction to the author, the specific points he was trying to make and may be a little quote from his argument along with your notion that your are trying to achieve from that reference.

I don't wanna sound overtly restrictive to anyone. Just reiterating the readability and quality of the posted argument. A reader should take pleasure instead of being unduely burdened by a knowledgable and sound discussion. Cheers.

Arnab
November 22, 2003, 12:09 PM
Yeah you're right. It's kinda off topic.

chinaman
November 22, 2003, 05:30 PM
075.003 & 075.004: Does man think that We cannot assemble his bones? Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.

Tranlation Source (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/)


Does the quran draw our attention here to the uniqueness of fingertips?

Zobair
November 22, 2003, 07:13 PM
Ahh you're presupposing there is a programmer already. Your whole analogy rests on the premise that the existence of the programmer is undisputed.


Well actually...I had assumed in your analogy that you had presupposed the existence of God in your analogy (the prof one) and you had issue with His reasoning. I was just using the programmer to show that God's reasoning in His book is not all that circular.

The existence of God is whole new different topic. I am under the impression that this thread is about the Quran in specific.

Zobair
November 22, 2003, 07:17 PM
Hope you took full advantage of the 27th night! Certainly there is a lot of merit in spending this night in prayer. But I hope you are aware that any odd night from the 20th onwards could be the night the Quran was revealed. It has been kept vague deliberately
, and you can add it to your list of "vagues/unspecifieds".

Orpheus
November 23, 2003, 05:28 AM
Unfortunately, my 27th night was nothing special. Just listened to some Quran recitation by Ifasi - that guy is awesome.

It has been kept vague deliberately, and you can add it to your list of "vagues/unspecifieds".

Yes, unspecified is the right word.
The ambiguity in that "disintegration" ayat is a totally different thing from the unspecified date of the revelation. Since I got a chance now, I am just gonna share something.

The "disintegration" ayat is certainly ambiguous but the way you guys are interpreting the ayat, it sounds as if you guys are certain that God was talking about the end of our Sun there.
The problem here is that first we took a fact and then we are reading the ayat to connect to it. The connection can be easily made here but it's totally wrong.

After spending around 2 hours in .edu/.gov webpages along with few webpages given in this discussion, perusing articles on planetary nebulas here and there, I came to the conclusion that there is no connection between cat's eye nebula and the ayat in question.

Arguing over color is a secondary matter. "Cat's eye nebula" is actually one of the most complex nebula. Not all stars are gonna explode exactly like "cat's eye nebula" but the explosion will how ever have a nice symmetry. (Maybe a rose like, cat's eye like, or saturn like or some other shape-like).

http://www.astro.washington.edu/balick/WFPC2/plneb.jpeg

The above pic is from ballick's site. (Each of them have a succint description in Nasa website.) Our sun can die like any of those stars. We still do not know exactly how it's gonna end. It can be like "Blue Snowball" "Eye of Jupiter", "Eskimo", "Saturn" or even the intricate "cat's eye" nebulae. These are still very complex subject that scientist are researching on. Many of these theory will be discarded.

I hope some of you can see now, why color is not even the issue here.

I feel that the connection between the ayat and the cat's eye nebula was done by an overzealous ammature..... We shouldn't focus too much on that, instead I wanna see some discussion on embryo. :)

As for our genius brother Unknown's explanation, I even hesitate to touch it.

Let's quote the ayat again
[Quran 55:37-38] When the sky disintegrates, and turns rose colored like paint. Which of your Lord's marvels can you deny?

First of all, I still can not comprehend how the death of a star (our sun) is related to this. Perhaps the word disintegrate?? Notice the second sentence, Which of your Lord's marvels can YOU deny. I am sorry but I am not there anymore to deny it. No one can witness this marvel, cuz we already be dead, let alone deny. (unless we colonize elsewhere).

But if I were go with Unknown's peculiar explanations, I do not know how disintegration (evaporation) relates to the nebula (the death of our sun).

Let's clarify something:
In 1.1 billion years, sun's brightness will increase. It will superheat our planet. All of the Oceans will BOIL AWAY! All Life will be gone.

6.5 billion years later, sun will use up all it's hydrogen.

In 8 billion years the sun will be bigger and will swallow up Mercury, Venus, and maybe even our Earth. Our sun will then be what scientists call a Red Giant because it will be very large and red in color

in 12 billion years the sun have collapsed core that scientists would call a [/b]White Dwarf[/b]

After then the Nebula!!

And our brother unknown made all those billion years of activities occur at the same time...

More over, his relation of "paint" to "gas" is the most ludicrous explanation I heard. They don't even have the slightest connection there.

I have already mentioned about rose having numerous colors. I do not know why he chose red there. Perhaps it supports his explanation... well no longer.. pick a different color please.

By Unknown:
Therefore without a shadow of a doubt, the Quranic verse is scientifically accurate!
Not this science bro. Maybe something else.

[Edited on 23-11-2003 by Orpheus]

[Edited on 23-11-2003 by Orpheus]

Orpheus
November 23, 2003, 05:50 AM
Just to make something clear ... From the above post I am not saying Quran has nothing to do with science. I believe it is scientific.

My point is that the ayat in scrutiny is not related to "cat's eye" nebula at all. I believe Allah is saying something else here ....

[Edited on 23-11-2003 by Orpheus : eradication of doubts...]

Orpheus
November 23, 2003, 12:08 PM
why we are talking about the end of our sun. You guys gotta find better translation or give better quotes. The sentence "fabi ayee ala yi rabbi kuma tukazziban" just struck me now, this is actually one of my favorite surah. So here is the meaning. This is really interesting and you guys are talking about rose .. huh!

35. On you will be sent (O ye evil ones twain!) a flame of fire (to burn) and a (flash of) molten brass: no defense will ye have:

36. Then which of the favors of your Lord will ye deny?

37. When the sky is rent asunder, and it becomes red like ointment:

38. Then which of the favors of your Lord will ye deny?

39.On that Day no question will be asked of man or Jinn as to his sin.

40. Then which of the favors of your Lord will ye deny?

41. (For) the sinners will be known by their marks: and they will be seized by their forelocks and their feet.

42. Then which of the favors of your Lord will ye deny?

43. This is the Hell which the Sinners deny:

44. In its midst and in the midst of boiling hot water will they wander round!

45. Then which of the favors of your Lord will ye deny?



Now I see where red is from. Where is rose??? Now it is clear that the portion is indeed talking about the destruction of the planet. The ayat that really struck me was 44. But then I realized that he is talking about hell here (from 43). Not the boiling of water that we discussed about.

[Edited on 23-11-2003 by Orpheus]

Arnab
November 23, 2003, 03:17 PM
And what is so scientific about those ayats, Orpheus?

Sinners wandering around in boiling water? What is that supposed to mean? If the sinners are dead and their bodies are decomposed already, how can they feel the boiling water? I mean you need a brain and neural pathways and a sensory systemto feel pain. And why boiling water? Why not boiling Nitric Acid? Or roasting in Ultra Violet ray?

Oh right. I am not supposed to question. Because my knowledge is limited. Even though the only way I can expand my knowledge is by asking questions. Haha!
Ingenious pre-emptive strike by God, I must say!

Orpheus
November 23, 2003, 04:55 PM
And what is so scientific about those ayats, Orpheus?

According to my understanding so far. None, really!!! You are right. We already be dead. The ayat itself clarifies that it is talking about hell, not the boiling in earth.

The only reason I highlighted them was because I understood why we are talking about the end of our time. That's all! I still can't figure out, how the hell those ayats were connected to nebulae. :-/

Arnab
November 23, 2003, 05:39 PM
Hmm very interesting. So those ayats are actually talking about the judgement day and describing hell. But one of those ayats are taken out of context and connected to the Cat's Eye Nebula. Is that what you're saying?

Off topic:

You know that powerful people always used the combination of carrot and stick to keep the donkey that is the mass public in line. Do you know what the carrot in religion is? Heaven. And the stick? Hell.

Humayun Azad said something very similar. He said religion works very well on greedy and coward people. Greedy because they want to go to heaven and enjoy in afterlife. Lust for naked women and fantastic food. They are cowards because they fear hell.

Religion is such an awesome system. It panders on a man's primal instincts: lust and fear. When I read the history of religions, I actually find myself in awe to see how clever some humans (leaders, preachers, prophets) were to trick and manipulate the masses by controlling their primal emotions. It's fascinating.

[Edited on 23-11-2003 by Arnab]

Orpheus
November 23, 2003, 06:29 PM
So those ayats are actually talking about the judgement day and describing hell. But one of those ayats are taken out of context and connected to the Cat's Eye Nebula. Is that what you're saying?

Couldn't have said better. I am pretty sure, the culprit who connected the two didn't even bother to learn anything about planetary nebulas or the manner in which our sun will die.

As for your off topic, very logical but nonetheless an opinion - an interesting one too. In the end, it is really up to you to decide whether or not you will submit to God.

chinaman
November 23, 2003, 06:40 PM
Here's what I think (please correct me if I'm wrong):

The ayat draws our attention to some events of the doomsday. That day the sky will be torn apart into pieces and it will look something reddish. It is not too hard to appreciate the fact that if the sky is torn apart then all the bodies that make up the sky will also be disintegrated. Stars are just one kind of such bodies that make up parts of the sky. Astrology might hold some truth to the effect that it is indeed not unusual for the stars to disintegrate or die down and when this happen the likelyhood of the event to look like something reddish is not impossible. We can clearly see that the advancing and evolving space science continues to compliment the Quranic claim of the said event and not the other way arround.

Some people might find it unconcievable for the sky to be torn apart. The picture of the cat's eye nabula or the likes are strong reminders for them to be mindful of the doomsday.

BTW, thank you Orpheus for very knowledgable discussion and Arnab for your practical questions.

Arnab
November 23, 2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by chinaman
Here's what I think (please correct me if I'm wrong):

The ayat draws our attention to some events of the doomsday. That day the sky will be torn apart into pieces and it will look something reddish. It is not too hard to appreciate the fact that if the sky is torn apart then all the bodies that make up the sky will also be disintegrated. Stars are just one kind of such bodies that make up parts of the sky. Astrology might hold some truth to the effect that it is indeed not unusual for the stars to disintegrate or die down and when this happen the likelyhood of the event to look like something reddish is not impossible. We can clearly see that the advancing and evolving space science continues to compliment the Quranic claim of the said event and not the other way arround.

Some people might find it unconcievable for the sky to be torn apart. The picture of the cat's eye nabula or the likes are strong reminders for them to be mindful of the doomsday.

Here's where I think your thinking is not logical:

1. Astronomy doesn't assume there's going to be a doomsday.

2. Even when the sky is going to turn "reddish" from the "disintegration" of the sun, nobody is going to have a look at it. Because nobody will be alive. And even if the sun engulfed the earth and somehow humans were able to be standing within hundreds of miles of it, they wouldn't see red. They would see bright white. The only way humans can see it as something "red" could be if they are placed zillions of miles away from the sun and watching it through a telescope. Only then can they "marvel" at such "wonder." Not when they are being roasted themselves or having the rod and cone cells in their eyes burned out.

chinaman
November 23, 2003, 07:57 PM
Astronomy doesn't have to assume there's going to be a doomsday. The point is can astronomy or science disprove such event.

Sun is only one of many stars and the disintegration doesn't necessarily have to start with the sun. It may, however, start, as you mentioned, zillions of miles away. People will see it reddish, but will they use telescope or futurescope or nacked eye? I'll leave it for your imagination.

Orpheus
November 23, 2003, 08:06 PM
The ayat draws our attention to some events of the doomsday.

Chinaman, the connection you made is a bit better than our previous connections. But still it's a bit off. The ayat is talking about doomsday. Since the Quran is for Human, I will say that the doomsday is for Humans.

And doomsday here can only mean the end of our SOLAR SYSTEM - not the whole UNIVERSE. Thus, your conception that if the sky splits - all stars will die like nebulae is wrong.....

"Big Crunch" is a totally different topic.

Cheers!

ps: from you reply to Arnab, I get the feeling that I understood you wrong.. did I?

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Orpheus]

chinaman
November 23, 2003, 08:15 PM
Great if it is cleared up now.

Arnab
November 23, 2003, 08:17 PM
Exactly! It's all imagination. But it doesn't mean it's real.

Like I said before Jules Verne imagined and vividly (although not really scientifically, semi-scientifically) described helicopters and electric generator driven airplanes, submarines and other great scientific machines at least 40 years before their inventions. Does this mean Jules Verne is a prophet who travelled through time and saw all thiis happen? No, but he did have an imaginative mind.

On the point why astronomy cannot disprove the occurance of a dooms day: That's not how logic works!

How can you disprove the absence of something? If something is not there, how can you prove or disprove it? Let's say for fun that there is an invisible, naked little lady dancing inside Chinaman's head. How can I "disprove" such a thing? After all, she is invisible!

You see by even proposing such a statement I am violating some fundamental requirements for logical and scientific reasoning. That's why it will not make any sense to a rational person.

Orpheus
November 23, 2003, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by chinaman
Great if it is cleared up now.

No not really! I will need your help.

The ayat draws our attention to some events of the doomsday. That day the sky will be torn apart into pieces and it will look something reddish. It is not too hard to appreciate the fact that if the sky is torn apart then all the bodies that make up the sky will also be disintegrated. Stars are just one kind of such bodies that make up parts of the sky

The above quote only suggest that you are talking about the death of the Universe. (Perhaps confused about it, I don't know). I still stand by my previous argument.

Our doomsday will come Loooonnng before this "doomsday". The red portion of your argument is for the sun.... it will be like big red giant. Death of all the stars are not similar. Some (like our sun) will be nebula-like, many will be Black-Holes, some will be supernova explosions. I am sorry but I really do not see how the ayat is connected to this.

If you are talking about the death our solar system only, then your argument of sky splitting and thus all its bodies are also disintegrating doesn't make much sense.... atleast to me - unless you are willing to explain and not be ambiguous in your explanation. We have enough ambiguity in the Quran to deal with.

chinaman
November 23, 2003, 09:13 PM
The Quran claimes to be error free. That means every bit of information it contains is true and accurate and that's what it claims. Does any of Jules Verne's book make such claim? Where did the comparisn come from? Please live up to your intelligence.

Yes, science can prove or disprove many things but not everything yet because of it's ever developing nature. With it's current achievement, science can pinpoint to the possibilities or lack of it to yet many other things. Does it say the disintegration of sky is impossible? Or the appearance of the said event can not be red? Better yet, is the science mature enough to make such call now?

How many books are out there that explicitly claim to be error free? As a rational person, as you seems to claim of yourself, are you going to toss away such claim without ever disproving even a single point?

Orpheus
November 23, 2003, 09:23 PM
Technically the doomsday is actually in 1 billion years when all of oceans water will evaporate and living things will die. I wouldn't even go as far as the death of our Sun.

Perhaps this is your chance to study something from Quran. Here is the hypothesis:

If degree of Evaporation is high (as in all oceans' water will evaporate), Earth's atmosphere will form a red paint/ointment like color!

Happy researching!

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Orpheus]

chinaman
November 23, 2003, 09:58 PM
Orpheus, I'll talk about the details of the doomsday later on. Sorry to disappoint you right now. Please bear with us. Like to concentrate on the current issue. Subject of the Quranic notion encopasses wide arrays of topics and the explanations are even wider. Please contribute to the discussion. You are right, may be we can learn a thing or two.

Arnab
November 23, 2003, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by chinaman
The Quran claimes to be error free. That means every bit of information it contains is true and accurate and that's what it claims. Does any of Jules Verne's book make such claim? Where did the comparisn come from? Please live up to your intelligence.

Yes, science can prove or disprove many things but not everything yet because of it's ever developing nature. With it's current achievement, science can pinpoint to the possibilities or lack of it to yet many other things. Does it say the disintegration of sky is impossible? Or the appearance of the said event can not be red? Better yet, is the science mature enough to make such call now?

How many books are out there that explicitly claim to be error free? As a rational person, as you seems to claim of yourself, are you going to toss away such claim without ever disproving even a single point?

The very fact that it claims it's error free makes it irrational.

On the other hand, science never claims it's error free. Science modifies its theories according to research findings. That's the beauty of science. And that is a fundamental property of science. Nothing is absolute. Our knowledge is ever increasing. And this framework makes te most logical sense.

Any pagol-chagol can say his claims are error free. Does that actually mean they really are? NO! He has to prove his claims. And if he does not research himself and prove them himself, he doesn't have any credibility whatsoever, logically.

Jules Verne wasn't stupid. He didn't claim to be error free. He was a science FICTION writer. FICTION.

The Quran's claims are vague at best. Error-free? Give me a break.

How do you measure an error? You setup a framework where you set something to be acknowledged as truith and stick with that definition. You cannot be vague about your definitions.

When you say "sky," you have to define what sky is and stick with it. You cannot redefine the same word to describe some other thing in another context. Or even if you do it, you have to clearly state what you mean by it.

The Quran and all the holy books will get a big "F" in a college level "logic 101" course. Because they are full of verses that are intentionally vague and can mean ANYTHING. That's a basic violation of clear logical thinking.

chinaman
November 23, 2003, 10:19 PM
And with that you claim to be rational and logical? Huh, give me a break.

Never heard of scientific fact?

Arnab
November 23, 2003, 10:26 PM
Now THAT was a vague post by you. In true Quranic tradition I guess. :)

chinaman
November 23, 2003, 10:50 PM
You started to make some sense earlier, but now you are really falling apart. Now you cannot even differentiate which part of science is established fact and which part is still in theory. You are even trying to define "Fundamental property of science" as if it is a particle or something. You seems to look for logic in everything. Yet you are dismissing the Quranic claims as being vague and pagol-chagol's claim. That's logic? C'mon. You don't have to give me a break, you badly need one now.

Arnab
November 23, 2003, 11:00 PM
Come on man, I stated very clearly the following points:

1. Science doesn't claim to be error-free. Every scientific fact has a certain degree of error related to it. This is totally acceptable and actually a major property of any scientific endeavor. Nothing is final or absolute. And this makes logical sense.

2. The Quran (or the Bible, etc.) claim to be error-free. This makes no logical sense.

3. Science is very definite and precise about its framework and the definitions that makes up its framework. Black is black. White is white. Fuzzy and undefined is fuzzy and undefined.

4. In the Quran, most, if not everything that its followers claim to be "scientific" and absolute truth, is fuzzy at best. There's nothing logical about it. Furthermore, it's not "scientific" at all. Because to claim something scientific, there has to be a lot of scientific research and through and clear explanations behind it. No such thing was done by Muhammad or his followers. Therefore it's not scientific. It's poetic. It's allegorical. It's fictional. It's rhetorical. But scientific? No.

That's as clear as I can be.

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

Arnab
November 23, 2003, 11:26 PM
I was browsing the internet and found that some Expatriate Bangladeshi actually wrote rather a large article about the scientific myths of Quran. I think it's perfectly legitimate to reproduce it here. So here we go.

If you want to read it in bangla, here's the pdf:

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/Bigganmoy_kitab.pdf

Here's a folow-up:

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/BIGGANkitab2.pdf

What follows is an english version:

Does Quran have any Scientific miracles ?
[Part -1]

10 top-most scientific myths about Quran

By Avijit Roy

The fundamentalist Mullahs and other Islamic "scholars" dogmatically claim that Quran miraculously predicted many invention of modern science and all of those Quranic predictions and myths are flawless. Many web-pages, books and videos have been produced by the Islamic apologists proclaiming that some verses in their scriptures contain super- scientific facts. Their belief begin to reach to a firm level when they also find some occidental charlatan starts talking in favor of their faith [4]. They find The Big Bang theory, expansion of Universe, Creation of human being, atom, molecules, shooting stars, Embryologic facts, cosmology, genetics and what not in their holy book ! Most of those "scholars" insist on the scientific accuracies of the verses, some claim they are metaphoric. Either way we will show that the claim does not hold under a scrutiny of logic and science. There are three important objections to those claims we would like to make first, in our later part of discussion we will refute the specific claim of those scientific miracles.

Objection 1: If it was indeed the case that scriptures contain scientific facts and principles then we wouldn't need popular science books to explain scientific facts to common people. Instead the verses of the scriptures which are claimed to represent scientific facts and principles could be compiled and published as an "introduction to science". There is no doubt that if those vague verses are indeed compiled and edited (omitting God or prophets and other holy references) and then published as a science book , these books will not even be published, even if it is, no one will buy it. It is a sure failure, that's why it has never been attempted by the apologists. These verses cannot stand on their own merit as anything close to even a popular exposition of scientific facts and principles, let alone as accurate scientific statements.

Objection 2: If Quran is a book of science, then what branch of science is this? Physics ? Chemistry ? Biology ? Social science? Library science? Political science? No answer. [1] Mullahs can only give the answer in the line of technological/medical science relating blurry wordings of the book with practical examples of embryology, astronomy, Big-Bang, etc. Moreover, if one considers Quran as a super-scientific book then, they should be able to show us us at least one scientific principle that is disclosed in Qur'an without using any mumbo jumbo words and hocus pocus boring tricks of difficulty with confusing translation of Qur'an. They should be able to tell us where in the Qur'an one can find the laws of gravitation, laws of planetary rotation, principle of atomic structure of matters, the periodic table of elements, theory of relativity, geological science and which chapter of Quran deals with the modern science of aerodynamics, genetics engineering and inter-planetary travel, and elucidation of genetic code etc
[2]. We find no meaningful direction.

Moreover, If a perfect book written by a perfect God having intention to reveal a scientific idea, it should not have been so vague and metaphoric, but accurate and scientific enough that it can be put in a physics /chemistry/biology textbook without the need of any change. Not a single verse in the Holy Books contain even one scientific term, like atom, electron, cloning, Theory of relativity, Uncertainty principle etc. A "perfect" book cannot be lacking in precision so much [3].

Objection 3: If one insists that the verses of scriptures are literally word of Allah (God) who is omnipotent and omniscient then one is forced to conclude that Allah as a perfect being is even a worse science writer than humans and if Allah really wanted to communicate scientific facts and principles to his mortal creations, humans He failed miserably. Nobody discovered or understood those scientific facts and principles until humans discovered them on their own with no help from the verses. And as the words of a perfect being, the scientific accuracy of the verses should have been of such magnitude and objectivity that their could not be any scope of any dispute about them among humans and ALL would accept them like they do all the scientific principles discussed in science text books.

Now we will discuss and scrutinize critically the 10 top most (pseudo) scientific myths of Quran.

1. Qur'an foretells about Big bang.

[al-Anbiya' 21:30] Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, ....


Some Muslim interpreters tries to relate the above mentioned sura with Big-Bang. But does it really depicts any fact about Big-bang at all? Lets look the the next verses to understand the Quranic image ...

Pikthall [al-Anbiya' 21:30] ... the heavens and the earth were of one piece,
then We parted them, ...

Pikthall [al-Anbiya' 21:31] And We have placed in the earth firm hills
[mountains] lest it quake with them, ...

Pikthall [al-Anbiya' 21:32] And we have made the sky a roof withheld (from
them)...

Shakir [ar-Ra`d 13:2] Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars
that you see ...

It looks like a very primitive image on the relationship between the heavens and earth. After Allah raise up the heavens on unseen pillars, and put down the earth, he put the mountains on the earth to not quake, like putting a heavy thing on a piece of paper to not fly?! Allah make the sky a roof withheld to not fall on people head?! How he do so? By putting the heavens on unseen pillars!! Is it supported by 20th century modern knowledge?! [10]

There is nothing at all in this verse that can relate with Big-bang. If the verse really relate with Big-Bang, then where is the explosion ? This verse do not show any kind of explosion at all. So how can it be related with Big-Bang? Big B-A-N-G -the name is self explanatory. But where is the BANG here? [5]

Moreover, . Big Bang in Physics refers to the explosion of SPACE-TIME SINGULARITY (not matter). Matter was not even created when Big Bang happened. Earth was formed billions of years after the Big Bang. The above verses are clearly referring to earth and sky being "joined" (Which doesn't even have a common sense or scientific meaning) together and then being split apart (Again no scientific or common sense meaning), forget about comparing it to Big Bang!

A scientifically and common sensually meaningless statement like - "sky and earth being joined and subsequently separated" cannot be suggested as hinting to the scientific facts of Big Bang!

From Quantum theory we know that moments after the explosion occurred, the four forces of nature; strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity were combined as a single "super force" (Wald). Where are those indications in those verses of Quran? How can someone derive Hubble's Constant from those verses ? How can some one calculate red shift ? How can we measure Doppler shifts? No answer.

If there is no answer of those scientific enquiries, how can one make himself convince that those verses actually describing big bang, not the partition of an egg before making an omelet ?


2. Qur'an foretells about Expanding Universe.


[ADH-DHARIYAT 51:48] And the earth, We have made it a wide extent; how well have We then spread (it) out.



Mullahs try to relate the above mentioned ayat with expanding universe. But there is no mention of "universe" at all in this verse. This verse here is only talking about earth. "Spreading the earth out " does not correlate with any expansion of universe by any means, rather it establishes century old incorrect Quranic flat earth theory [6].

The cause of the expansion of the universe is scientifically known from Modern High Energy Astrophysics, known as the theory of inflation. The theory is guided by Einstein's mathematical theory of general relativity about the physical universe. These are all characterized, at ANY instant in cosmological history, by mathematically- infinite space-like surfaces ( 3-d space in other words). In this (open) model of the universe, everything is expanding in the same sense that the points on a balloon's surface move away from all other points as the balloon is inflated. General Relativity says that for infinite universes, the same kind of expansion occurs. Inflationary cosmology adds to this by saying that we live in a small pocket of some vaster space-time. This pocked emerged from a tiny patch in the primordial space-time and inflated to a vast size.

From the above analysis it is clear that nothing in those Qur'anic verses come any close to what an expansion of universe really means. Those who wants to relate the verse with expansion of universe, is just their wishful interpretation.



3. Qur'an mentions that the universe originated from a 'gaseous material'.


[FUSSILAT 41:11] Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.

Muslim fundamentalists, by pointing out the above verse, claim that Qur'an miraculously foretells that origin of universe began with the gaseous mater. They try to confuse the common people that it is the great and surest sign that the Qur'an is a book of God. Let's examine their claim critically.

First of all, The universe did not begin as a gas or any gaseous material. From current Big Bang theory we know, the universe began before any matter of any kind existed--it began as pure energy. It took several moments for any matter to form, and then it was a plasma, not a gas. Gases only came later, after the plasma cooled, and yet gasses were still not the only constituent--much of the mass-energy at even that point, as before, was comprised of electromagnetic radiation--light. The fact that the Quran fails to mention any of this or any other crucial scientific information is precisely why its claim to "scientific accuracy" is to be dismissed. It is making vague metaphysical statements, and that is not science [7]

Secondly, Even, for the shake of arguments, if we take "gaseous material" as plasma, then also the problem remains unsolved. The main problem is that the above-mentioned verse actually does not say about any "gaseous material," which mullahs are continuously claiming. The Arabic word used in this verse is dukhan, - "smoke." [7] Trying to relate smoke with gaseous material is nothing but a hide and seek wordy games played by Mullahs. Moreover, Smoke is made of ash, predominantly carbon, and is produced from burning (oxidation), not plasma condensation. Smoke looks nothing like heated hydrogen or helium, does not share its elemental mass or other properties, and does not even possess many of the general properties of a gas. Thus, Allah chose the wrong word. He could have used "hot gases" or "hot gases expanding in a vacuum" or anything which is more closer to the truth. If we critically examine this verse, it becomes very clear to us that this verse is far from being scientific to define initial condition of the universe, that verse is really hoax.

Thirdly, Let's check the chronological order of the above verse from Quran.

From Verse 41:9 we find that that the earth is made "in two days," and this is the first two days in the list. After the creation of earth, Allah describes the next two days of creation, completing the first "four days equal," in which mountains and plants are made in Verse 41:10. Thus, we find a gradual order of Qur'anic creation ie. Allah first created the earth and then filled the earth with mountains and plants (It is quite understandable that mountains and plants could not be made before the earth was made, thus 41:10 follows 41:9 in a quite reasonable order). But then we see that verse 41:11 establishes an undeniable context in which the universe exists as smoke at the same time that the earth already exists, since God "rose over towards the heaven when it was smoke" and spoke to it and to the earth, therefore no Muslim can rationally deny that this verse clearly says the earth existed at the same time as the smoke which is totally irrational and absurd.

Thus the verse mentioned above which is claimed to be a "perfect analogy" describing the initial condition of the universe is nothing but a clever deception.



4. Qur'an reveals Embryological facts !


[AL-MUMENOON 23: 12-14] Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging; Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!



Some mullahs find the embryological facts in above verse. But if we check the verse from a rational point of view, it appears to us with a different meaning. Let's check the above verse critically. First line is totally wrong. Man is not a product of any wet earth. Moreover, Quran ambiguously asserts many common sensually meaningless statement about such an elementary matter. For examples sometimes it tells that we are created from earth (11:61), sometimes it claims from from dry clay (15:26,28,33, 17:61, 32:7), sometimes "from nothing" (19:67), sometimes "NOT from nothing" (52:35), sometimes from wet earth (23:12), or from mire (38:71), sometimes from water (25:54, 21:30, 24:45), sometimes from dust ( 3:59, 30:20, 35:11) or even sometimes from dead (30:19, 39:6). So which one is true ? Those contradictory ambiguous statements actually do not reveal any scientific facts regarding either how we created or what exactly we are made of.

Before analyzing rest of the portion of the above verse, we should give a useful information to the readers. In 1982 Keith Moore, an anatomy professor at the University of Toronto, produced a (in)famous textbook titled "The Developing Human, 3rd edition". In this book Moore states his astonishment at the way embryonic development is depicted in the Qur'an. Moore took Yusuf Ali's Translation of the above verse [8]:

[Quran 23:13-14] We placed him as sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm into a clot of blood; then of that blood clot We made a lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the best to create!

Many people may amaze by the mention of sperm in this verse. But close observation reveals that there is nothing supernatural in it. Since the beginning of time man has been quite aware of the "seed" that is released from the penis during sexual intercourse. The old Hindu scriptures or Bible, which are much older than the Qur'an, also have such indication. Aristotle clearly described about formation of a child inside the womb early 1,000 years before the Qur'an was written. No body claiming for any miracles for it. In fact Aristotle correctly described the function of the umbilical cord, something not mentioned in the Qur'an, showing that earlier philosophers were aware of such things mentioned by Muhammad and more [8].

Actually Qur'an contains erroneous ancient theories developed by Roman and Greek philosophers about human development . Let us consider the following verse referring to sperm:

He is created from a drop (of sperm) emitted-- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs. (Qur'an 86:6-7)
Clearly this verse is incorrect, and clearly it has origins in earlier theories. First of all, for sperm to originate between the back and the ribs would mean that it comes from the kidneys! Greek physician Hippocrates theorized this wrong idea long before Muhammad, that sperm passed through the kidneys into the penis. For centuries this was an accepted (and incorrect) belief of the origins of sperm. The same erroneous concept we also find in Qur'an.
Let us again consider another verse from Quran.

We create man from a drop of thickened fluid (76:2 Pickthall trans.)


The Arabic word used in this verse is nutfah which describes the fluid gushes out during sexual intercourse. Prof. Moore cleverly interpreted nutfah in sura 76:2 as "mingled fluid" and explains that this Arabic term refers to the male and female fluids which contain the gametes (male sperm and female egg). But fact is - the Qur'an emphatically does not mention sperm or eggs; it simply says nutfah (germinal fluid). All those embryological terms with sperm and eggs are the imaginative invention of Dr. Moore.

Finally, again we want to touch back on the verses that spoke of the development of an unborn child again. The Qur'an stated that the blood clot was turned to bone and then God "clothed the bones with flesh" (Quran 23:13-14). It is scientifically wrong. The fact is, in development process living tissue forms first, and then bones grow at a later time, and it continues to gain strength for many years after birth. But by expressing "blood clot was turned to bone" Quran reveals its one of many scientific inaccuracies.


5. Qur'an reveals Earth is round !

This is nothing but a blatant lie. There is no sura in Quran that can claim for accuracy to reveal that earth is round. The reality is totally opposite. Let's find some of those wonderful cosmological facts from Quran. In many places of "miaculous" Quran it alludes to the fact that earth is flat and mountains are like poles, which create a balance so that earth does not tilt. In chapter 88:17,20 it is recorded....

"Will they not regard the camels how they are created...... and earth how it spread?"

Even Muslim scholars things that In this phrase 'how it spread', he denotes that earth is flat. All the scholars of Islam agree upon this. It is NOT round as the physicists claim.

There are some other suras excerpted from Quran for the discerning readers to prove that Quran clearly supports the erroneous "flat earth" theory [9]:

God made earth like a carpet spread out…20:53
The earth is like a carpet spread out…43.10
Allah has spread out the earth…51:48
Allah made the earth a carpet…71:19
Allah made the earth as a wide expanse…78:6 etc.

Now let's check two prominent suras from Quran. In one sura Qur'an says that one of the righteous men of God's servants saw the Sun setting in a certain place of the Earth-in particular a well full of water and mud. There, this man found some people. Let us read what is recorded in the Qur'an (chapter "the Cave", verse 86):

"When he reached the setting place of the Sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring and found a people thereabout. We said: 'O Dhul-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness" [Al-Kahf (18:86)].

Again in another sura it is said -

Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom. [Al-Kahf (18:90)].



Any reader who have some common sense and preliminary knowledge of science, knows that sun does not need to have any "rising" or "setting" place, because, sun actually neither rise, nor does it set. It is the diurnal motion of the earth which makes appear for sun's rising and setting. But alas ! It seems that our omniscient Allah does not know the simple scientific truth. Allah thought that Sun needs a definite rising and setting place for it. Such wrong idea that is revealed in Holy Quran eventually concludes that Allah considered that our earth is not round but flat.

After Maurice Bucaille's "Bible Quran and Science" had appeared in the market in 1976, it created a sensation among the Muslim community . A new trend is observed to relate modern science science with the so called holy books. Readers may get astonished to know how Western $cientists (yes! they are $cientists, not scientists) are Bribed, Duped into Endorsing so called "Quranic" Science :

How Western Scientists Discovered $cience in Quran! by Abul Kasem

Western Scientists Bribed, Duped into Endorsing "Quranic" Science by James Dorsey

Embryonic Terrorist Dawaganda by Sadiqi az-Zindiki

In Bangladesh we have seen some morally degraded flock of sheep like Professor Shamsher Ali, Abdul Kader Chwdhury, M. Ferdous Khan, M. Akbar Ali have already started writing so called "super scientific" books following the leading ewe - The great Bucaille and The great Moore. The most prominent fundamentalist organization named Islamic Foundation of Bangladesh have undertaken some "wonderful" projects and philanthropic tasks of unfolding the scientific miracles hidden in Quran ! Hundreds of popular pseudo-scientific books have already been written in Bangla to influence the common people of Bangladesh. Some of the popular and prestigious books that can be easily found in Nilkhet, Newmarket, Shahabag Aziz super market are - "Scientifc Indication of Holy Quran", "Al-Quran ek Moha Biggyan", "Mohakash o koraner challenge (part 1 and 2)", "Biigyan na Koran?", " Biggyan O Al-Quran" etc. Many of those prestigious publications is already out of market because of its high demand and appreciation Nationally and sometimes Internationally. But what is actually written in those pseudo-scientific books ? Are they really dealing with science ? Dear Readers, have patience. Wait for my second part.

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

Arnab
November 23, 2003, 11:36 PM
In the first part of my article, I have clearly shown how a massive sensation was created among the Muslim community soon after two occidental charlatan (Maurice Bucaille and Keith Moore) came into lime-light. Each and every country around the world started producing one or two pseudo-scientists like Shamsher Ali or Akbar Ali (Bangladesh) to "discover" scientific truth in holy Quran. Here is an excerpt from famous religious scientist Professor Shamsher Ali, the Chairman of the Committee on Science in Al-Quran, Islamic Foundation Bangladesh -

"Anybody having the faith in this absolute truth is welcome to use the Quran as a test for our scientific principle and not vice versa. Incidentally it may be mentioned that Maurice Bucaillie in his book, 'The Quran, the Bible and Science' already asserted : "There is not a single verse in Holy Quran which is assailable from scientific point of view". Our present work fully support this assertion" (Scientific indication in Holy Quran, page: xiv)

What a tragedy! Shamsher Ali wants to use Quran as an authentic tool to test science, and NOT vice versa ! Believe me - this Shamsher Ali is no "Ram Shyam Jodu Modu"; he is a renowned Scientist and highly distinguished Professor of Dhaka University. What will our students learn if such "hocus pocus" is being taught in "Praccher Oxford" (Oxford of the east) by so-called learned professors? This is one of the many examples to show where those morally degraded professors are taking our education system ! Those renowned Islamic scholars have already discovered Big-bang, cosmic egg, black hole, time dilation, Red star nebula, AIDS, cancer, embryology, biology, pathology -everything in their "holy" Quran. I wonder whether we really need any other specific scientific books to learn science more. Quran itself is enough ! Rest are all redundant and superfluous. "Al-Quran ek Moha-biggyan" (Quran is super-science) -these are not my words. Those honest words are confessed in a book written by Momotaj Doulatana published from "Gyan-kosh Prokashoni" of Bangladesh. If we really have such a "Moha-Biggan-moy kitaab" (super-scientific book) in our hand who needs Steven Weinberg, Hawking or Einstein ? If the entire room is illuminated by 1000 watts light, who will look for a candle ?

Anyway, here are some more rebuttal of Quranic prophecy:


6. Quran tells us "the Sun is the source of light, and the moon a deflector".

No where in Quran it is mentioned the modern scientific facts that the sun is a source of light and moon as a deflector. The apologists usually quote the following sura ( YUNUS 10:5) to prove their biased argument.

English translation of the verse :

010.005
YUSUFALI: It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light (of beauty), and measured out stages for her; that ye might know the number of years and the count (of time). Nowise did Allah create this but in truth and righteousness. (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand.

PICKTHAL: He it is Who appointed the sun a splendor and the moon a light, and measured for her stages, that ye might know the number of the years, and the reckoning. Allah created not (all) that save in truth. He detaileth the revelations for people who have knowledge.

SHAKIR: He it is Who made the sun a shining brightness and the moon a light, and ordained for it mansions that you might know the computation of years and the reckoning. Allah did not create it but with truth; He makes the signs manifest for a people who understand.


If the reader reads the verse carefully, they will know that there is no "source of light" or "deflector" in that verse. It is simply said: the sun a shining brightness ( "splendor and glory of brightness") and the moon a light!!

From the ancient period people from their daily observation knew that the sun had strong and bright light and moon had cool light that illuminates and helps in the darkness of the night. In Bangla we commonly say "Roudro-topto din" and "Chondalokito raat" in the same way in English we use "Sunshine" and "Moonlight". That mean that the ancient Bengali/Englishmen discover that the Sun is more shinning/bright/hot than the moon. It is so simple fact an infant could notice.

The next part of the verse for readers' interest:

"and the moon a light, and ordained for it mansions that you might know the computation of years and the reckoning."

7. Quran Tells us modern scientific fact known as "The Atom".

010.061

YUSUFALI: In whatever business thou mayest be, and whatever portion thou mayest be reciting from the Qur'an,- and whatever deed ye (mankind) may be doing,- We are witnesses thereof when ye are deeply engrossed therein. Nor is hidden from thy Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in heaven. And not the least and not the greatest of these things but are recorded in a clear record.

PICKTHAL: And thou (Muhammad) art not occupied with any business and thou recitest not a Lecture from this (Scripture), and ye (mankind) perform no act, but We are Witness of you when ye are engaged therein. And not an atom's weight in the earth or in the sky escapeth your Lord, nor what is less than that or greater than that, but it is (written) in a clear Book.

SHAKIR: And you are not (engaged) in any affair, nor do you recite concerning it any portion of the Quran, nor do you do any work but We are witnesses over you when you enter into it, and there does not lie concealed from your Lord the weight of an atom in the earth or in the heaven, nor any thing less than that nor greater, but it is in a clear book.



The scientific Atomic theory have nothing to do with this Quranic Atom. This atom is used in Quran to denote small particle. When Arabs tried to talk about small particle, they could not find a suitable word to describe the atom; only appropriate the word they imagined was "zarah" which mean: the dust particle, and the small ants [10]


If Quran really talked scientifically about atom and molecules, then we should have some indication about electrons, protons neutrons. But there is no real indication of it in the whole Quran. If any scientist claim that Quran really talk about Atomic physics, then he must show us where we may get the scientific idea of Nuclear structure, how can one observe Rutherford scattering ? How can one acquire the knowledge of Static properties of nucleus such as angular momentum, parity, size shape, magnetic multiple moments, electric multiple moments etc. and Dynamic properties such as nuclear reaction etc. Neither we can get any idea from Quran about Strong interaction model and weak interaction model, nor can we develop any well established model such as Fermi degenerate gas model, Alpha particle model, Liquid drop model, Shell model, Optical model, Collective model or compound nucleus model using Quranic principle. Quran can only imagine very ambiguously small particle as dust and the small ants. While Islamic scientists try to prove Quran super-scientific, they usually try to get the words out from it context.

8. Quran describes accurate solar system.

This is a blatant lie. Here is the original Quranic view about our solar system :

http://www.humanists.net/avijit/article/sun_earth_small.jpg

The picture, however, is incomplete and missing some very vital "scientific" points. According to Quran our Earth is flat and to be more accurate the picture of the flat Earth must be much bigger and the Sun and the Moon are to be much smaller. They are “lamps” hanging from the ceiling of the sky that is being supported by invisible columns. The Quranic solar system also contains invisible genies. They climb over each other’s shoulders and reach the heaven to eavesdrop the conversation of the “Exalted Assembly”. The stars are used as missiles (shooting stars) to hit them (genies). The moon is supposed to be above the stars. Then sun also must rise from muddy waters and enter in the murky waters just as Dul Qaranain witnessed (sura: 18:86, 18:90). So The Earth is much bigger. There there is also a position for the throne of Allah. But the throne is over the waters and the Sun has to prostrate in front of the throne and ask permission of Allah to rise.

The Islamists who claim that Quran describes a very accurate solar system including the rotation of earth around the sun, I will humbly request to visit my challenge page and take my challenge:

http://humanists.net/avijit

The Challenge: In Arabic "ARD" means the Earth and "FALAK" is rotation/movement. Can you show me any of the verses from the Qur'an that contains these two words one after another ?

Since I put my challenge page in the world wide web, the apologists failed miserably to accept my challenge and prove Quran is scientific.

9. Quran foretells about "Water Cycle":

The famous Dr. Bucaille claimed that the Quran has foreknowledge of the water cycle by which water:


(1) evaporates from the seas and the earth;

(2) becomes clouds; which

(3) give rain; which (4a) causes the land to bring forth, and (4b) replenishes the water table which reveals itself by gushing springs and full wells.


Abul Kasem has already pointed out in one of his famous article that if one reads Dr. Bucaille's discourse on these topics, it does not take much intelligence to note the twisted logic and his clever selection of only those verses that serve his purposes. One striking point however is that he only elucidates a natural phenomenon as described in the Qur’an and interprets that natural phenomenon as the scientific explanation in the Qur’an. (For details to a rebuttal to Dr. Maurice Bucaille please visit http://www.faithfreedom.org or refer to "The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science" by Dr. William Campbell, publisher Middle East Resources 1992). This is absolutely unacceptable to anyone who has the slightest idea what scientific knowledge is all about [4].

Let's see how Dr. William Campbel refuted the Quranic science of Bucaille :

Dr. Bucaille declares that until the late sixteenth century ``man held totally inaccurate views on the water cycle'', and considers that several statements in the Qur'an which reflect a knowledge of the water cycle could not therefore have come from any human source (!!!!!).

He quotes Suras 50:9-11, 35:9, 30:48, 7:57, 25:48-49, and 45:5, as verses which include steps (2), (3), and (4a). As an example we will look at the Late Meccan Sura of the Heights (Al-A`rúf) 7:57,

``(God) is the One Who sends forth the winds like heralds of His Mercy. When they have carried (2) the heavy-laden clouds, We drive them to a dead land. Then We cause (3) water to descend and thereby (4a) bring forth fruits of every kind. Thus We will bring forth the dead. Maybe you will remember.''

To demonstrate step (4b) he brings verses from Suras 23:18-19, 15:22, and the Late Meccan Sura of The Crowds (Al-Zumar) 39:21 which reads,

``Have you not seen that God sent water down from the sky and led it through (4b) sources into the ground? Then he caused sown fields of different colors to grow.''

These verses are accurate, of course, but the question is do they show special foreknowledge and thereby prove Divine Revelation? The answer must surely be "no''. Every man or woman, even those living in a city, could describe steps (2), (3), and (4a). And every person in contact with farmers during a drought will hear them say that their wells and springs have dried up, thus showing common knowledge of step (4b) that rain is the source and origin of underground water.

But what of step (1) - evaporation as the source of rain clouds? This would be much more difficult to understand by observation and it is obviously could not be known by ancient people when Quran is revealed. But Does Quran have any verse regarding this evaporation ? No. it is not mentioned in anywhere of the Quranic verses cited [11].

10. Quran foretells about "Red star Nebula" :

http://www.humanists.net/avijit/article/cateye.jpg

(55:37-38) “And when the heaven splitteth asunder and becometh rosy like red hide.”

This verse, unfortunately has nothing to do with any Red Star Nebula. Actually in this verse Muhammad was just trying to scare people with tales of blazing fires and dreadful things. The above verse is another one of Prophet's scare mongering verses, when sky opens and becomes red (with fire) [12].

We all know that Cat's Eye Nebula is a galactic star far away. It is red because it is going away from us. All stars are going away from us because the universe is expanding and therefore they are red. We cannot see it in our plain eyes; we only can see it through the most powerful telescopes [12].

Aparthib and I have already written a lots of article refuting such pseudo-scientific claim of relating vague verses of Quran with scientific inventions. I remember what Aparhib once wrote in one forum after one apologist claiming such vague "miracle":

I see an attempt here to link planetary nebulae with a religious verse. (The following is emphasized by Arnab)This is a flawed attempt that is often made by apologetics of all religions, some more than others. If one likes to see science in anything they can see it anywhere. Some Joe may have said "All is relative" before Einstein's theory of relativity. By this stretch of imagination that Joe can legitimately claim that he already knew about relativity and claim originality. Any vague phrase, pun, quote etc by humans, scriptures etc can be customized and made to fit any scientific principle which also have been phrased in a very general way for popular consumption hiding the underlying precise sense of these principles. Its an insult to science and the scientists whose painstaking research has helped unravel the complex workings of the laws of nature and reality. None of these scientific revelations were inspired from, dependent on, or utilized any of the religious revelations. If religious revelations could not and did not lead to any of these scientific truths in a stand alone way then by any criterion and logic they cannot be used to corroborate science. There are many unanswered questions in the basic understanding of the universe. Why can't the verses of scripture throw any light on them? For example we don't at this time know for sure if the universe is closed, open or flat. No body dares to make a prediction based on any revelation. But if it is ever found out by science I am sure one can dig out some vague words of a verse from some book of some religion and claim to "see" the answer that science has finally managed to find. Its always AFTER the fact that these semblances are found. It has never been found BEFORE the scientific discovery. Is that a coincidence?

Then Aparthib went on saying -

Nobel laureate Physicist Dr. Abdus Salam warned against people trying to explain Big Bang using verses from Koran, saying that the current version of Big Bang is the best known scientific explanation for the creation of the universe. What if a better scientific explanation than Big Bang is found tomorrow? Should the verses be changed to accommodate the new scientific view? Religion can never vindicate or falsify science. The truth or falsity of a scientific principle lies within science itself. Religious scriptures cannot speak of any scientific principle. Religious revelations are absolute directives and narratives for humans to follow as faith unquestioningly. Many revelations clearly contradict many accepted scientific principles. No scientist of any repute have ever tried to substantiate scientific principles by religious beliefs. Most scientists and theologicians would rather not mix faith with objective and rational field of science. Koran/Bible/Gita etc are not books of science. Any coincidental vague semblance between a verse and a popular phrasing of a complex scientific principle is solely due to the very general and vague wordings admitting of any interpretation that one chooses to impose on it. All one needs is some vague reverse fitting argument to connect the two. One can find Quantum Mechanics in Tagore's poems, or relativity in the Buddhist Monk Nagarjun's writing. Just seeing what one likes to see because of a preset belief in a favoured belief system doesn't make it so by any objective criterion. My purpose is not to disrspect religion or its revelation, but to question the attempt to reconcile the two in an illogical way. They can be irreconcilable and yet can continue and thrive as separate ways as long as one does not get in the way of the pursuit of the other.

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

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 12:21 AM
Every scientific fact has a certain degree of error related to it
Mind giving a the reference of the quote?
The Quran (or the Bible, etc.) claim to be error-free. This makes no logical sense.
Only to illogical persons like pagol-chagol (quoting you). A logical person will atleast show some logic / proof before dismissing such a high profile claim. And I don't know of such claim made by the Bible.
Science is very definite and precise about its framework and the definitions that makes up its framework. Black is black. White is white.
Since when? Ever read how the penicillin was invented? How many of the earlier inventions did in fact followed a definite and precise framework? Isn't the framework you mentioned just a guideline? Doesn't the science says the white is actually combination of all colors which appear to our eyes as white?
In the Quran, most, if not everything that its followers claim to be "scientific" and absolute truth, is fuzzy at best.
Nobody's claiming anything in the Quran to be scientific. Quran claims to be error-free. Prove it wrong. You may use scientific knowledge which is equally acceptable to the believers and non-believers alike.
There's nothing logical about it.
See above.
Furthermore, it's not "scientific" at all. Because to claim something scientific, there has to be a lot of scientific research and through and clear explanations behind it.
How many of the earlier inventions did in fact has a lot of scientific research? Did even Einstein had a research facility? And again, Quran is not a book of science, it's a book of signs, rather. It is a guide for you and me and for all human being to follow.

And again, you are talking about logic, are you following one?

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 12:22 AM
Avijit Roy and some Syed's articles were answered I think 2 years ago. Look for it too.

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by chinaman
Avijit Roy and some Syed's articles were answered I think 2 years ago. Look for it too.

Where? Give me the link. And I think the second Bangla pdf link in the post above actually contains Abhijit's rebuttals.

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 12:53 AM
As far as I can remember, Avijit, Syed Mirza and Sina once started to attack the Quranic verses alon with some Christians. Then each of their claims were answered by several people including one named Osama Abdul or something like it. I have to look for the links in my age old bookmarks if it is still available. Try google in the meanwhile.

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by chinaman
Every scientific fact has a certain degree of error related to it

1. Mind giving a the reference of the quote?

The Quran (or the Bible, etc.) claim to be error-free. This makes no logical sense.

2. Only to illogical persons like pagol-chagol (quoting you). A logical person will atleast show some logic / proof before dismissing such a high profile claim. And I don't know of such claim made by the Bible.

Science is very definite and precise about its framework and the definitions that makes up its framework. Black is black. White is white.

3. Since when? Ever read how the penicillin was invented? How many of the earlier inventions did in fact followed a definite and precise framework? Isn't the framework you mentioned just a guideline? Doesn't the science says the white is actually combination of all colors which appear to our eyes as white?

In the Quran, most, if not everything that its followers claim to be "scientific" and absolute truth, is fuzzy at best.

4. Nobody's claiming anything in the Quran to be scientific. Quran claims to be error-free. Prove it wrong. You may use scientific knowledge which is equally acceptable to the believers and non-believers alike.

There's nothing logical about it.

5. See above.

Furthermore, it's not "scientific" at all. Because to claim something scientific, there has to be a lot of scientific research and through and clear explanations behind it.

6. How many of the earlier inventions did in fact has a lot of scientific research? Did even Einstein had a research facility? And again, Quran is not a book of science, it's a book of signs, rather. It is a guide for you and me and for all human being to follow.

7. And again, you are talking about logic, are you following one?


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

1. A reference? This is a VERY WELL KNOWN ELEMENTARY fact about science. Ask ANY scientist about it. It's like asking me a reference of the English alphabet. Here you go: ABCDEFGHIJK....blah blah.

2. I already told you. The very fact that it claims to be abosolutely "error-free" makes it logically unsound. But if you want to dig deep, then please define what you mean by the word "error." Then I can begin to logically dismiss such claims.

3. That's the point. When penicilin was invented, we didn't have electron microscope to exactly define its cellular or even atomidc nature. Scientists predicted what they could based on whatever knowledge they had. Now, after having done decades and decades of research, we know how it works. Science progresses as it accumulates knowledge and does more and more rigorous research. Scientists are constantly changing. Today's scientists are much more well equipped than the ones that lived centuries ago. Today's scientists are also much much more rigorous than before. Our precision has become mroe and more acute as time progressed. And all of this development has been possible because scientists have been constantly following a framework of scientific method and revising it when necessary so that it makes sense. What's your point?

4. What? What are we talking about then? Aren't we trying to "discuss the Quran in the context of science" and use "science" as a tool to prove or disprove the claim that Quran is error-free or not, as per your first post in this thread? Well, the article by Abhijit above discusses ten such claims that are meant to prove Quran "error-free" inthe context of science. And all those claims have been proven wrong.

5. See above.

6. Earlier inventions were as scientific as they could get. And earlier theories are constantly being validated or rejected by modern science every day. What's your point?

7. Where am I not following logic? Please point out.

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by chinaman
As far as I can remember, Avijit, Syed Mirza and Sina once started to attack the Quranic verses alon with some Christians. Then each of their claims were answered by several people including one named Osama Abdul or something like it. I have to look for the links in my age old bookmarks if it is still available. Try google in the meanwhile.

Whatever. Give us the link when you find it. Meanwhile, you may want to actually READ Abhijit's articles and see if YOU find something to refute his points. He clearly has researched on this VERY thoroughly. I personally read it and found nothing to disagree with.

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 01:13 AM
I read all of the articles written by them and the rebuttals available at that time. Very intersting and knowledgable. And of course unlike yours, they mostly used specific points and good explanations to support their respective claims.

I'm trying.

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 01:16 AM
Some samples of Quranic contradictions for You Prepared by: Syed Kamran Mirza

Source (http://www.secularislam.org/guide/mirza.htm)

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 01:20 AM
And of course unlike yours, they mostly used specific points and good explanations to support their respective claims.

Yes, yes! I know I am a bumbling fool, although I am not sure how. :) Perhaps it is because I am producing all this on the fly from my brain without sitting down and thinking and preparing for hours and hours.

But hey, that was a good link of Quranic contradictions/errors. I think Abhijit's article also mentioned many of those.

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 01:33 AM
Many articles agains Islam could be found here (http://answering-islam.org)

Many of the rebuttals could be found here (http://answering-christianity.com/expose_lies.htm)

As you read a point and it's rebuttal, please write a neutral opinion highlighting points from both sides. We can learn through exercise, only if you are willing. I seems to have no more links. Enjoy and happy reading.

[Edited on 11-24-2003 by chinaman : Add more URLs, comments]

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 01:48 AM
Umm... okay I read Osama Abdullah's "rebuttal" of Abhijit's article. Not convincing at all. In fact, Abhijit himself wrote a re-rebuttal of Osama's article.

It looks like Abhijit wrote it just a couple of weeks ago. So here you go, straight from the man's mouth:

Response to answering-christianity.com

Re: Does the Noble Quran support "The Earth moves around the Sun" theory?

By Avijit Roy

I mentioned about a challenge of mine (made couple of years ago) in one of my recently published article (regarding one of those so-called scientific miracles in holy Qur’an). I see this has created some turmoil over the Net recently. My challenge has a little history. Let me tell you this briefly. Over the last decade, a growing numbers of Muslims have declared the Qur'an to be a book filled with alleged scientific miracles. Many educated Bangladeshi Muslims in blithely discovered ‘Big-Bang’, ‘expansion of the universe’, ‘theory of evolution of human species’, science of ‘atoms and molecules’, ‘milky-way, ‘constellation’, ‘white dwarf’, ‘black-holes, ‘embryology’, ‘theory of relativity’, ‘theory of super string’... and what not in their holly scripture (Qur’an). Numerous web sites, books and videos have been produced that proclaim Islam to be truly a religion of divine origin having perfect compatibility with modern science. Even though Muslim world today is thousand miles behind compared to the scientific development done by Jews/Christian, they ridiculously claim through their inspiring discoveries that their holy book is indeed ‘super scientific'! But our common sense suggests that the ancient religious scriptures of all prevalent religions were composed at a time when the humanity had a very limited understanding of scientific knowledge. One cannot legitimately expect to find the complex theories of ‘Big-Bang’, Super String, Relativity of Einstein etc. in the pages of those outdated Holy Books. In reality, the contents of those primitive books reflected the sheer backwardness prevalent in the contemporary society; their thoughts, belief, hopes and despair; nothing more nothing less. Let me illustrate with an example: when the holy Qur’an was composed, the eminent scientists like Galileo, Bruno, Copernicus et.al were not even born. How could the people of that primeval period even think of an earth, revolving around our sun?

Obviously they could never comprehend this, as they were familiar only with the sun rising in the east and then setting in the west; the rising of the moon at the onset of night. These are the phenomena they have observed since their birth. God controls these heavenly objects, they thought. That certain laws of physics govern the progress of these celestial bodies, they could never comprehend. This is what is accurately reflected in many verses of the Qur’an, Hadis, Vedas and the Bible. Consider this verse from Sura Luqman (31:29) from the holy Qur’an :

PICKTHAL: Hast thou not seen how Allah causeth the night to pass into the day and causeth the day to pass into the night, and hath subdued the sun and the moon (to do their work), each running unto an appointed term; and that Allah is Informed of what ye do?

In this verse Allah clearly says that he is the one who converts the day into night and vice versa; subjected the sun and the moon to follow a fixed orbit. We find many similar verses elsewhere in the Qur’an as well. Here are a few samples: Sura Ya-Sin (36:38), Sura Az -Zumar (39:5), Sura Al-Rad (13:2), Sura Al-Anbiya ( 21:33 ), Sura Al-Baqara (2:258), Sura Al-Kahf (18:86), Sura Ta-Ha (20:130), just to name a few. However, even a thorough, painstaking search of the entire Qur’an does not show a single verse anywhere in it that supports the scientific reality of the rotation of earth. According to Allah, the earth is motionless, completely static. Period.

In Sura An-Naml (27:61) it is stated clearly:

Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas? Is there any Allah beside Allah? Nay, but most of them know not!

In the same vein, Sura Al-Rum (30:25), Sura Fatir (35:41), Sura Luqman (31:10), Sura Al-Baqara ( 2:22 ), Sura An-Nahl ( 16:15 ) exhorts the Allah’s decree that the earth is completely immovable.

Since the Islamic scholars are absolutely certain that the Qur’an contains all the scientific principles, with due respect, I earnestly requested them to show me a verse, just a single verse in the Qur’an that states that the earth moves round the sun; or that the 'earth rotates' at the least. The Arabic word for earth is ‘Ard’ and the Arabic word for rotation is ‘Falak’. If someone could show me just a single verse in the Qur’an that uses the two words ‘Ard’ and ‘Falak’ side by side’, I would accept my defeat.

Since then no scholar could show me a single verse to that effect. One author (Osama Abdallah) in his website (www.answering-christianity.com) tried to refute me through a lengthy response:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_rotation_challenge.htm

The author recently sent his write-up in Mukto-mona ( www.mukto-mona.com ) too:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/13291

I would like to give a response to only those portions which is relevant to my article and deserves author's merit.

[Osama Abdallah]

Even though he is not a Jew nor a Christian, he starts his article by a quote from a Bangladeshi apostate woman:....

[My Response]

I must admit that I could not fathom author's logic (if there is any) here. Why I have to be a Jew or a Christian to quote a Bangladeshi apostate woman (Taslima Nasrin, in this case)?

[OA]

The Quranic and Islamic teaching does not insist nor directly claim that the sun moves around the earth, as I will clearly prove it in this article.

[My response]

Well, there are plenty of verses in Qur’an that depict that the movement of the sun; and again there are few of verses that clearly represent that earth is fixed (unmovable). It is not hard to reach the logical conclusion if one really wishes too. Let's see how "clearly" you "prove" your baseless assumption.

[OA]

To see the accurate scientific claims in the Noble Qur’an and Islam from the "Big Bang Theory and the Cosmic Crunch", to "Iron was sent down to earth through asteroids and wasn't formed by earth materials as other metals were", to "The Universe is expanding", to "The Human formation", to "Life originated from water", etc..., please visit:....

[My response]

And this is my rebuttal:

http://www.humanists.net/avijit/article/10_myths_about_Quran.htm

and http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/super_scientific_scriptures.htm

[OA]

Well, without being biased nor try to answer away any error in Islam, but the Bible and the Pagan Gita, the Mohabharat and the Vedas clearly and DIRECTLY claim that the earth doesn't move and that the sun rotates around it:

From the Bible: "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)"

However, no where in the Noble Qur’an or any Saying (Hadith) from Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him do you see a straight forward and DIRECT claim about the sun rotating around the earth and that the earth doesn't move.

[My Response]

Muslim apologists are fond of claiming that ONLY the Qur’an miraculously predicted the findings of modern science, and that all of its factual scientific claims are flawless whereas other scriptures are all nonsense. I reject the Qur’an like any other religious scriptures, only because it is fallible, primitive work of a bygone age, and inappropriate for our times. Please take a look on the two verses from Bible and Qur’an:

Bible-

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)"

And Qur’an -

Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas? Is there any Allah beside Allah? Nay, but most of them know not! An-Naml (27:61)

I did not find much difference between these two. Both emphasizes that the earth is fixed and motionless. To be frank a humanly-written text would be expected to reflect the state of such knowledge as it stood during its time. But while Bible focuses the "earth can never be moved" it appears to OA that the earth is indeed motionless and thus completely unscientific, but in the breath, while Qur’an says in the exactly similar way, "Who made the earth a fixed abode..", it does not appear to them as the same motionless earth. This kind of thinking of course satisfies only a Muslim apologist but no rational person will give any importance to it.

The Qur’an is unashamedly of its time. According to Qur’an our Earth is flat and both the sun and the moon run across it. They are “lamps” hanging from the ceiling of the sky that is being supported by invisible columns. The Quranic solar system also contains invisible genies. They climb over each other’s shoulders and reach the heaven to eavesdrop the conversation of the “Exalted Assembly”. The stars are used as missiles (shooting stars) to hit them (genies). The moon is supposed to be above the stars. Then sun also must rise from muddy waters and enter in the murky waters just as Zul Qaranain witnessed (sura: 18:86, 18:90). There is also a position for the throne of Allah. But the throne is over the waters and the Sun has to prostrate in front of the throne and ask permission of Allah to rise. If you want to sell these non-sense as "scientific", I have nothing much to say.

[OA]

I want to comment on the translation "The earth like a carpet Spread out", which is "Al-ard MAHDA". "Al-ard" means "the earth" and "mahda" means "to straighten" or "to make straight", or "to comfort (as in mahdi, the comfortor)" or "alleviate". For instance, When workers build streets, they comfort (mahd) or alleviate the land for us to be able to drive our cars on it. Again, the Noble Verse doesn't suggest that the earth is flat. It says that Allah Almighty alleviated the land for us "to go about therein by roads".

Allah Almighty said that the earth is "egg-shaped": http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_in_islam.htm

The sections of this article are:

1- Allah Almighty said that the earth is "egg-shaped".

2- The earth had gone through different stages and shapes since it was first

created.

3- The roundness of the earth in the Noble Qur’an.

- The Arabic word "dahaha". ...



[My response]

If we have any doubt about what Allah really thought of the shape of the Earth, we can read the following verse carefully:

Q. 78: 6

Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse,...

The “expanse” gives an idea of something flat. The Arabic word used in the Qur’an is Mehad, (bed). All the beds that I have seen so far were flat. None of them were spherical. I have never seen any spherical carpet also :-)

The author also quoted the verse 79:30 which, according to him it is stated that the Earth is egg shape. The author suggested Eggs are spherical so as earth.

But the author is completely wrong in two ways. First, our earth is not egg-shape. Our earth’s shape can be described as an oblate spheroid, more like orange – slightly flattened at the poles and slightly bulging at the equator shape. Even school going children know these facts. And secondly the term "egg-shape" is also a unique invention of Muslim apologists, I must say. The verse (79:30) actually does not deal with egg.

The transliteration of the above verse:

Waal-arda baAAda thalika dahaha

It means (word by word):

And the Earth after that was spread.

Here I quote the three famous translations.

079.030

YUSUFALI: And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse);

PICKTHAL: And after that He spread the earth,

SHAKIR: And the earth, He expanded it after that.

Dahaha is not egg. Egg in Arabic is “al baiza”. That is why the above three translators did not put any egg inside. I have confirmed it with many Arabic-speaking people. I also once e-mailed to Dr. Ali Sina, the founder of FFI. He also confirmed that the translation of the above verse by three most reliable interpreters is correct.

[OA]

The following article clearly explains the above Noble Verses, especially Noble Verse 21:33. It shows how early Muslim scholars all agreed that the Earth was round. It is only the later Muslim scholars in the 1500s that deviated from this belief.

The following section was taken from http://www.thetruereligion.org/earth.htm

[My response]

That article tried to use Ibn Taymeyya as a reliable reference who thought "Chemistry is Evil Magic". I like to leave it to the readers to judge how much reliable Taymeyya's resource is in our scientific debate. Some people indeed dig their own grave!

Anyway, let's come to the point directly. The verse 21:33 in that article does not even mention about earth, let alone about its roundness or flatness. Here is the exact translation:

PICKTHAL: And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

The verse under discussion talks only about the movement of sun and moon. There is no mention of earth; neither directly nor indirectly. I would like to request the author to refrain himself from twisting the fact. The author (OA) has mentioned the same verse in some other places in his article to "prove" earth's rotation. I will explain the inaccuracy, falsehood and deception of the explanation more elaborately on that occasion.

[OA]

Actually what Mr. Avijit Roy doesn't see in these Noble Verses and in Geology is that it's been scientifically proven that the mountains and the hills do actually help the earth to stay balanced during it's rotation around itself. If we didn't have those mountains and hills, the earth would be in a constant shake because of the high speed in rotation.

For more details and proofs, please visit The amazing creation of earth and mountains in the Noble Qur’an.

[My response]

I think this “mountain story for stabilizing earth from shaking” is perhaps one of the lies of Dr. Maurice Bucaille revealed in his (in)famous book -"The Bible, the Qur'an and Science", which is comprehensively refuted by Dr. William Campbell in his "The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science". Commenting on author's statement, "If we didn't have those mountains and hills, the earth would be in a constant shake because of the high speed in rotation.", I would quote Professor of Geology, Dr. David A. Young - "While it is true that many mountain ranges are composed of folded rocks (and the folds may be of large scale) it is not true that the folds render the crust stable. The very existence of the folds is evidence of instability in the crust." In other words, Mountains don't keep the earth from shaking. Their formation caused and still causes the surface of the earth to shake. But the ancient Arab people did not have that much knowledge to know the correct reason.

Secondly, consider the earthquake zones of earth. Earthquakes happen 'all the time' and they are concentrated along specific zones, in which mountainous areas are also concentrated. Therefore, claims that mountains are firm and immovable, and that mountains prevent the earth from shaking are in-correct & un-scientific.

Lastly, citing the mountains as "immovable" in some Quranic verses (015.019, 027.061 etc) also deserve severe criticism. The mountains are part of a continental plate which is moving and are attached to a rotating (moving) Earth; The Earth itself is revolving about the Sun; Sun and its planets are revolving about our Milky Way galaxy; The Milky Way galaxy is again moving around the center of the Local Group of Galaxies.... etc. So mountains cannot be considered as "immoveable" as the whole universe is moving. So if I were God, I would write the verse in a following way (thanks to Farside):

015.019 And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and moving through the cosmic void.

How about that?

[OA]

Here the rising and the setting of the sun have nothing to do with the earth's or the sun's rotations, nor does it say that there is a hole in the earth that the sun sets in. In Noble Verses 18:86 and 90, it was talking about the morning and the evening times, and in Noble Verse 20:130, Muslims are commanded to praise and glorify Allah Almighty before dawn and after sun set.

Even today we still use phrases like "sun rise" and "sun set", despite the fact that we know that the earth rotates around the sun. The Noble Verses above do not make any DIRECT claim about the sun rotating around the earth, nor do they suggest that the sun rises from a hole and sets in another hole on earth.

[My response]

The Qur'an states:

Until when he reached the setting of the Sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water. Near it he found a People. We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (Thou hast authority,) either to punish them or to treat them with kindness." (Q. 18:86)

Does the above verse speak of the Sun setting or does it speak of the place where the Sun sets? If the above verse speaks about seeing the Sun setting and no more, we have to ask, "But the Sun rises every day and on every nation. Why was that day and that place singled out in the life of Zul-Qarnain to be described in the words 'Until when he reached the setting of the Sun, he found it sets in a spring of murky water. Near it he found a People."? The only sense we can make out of the Qur'anic verse is that after so many sunrises and so many sunsets Zul-Qarnain finally "reached the setting of the Sun" and he found that "it set in a spring of murky water" near which he found a People."

If all that Zul-Qarnain experienced was a daily sunrise and a daily sunset, why was he singled out by the Qur'an as the person who reached both the place of the rising and setting of the Sun? Zul-Qarnain is not the only person who saw the sun rise and set, we have all had this experience. The only sense that could be made of these verses is that Zul-Qarnain alone had this unique experience of reaching the place of the sunrise and the sunset. To read more you can visit the following link: http://debate.domini.org/newton/spring.html

If the above verses only depict "sun rise" and "sun set" that is being used in our normal daily life, then what is so "scientific" and "miraculous" about the book? Anyone have no or minimal scientific knowledge can come up with such "miraculous" hocus-pocus.

[OA]

Allah Almighty claims in the Noble Qur’an that life originated from water. He created every living creature from water. So when earth was originally a body of water and then Allah Almighty created land and creatures from it which by the way it's been scientifically proven to be true , then Allah Almighty's claim about Him making the earth "firm" in Noble Verse 27:61 is true.

Please visit Life originated from water in the Noble Qur’an.

[My response]

Indeed Noble Qur’an has many noble inventions. Qur’an ambiguously asserts many common-sensually meaningless statements about such an elementary matter of formation of life. For examples sometimes it tells that we are created from earth (11:61), sometimes it claims from dry clay (15:26,28,33, 17:61, 32:7), sometimes "from nothing" (19:67), sometimes "NOT from nothing" (52:35), sometimes from wet earth (23:12), or from mire (38:71), sometimes from water (25:54, 21:30, 24:45), sometimes from dust (3:59, 30:20, 35:11) or even sometimes from dead (30:19, 39:6). So which one is true? Those contradictory and ambiguous statements actually do not reveal any scientific facts regarding either how we created or what exactly we are made of. Please check this link: http://www.humanists.net/avijit/article/10_myths_about_Quran.htm

If one thinks Qur’an is unique based on foretelling life originated from water, s/he is dead wrong! Hindu Religious book Veda' (8000 B. C.) described origin of Earth and life from WATER of the SEA long before Qur’an came in picture with such assertion. The Great Greek Philosopher and Scientist THALES (640-546 B. C.) was the first Humankind who theorized that, everything in this Universe was created from WATER OF THE SEA. Problem was, Thales could not provide any scientific proof. After that, ARISTOTLE (384-322 B.C. the pupil of Plato and Tutor of Alexander the Great) concluded: "Because of the fact that, Plants & Animal body contains plenty of WATER and life needs WATER that was why THALES thought WATER WAS THE ORIGIN OF LIFE". Therefore, Mankind did not have to wait until 7th Century for Allah to say importance of WATER for life. You can check Syed Kamran Mirza's article for details:

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/skm/Religion_Science_Bucaille.htm

[OA]

This Noble Verse doesn't make any scientific claim about the earth not moving. The word "stand" is "taqooma", which literally means "stand", "stand up", "stand to", "stand for", "continue to do something or work (as in "She is still taking care of her parents", "hiya ma tazal taqoom bi walidayha")".

[My response]

I have refuted such misinterpretation regarding "fixed" earth many times. I hate to repeat same stuff again and again. Please check:

http://humanists.net/avijit/reply_tarek.html

I am getting impatient and tired of giving line by line response of such humdrum. Better move to my challenge section:

In Arabic "ARD" means the Earth and "FALAK" is rotation/movement. Can you show me any of the verses from the Qur'an that contains these two words one after another ?




[OA]

Even though the Muslims were able to conclude that the earth was round from the Noble Qur’an many centuries before Christopher Columbus, but it is arguable to say that Allah Almighty in the Noble Qur’an used the words "falak" and "ard" together in one Noble Verse. He certainly used the words "falak" and "all (celestial bodies)" in one Noble Verse, but never "earth (ard)" and "falak":

"It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course. (The Noble Qur’an, 21:33 )"....

[My response]

Here the author mentioned the verse from AL-ANBIYA (THE PROPHETS) 21:33 to "prove" the movement of earth. Let us have a detailed discussion on this important verse. Here is the transliteration:

Wahuwa allathee khalaqa allayla waalnnahara waalshshamsa waalqamara kullun fee falakin yasbahoona

Meaning-

021.033

YUSUFALI: It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all swim along, each in its rounded course.

PICKTHAL: And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

SHAKIR: And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.

Dear Readers, please enlighten me - where is the mention of "earth" in that verse? I didn't find any other celestial bodies except sun and moon. But like other Muslim apologists the author OA "miraculously" figured out the movement of the earth in that verse. Keeping aside our emotion and blind belief, let's judge with a free mind how much accurate the claim is. Readers might have noticed (check Arabic Transliteration again) that an a word "Kullun" is used in this verse. The meaning of the word is all, both, each or every. The word can be used as singular or plural. In the above mentioned verse "Kullun" has been used just after sun and moon. So the translation of "waalqamara kullun fee falakin yasbahoona" stands as - "all swim along, each in its rounded course". In this sentence "all" indicates only towards sun and moon, nothing else. Some Bucaille lovers are coming with an assertion that "all" indicates the "all celestial bodies" of the universe. I have no objection in accepting that all celestial bodies of the universe are moving, but does the above-mentioned verse resembles the fact? It will clarify our confusion if we discuss on a similar type of sentences as stated below:

Joe and Jim came to my house yesterday. They (all / each) are good students.

An infant too will understand that here the word They/all/each is pointing towards Joe and Jim only. But if one interpreter comes with an interpretation saying that the sentence is actually indicating Joe, Jim, John, Jack, Lisa, Ram, Rahim all - I wonder whether it will be an honest interpretation. This hypocrisy they understand quite easily for Joe and Jim, but in case of Qur’an they all are suffused with great mystic wonders and astonish. To avoid such misinterpretation, some translator used "both" to indicate sun and moon in their translation. For example, our Bengali Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi translated the verse as "Both (sun and moon) float, each in its rounded course”. Pickthal also translated as -"They float, each in an orbit" It is quite clear that "They" indicates sun and moon, nothing else. It is to be noted that the word "kullun" has been used not only in Sura Al-Anbiya, but also in Ya-Sin , Sura Az -Zumar, Sura Al-Rad, Sura Fatir and Sura Luqman. For each and every case, it has been used after Sun and moon, nowhere after the earth. For example, let's dig out now how "wakullun fee falakin yasbahoona" has been used in Ya-Sin:

La alshshamsu yanbaghee laha an tudrika alqamara wala allaylu sabiqu alnnahari wakullun fee falakin yasbahoona

meaning -

036.040

YUSUFALI: It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).

PICKTHAL: It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.

SHAKIR: Neither is it allowable to the sun that it should overtake the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day; and all float on in a sphere.

Here we again see that the word kullun (each/ they/all) has been used only after Sun and Moon and Day and Night. Day and night are not celestial bodies, so there is no question of rotation for these two. It is not very hard to comprehend that "sun cannot overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day" are very old-fashioned way of seeing our nature by ancient Arabs; they couldn't even relate diurnal motion of earth with the apparent westward motion of the sky over the course of a day or night even in their wildest dreams.

[OA]

And Allah Almighty made the Noble Quran be for every time and every place, that no matter how much we advance, we will always find the Noble Quran steps ahead of us. Allah Almighty didn't give the knowledge to Prophet Muhammad to explain every scientific thing in the Noble Quran, because they were impossible to be comprehended by people at that time. Take the following examples: The Miracle of the number 19 in the Noble Quran, Life originated from water in the Noble Quran, The Earth is round according to Islam, The amazing creation of earth and iron in the Noble Quran, The amazing creation of earth and mountains in the Noble Quran, What does the sun orbit?....

[My Response]

The way the author tried to “find” science in his holy scripture is not only funny, but also distasteful and notorious. I could have refuted each and every so-called “scientific miracles” that the author mentioned in his article, but it would only lengthen my essay. The basic point is, if one likes to see science in anything they can see it anywhere; Qunatum mechanics in Rabindranath Tagore’s “Shonar Tori”, theory Relativity in Buddhist Monk Nagarjun's writing, Embryology in Shakespeare’s Hamlet or Time Dilation in Vagbat Gita. Aparthib has already mentioned this clever and dexterous act played by apologists in some of his articles in Mukto-mona. Some “X” may have said "All is relative" 10 or 20 years before Einstein's theory of relativity; By this stretch of imagination that ‘X’ can legitimately claim that he already knew about relativity and claim originality. Any vague phrase, pun, quote etc by humans, scriptures etc can be customized and made to fit any scientific principle which also have been phrased in a very general way for popular consumption hiding the underlying precise sense of these principles. Its an insult to science and the scientists whose painstaking research has helped unravel the complex workings of the laws of nature and reality. Adopting the author’s same logic if someone comes with a claim- “Shakespeare Predicted the Big Bang and Dark matter!!!” with his famous quote –“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” (Hamlet Act I, scene v), what will be his answer?

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/yaha/shakespeare_dark_matter.htm

Best Regards,

Avijit

10/25/2003

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 02:02 AM
There are many rebuttals arround and with Avijit, I saw him moving arroung his articles a lot perhaps to give the false recently/freshly prepared taste. Anyway look for all as you can.

Instead of posting the whole aricle, please just post the link and... as I wrote earlier... We can visit the link anytime.

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 02:06 AM
Dude, as far as I can see, there's no factual or logical error in Abhijit's articles or in his rebuttals. If you see them, we can discuss.

His articles are probably the best on the web on this subject (and I am proud that it came form a Bangladeshi). It is very clear that he took a LOT of time preparing these arguments. If I took enough time to write on this subject, I probably would have come up with the exact same things. Obviously, I don't have such stamina or free time.

I produced his articles in their entirety because no other such article on the web is SO thorough, lucid, eloquent, logical and convincing.

Again, the focus is NOT on Abhijit, but on his arguments. Having read them, they are rock solid.

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 02:18 AM
I knew you will be very excited in reading those articles. Take your time and please don't jump to any conclusion now.

Interestingly, if I can remember it correctly, most if not all of Avijit's articles are borrowed from Samuel Green. So, take time here too to pay proper credits.

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 02:26 AM
Whatever. The focus is not on Abhijit or whoever wrote them. I could have come up with those arguments myself. But there's no point in reinventing the wheel. It's the arguments that I care for.

Excited? Haha! Believe me, I have read literally thousands of articles like this for the last 4-5 years. Mainly focusing on the Bible, written by atheists who were formerly Christians. It's just that there was not a lot of articles regarding Quran on the web, i.e. atheists who were formerly muslim or who know a lot about Islam. It looks like recently that void has been filled.

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 02:49 AM
It's the arguments that I care for.Atlast, something to be assured of (if it is not just another of your whatever).
I have read literally thousands of articles like this for the last 4-5 years.....It looks like recently that void has been filled.Lot's of the articles have been there for quite a long time. 4/5 years at least, that I can testify to. Is it then another of of your balloon claim? I seriously think so. I could have come up with those arguments myself.Hahaha, give me a break, really.

Zobair
November 24, 2003, 02:54 AM
Here is what Mr Roy says:

Some Bucaille lovers are coming with an assertion that "all" indicates the "all celestial bodies" of the universe. I have no objection in accepting that all celestial bodies of the universe are moving, but does the above-mentioned verse resembles the fact? It will clarify our confusion if we discuss on a similar type of sentences as stated below:

Joe and Jim came to my house yesterday. They (all / each) are good students.

An infant too will understand that here the word They/all/each is pointing towards Joe and Jim only. But if one interpreter comes with an interpretation saying that the sentence is actually indicating Joe, Jim, John, Jack, Lisa, Ram, Rahim all - I wonder whether it will be an honest interpretation.

In the context of the that one verse it makes a lot of sense. However, I humbly beg to differ. The verses that related to the solarsystem/orbiting/creation are the verses 30-33. Here they are:
----------------------
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? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
31. And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance.
32. And We have made the heavens as a canopy well guarded: yet do they turn away from the Signs which these things (point to)!
33. It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.

source: Translation of the Holy Quran! (http://www.arab2.com/quran/index.htm)

---------------------------------------
Ok! when we read the 4 verses together is it so hard to accept the Earth is included in the "all". Look at 33. Allah says that he created the Sun and the Moon and there is no need to mention that He created the earth (he did that already in 30 and it should be pretty obvious to every one invovled).

...lets revisit Mr. Roy's example:
-------------
Joe and Jim came to my house yesterday. They (all / each) are good students.

An infant too will understand that here the word They/all/each is pointing towards Joe and Jim only.
----------------
I would like to modify that a bit to make it more relevant to the verse(s) in question!

Jim, Joe and Bob are born of the same parents!!! Dad bought bob some nice warm clothes to protect him from the chilly winter
Joe and Jim came to my house yesterday. They (all / each) are good students.

Is it that criminal to assume that Bob is included in the compliment.

As for the translation I got, it mentions all (celestial bodies). Except for the bengali translator none of the other translations (to the best of my knowledge) restrict it by using both...."kullun" means all...as long as we keep all/each in the translation there is absolutely no reason to think earth is not included. The trick is read the relevent verses together and get the whole picture...

By the way...that picture of the solar system by avijit was hilarious...hahaha.

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 02:59 AM
Again, for the lack of a better term, WHATEVER! :)

I am actually tired of having these debates. I probably have posted hundreds of posts in at least five different forums against mainly Christians over the last 3-4 years. I have had constant debates with my college buddies and actually managed to convert one christian to an atheist. The funny thing is I had to defend many sterotypical bullshit against muslims while I was doing this.

But seriously, why bothering with what I have done or not. Focus on the arguments, man. I think if you read them and understand them, it should be crystal clear to you that the Quran is NOT scientific or error-free. That's the main point I am trying to get across in these posts.

Edit: looks like Pompous has posted his rebuttal. I will get back on that soon.

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 03:22 AM
Pompous, how do we know that Earth is NOT included in "all celestial bodies" as moving in a round orbit?

Because the Quran repeatedly gives us the idea that Earth is fixed in numerous other verses, that's why.

Abhijit actually mentions those ayats' locations in his rebuttal quite clearly. I took the privilege to mention those ayats again:

1. Al Baqara:

22. Who has made the earth your couch, and the heavens your canopy...

2. An-Naml:

61. Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas? Is there any Allah beside Allah? Nay, but most of them know not!


3. Al-Rum:

25. And among His Signs is this, that heaven and earth stand by His Command...

4. Al fatir:

41. It is Allah Who sustains the heavens and the earth

5. Luqman:

10. He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you...

6. An-Nahl:

15. And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you...

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

As Avijit mentioned, "However, even a thorough, painstaking search of the entire Qur’an does not show a single verse anywhere in it that supports the scientific reality of the rotation of earth. According to Allah, the earth is motionless, completely static. Period. "

It is also clear from the above verses that Earth is considered a completely separate entity than other "celestial bodies."

So if you think Earth is implicitly included in the phrase "all celestial bodies", then you're denying all the opposing implications in all those other verses I just mentined. Either way, it's erroneous.


PS: Yes! That pic is super funny. Especially the chair. The sad thing is that's probably how the Arabs pictured it back then. Haha!

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

Zobair
November 24, 2003, 03:41 AM
Arnab, except for one...the parallel between the verses and a stationary earth ...reminds me of the "pissing" analogy you gave....I am going to elaborate and rebut soon...but right now, though I am sorely tempted, I have a 20 page paper to take care of which is due in a two days. Inshallah, I will get back to this after that.

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 03:44 AM
Jim, Joe and Bob are born of the same parents!!! Dad bought bob some nice warm clothes to protect him from the chilly winter
Joe and Jim came to my house yesterday. They (all / each) are good students.

Is it that criminal to assume that Bob is included in the compliment.


Actually, it IS VERY vague and poor diction. What does "they" mean? Just Joe and Jim? Joe, Jim and Bob? All four of Joe, Jim, Bob and their dad?

Practically, any decent English speaking person will assume the speaker is talking about just Jim and Joe, because that's the closest example of a plural entity before that specific sentence. Plus it's just Jm and Joe visiting the speaker. So it's a VERY natural assumption.

I think you have proved the vagueness of Quran with your own vague example here. Thank you.

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by pompous
Arnab, except for one...the parallel between the verses and a stationary earth ...reminds me of the "pissing" analogy you gave....I am going to elaborate and rebut soon...but right now, though I am sorely tempted, I have a 20 page paper to take care of which is due in a two days. Inshallah, I will get back to this after that.

Hehe...there is pissing involved.

Ok no more suggestive lurid jokes. Promise.

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab : potentially offensive material removed]

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 03:53 AM
What does the word "celestial" mean? It means "heavenly" or "belonging to heaven."

Is Earth a "celestial body" according to Quran? Clearly not. The Earth and the Heavens are separate. God himself separated them in the beginning.

So the "all"/ kullun does not include Earth.

Case closed.

Hand me the muffin.

Zobair
November 24, 2003, 04:08 AM
one definition of celestial:

Of or relating to the sky or the heavens: Planets are celestial bodies.

anyways...dude...you are just playing with semantics here...its pointless....

source:
www.dictionary.com

PS: If I were you I would avoid saying such things as "piss ON verses". You are playing with people's feelings here..keeping the logic aside! In fact, dude edit that bit for the sake of good faith!

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by pompous]

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 04:16 AM
Ok how about a gummy bear?

Dude this is ridiculous. The very NOTION of "planet" was absent during those times. Nowhere in Quran there are mentions or a clear definition of "planets."

According to Quran, there's Heaven and there's Earth. Separate entities.

The Earth is a flat place (according to MANY verses) and is still (again, according to many verses)

The Heaven is made up of, well, heavenly bodies. The heaven is basically a "canopy" as viewed from a person from Earth. The heavenly bodies include the Sun, the moon and everything else. They are moving in round orbits, presumably around earth, causing day and night.

This is elementary/primitive astronomy. Perfectly compatible with the human perception of those times or even before.

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 04:32 AM
Arnab, I think I made a suggestion earlier to take your time and read some articles from the links before dancing to any conclusion. Aparently you did not and still playing afoul. Take a long break and try to read as you want people to read your rather long and already rebutted borrowed article. One good start would be:

Here (http://answering-christianity.com/earth_in_islam.htm)

Again good luck and get some sleep.

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 04:55 AM
This is getting ridiculous.

What shape is Earth really, according to Quran?

Is it "egg shaped"? NO.

Is it "flat as a carpet"? NO.

Is it "perfectly round"? NO.

But that's what that link tries to say.

Please, these arguments are so tenuous that they will be laughed at and ridiculed by ANY sane rational person.

Also:

What is "flattening"?

AFTER scientists have discovered

1. plate tectonics
2. soil erosion and
3. earth having a greater diameter at the equator

A guy named Rached in that webpage is trying to connect all those phenomena with the word "flattening."

First of all, the Arabs back then couldn't have known about ANY of these back then. So what could it possibly mean to them? Why, a flat Earth!

And the original author is so full of **** in other arguments that it's unreal. He says the Quran was written for all people of all times. So we can reinterpret these ayats as many ways as time progresses. (nevermind that science is actually doing the hard work uncovering the facts, it's already written in quran in one way or the other, riiight!) Then in another case, he accuses people for misinterpreting some "old"/"ancient" words of Quran because it woulld be innacurate.

Again, you badly mixed the modern word "kura" for ball with the very old Arabic words "kuwwirat" and "takweer" (thousands of years before 1400 years ago when the Noble Quran was revealed).

So sometimes I have to think like a modern scientist and the other times I have to think like an ignorant Arab?

What bs!

And take a look at this genius comment:

It is also possible that Allah Almighty is telling us that the earth is both flattened and round at the same time. This is not a contradiction. To the normal human being, especially 1400 years ago, the earth was clearly flattened.

Wow! This takes the cake for being the most bs argument ever! Look how he is CLEARLY admitting that the Arabs back then REALLY thought the earth is flat. He is shooting himself in the foot. He doesn't realize that by saying this, he is refuting his own "egg-shape" argument! What a dork!


[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 05:28 AM
Just think of a "cap". It looks round, right. Well, the tailor could tell you that it was that shape, then I folded it, then I ...it and then ... so so.

Allah gives the history of the creation of many things including the earth and it's shape at the various phases of it's creation.

Recall that, Avijit/Green/Katz made fun of creating man from water, clot, nothing, clay etc etc? Well, think of it as a bread which could be said to be from water, salt, flour, crops etc etc.

Read and learn, then place your knowledgable argument. Just go through your previous arguments in this thread. How many of them make good sense? If you don't understand something, share with us. Someone might be able help you out.

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 05:38 AM
One more thing, STOP calling people's judgement as insane or irrational to make yourself sane & rational and for the board's sake donot use so-called foul words. Insulting peoples faith is the last thing we want to read or post here. Place your opinion, views and points in a civil way.

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by chinaman
Just think of a "cap". It looks round, right. Well, the tailor could tell you that it was that shape, then I folded it, then I ...it and then ... so so.

I see now you are producing your OWN bs analogies. Bravo!

Allah gives the history of the creation of many things including the earth and it's shape at the various phases of it's creation.

Really? Exactly HOW was heaven separated from earth? Does that sentence have any meaning even? Are you saying all the stars and planets were joined to earth and suddenly poof! The earth is seperated just like that! Astounding!

Recall that, Avijit/Green/Katz made fun of creating man from water, clot, nothing, clay etc etc? Well, think of it as a bread which could be said to be from water, salt, flour, crops etc etc.

Oh my god! Yes, you truly are the master of logic analogies. I bow before thee! Exactly how is a human body formed from "nothing", "water" and "clay" and "clot"? What science supports that? That's right. None. Making a human body is like making bread? Truly hilarious.

Read and learn, then place your knowledgable argument. Just go through your previous arguments in this thread. How many of them make good sense? If you don't understand something, share with us. Someone might be able help you out.

Dude, please let go of the condescending attitude, will ya? I am not too fond of psychological games. But I realize that's what you have to resort to when you've got no good arguments yourself. You have a poor idea of how logic works and what "good sense" actually means. You are the one that needs to "learn" some basic tenets of logic.


[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by chinaman
One more thing, STOP calling people's judgement as insane or irrational to make yourself sane & rational and for the board's sake donot use so-called foul words. Insulting peoples faith is the last thing we want to read or post here. Place your opinion, views and points in a civil way.

Hmm...insulting people's faith. Now where did I do that?

Nowhere! I said he is full of crap. And explicitly explained why I think so. When I see crap I call it crap. You just have to deal with my honesty here. :)

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 05:49 AM
Ever heard of the Quranic word "Alaka" or "Nuthfa", man were created from?

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 05:53 AM
Men were not created from "clot of blood" or "liquid," if that's what you are trying to say.

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 06:05 AM
Do I have to tell you that, many people regard the Quran as sacred and even mere reading it is also considered as prayer? Some people took time to explain it's ayat and you are calling it bsing? Comparing it with p...ing? And still asking where you had insulted people's faith?

Dude, just go to bed.

Sami
November 24, 2003, 06:21 AM
This discussion is going waaaaaay out of hand... save it for when u guys meet face to face... I guess u guys will be able to get your points thru and understood much better when verbally expressed... e-communication is never a place for sensitive discussion such as religion...

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 06:30 AM
The discussion is for everybody. And I don't mind to take part in a learning debate. In fact, it's an honor to part in Quranic discussion. He made some sense at times but crossed the line other times. Most of his arguments are pointless, kind of argument for the sake of argument type, not to mention, insensitive.

Arnab
November 24, 2003, 07:16 AM
1. I think the pieces by Avijit Roy present some solid arguments with exterme clarity and without violating any logic. That's why I have provided them in their entirety. Chinaman tried to provide links that refute it but then I presented a rebuttal to those links written by Avijit himself. And I totally support his point of view. Instead of rehashing the same arguments over and over again (like whether the earth is moving and round, or how clot-clay-water make humans, etc.) and making ME refute those, why don't you read over the rebuttals already given by Avijit? That will save us a lot of redundancy. Don't accuse me of not reading when you are not reading the article I provided (which basically contains solid refutations of the arguments or links you have referred to thus far.)

2. Chinaman, if you want to argue, then present some arguments. The only role you have been playing so far has been judging the stylistic quality of my posts, whether some of my stuff makes sense or not, whether I have crossed the line or not, etc, etc. Of course, you're doing this without any explanation whatsoever. This, coupled with the fact that you have not been presenting any clear cut argument or rebuttals of my posts, just says to me that you don't have much to say really.

:)

Originally posted by chinaman
Some people took time to explain it's ayat and you are calling it bsing? Comparing it with p...ing? And still asking where you had insulted people's faith?


Look if the explanation is bs, then I will call it bs! And I will explain why I call it so! I am not saying their faith is bs, their crappy explanations are.

And no need to sensationalize the "pissing" thing. I just said the way some people are trying to connect certain vague Aayats to scientific findings is so lame that if one tries really hard, he could probably connect scientific discoveries with an analogy of pissing if he wants to.

Don't like pissing? Ok how about eating, rowboating, running, drinking, or using your own analogy "making bread"!

Look, analogies are fine and dandy. But they are not the real thing. They don't substitute years of research and hard work by scientists. Again, read the last para of both the articles by Avijit I provided. I even highlighted it with blue color.


bottomline: read Avijit's article AND his re-rebuttal against the only rebuttal of his stuff by the guy Osama. Avijit clearly defends every argument of his extremely satisfactorily

Even our pompous took a shot at one of his arguments, but it was proven wrong. Easily. And I wonder whether pompous actually read his rebuttal before jumping on it.

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by Arnab]

Zobair
November 24, 2003, 09:18 AM
I took a shot at his arguement I was worng...says who?!?!? dude ..."celestial bodies" was the term used by translators in the present era...so they were perfectly aware that it included planets..i.e. earth also...the translators used it because thats what the verse is saying..period! You can call whatever you want...vague...irrational...etc...I asked the unsuspecting arabic professor of mine here at McGill (who happens to be a christian) and he straight away included earth when I asked what he would include in "all". BTW, the only backgorund I gave him were the 4 verses. Just goes on to show the possible differences in liguistic structure and perception that exist across languages.



[Edited on 24-11-2003 by pompous]

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 10:20 AM
Look if the explanation is bs, then I will call it bs!.......And no need to sensationalize the "pissing" thing.
Arnab,

At the top if the thread, I asked everybody to be sensible. Later on, I warned you not to use foul words that relates to the Quranic explanation and reminded you that insulting peoples faith is the last thing we want to read or post here. But you failed to show up the expected sensitivity. You even vowed to continue to show your insensitivity.

If you dare to show your insensitivity once more, we'll edit or delete any or all of your future posts related to the Quranic discussion at our (moderators and administrators) discretion.

chinaman
November 24, 2003, 12:19 PM
As we can see, Mr. Avijit borrowed this point from Mr Katz.

Answer written by: Moiz Amjad
Country: Pakistan
Date: 20-Dec-1998

What Was Man Created From (http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=102)

I think this article will clear up any doubt put forth by Avijit/Katz.

If anybody like to rebutt this, please post so laying out your points and explanations clearly. Vague, unclear and emotional responses will be ignored.

Arnab
November 25, 2003, 01:23 AM
Response to What was Man Created From? by Moiz Amzad

Moiz spends a considerable amount of his article pointing out minor translation errors (especially about alaq = which means something sticky) by Katz (a christian?) before taking an attempt at logical reasoning. I have no problem with his version of translations of the Ayats related to the subject of "What was Man Created From."

For the benefit of our discussion, let me reproduce the different references on Man's creation in Quran, as pointed out by Moiz:


1. Man was made from water (21: 30, 24: 45, 25: 54)
2. Man was made from dust/soil (3: 59, 30: 20, 35: 11)
3. Man was made from sounding [extremely dry] clay from black stinking mud (15: 26)
4. Man was raised from the earth (11: 61)
5. Man was created from a sticky soil (37: 11)


Moiz's Arguments:

Moiz's Argument #1 about the creation of the "First Man": If someone says that I made a cake from flour (soil) and then says I made a cake from water (water), and then says I made this cake from a solution of flour and water (mud, sticky soil), and then says that I made this cake from a dried out solution of flour and water (sounding clay from black stinking mud) and then says I brought the cake out from the oven (raised from the earth), a person may say that the statements are contradictory. But it is quite obvious that they are not. These statements inform us of not only the major ingredients of cake (man) but also give us some information regarding the stages from which these ingredients were made to go through for the ultimate production of the cake (man).

If we want to see Moiz's argument in a step by step fashion:

1. Two major ingredients in man's creation are soil and water;
2. The soil and water took the shape of sticky mud;
3. The sticky mud was left to dry out till it became hard (sounding clay);
4. The total process beginning from the mixing of soil and water till man's birth took place on this planet called "earth".

The above are the so-called "stages" of the creation of Man.

So, according to Moiz, some of those ayats refer to the primary "ingredients" (dust/clay, water) and some of them refer to "stages" (ingredients -> sticky mud -> shaping to human)

Moiz's Argument #2 on creation (i.e. embryonic facts) of the rest of the human race:

The Qur'an while talking about man's creation, has referred to two distinct creations. One is the creation of Adam (the first man) and the other is the creation of the children of Adam. Adam, as shall be seen later, was created from water/dust/clay etc, while his progeny was created from "a drop of semen". These two creations are actually two distinct stages in the creation of man. The first man was created from dust etc and later on, his progeny was created from "`alaqa", which developed from "nutfah" (a drop of sperm).


My refutations:

Refutation of Argument #1: How the First man was "created":

First of all, as far as current science is concerned, the first human being was definitely NOT "built" or "created" out of water, clay or a wet mixture of those or whatever. Humans EVOLVED from ape-like ancestors (not apes, apes are our distant cousins who share a common ancestor with us). So right off the bat, the whole Quranic process of the creation of the first human being, no matter how we look at it or compare it with cake-making, is scientifically wrong.

Since I have established my premise that the Quranic "process" of the "creation" of the first human is scientifically wrong, the other minor points of whether the Quranic verses are correctly translated or interpreted is moot. I don't really care whether the cake analogy resolves the contradiction between ayats or not. Because that's not how humans came to this planet, according to science.

If you really believe in the Quaranic process of the creation of the first human as described by Moiz above, you can rest assured that it is not acccpeted by ANY reputed biologcal scientists or by their worldwide organizations. Period.

Refutation of Argument #2: How the rest of the mankind was perpetuated:

According to Moiz, since the word "Alaq" means "something sticky," it can simultaneously mean semi dried blood, mud, unending hatred/love or a leech. In this case, it conveniently means something sticky that developed from a drop of sperm. In the previous case of the creation of th first human,the same "alaq" conveniently meant the sticky mud created from "mixing"( this mixing is nowhere mentioned in Quran, mind you) clay and water.


Firstly and most importantly, as Avijit mentioned: many people may be amazed by the mention of sperm. But close observation reveals that there is nothing supernatural in it. Since the beginning of time man has been quite aware of the "seed" that is released from the penis during sexual intercourse. The old Hindu scriptures or Bible, which are much older than the Qur'an, also have such indication. Aristotle clearly described about formation of a child inside the womb early 1,000 years before the Qur'an was written. No body claiming for any miracles for it.

Secondly, human beings do not develop from just sperm. Sperms contain half the chromosomes. You need egg cells to form the first zygote. So the process as described by Quran is not only nothing new (common wisdom of ancient men thousands of years preceeding it), it is also scientifically wrong. As Avijit again points out: But fact is - the Qur'an emphatically does not mention sperm or eggs; it simply says nutfah (germinal fluid). Nutfah is basically germinal fluid that gushes out during sexual intercourse.

Thirdly, the use of the word "alaq" (which Moiz claims is developed from "nutfah") here makes no sense. Sticky what from the "nutfah"? Where does it reside? What does it do? How does it become another human being? There is no mention.

This argument is vague, imprecise and merits no scientific discussion. There is simply not enough information here to consider it even remotely scientific. In fact, it can be considered a classic case of wild guess by any scientifically illiterate person.

[Edited on 25-11-2003 by Arnab]

Nasif
November 25, 2003, 01:27 AM
I thought I was not going to post follow up on this thread, because as it stand now, its not going anywhere. But I guess that the point of it all. Just sharing and not really taking.

Anyway, I will share the following:

1. Earth's Rotation: [27:88]
Transliteration: "Watara aljibala tahsabuha jamidatan wahiya tamurru marra alssahabi sunAAa Allahi allathee atqana kulla shay-in innahu khabeerun bima tafAAaloona"

Literal Meaning: And you see the mountains (that) you think/suppose it (is) hard/solid (motionless), and it passes the clouds' passage , God's making/performing , who perfected every thing, that He truly is expert/experienced with (about) what you make/do.

Translation: When you look at the mountains, you think that they are standing still. But they are moving, like the clouds. Such is the manufacture of GOD, who perfected everything. He is fully Cognizant of everything you do.
Obviously mountains are moving like clouds, so are we and everything on this planet. Because earth is moving in space. End of discussion.
<hr color=blue>
2. Oxygen and Air pressure Diminishes: [6:125]
Transliteration: Faman yuridi Allahu an yahdiyahu yashrah sadrahu lil-islami waman yurid an yudillahu yajAAal sadrahu dayyiqan harajan kaannama yassaAAAAadu fee alssama-i kathalika yajAAalu Allahu alrrijsa AAala allatheena la yu/minoona

Literal Translation: So who God wants/wills that He guides him, He expands his chest to the Islam/submission (to God), and who He wants/wills that He misguides him, He makes his chest narrow/tight , a tightness/strain/sin , as if (he) ascends in the sky/space, like that God makes/puts the obscenity/punishment and torture on those who do not believe.

Translation: Whomever GOD wills to guide, He renders his chest wide open to Submission. And whomever He wills to send astray, He renders his chest intolerant and straitened, like one who climbs towards the sky. GOD thus places a curse upon those who refuse to believe.
This situation starts at altitude higher than 8200 ft. (2500 m).
<hr color=blue>
3. Female Worker Ant:[27:18]
Transliteration:
Hatta itha ataw AAala wadi alnnamli qalat namlatun ya ayyuha alnnamlu odkhuloo masakinakum la yahtimannakum sulaymanu wajunooduhu wahum la yashAAuroona

Literal Translation: Until when they passed by the ants' valley, an ant said: "You, you the ants, enter your residences, (let) not Soliman and his warriors smash/destroy you (E) and they are not feeling/sensing

Translation: When they approached the valley of the ants, one ant said, 'O you ants, go into your homes, lest you get crushed by Solomon and his soldiers, without perceiving.'

Above is from chapter named "Ants" (chpater 27). The both reference to the Arabic word Ant(naml) in above verse are feminine. It is now well known fact that all the workers in an ant colony are female (males only exist for mating puporse, they don't do any other work). It is also known now that ants posses intricate communication techniques (Ant Communication (http://www.harunyahya.com/ant04.php)).
<hr color=blue>
4. Iron Stable Element & Quantum Tunnelling:[17:49-51]
Transliteration: Waqaloo a-itha kunna AAithaman warufatan a-inna lamabAAoothoona khalqan jadeedan Qul koonoo hijaratan aw hadeedan Aw khalqan mimma yakburu fee sudoorikum fasayaqooloona man yuAAeeduna quli allathee fatarakum awwala marratin fasayunghidoona ilayka ruoosahum wayaqooloona mata huwa qul AAasa an yakoona qareeban

Literal Translation: And they said: "Is (it that) if we were bones and debris/fragments/broken pieces are we being resurrected/revived (in) a new creation?" Say: "Be stones or iron. "Or a creation from what enlarges in your chests (innermosts)." So they will say: "Who returns/repeats us?" Say: "Who created you/brought you into life (the) first time." So they will shake/shiver their heads to you in wonderment and say: "When/at what time it is?" Say: "Maybe/perhaps (it) becomes near/close."

Translation: They said, "After we turn into bones and fragments, we get resurrected anew?!" Say, "Even if you turn into rocks or iron. Even if you turn into any kind of creation that you deem impossible." They will then say, "Who will bring us back?" Say, "The One who created you in the first place." They will then shake their heads and say, "When will that be?" Say, "It may be closer than you think."

Given enough time all matter in the universe will turn into Iron, since iron is the nucleus with the least binding energy. The time required for this to happen is approx: 10^<sup>1500</sup> years ( End of Universe (Iron) (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.html)). God in this verse is telling the disbelievers that even if this happens He can bring them back to life.

It is known that living beings turn into rocks and dust but living being don't into iron after dying. This is impossible physical notion. But Quantum Mechanics now is telling us that its not impossible after all. Given enough time everything will turn into iron. So even if that happens, you still will be brought back to life!
<hr color=blue>

I posted facts from Quran with science behind it. Therefore, I won't respond to any comment on above topics. Its a 0 or 1 case. One has to take it or leave it. Because talking about it will just result in infinite loop.

Thanks for reading.

Arnab
November 25, 2003, 01:40 AM
Therefore, I won't respond to any comment on above topics. Its a 0 or 1 case. One has to take it or leave it.

Haha! What is this the George Bush syndrome?

"You are either with us, or against us."

"Take it or leave it"

"1 or 0"

Haha! There is a very well-known label for this.

It's called "close-minded fundamentalism"

Since you have established yourself as a closeminded fundamentalist and are not even willing to reply to any comments, may be you should just delete the thing from this thread. :)

Nasif
November 25, 2003, 02:01 AM
Arnab please refrain from personal attacks. You are in no position to pass judgement on others. This is a discussion forum to post your opinion and thoughts. Just do that. Be civil.

I have given my reasons for not answering. I don't want an infinite cycle of arguments just for the sake of it. This is what it has turned into. What you posted was pointless. You have lost obectivity. Ego can carry one so long, but ultimately you have to kill it to acquire knowledge.

[25:43] Have you seen the one whose god is his own ego? Will you be his advocate?

[25:63] The worshipers of the Most Gracious are those who tread the earth gently, and when the ignorant speak to them, they only utter peace.

Peace.

[Edited on 25-11-2003 by nasif]

Arnab
November 25, 2003, 02:17 AM
What was the point of your last post?

It's not about ego. It's not about being uncivil. It's about having a logical discussion. You, sir, are killing it before it even begins!

One explanation that I can come up with is that your points will be proven illogical and make you abandon what you believe. And you fear that.

It's ok man. I understand ya.

Nasif
November 25, 2003, 02:07 PM
And again we see circular discussion emerging. My previous post was due to your personal attack. That was the point, but you fail to see that as well. You barely read the post that you repond to.

And please don't worry about what I believe or not believe. Explain only what you believe.

chinaman
November 25, 2003, 03:21 PM
A Muslim Answer To Criticism Of: Embryology in the Qur'an (http://www.answering-christianity.com/nadeem_embryology.htm)

Emad03
November 25, 2003, 06:07 PM
Arnab,

With all due respect, what r u tring to prove?

That there is no Allah and thus no Islam,the Prophet is a fake? and eventually the quran is fake.

Ok here is a question i am going to ask,

Reproduce a quran that has information that will provide informaton in the coming 1430 years!

U must be educated man but the prophet was illiterate so i expect a much better book from you which will also provide a grantee that it will never change and memorized word by word ,dot by dot ,by millions of people.

I beileve you can write a very good becuase you have very good logic .And i personally will start following your book as soon as u finish writing it ( please dont forget the conditions i mention).till then i will follow what the quran says.
Men please hurry up.This new book will be exciting.

In advance ,Sorry if i said anything wrong

Emad03
November 26, 2003, 03:35 AM
no one replied so far!

Arnab
November 26, 2003, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by Emad03
Arnab,

With all due respect, what r u tring to prove?

1. That there is no Allah and thus no Islam,the Prophet is a fake? and eventually the quran is fake.

Ok here is a question i am going to ask,

2. Reproduce a quran that has information that will provide informaton in the coming 1430 years!

3. U must be educated man but the prophet was illiterate so i expect a much better book from you which will also provide a grantee that it will never change and memorized word by word ,dot by dot ,by millions of people.

4. I beileve you can write a very good becuase you have very good logic .And i personally will start following your book as soon as u finish writing it ( please dont forget the conditions i mention).till then i will follow what the quran says.

5.Men please hurry up.This new book will be exciting.

In advance ,Sorry if i said anything wrong

1. I don't know if there is any Allah or not. We don't know enough to make such bold assumptions. So, as far as the current state of human knowledge is concerned, there is no Allah out there. Just like there is no naked, invisible lady dancing inside your head. It's possible. But it's pretty much impossible to say with conviction.

No, the prophet isn't fake. I believe the prophet was a great leader of Arabs. By inventing his own religion, he transformed the Arab society for the better. I admire him for his sufferings, his ideologies, his passionate conviction, his power to influence people, etc. He was a GREAT leader and a practical philosopher. Leaders like this are scarce in history.

No, the Quran isn't fake. It's basically a compilation of Muhammad's teachings that he believed came from Allah. But since there is no Allah, I am guessing he was a slightly delusional person as well. If he were to act out the process of revelation (fainting and other bujruki) today, he would be laughed at as a psycho. All in all, the Quran contains the sparks of wisdom in a great Arab leader's mind that occured to him over the span of almost two decades.

2. Quran has not provided us any scientific information. Otherwise all the scientists in the world would have been reading Quran(or any other holy book) to discover new facts or to get new directions. But they don't. Because science doesn't work that way. Science needs actual research work to back up anything it claims. Otherwise anything ever said by some Jodu Modhu in any part of the world from any time in history can be connected to scientific facts.

3,4 and 5. Yeah, lemme see, first you have to let me marry a rich girl so that I don't have to worry about money. Then let me travel around the world to interview the great philosophical minds and the scientists in the world. Then give me 10 more years in a cave to write down and summarize the essence of my knowledge with my laptop and come up with my wacky "theory of everything." Then let me implement it by making wars and conquering those who don't agree with me. Let me make friendships with some powerful and rich people who will support me. There's always a few of them. With some good luck, in about 40 years from now, me being the president of the United States or some other powerful country, expect the book coming out in 3d hologaph version. It will be an instant #1 seller. I guarantee you.

[Edited on 26-11-2003 by Arnab]

[Edited on 26-11-2003 by Arnab]

chinaman
November 26, 2003, 07:27 AM
A Brief History of the THEORY OF EVOLUTION (http://www.mostmerciful.com/history-of-evolution.htm)

Forgeries to support the claim of HUMAN EVOLUTION (http://www.mostmerciful.com/forgeries-evolution.htm)

The Deadlock of MOLECULAR EVOLUTION (http://www.mostmerciful.com/molecular-evolution.htm)

Arnab
November 26, 2003, 01:53 PM
Ahh evolution, my favorite topic.

1. If you REALLY want to know about evolution, you should read what the National Academy of Sciences has to say about evolution and nature of science.

http://books.nap.edu/html/evolution98/

and

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/index.html

2. If you really want to know the scientists' position on evolution clearly stated in their OWN words, read this:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html#fact

It was prepared by delegates representing the following scientific societies. These societies have all endorsed the final document.

American Society of Naturalists
Animal Behavior Society
Ecological Society of America
Genetics Society of America
Paleontological Society
Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution
Society of Systematic Biologists
Society for the Study of Evolution

and was endorsed by

American Institute of Biological Sciences

3. Here's an article from the Scientific American, arguably the most prestigious science journal in the world. It's titled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense:
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up"

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2

4. The Genetics Society of America's statement on evolution:

http://genetics.faseb.org/genetics/g-gsa/statement_on_evolution.shtml

5. The Botanical Society of America's statement on evolution:

http://www.botany.org/newsite/announcements/evolution.php


As far as their religious belief is concerned, as per an article titled "Leading Scientists still Reject God" in an issue of Nature magazine from 1998:

NAS = National Academy of Sciences

"Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."

For those of you who don't know, National Academy of Sciences is THE MOST prestigious Scientific Society in America, comprising of TOP scientists from every major scientific discipline. Almost all the members are Nobel Prize or equivalent prize recipients.

[Edited on 26-11-2003 by Arnab]

Unknown
November 27, 2003, 10:08 AM
Many believe in the Evolution, but certainty of evolution as a scientific truth is anything but certain.

Darwin developed his theory based, conceptually, on the cell being the most intricate level on which life operates. Modern science of the 20th century has demonstrated that life operates on a more complex level — the biochemical level.

Discoveries through biochemical study directly contradict Darwin’s theory of evolution. They have uncovered numerous biochemical processes that are irreducibly complex and could not have developed gradually, according to Darwin’s theory. (The clotting of blood and the replication of proteins, RNA and DNA both come to mind.)

Furthermore, there are credible scientists out there whom try to bring forward the fact that in the research of evolution, scientists become subject to personal opinion or ideologies. (Afterall scientists are also human).

Please readthe following article that should highlight the falsehoods of Evolution.

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC2W1299.pdf

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W0400.pdf

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W0300.pdf

http://www.essaymill.com/free_essays/inmers/m761.htm


Let me further take this opportunity to highlight a quote from NASA:


"We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance."

[Edited on 27-11-2003 by Unknown]

chinaman
November 27, 2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Arnab

3. Here's an article from the Scientific American, arguably the most prestigious science journal in the world. It's titled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense:

One single quote from "the Scientific American, arguably the most prestigious science journal in the world" says it all:

"Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too.... If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence."

And guess what, Someone, only One, claimed that credit many a times already.

[Edited on 11-27-2003 by chinaman : Source of quote added]

oracle
November 27, 2003, 12:34 PM
"Science says a lot about mechanisms and processes, about cause and effect. It observes things carefully, draws conclusions and makes theories. But what does it tell you about human relationships, about love, about beauty, about meaning and purpose? If science says that the smile in a friend's eyes is nothing but a physiological effect which gives me a pleasant hormonal reaction, wouldn't you say it had missed the point? A sunset may indeed be caused by light refracted by dust and water vapour, but there's more to it than just that! We've got used to thinking that if science says that's the way something has come about, then that's all it is. But haven't we mistaking two quite different things - how something works, and what it really means? "

That,s why we have Philosophy!:)

Arnab
November 27, 2003, 01:19 PM
Unknown:

You are correct. Many believe in evolution. And this 'many' include SCIENTISTS who have researched on it. 99.99% of the reputed scientists in the world believe in evolution.

As for the rest of your post, you really need to read the links I gave earlier.

And BTW, can you give me a source of that NASA quote? Which NASA scientist really said that? And when?

Chinaman: If you want to believe just by claiming "there is no evolution," the whole theory of evolution can be proven wrong, fine. You are seriously jeopardising your own intellectual credibility by doing this.

Think about it. Let's say some pervert claims that he raped your mom. According to your logic, just by claiming it, he has actually accomplished the thing. Kudos on your logical reasoning.

Oracle: Yes you are right. Although emotions, love, etc too will become science's domain once we figure out the neurological processes inside human brain. Just watch.

Old philosophy is dead. Evolutionary psychology, a rather new discipline, has made tremendous strides in the last two or three decades. Philosophy has to conform to the new findigns of science.

[Edited on 27-11-2003 by Arnab]

Unknown
November 27, 2003, 01:34 PM
Arnab:

You are correct. Many believe in evolution. And this 'many' include SCIENTISTS who have researched on it. 99.99% of the reputed scientists in the world believe in evolution.

You say that 99.99% of the reputed scientists in the world believe in evolution... you must have been conducting a global survey that was unheard of before in order to reach that conclusion...

I shall try and name the scientist behind the NASA quote.

Think about it. Let's say some pervert claims that he raped your mom. According to your logic, just by claiming it, he has actually accomplished the thing.

A very sick example (your intellectual brilliance could have come up with a better one for sure).

The logic you say Chinaman bhai uses means that: claiming actually means accomplishing. This is also true to Darwinism is it not... afterall, Darwin claimed that Evolution occurrs due to natural selection and the right conditions, so by this claim, Darwin is saying that this is actually what happened.

So even Darwin used the same logic as Chinaman.

You are seriously jeopardising your own intellectual credibility by doing this.

It seems that you are the only intellectual in this whole forum becuase you seem to always state that another persons argument has no credibility or does not make sense.

You think only your argument is the correct argument, and the rest of the forummers here speak a load of garbage. And when someone points that you do not make sense, you respond by saying that they are illogical.

Arrogance at its height. Sorry if I offended you Arnab, but you need to open your mind a little more and not just throw away what another writes as rubbish.



[Edited on 27-11-2003 by Unknown]

chinaman
November 27, 2003, 03:18 PM
Don't waste your time worrying about my intellectual credibility, let that burden rests with myself.

The poor quality and disturbing nature of your examples and replies show the rotten level of your cerebral functioning. It started to smell already.

Nasif
November 27, 2003, 04:49 PM
Evoltion and its credibility has been discussed previously in http://www.banglacricket.com/alochona/viewthread.php?tid=1815 thread at length. No need to repeat it here.

Arnab
November 27, 2003, 08:32 PM
Unknown: Who are these credible scientists that don't believe in evolution?

The links you provided were by a christian televangelist. He HATES Islam! Haha! He is a christian fundamentalist!

And again, where did you get that quote from NASA? Who said it? When?

Unknown
November 28, 2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Arnab
Unknown: Who are these credible scientists that don't believe in evolution?

The links you provided were by a christian televangelist. He HATES Islam! Haha! He is a christian fundamentalist!

And again, where did you get that quote from NASA? Who said it? When?

Arnab:
Who are these credible scientists that don't believe in evolution?

Goes to show how intelligent you really are. You anwswer a question with a question, is that how your logic and reasoning operates?

In the previous post I asked you where you got the figure of 99.99% of the worlds reputed scientists that believe in evolution came from. But obviously you decided not to answer, becuase you fabricated that figure.

"The links you provided were by a christian televangelist. He HATES Islam! Haha! He is a christian fundamentalist!"

As for that,which site are you speaking of here? I did not find at all anywhere in all of the references where the author states that he hates Islam. Another fabrication?

And I suggest you reread the post that Nasif bhai referrs to, you can see that most of your posts there were also pointless (your reasoning is very poor).

And finally here is the source of the NASA quote:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/equaltime.pdf

[Edited on 28-11-2003 by Unknown]

Arnab
November 28, 2003, 06:29 PM
It's a futile debate. Some people are beyond correction.

Let me tell you about an organization. It's called the National Association of Biology Teachers. The biology teachers of the United States that is.

The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) is "the leader in life science education." To date, more than 9,000 educators have joined NABT to share experiences and expertise with colleagues from around the globe; keep up with trends and developments in the field; and grow professionally.

This is what they say about evolution:

- The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

- Biological evolution refers to changes in populations, not individuals. Changes must be successfully passed on to the next generation. This means evolution results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. In fact, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

- Evolutionary theory is significant in biology, among other reasons, for its unifying properties and predictive features, the clear empirical testability of its integral models and the richness of new scientific research it fosters.

- The fossil record, which includes abundant transitional forms in diverse taxonomic groups, establishes extensive and comprehensive evidence for organic evolution.

- Natural selection, the primary mechanism for evolutionary changes, can be demonstrated with numerous, convincing examples, both extant and extinct.

- Natural selection-a differential, greater survival and reproduction of some genetic variants within a population under an existing environmental state-has no specific direction or goal, including survival of a species.

- Adaptations do not always provide an obvious selective advantage. Furthermore, there is no indication that adaptations-molecular to organismal-must be perfect: adaptations providing a selective advantage must simply be good enough for survival and increased reproductive fitness.

- The model of punctuated equilibrium provides another account of the tempo of speciation in the fossil record of many lineages: it does not refute or overturn evolutionary theory, but instead adds to its scientific richness.

- Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics: producing order from disorder is possible with the addition of energy, such as from the sun.

- Although comprehending deep time is difficult, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Homo sapiens has occupied only a minuscule moment of that immense duration of time.

- When compared with earlier periods, the Cambrian explosion evident in the fossil record reflects at least three phenomena: the evolution of animals with readily-fossilized hard body parts; Cambrian environment (sedimentary rock) more conducive to preserving fossils; and the evolution from pre-Cambrian forms of an increased diversity of body patterns in animals.

- Radiometric and other dating techniques, when used properly, are highly accurate means of establishing dates in the history of the planet and in the history of life.

- Recent findings from the advancing field of molecular genetics, combined with the large body of evidence from other disciplines, collectively provide indisputable demonstration of the theory of evolution.

- In science, a theory is not a guess or an approximation but an extensive explanation developed from well-documented, reproducible sets of experimentally-derived data from repeated observations of natural processes.

- The models and the subsequent outcomes of a scientific theory are not decided in advance, but can be, and often are, modified and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Thus, science is a constantly self-correcting endeavor to understand nature and natural phenomena.

- Science is not teleological: the accepted processes do not start with a conclusion, then refuse to change it, or acknowledge as valid only those data that support an unyielding conclusion. Science does not base theories on an untestable collection of dogmatic proposals. Instead, the processes of science are characterized by asking questions, proposing hypotheses, and designing empirical models and conceptual frameworks for research about natural events.

- Providing a rational, coherent and scientific account of the taxonomic history and diversity of organisms requires inclusion of the mechanisms and principles of evolution.

- Similarly, effective teaching of cellular and molecular biology requires inclusion of evolution.

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

Let me tell you about another organization. It's called The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). NSTA, founded in 1944 and headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, is the largest organization in the world committed to promoting excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all. NSTA's current membership of more than 55,000 includes science teachers, science supervisors, administrators, scientists, business and industry representatives, and others involved in and committed to science education.

This is what they say about evolution:

Evolution in the broadest sense can be defined as the idea that the universe has a history: that change through time has taken place. If we look today at the galaxies, stars, the planet Earth, and the life on planet Earth, we see that things today are different from what they were in the past: galaxies, stars, planets, and life forms have evolved. Biological evolution refers to the scientific theory that living things share ancestors from which they have diverged; it is called "descent with modification." There is abundant and consistent evidence from astronomy, physics, biochemistry, geochronology, geology, biology, anthropology, and other sciences that evolution has taken place.

As such, evolution is a unifying concept for science. The National Science Education Standards recognizes that conceptual schemes such as evolution "unify science disciplines and provide students with powerful ideas to help them understand the natural world" (p. 104) and recommends evolution as one such scheme. In addition, Benchmarks for Science Literacy from AAAS’s Project 2061, as well as other national calls for science reform, all name evolution as a unifying concept because of its importance across the disciplines of science. Scientific disciplines with a historical component, such as astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology, cannot be taught with integrity if evolution is not emphasized.

There is no longer a debate among scientists about whether evolution has taken place. There is considerable debate about how evolution has taken place: What are the processes and mechanisms producing change, and what has happened specifically during the history of the universe? Scientists often disagree about their explanations. In any science, disagreements are subject to rules of evaluation. Scientific conclusions are tested by experiment and observation, and evolution, as with any aspect of theoretical science, is continually open to and subject to experimental and observational testing.

"Creation science" is a religious effort to support special creationism through methods of science. Teachers are often pressured to include it or other related nonscientific views such as "abrupt appearance theory," "initial complexity theory," "arguments against evolution," or "intelligent design theory" when they teach evolution. Scientific creationist claims have been discredited by the available scientific evidence. They have no empirical power to explain the natural world and its diverse phenomena. Instead, creationists seek out supposed anomalies among many existing theories and accepted facts. Furthermore, "creation science" claims do not lead to new discoveries of scientific knowledge.

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

Let me tell you about ANOTHER organization called The American Association for the Advancement of Science. AAAS is the world's largest general scientific society, publisher of the the scientific journal "Science."

Founded in 1848, AAAS and its journal, Science, report nearly 140,000 individual and institutional subscribers, plus 272 affiliated organizations in more than 130 countries, serving a total of 10 million individuals.

AAAS affiliates include 265 societies and academies of science, serving more than 10 million members.

Today, AAAS is the world's largest federation of scientific and engineering societies.

This is what AAAS says about evolution:

The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.

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

And finally, the National Academy of Sciences. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer. The Academy membership is comprised of approximately 2,000 members and 300 foreign associates, of whom more than 180 have won Nobel Prizes.

Just to let you know, a total of only 469 nobel prizes have been given out to scientists since 1901 up to 2000. About a half of them are probably dead now. So that basically means almost all the current nobel prize winners in science and medicine support evolution. :)

I already provided the links for NAS statements supporting evolution inmy one of my previous posts.


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

Conclusion: If you don't want to believe in evolution, you do it in your own disadvantage. You can be sure that your view is NOT supported by ANY major scientific organizations in the world comprising of hundreds of thousands of reputed scientists/engineers ALL AROUND THE GLOBE. By denying evolution, you basically lose your scientific credibility and will not be taken seriously by anyone who folows science and is aware of how science works.

[Edited on 28-11-2003 by Arnab]

[Edited on 28-11-2003 by Arnab]

Arnab
November 28, 2003, 07:05 PM
I have found the most hilarious site.

It's called "Project Steve". I tbasically collects signatures of scientists all of who are named "Steve." It's basically a parody of the creationist/anti-evolutionist websites who try to list names of "scientists"(actually pseudo-scientists) who oppose evolution.

Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend.

All the signatiories of Project Steve endorses the following statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

When the Project was first publicly announced on February 16, 2003 it had 220 Steves, which corresponds to about 22,000 scientists with doctorates agreeing with the statement. By May 23, 2003 that number had increased to 367 Steves which corresponds to about 36,700 scientists.

The list of Steves is far more prestigious then any list of living scientists the creationists have ever produced. It includes Nobel Prize winners, members of the National Academy of Sciences, and influential authors such as Stephen Hawking. It is telling that creationist lists tend to be lean on practicing research biologists. In contrast, about two-thirds of the scientists on NCSE's list are biologists, who are the most qualified to evaluate whether the evidence favors evolution. Another point is that the NCSE's list includes the information on where the Steves got their degrees and their current position

Here is a look at the Steve-o-Meter:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html

As of 11 November, 2003, there are 406 Steves who have signed that list. This means there are AT LEAST 40,600 scientists who support evolution!!!

Haha!

BTW, the 300th Steve on the list is none other than Mr. Stephen Hawking himself.



[Edited on 29-11-2003 by Arnab]

Arnab
November 28, 2003, 07:20 PM
I just found out a comprehensive list of statements by scientific organizations all supporting evolution:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/629_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp# anthro2

The list includes:

Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada
Alabama Academy of Science
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Physical Anthropologists
American Astronomical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Astronomical Society
American Society of Biological Chemists
American Chemical Society
American Geological Institute
American Psychological Association
American Physical Society
American Society of Parasitologists
Association for Women Geoscientists
Australian Academy of Science
Botanical Society of America
California Academy of Sciences
Ecological Society of America
Genetics Society of America
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Georgia Academy of Science
History of Science Society
Iowa Academy of Science
Kentucky Academy of Science
Kentucky Paleontological Society
Louisiana Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences
North American Benthological Society
North Carolina Academy of Science
New Orleans Geological Society
New York Academy of Sciences
Ohio Academy of Science
Ohio Math and Science Coalition
Oklahoma Academy of Sciences
The Paleontological Society
Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Society for Amateur Scientists
Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
Society for Organic Petrology
Society for the Study of Evolution
Society of Physics Students
Society of Systematic Biologists
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
Southern Anthropological Society
Virginia Academy of Science
West Virginia Academy of Science

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

So, again, unless you want to make yourself look like a fool in front of scientists, don't attempt to discredit evolution.

say
November 28, 2003, 11:45 PM
unknown,

You have quoted the following urls to support your thoughts,



Please readthe following article that should highlight the falsehoods of Evolution.

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC2W1299.pdf

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W0400.pdf

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W0300.pdf


Go back to the roots of these urls,
http://www.johnankerberg.org

or

http://www.ankerberg.com/

you'll find out more..

[Edited on 29-11-2003 by say]

Zobair
November 29, 2003, 12:57 AM
Arnab that is a nice list!

Yet, "scientifically", just because all these people support evolution doesnot make it true...like its logically incorrect to say Islam is the right religion just because 1.2 B people follow it! Similarly many of these people are just following what is "accepted". Like you said....it is entirely possible that an organization/researcher will lose credibility and more crucially, funding, risk being termed "fools", so its not much incentive to come out with such notions and financially lucrative to research such possibilities. As far as scientists are concerned, I have seen too may of them around not to be sceptical about their "science" (a word!). It is a cycle. Undergraduate students learn about evolution in class, write papers on it. Eventually, the honours students (brit system), or those who want to pursue grad studies try and join a lab, and take part in the research that the prof is interested in (He happens to get a nice fat grant from one of the organizations you have listed perhaps). Eventually, in grad studies, the students' graduate thesis is often based on something they learnt from the lab, or in class, and if you think most students are interested in the "truth" rather than getting their Masters and PhDs quickly and eventually making a name for themselves you are just kidding yourself. They are all flogging the same horse to death. :):):) A very clear trend seems obvious to me in the modern higher education system. It is designed, perhaps unwittingly, to perpetuate the dominant idea of the time. Doesn't make the idea correct. Doesn't make the theory correct, even if it seems to fit the "facts". A good example is ptolemy's model of the solar system. His was the dominant one until science advanced etc...etc...
Basically my point is Arnab, come down from your high pedestal of learning. The right way to judge the sagacity of an idea is not by looking at numbers who support or oppose it (though it may give an indication at times), but to make a conclusive judgement, you need to carry out symmetric amount of empirical research on all possibilities. Unfortunately, that is not so in this case. Science "evolves", it goes in various directions, sometimes it continues to grow in one direction for a while before the path crashes and a new path is found. The history of scientific research is littered with such instances.

The other day I was reading about how, chimps are not longer supposed to be as close as the scientists thought they were to humans. There are far less genes in common. This has led to many repurcussions particularly in medical research.

Here is a BBC article...
-----------------------------------------------------
Monkey brain research: The case against
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr Ray Greek, medical director of Europeans For Medical Advancement, puts the case against using monkeys in neuroscience research

John Prescott's decision to grant planning permission for Cambridge University's controversial primate laboratory is based entirely on economic - not scientific or public health - considerations.


The planning inspector who conducted the public inquiry concluded that no national need for brain research on primates had been demonstrated at the inquiry.


In fact, he described the university's evidence in support of such research as "peripheral skirmishing".
He even went so far as to say that "the fears of some objectors that the outcome is a foregone conclusion is granted credibility".



There is abundant evidence of harm to humans as a result of experiments on primates. See some of the evidence to the inquiry at www.curedisease.com/Cambridge/contents.html

Such evidence includes:

Primates' track record at predicting drugs' dangerous side effects is abysmal.
Many drugs that were safe for primates have gone on to injure and kill people. For example follow the link to the article at the end of the post!

Countless drugs for stroke have been developed and tested in primates and other animals, yet all of them have failed and even harmed patients in clinical trials.
Monkeys do not suffer from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or Huntington's diseases and when these diseases are artificially induced they manifest very differently from the real human versions.
Human brains can now be studied non-invasively using remarkable high-tech scanners. These enable the conscious brain to be observed while engaged in a variety of cognitive tasks (talking, singing, reading, writing, etc) of which monkeys are not even capable - and thus clearly could not provide any relevant insight.
Experimenting on monkeys in the hope of unlocking the secrets of the human brain is an exercise in futility.
The most dramatic differences between humans and other primates are in the brain.

Our brain is four times larger than that of a chimpanzee, which is four times larger than that of a macaque.

Biochemical pathways in the human brain are unique. Gene expression in our brain is dramatically different from that of the chimpanzee.

Future advances in our understanding and treatment of neurodegenerative diseases will come from where they always have - human-based observation and ethical clinical research.

'Science, not politics'

Everything we know about these diseases has been learned from autopsies of patients, population research and studies using human tissues cultured from biopsies or autopsies.

It is in human tissue that we will find the answers to these diseases.


When medical science was in its infancy, researchers learned things from monkeys and other animals that extrapolated to humans: the heart pumps blood; white blood cells are involved in immunity and so forth.

But as medical science advanced it became obvious that, with regard to the questions being asked, the differences between species outweighed the similarities. Today, medicine is focused on variation between individual people at the level of "snips" (single nucleotide polymorphisms). This is where the clues to diseases and their treatments will be found - not in artificially induced versions of the disease in an entirely separate species.

the rest below..

source: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3234124.stm)

--------------------------------------
My belief is, since "science is so fickleminded" (think of the number of times they have changed course in every field) by its nature and definition, someday in the future, evolution (macroevolution) will be relegated to the bookshelfs and take its place amongst other useless human preoccupations, a terrific piece of human imagination but none the less redundant and obsolete! The similarities between species is a mercy of the Almighty! The differences show the different purposes for their creation. period.

Islam for me perfect harmony. None of its claims, philosophies and practices negates any others it espouses. Thats my belief as a Muslim. The "vagueness" in the Quran is a mercy. It was revealed as a book of signs for those who reflect, not for any Tom, Dick and Harry. Allah asked us to observe nature and research and attain knowledge and that we will find comfirmation of that in the Quran.Not the other way round! To have stated everything explicitly in the Quran would have left little to explore and contradicted Allah's logic for our creation. There would have been no choice. So all this "vagueness" crap from Avijit and co. is pointless. You could tell from his tone he was just out to diss Islam and Quran. He literally bracketed any Muslim who talked about Quran and science into "Muslims Fundamentalists" and Mullahs. His points were all borrowed and effectively refuted (no matter what Arnab's highly evolved and rational brain says ;)).




[Edited on 29-11-2003 by pompous]

[Edited on 29-11-2003 by pompous]

Unknown
November 29, 2003, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Arnab
I just found out a comprehensive list of statements by scientific organizations all supporting evolution:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/629_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp# anthro2

The list includes:

Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada
Alabama Academy of Science
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Physical Anthropologists
American Astronomical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Astronomical Society
American Society of Biological Chemists
American Chemical Society
American Geological Institute
American Psychological Association
American Physical Society
American Society of Parasitologists
Association for Women Geoscientists
Australian Academy of Science
Botanical Society of America
California Academy of Sciences
Ecological Society of America
Genetics Society of America
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Georgia Academy of Science
History of Science Society
Iowa Academy of Science
Kentucky Academy of Science
Kentucky Paleontological Society
Louisiana Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences
North American Benthological Society
North Carolina Academy of Science
New Orleans Geological Society
New York Academy of Sciences
Ohio Academy of Science
Ohio Math and Science Coalition
Oklahoma Academy of Sciences
The Paleontological Society
Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Society for Amateur Scientists
Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
Society for Organic Petrology
Society for the Study of Evolution
Society of Physics Students
Society of Systematic Biologists
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
Southern Anthropological Society
Virginia Academy of Science
West Virginia Academy of Science

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

So, again, unless you want to make yourself look like a fool in front of scientists, don't attempt to discredit evolution.


Just becuase you say that all those people believe in evolution does not necessarily prove the case of evolution.

If that was the case, according to that statement, the millions of people who believe in Allah are also right.

Unknown
November 29, 2003, 08:24 AM
When we talk about the origin of the Universe and those things in it, we cannot speak as eyewitnesses or firsthand observers. None of us was present when the origin of the Universe occurred. Therefore, any scientific discussion must be based on assumptions, hypotheses, and theories put in place after the fact.

An assumption is something taken for granted, and represents a legitimate starting point for an investigation. A hypothesis is an educated guess or tentative assumption.

Evolutionists dogmatically assert that evolution is a fact, yet admit that it: (a) is based upon non-provable assumptions that are “not capable of experimental verification”? (b) bases its conclusions upon answers that are “largely conjectural”? (c) is faced with evidence “adverse” to the available facts; (d) must continually be found guilty of “watering down the facts”? and (e) has both historical and causal aspects that “are far from completely known.”

Arnab
November 29, 2003, 04:14 PM
You guys are basically proving again and again what I say to some of my friends in real life.

Some people ARE beyond correction.

They will want to believe what they want to believe. It's only up to themselves to educate themselves and make the correct decision. It took hundreds of years for the common people on Earth to come to terms with the fact that Earth is round and is rotating around the sun, even though it was crystal clear to scientists who observed the fact way before them.

Evolution will also be taken care of by the tides of time.

In the meantime, enjoy your ride on the tiny blue dot. Remember, you're not special. No matter how you try to conjure up a God to validate your own arrogance and make yourself feel special. Be humble. Be inquisitive. Be informed.

[Edited on 29-11-2003 by Arnab]

Zobair
November 29, 2003, 05:03 PM
Why Arnab! thank you for your valuable advice :) Meanwhile sir! you keep doing what it is an evlolved multicellular organism like you is supposed to do and live for, until it is time for you to die and then its over....or is it? I guess, we will find out once we die!

Arnab
November 30, 2003, 07:12 PM
I don't know how this escaped my eyes the first time:

by its nature and definition, someday in the future, evolution (macroevolution) will be relegated to the bookshelfs and take its place amongst other useless human preoccupations, a terrific piece of human imagination but none the less redundant and obsolete!

Exactly what gave you this idea? Science is "useless" human preoccupation? The fact that science strives to approximate the real truth makes all the findings of science redundant and obsolete?

Exactly what kind of fine .... are you on, man? That is probably the most conservative, close minded attitude about science I have ever read. :)

It's mind boggling. So you're basically saying Newton, Gauss, Einstein, Hawking, Darwin, Kepler, Galileo, Wattson and Crick, and all these Nobel Prize winning scientists were all engaged in useless preoccupation?

And you are saying I am "full of it"? :)

[Edited on 1-12-2003 by Arnab]

[Edited on 12-1-2003 by chinaman : Moderation: Watch your language.]

chinaman
November 30, 2003, 08:03 PM
Let's take a closer look at the statement about human evolution by the National Academy of Science:

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Science (Second Edition)


Human Evolution (http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/human.html)

Studies in evolutionary biology have led to the conclusion that human beings arose from ancestral primates. This association was hotly debated among scientists in Darwin's day. But today there is no significant scientific doubt about the close evolutionary relationships among all primates, including humans.

Physical anthropologists agree that Homo evolved from one of the species of Australopithecus.

Molecular biology also has provided strong evidence of the close relationship between humans and apes. Analysis of many proteins and genes has shown that humans are genetically similar to chimpanzees and gorillas and less similar to orangutans and other primates.

DNA has even been extracted from a well-preserved skeleton of the extinct human creature known as Neanderthal, a member of the genus Homo and often considered either as a subspecies of Homo sapiens or as a separate species. Application of the molecular clock, which makes use of known rates of genetic mutation, suggests that Neanderthal's lineage diverged from that of modern Homo sapiens less than half a million years ago, which is entirely compatible with evidence from the fossil record.

Based on molecular and genetic data, evolutionists favor the hypothesis that modern Homo sapiens, individuals very much like us, evolved from more archaic humans about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago. They also believe that this transition occurred in Africa, with modern humans then dispersing to Asia, Europe, and eventually Australasia and the Americas.

Discoveries of hominid remains during the past three decades in East and South Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere have combined with advances in molecular biology to initiate a new discipline--molecular paleoanthropology. This field of inquiry is providing an ever-growing inventory of evidence for a genetic affinity between human beings and the African apes.

Opinion polls show that many people believe that divine intervention actively guided the evolution of human beings. Science cannot comment on the role that supernatural forces might play in human affairs. But scientific investigations have concluded that the same forces responsible for the evolution of all other life forms on Earth can account for the evolution of human beings.



Could someone enlighten me as to why the National Academy of Science used rather uncertain and contradicting words such as a bagmix of conclusion, suggestion, hypothesis etc as highlighted above instead of more firm and affirmative tone to describe the human evolution? Or is it an indication to the fact that they believe in the said evolution which they cann't prove or say with 100% certainity yet and trying to put together all the missing links similar to what they accuse the creationist with? And what are those forces they are talking about?

Evolutionists claim to have been looking for the origin of human life (putting aside other lives for simplicity), are they also looking for the purpose of life too? And why life has to end at one time or another?

Quran has all these answers, in case if you didn't know.

Zobair
November 30, 2003, 08:18 PM
Exactly where did I say, "science" is a useless preoccupation?! I did say evolution more specifically pursuit of "macroevolution" is a useless preoccupation! HAH! So leave those poor scientists (can I call Darwin a pseudoscientist? since he was just an amateur naturist!) alone....

-------------------
I am sure someday in the future Islam and all the contemporary religions will be cherished as hiostorical relics, just like we are doing it now to the Roman and Greek mythical stories and legends.
-------------------

Now, ever since the moment you first posted the above, I have been convinced that you sir! are definitely full of "something" which is potentially odoriferous, however scienctifically I am not in a position to physically verify the truth of that. But I have so far devised a few hypotheses and your behaviour has so far proved all the predictions of my hypotheses correct. So I currently claim what I call the theory "Arnabolution" holds. :) NOw! if you suspect that there is potentially something subjective in the way I devised my hypotheses, you are so wrong! Besides, I am confident several in my community will vouch for me. :P

-------------------------------
In the meantime, enjoy your ride on the tiny blue dot. Remember, you're not special. No matter how you try to conjure up a God to validate your own arrogance and make yourself feel special. Be humble. Be inquisitive. Be informed.

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

Arrogance is when you are ready to potentially accept that aliens may have given rise to life but no God exists or possibly could do so. Or because science cannot prove God's existence, so God doesnot exist for all practical purposes. Arrogance is when, one defines one particular way to pursue the truth (a very very limited error prone way at that) and by its definition excludes all that donot fall in that criteria. I certainly have no problem with claiming science is the pursuit of truth, but to claim that thus every outcome of science is the truth is certainly arrogant and narrow-minded and very irrational. Dude! you should hear yourslef rant silly about the greatness of everything scientific, talk down everything else, now that! is the height of arrogance.

Arrogance is NOT when one is ready to accept that he is not the master of his own will and existence but that his sheer existence is the Grace of his creator to whom he must submit himself. That his knowledge and the collective knowledge of all like him is still lesser (infinitely lesser) than the One who created him. That given the limitations that have been deliberately imposed during his creation he will never be able to physically "prove" the existence of God, not until his "multiple choice test" is over. Indeed the best Muslims I know are the most humble of people.




[Edited on 1-12-2003 by pompous]

[Edited on 1-12-2003 by pompous]

[Edited on 1-12-2003 by pompous]

Orpheus
December 1, 2003, 12:30 AM
Now, ever since the moment you first posted the above, I have been convinced that you sir! are definitely full of "something" which is potentially odoriferous, however scienctifically I am not in a position to physically verify the truth of that. But I have so far devised a few hypotheses and your behaviour has so far proved all the predictions of my hypotheses correct. So I currently claim what I call the theory "Arnabolution" holds. NOw! if you suspect that there is potentially something subjective in the way I devised my hypotheses, you are so wrong! Besides, I am confident several in my community will vouch for me.

LOL - you sure you wanna verify it??

Don't get involved in petty bickerings.

I used to think high of you guys but as time passes, all of you sound really silly. After posting, please read back what you wrote and ask yourself "Do I make sense?". That goes for all of you except me because I never make sense :)


By the way pompous, don't get too feisty over evolution and creationism. That's for our Christian brothers. I think I said it before in previous evolution thread that Evolution doesn't necessarily mean there is no creator. Think about it!

Quran does not necessarily oppose evolution nor it EXPLICITLY embraces it... But it gives you hints. In the Quran, did he not say "all living things were created in and from water"? That includes men. Allah said that he has control over everything, If he wants something - he can just say "BE" and it will be... but did he ever mention that Adam was there because he said "BE ADAM"?

I usually don't like posting links after links and make it boring but I highly recommend you to read this page. It may be boring but you should read this....For the lazy ones, I will try to summarize some points:

http://www.free-minds.org/articles/science/evolution.htm


History: Muslims came up with evolution long before Darwin. They used to teach it in School back then. Darwin's contemporary, Sir William Draper, called it the Mohammedan Theory of Evolution


Meaning of the word Kalaq: is NOT explicitly creation but is 'to create gradually in successive stages, each one being different from the previous'. In other word, "Evolve".

Some Quranic verses and explanation:

'...will you blaspheme against Him who has khalaqed you out of dust and then out of a drop of sperm and in the end has fashioned you into a human?' (18:37)

This can be interpreted to refer to the initial act of creation, or as two both the initial creation and the successive one which happens daily. If it refers to the initial creation, then the first human was conceived like any other human and therefore had parents. The Muslim scientists of the past looked at this verse, along with scientific evidence, and interpreted it this way.

Interesting look at the creation of Adam:

Some Muslims may question how evolution was possible if Adam and Eve were created in Heaven. The Qur'an, when analyzed, never states that Adam and Eve were in heaven......

But Quran never said they were created in heaven...it hinted of their creation at Earth.

According to the Qur'an, in Heaven, there is no such thing as aging or decay. Yet in the Qur'an Adam and Eve knew they were going to die, and Satan tried to deceive them by telling them that the metaphorical tree would give them eternal life. "But Satan whispered unto him, saying,

'Oh Adam! Shall I lead you to the Tree of Eternal Life, and to a kingdom of that will never decay?'" (20:120)

If they were in Heaven, they would have no need for this fruit. Also, what kingdom would Satan be referring to if they were already in Heaven? In addition, the place where Adam and Eve stayed had the sun. There is only one sun, and that is in the Earth's solar system

. '...and thou shalt not thirst here or suffer from the heat of the sun.' (20:119)


I hope you guys got the idea. For elaborate explanation, you should read that article - although I must admit, the author is kind of boring! He could have juiced it up a little.

Zobair
December 1, 2003, 08:58 AM
yes saar! :)

Don't get involved in petty bickerings.


if you can't see why I posted that bit, then...there was a point to it...I won't insult your intelligence by spelling it out....I will giev you a hint...It was meant to sound silly

Thats an interesting article you posted...if you noticed I specifically said macroevolution. I have a problem with theory of evolution in general because "scientists" use it usually to deny existence of God. You surely know that. Just follow some of the links our Arnab posted.

[Edited on 1-12-2003 by pompous]

chinaman
December 1, 2003, 05:09 PM
The Scientific American's quote (see earlier posts for details and links):

"Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too.... If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence."

National Academy of Science's quote (see earlier posts for details and links):

"Based on molecular and genetic data, evolutionists favor the hypothesis that modern Homo sapiens, individuals very much like us, evolved from more archaic humans about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago."

"But scientific investigations have concluded that the same forces responsible for the evolution of all other life forms on Earth can account for the evolution of human beings."

Arnab (see earlier posts for details):
"On the other hand, science never claims it's error free. Science modifies its theories according to research findings. That's the beauty of science... Our knowledge is ever increasing."


Summary

Science is known to have changed and modified theories at one time or another in the past. And of course we all know that many a times science proved myriad of things with absolute certainity. From the above quotes we can clearly see that reputed scientists are still calling human evolution as hypothesis and hinted to the fact that it might not be imposible for some yet to be defined force to play some part in the evolution. Furthermore, scientists are still conducting research, collecting datas and gathering knowledge in this regard.

Keeping these understandings in mind, I like to take the opportunity to thank you all for the ongoing discussion and to invite all of you to put an end at once to the discussion of Human Evolution in this thread and to move back on to our original discussion. I actively discourrage all posters from making any further reference, in this thread, to the evolution in our continuing discussion. I will delete at once any post that makes even the slightest attempt to bring back already discussed evolution.

As a reminder, we were discussing few Ayats from the Holy Quran in light of Embryology.

References:

1. The Scientific American, as described by Arnab, is arguably the most prestigious science journal in the world.
2. National Academy of Science, as described by Arnab, is THE MOST prestigious Scientific Society in America, comprising of TOP scientists from every major scientific discipline. Almost all the members are Nobel Prize or equivalent prize recipients. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer. The Academy membership is comprised of approximately 2,000 members and 300 foreign associates, of whom more than 180 have won Nobel Prizes.

Arnab
December 3, 2003, 10:02 PM
Chinaman, you are taking the job of moderator WAY too seriously.

First of all, 'crack' is NOT a bad word. :)

Secondly, you can't delete posts at random. You don't own any thread.

And for the LAST TIME:

Don't take out-of-context quotes to say evoluton is a HYPOTHESIS.

Evolution is a FACT and the THEORY of EVOLUTION tries to describe the how evolution takes place.

chinaman
December 4, 2003, 05:56 PM
Dear Arnab

You are right, crack is not a bad word by itself, however, publicly accusing fellow member to be on crack is insensible to the least.

You have already called posters of Quranic discussions insane and bs, suggested dancing lady in their head, exemplified mother's rape, accused respectable member to be on crack, fantacize pissing on the Holy book to name only a few of your comments. And here's what you said of yourself "Yes, yes! I know I am a bumbling fool, although I am not sure how. Perhaps it is because I am producing all this on the fly from my brain without sitting down and thinking and preparing for hours and hours."

All of these show how gravely insensitive you are. In this particular thread, we are engaged in knowledgable discussions with a very sensitive and delicate subject. At no time we want a poster to forget that.

And right again you are, I do not own any thread, but I'm authorized at present to use my judgement to modify or delete a post and trust me I wouldn't hesitate to apply my judgement and previllages should the need arise.

We are not deciding who wins or who looses. We are neither scientists nor experts in Quran. May be we can learn a thing or two from the discussion; that is the sole purpose of this thread. If I see more sensitive, mature and constructive posts from you in this regard, I might reopen the human evolution issue for you. But until then it will remain closed.

Mridul
December 8, 2003, 11:23 AM
scientists who admit that the universe is created by a Creator and who are known by their cited attributes are:

Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry)
Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy)
Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times)
Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics)
Louis Pasteur (the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism)
John Dalton (the father of atomic theory)
Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians)
John Ray (the most important name in British natural history)
Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratiographer who investigated earth layers)
Carolus Linnaeus (the father of biological classification)
Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy)
Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography)
Thomas Anderson (one the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry)


Must Read (http://www.harunyahya.com/70scientists_sci13.php)

Arnab
December 8, 2003, 02:53 PM
Chinaman,

Far from being the "insensitive" person you are trying to portray me as, I have acted quite the opposite. 99% of the stuff I posted here is ON TOPIC, fair and square.

It's a pity you didn't understand that the 'bumbling fool' comment was an attempt to lighten up the situation and an exercise at self-depracating humor. Maybe you did understand it, but are deliberately trying to misrepresent it to others. Not that I care, since this is a messageboard, but shame on you if you practice the same in real life.

Misrepresenting my comments to equate them as personal attacks on other members is extremely distasteful on your part. Even the people who they were directed at didn't take those seriously and probably saw those as light hearted jabs. There was no need for "gaye porey matabbori."

When someone says to another person "Are you insane?" in an incredulous tone, it doesn't mean he is actually calling the other person "insane," but more like he's utterly surprised at the way the other person thinks or acts. It's a common sense explanation for a figure of speech.

And let it be clear, I don't mean any disrespect to anybody with my remarks. They represent the nature of my surprise and incredulity at worst.

Orpheus
December 16, 2003, 04:08 PM
I am gonna merge my perverted post here: Technically that is science.

Why is this Haram?

I was discussing this with one of my friend but there was not a good conclusion.

According to Quran things that are hazardous to your health is haram....

Then why is Masturbation Haram?

It doesn't have any health risks... Infact many sex therapist prescribe this for people who has premature ejaculation. It's a medicine...

Be mature - kids and then discuss...

Nasif
December 16, 2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Orpheus
I am gonna merge my perverted post here: Technically that is science.

Why is this Haram?

I was discussing this with one of my friend but there was not a good conclusion.

According to Quran things that are hazardous to your health is haram....

Then why is Masturbation Haram?

It doesn't have any health risks... Infact many sex therapist prescribe this for people who has premature ejaculation. It's a medicine...

Be mature - kids and then discuss...


There is NO prohibition of masturbation in Quran. Before one can comment on a book one has to read it cover to cover.

Orpheus
December 16, 2003, 06:16 PM
There is NO prohibition of masturbation in Quran. Before one can comment on a book one has to read it cover to cover.


Actually this was a big waj in a friday prayer in the mosque where I usually go. The Imam who was talking about this is no illiterate fool! The man analyzes the Quran with many of current events and don't just give "ready-made" lectures. He is a scholar. I believe he read the Quran cover to cover :p

You are the only God-fearing person to say that Masturbation is not a sin..... interesting!

[Edited on 16-12-2003 by Orpheus]

Nasif
December 16, 2003, 06:26 PM
I have met my share of "bearded" fools. Parroting cover to cover does not mean reading it.

Here is the link to comprehensive Quran database online with Arabic, english transliteration and 4 english translation. Search your word here and you will see if its in Quran.

http://yaqb.lrhazi.com/

Judge yourself. Don't rely on bearded fools to convery true Islam to you.

Zobair
December 17, 2003, 11:16 AM
I think i read something about it on bbc too a few days ago...though I can't find the link anymore...it was about AIDS I think....some free condom distribution stuff...i remember this Egyptian scholar being dead against free condoms because extramarital sex is not allowed in Islam and he thought free condoms will encourage that but he said if a young man feels the urge A LOT to masturbate! So I am guess the opinion is divided.

chinaman
December 17, 2003, 11:39 AM
23:5-7
"And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts). Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, - for them, they are free from blame. But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors."

24:33
"And let those who find not the financial means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah enriches them of His bounty."

Read More (http://islamicweb.com/resources/masturbation.htm)

chinaman
December 17, 2003, 11:52 AM
About 23:5-7:
To guard one's private parts (arabic: hifz i furuj) means to guard them from fornication and adultery. The words of the verse itself suggest it. When it is said that Muslims do not satisfy their sexual desires except from their wives and their slave women (which were present at the advent of Islam and which gradually Islam eradicated), it means that they go to no third woman except these two.


It must be appreciated that there are many things in Islam which are neither haram nor desirable, but which are bad acts and should generally be avoided unless ofcourse one is unable to do so. For example if somone abuses his brother, or gets angry with his servants, or is mean to the poor, then of course no one can call these acts as haram; although everyone will call them as bad things/habits. Masturbation is a similar thing. It is no doubt a bad habit, but when it is able to save a person from a greater evil, it becomes an unavoidable lesser evil. Needless to say that it should only be resorted to if a person is not able to control his carnal desires through measures suggested in the article above including fasting etc.


Masturbation is merely an exhaustive self abuse rather than constructive undertaking, resulting in nothing but total loss. Once orgasm has been achieved there is Nothing else left, except for a feeling of complete emptiness.

Zobair
December 17, 2003, 12:54 PM
well put chinaman bhai! very well put! I was struggling for the same words...but you sire put very eloquently. Mashallah!

[Edited on 17-12-2003 by pompous]

Nasif
December 30, 2003, 02:06 AM
Agreed china bhai. I was stating the fact for Orph that Quran does not mention it. Thus, leaves it our concious to decide.

If there is any medical benefit for a person then there is no prohibition on Quranic basis. I thought Orph wanted to know if Quran prohibits it or not.

Mridul
January 18, 2004, 03:31 AM
Quran itself is a miracle.

Hasib
January 30, 2004, 03:49 AM
check this out...

http://www.beconvinced.com/SCIENCEINDEX.htm#SCIENCE%20IN%20THE

adnan
February 21, 2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by ehsan

Quran claims to be the book without error.


Ofcourse, no doubt in that. Scientists (including non-muslims) are now researching on Quran to find out many uncovered facts, one of them I believed is the milky way.

Quran said that the earth revolves round the sun and that is stated from a Book which was revealed 1400 years ago.

Dear Ehsan bhai,

Would you please kindly inform me the verse where it is written that the earth is revolving round the sun?

Nasif
February 22, 2004, 05:47 AM
Only verse that points to moving earth is 27:88

Literal:
And you see the mountains (that) you think/suppose it (is) hard/solid (motionless), and it passes the clouds' passage , God's making/performing , who perfected every thing, that He truly is expert/experienced with (about) what you make/do.

Translation:
When you look at the mountains, you think that they are standing still. But they are moving, like the clouds. Such is the manufacture of GOD, who perfected everything. He is fully Cognizant of everything you do.


Here are verses that deal with sun and moon orbits:

13:2
Literal:
God (is) who raised the skies/space without pillars/posts/columns (that) you see/understand it, then He aimed to/tended to/sat on on the throne , and He manipulated/subjugated the sun and the moon each passes/orbits to a named/identified (specified) term/time, He plans/regulates the order/command/matter/affair, He details/explains/clarifies the verses/evidences , maybe/perhaps you, with meeting your Lord, you be sure/certain.

Translation:
GOD is the One who raised the heavens without pillars that you can see, then assumed all authority. He committed the sun and the moon, each running (in its orbit) for a predetermined period. He controls all things, and explains the revelations, that you may attain certainty about meeting your Lord.

21:33
Literal:
And He is who created the night and the daytime, and the sun and the moon, every/all in (an) orbit/circuit floating.

Translation:
And He is the One who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon; each floating in its own orbit.

Other verses about sun, moon orbits are: 31:29, 36:40.

Here is a nice article about Sun and Moon and thier motion in Quran.


THE SUN & MOON AND THEIR ORBITS
Today we know that the Moon revolves around the earth in approximately 29.5 days. The sun also revolves in its own orbit. To understand the sun's orbit, Dr. Bucaille says that the position of the sun in our galaxy must be considered, and we must therefore call on modern scientific ideas (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 162).

Our galaxy, the milky way galaxy, includes one hundred billion stars situated in such a formation that the galaxy is shaped like a disc. This disc turns around its center like a gramophone record. Now, it is obvious that when a gramophone record turns, any point on the disc would move around and come back to its original position. Similarly, every star in the galaxy moves as the galaxy rotates on its axis. Therefore the stars that are away from the center of the galaxy orbit around the axis. The sun is one of those stars. Dr. Bucaille explains that modern science has worked out the details of the sun's orbit as follows: "To complete one revolution on its own axis, the galaxy and the sun take roughly 250 million years. The sun travels roughly 150 miles per second in the completion of this" (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 162).

After describing this, Dr. Bucaille comments: "The above is the orbital movement of the sun that was already referred to in the Qur'an fourteen centuries ago." (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 162). And yet this is a new finding. As Dr. Bucaille says, the knowledge of the sun's orbit is an acquisition of modern astronomy (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 162).
Two verses in the Qur'an refer to the orbits of the sun and moon. After mentioning the sun and the moon, God says: "Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion" (Qur'an 21:33; 36:40). How did the author of the Qur'an know of this?
Even after the Qur'an was revealed, early commentators could not conceive of the orbits of the sun and moon. The tenth century commentator Tabari could not explain this so he said, "It is our duty to keep silent when we do not know" (XVII, 15 quoted in The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 161).

Dr. Bucaille comments: "This shows just how incapable men were of understanding this concept of the sun's and moon's orbit." (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 161). From this it is clear that if the Qur'an was here expressing an idea already known to the people, the commentators would have easily understood it. But this, as Dr. Bucaille explains was "a new concept that was not to be explained until centuries later" (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 161). This confirms what God said to his prophet, on whom be peace: "This is of the tidings of the Unseen which we inspire in you (Muhammad). Neither you nor your people knew it before this" (Qur'an 11:49).



THE SUN & MOON MOVE WITH THEIR OWN MOTION
The Qur'an makes the following statement about the sun and the moon: "Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion" (Qur'an 21:33; 36:40).

Why did the Qur'an say that the sun and moon move with their own motion? And, if that is true, where did the author of the Qur'an get this information? The fact is that the sun and moon rotate on their axes and are in part animated by this rotating motion. The phrase "travelling with its own motion" in the verses quoted above is a translation of the Arabic verb 'yasbahoon'. This could also be translated 'they swim.' In that case, the verse would read that the sun and the moon, "Each swim in its own orbit." Those who translate the verse this way explain that the term swim refers to movement with one's own internally generated force. Furthermore the movement of a swimmer is graceful, measured, and smooth. This is a very fitting description for the movement of the stars and planets including the sun and the moon.

After describing the scientific data concerning the rotation of the sun and the moon, Dr. Bucaille says: "These motions of the two celestial bodies are confirmed by the data of modern science, and it is inconceivable that a man living in the seventh century A.D.... could have imagined them" (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p. 163). It is also amazing that the Qur'an uses a different term for the movement of the clouds and the mountains (see Qur'an 27:88). Obviously, the clouds and mountains are driven by external forces. The cloud is driven by the wind and the mountains move with the rotation of the earth. The sun and moon, however, move with their own motion, and therefore the Qur'an uses a peculiar term "they swim" to refer to their smooth, graceful, self-propelled movement.
How did the author of the Qur'an know enough to make this choice of words that will reflect a modern scientific truth? The Qur'an is no less than a revelation from God. sura 36, verse 40: "The sun must not catch up the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion."

Here an essential fact is clearly stated: the existence of the Sun's and Moon's orbits, plus a reference is made to the traveling of these bodies in space with their own motion. A negative fact also emerges from a reading of these verses: it is shown that the Sun moves in an orbit, but no indication is given as to what this orbit might be in relation to the Earth. At the time of the Qur'anic Revelation, it was thought that the Sun moved while the Earth stood still. This was the system of geocentrism that had held away since the time of Ptolemy, Second century B.C., and was to continue to do so until Copernicus in the Sixteenth century A.D. Although people supported this concept at the time of Muhammad, it does not appear anywhere in the Qur'an, either here or elsewhere.

1. The Moon's Orbit.

Today, the concept is widely spread that the Moon is a satellite of the Earth around which it revolves in periods of twenty-nine days. A correction must however be made to the absolutely circular form of its orbit, since modern astronomy ascribes a certain eccentricity to this, so that the distance between the Earth and the Moon (240,000 miles) is only the average distance.

We have seen above how the Qur'an underlined the usefulness of observing the Moon's movements in calculating time (sura 10, verse 5, quoted at the beginning of this chapter.) This system has often been criticized for being archaic, impractical and unscientific in comparison to our system based on the Earth's rotation around the Sun, expressed today in the Julian calendar. This criticism calls for the following two remarks:

a) Nearly fourteen centuries ago, the Qur'an was directed at the inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula who were used to the lunar calculation of time. It was advisable to address them in the only language they could understand and not to upset the habits they had of locating spatial and temporal reference-marks which were nevertheless quite efficient. It is known how well-versed men living in the desert are in the observation of the sky; they navigated according to the stars and told the time according to the phases of the Moon. Those were the simplest and most reliable means available to them.

b) Apart from the specialists in this, most people are unaware of the perfect correlation between the Julian and the lunar calendar: 235 lunar months correspond exactly to 19 Julian years of 365.25 days. Then length of our year of 365 days is not perfect because it has to be rectified every four years (with a leap year): With the lunar calendar, the same phenomena occur every 19 years (Julian). This is the Metonic cycle, named after the Greek astronomer Meton, who discovered this exact correlation between solar and lunar time in the Fifth century B.C.

2. The Sun.

It is more difficult to conceive of the Sun's orbit because we are so used to seeing our solar system organized around it. To understand the verse from the Qur'an, the position of the Sun in our galaxy must be considered. and we must therefore call on modern scientific ideas. Our galaxy includes a very large number of stars spaced so as to form a disc that is denser at the centre than at the rim. The Sun occupies a position in it which is far removed from the centre of the disc. The galaxy revolves on its own axis which is its centre with the result that the Sun revolves around the same centre in a circular orbit. Modern astronomy has worked out the details of this. In 1917, Shapely estimated the distance between the Sun and the centre of our galaxy at 10 kiloparsecs i.e., in miles, circa the figure 2 followed by 17 zeros. To complete one revolution on its own axis, the galaxy and Sun take roughly 250 million years. The Sun travels at roughly 150 miles per second in the completion of this. The above is the orbital movement of the Sun that was already referred to by the Qur'an fourteen centuries ago. The demonstration of the existence and details of this is one of the achievements of modern astronomy.

--The Moon completes its rotating motion on its own axis at the same time as it revolves around the Earth, i.e. 29.5 days (approx.), so that it always has the same side facing us. --The Sun takes roughly 25 days to revolve on its own axis.

There are certain differences in its rotation at its equator and poles, (we shall not go into them here) but as a whole, the Sun is animated by a rotating motion. It appears therefore that a verbal nuance in the Qur'an refers to the Sun and Moon's own motion. These motions of the two celestial bodies are confirmed by the data of modern science, and it is inconceivable that a man living in the Seventh century A.D.--however knowledgeable he might have been in his day (and this was certainly not true in Muhammad's case)--could have imagined them. This view is sometimes contested by examples from great thinkers of antiquity who indisputably predicted certain data that modern science has verified. They could hardly have relied on scientific deduction however; their method of procedure was more one of philosophical reasoning. Thus the case of the Pythagoreans is often advanced. In the Sixth century B.C., they defended the theory of the rotation of the Earth on its own axis and the movement of the planets around the Sun. This theory was to be confirmed by modern science.

By comparing it with the case of the Pythagoreans, it easy to put forward the hypothesis of Muhammad as being a brilliant thinker, who was supposed to have imagined all on his on his own what modern science was to discover centuries later. In so doing however, people quite simply forget to mention the other aspect of what these geniuses of philosophical reasoning produced, i.e. the colossal blunders that litter their work. it must be remembered for example, that the Pythagoreans also defended the theory whereby the Sun was fixed in space; they made it the centre of the world and only conceived of a celestial order that was centered on it. It is quite common in the works of the great philosophers of antiquity to find a mixture of valid and invalid ideas about the Universe. The brilliance of these human works comes from the advanced ideas they contain, but they should not make us over look the mistaken concepts which have also been left to us. From a strictly scientific point of view, this is what distinguished them from the Qur'an. In the latter, many subjects are referred to that have a bearing on modern knowledge without one of them containing a statement that contradicts what has been established by present-day science.

adnan
February 22, 2004, 07:26 AM
nasif,

Thanks for ur reply.

I think you missed my point. I didnt ask for expert explanation about any verse.

Please show me one single verse where it is told that the earth is revolving around the sun .

Also if you may know, is there any verse provided the information that the Earth is round?

[Edited on 2/22/2004 by adnan]

chinaman
February 22, 2004, 08:09 AM
Would you please kindly inform me the verse where it is written that the earth is revolving round the sun?

Please show me one single verse where it is told that the earth is revolving around the sun.


Just like Avijit asks. There is none.

Nasif
February 22, 2004, 08:39 AM
I thought I answered your query. There is no verse that says earth is revolving around sun, and neither is there a verse that says sun is revolving around earth.

Earth shape being round...

79:30
Waal-arda baAAda thalika dahaha
He made the earth egg-shaped.

Dahaha = The Arabic word "dahaha'' is derived from "Dahhyah" which means egg.

Other reference to earth being round:
39:5
Khalaqa alssamawati waal-arda bialhaqqi yukawwiru allayla AAala alnnahari wayukawwiru alnnahara AAala allayli wasakhkhara alshshamsa waalqamara kullun yajree li-ajalin musamman ala huwa alAAazeezu alghaffaru
He created the heavens and the earth truthfully. He rolls the night over the day, and rolls the day over the night. He committed the sun and the moon, each running for a finite period. Absolutely, He is the Almighty, the Forgiving.

Yukawwir = is Arabic for "He rolls'' and it is derived from the Arabic word Kurah, which means "ball''.

In any event, people since 200BC knew the shape of the earth. Its nothing extraordinary revelation. http://users.zoominternet.net/~matto/M.C.A.S/notes_size_shape.htm

I find expansion of universe and big bang much intriguing...

51:47
Waalssamaa banaynaha bi-aydin wa-inna lamoosiAAoona
We constructed the sky with power, and we will continue to expand it.

BigBang?
21:30
Do the unbelievers not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?

adnan
February 23, 2004, 01:57 AM
So, there is no verse exactly saying that the Earth is round nor the revolution of Earth around the Sun.

next topic:
Do you realy think the Big bang and expansion of Universe is clear from those verses ?



[Edited on 2/23/2004 by adnan]

Orpheus
February 23, 2004, 04:36 AM
Ofcourse he does! You should read the thread before asking these questions...

Do your own research and formulate your own theory!

Here is something to think about:

Quran did not explicitly mention every science facts and there is a good reason for that...

Quran wasn't written only for 21st century... it was written for MEN regardless of time. Suppose it explicitly stated that Earth revolves around the sun.. Then Quran would be false to men in the era when people belived Earth was flat....Thus Quran may seem ambiguous but there is no doubt that it hints to a lot of scientific discoveries. And that's a lot......Understood?

We will understand Quran even more in depth once men's knowledge of the world grows.

Peace and don't ask question that have already been discussed. READ first and then ASK.... or even give your expert opinion...

Arnab
February 23, 2004, 09:00 AM
Suppose it explicitly stated that Earth revolves around the sun.. Then Quran would be false to men in the era when people belived Earth was flat....

Holy...! That is the wackiest self-psycho-brainwashing I have seen in a while.

If the Quran is really the purveyor of absolute truth, what should be Quran's priority: to boldly promote the truth or to conform to what the 6th century Arab thinks as true? Why would Allah care whether what he says seems false to some puny Arabs in 6th century A.D.?

Orpheus, please, stop self-mutilating your brain cells. It's painful to watch.

chinaman
February 23, 2004, 09:08 AM
That was a poor reasoning.

Arnab
February 23, 2004, 09:11 AM
Why?

chinaman
February 23, 2004, 09:14 AM
I meant that was a poor reasoning from Orpheus.

adnan
February 23, 2004, 10:29 AM
Do your own research and formulate your own theory!



Peace and don't ask question that have already been discussed. READ first and then ASK.... or even give your expert opinion...


It must be understood that a very simple and average rated human being like me neither may be able to explain about the Holy Quran, nor I would ever try to explain it.

Do I have the right to ask question as a muslim or as a human being?

The education of a child begins with asking stupid questions; and although I am trying to understand Quran for almost 11 years now, I am still a child to find its Scientific value.

Please consider my effort to understand Quran, I read it completely twice in Arabic, twice in Bangla, and at least three times from different translation available on the web; excluding the numerous number ot times I went through it for references.

The reasoning is obvious. The book is an important one for me and for my own sake, I need to reveal the truth.

The questions that I asked are again here. Only anyone, who really knows about the holy Quran may enlighten me. Please consider that a bad way of discussion may also be disrespectful to it (the holy quran).

1. Does Quran depict the fact about Origin of Life or origin the of Universe or Expanding or fate of the Universe or Big Bang?
2.If yes, if those facts have been discovered only after the invention by the scientists or the scientists knew them before from the Holy Quran and only justified them ?

[Edited on 2/23/2004 by adnan]

chinaman
February 24, 2004, 02:03 AM
Please consider my effort to understand Quran, I read it completely twice in Arabic, twice in Bangla, and at least three times from different translation available on the web; excluding the numerous number ot times I went through it for references.


Your effort is praise worthy. Did you find anything noteworthy?

Orpheus
February 24, 2004, 06:42 AM
adnan bhai.. ami boli ki aar apni bujen ki? Ei thread e (along with some others in forget cricket), we have already discussed the issues that you are raising!

Repetition is boring! so please share your thought regarding Big Bang, Big Crunch ittadi ittadi... knowledgeable viewpoints are always welcome!

and LOL on the replies to my Quran comment :)

Mridul
February 24, 2004, 07:39 AM
Do I have the right to ask question as a muslim or as a human being?



Yes Adnan bhai...u have the right to ask questions. Check out these videos (http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1267). Start it from introduction. It might enlighten ur knowledge. May God bless you. :)

adnan
February 24, 2004, 12:32 PM
Dear Mridul,
Thank you for the link.

I watched the videos a few weeks ago as I remember and I must say they are very good as animation movies. But I didnt find any *decisive* claim. Also I wrote an email to Mr. Harun to justify his claims, but he never answered. May be its also because he didnt have time or whatever.

To compare such kind of claims, I may offer you to visit some christian or hindu web sites where you will find many such close verses where they try to prove that the Bible/GIta/whatever stated Scientific theories many hundred years ago.

Once again, the easy way to justify such claims is to answer the following question:

If these Scientific facts (or even a single of them!!!) have been discovered only after the invention by the scientists?

or

the scientists knew them before by reading them from the Holy Quran/Bible/whatever and only justified them later?




[Edited on 2/24/2004 by adnan]

Mridul
February 24, 2004, 01:35 PM
...as far as my understanding...and knowledge uptil now...i dont know the answers of ur questions..

... Quran is the word of God....it is what I believe as a Muslim....i dont need any scienctific evidences/miralce in the Quran to believe it....if someone tries to read and understand the meaning of Quran...then he/she will come to know...its not just a ordinary book...its a book from God....

....when God sent Torah and Bible through Prophet Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them)....HE also gave them some superficial power...people observed their miracles and they believed them....however Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)...did not get any superficial power from God....when people asked Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) to show them miracles.....He said that Quran is the miracle....if u recite Quran in Arabic...u will find rythms in the verses.....its the beauty of It....Quran was not written by Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him)...cuz He was illitearte...He did not know how to write or read....

...we human created computers..setalite.....but who created us?...there is a CREATOR who created everything in the universe....and Torah...Bible...Quran...are all from God.....among them Quran is the last revelation of God...

Orpheus
February 24, 2004, 03:10 PM
....if u recite Quran in Arabic...u will find rythms in the verses.....

Yes this is one of the beauty. Shakespearer 14 line sonnet pore Manush pagol hoi.... Eita naki unbelievable...God given... faggot likhe nai. But when it comes to Quran... Muhammad wrote it... that's silly!

And adnan man.. giving it in bold do not make your question any more intelligent. Like I said, all these subjects have been discussed on this thread if I remember correctly. And I don't know why you repeating that 12-years old type kid question over and over again.....
(sorry but I would have tried to give you a better response if I was home)

You did not find a single "decisive" claim. Did you find a single "decisive" contradiction with modern knowledge? Please share with us and hopefully it's not a translation from one of your college buddies. Dr. Maurice Bucaille's didn't find any contradiction. And he wasn't even Muslim, so no agenda either. Totallly neutral perspective!

adnan
February 24, 2004, 03:18 PM
Dear Mridul,
One very important thing you mentioned that Quran need not to be scientific, it actually deprives Quran's pride because even a child can imagine that all those claimed Scientific facts have only been stated after their invention.

Quran/Bible/whatever are not a Scientific book.

Before I try to reveal some mathematical informations about the Quran (you may know I like math in anything :) ), I have another question based on your conclusion about creation.

You assumed that there must be a GOD, otherwise we cant find a reason or cause who/which creates us, the question is

Who creates the GOD?

Orpheus, you are trying to attack me personally I think with your words. If possible answer my questions to the point please or just ignore my posts.

Repetition of question comes when they are not understood.

For your kind information, I feel to use bold again.

Dr. Bucaili did not accept muslim religion even though he discovered so many miracles of Quran.







[Edited on 2/24/2004 by adnan]

Orpheus
February 24, 2004, 03:28 PM
He does not need to accept Islam in order for his reasoning to be valid. Should I bold it?

Nasif
February 24, 2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by adnan
Who creates the GOD?
[Edited on 2/24/2004 by adnan]

Adnan, your aren't the first person to ask this question. This is a very common question in all sort of religious debate. One of the prime arguments that the atheist use (not that I am saying you are atheist).

I am short on time now, I will try to answer it as short as possible:

1. Human Existence:
How do you know you exist at all? Is it because you can see/smell/touch/hear/taste the world around you? The fact is we can never be 100% sure of our existence. We exist/or not exist in a void of nothingness. The world around us is a result of our senses. We can never validate the existence of any matter in this world. Because there is no 3rd party viewer, neither can you come out of your shell and be above of your senses. You are nothing but the slave of your senses. Please consider the "Matrix" situation

2. Does matter exist?
Existence of matter is also driven by our senses. Because we can see a table and touch it, doesn't mean it exists. You can see and touch a table in your dream but that table doesn't exist. Just because you are awake now and you are using your "real" senses (not the dream senses) doesn't give any validity to the claim that the table exist. Matter's existence is as much an illusion as your dream is.

3. Where is the space and time?
The notion of space and time is also an illusion, guided by our senses and our living life. We believe everything grows old as the time passes. And the tide of time is continuous. Like matter space and time is also illusion created in our mind. Your walking around the room in 3 dimensions does not prove that space exist, because your perception of walking is driven by your senses and we already established you cannot prove the perceptions of your senses. Similarly time is an imaginary concept that relates us to this world of illusion.

4. Who is GOD?
GOD is the One Who initiates/repeats this illusion for those who are alive in this world. The purpose for this illusion as described in 3 major religion is the test. When He does not repeat the illusion of sensory perception to you, you die in this world. You become free of the sensory illusion.

5. Who created GOD?
Our knowledge and our existence is bound by the laws and rules set forth by our Creator. We cannot come out of that because then we would have to die and get out of this sensory illusion. Due to this restriction you cannot find the answer to who created GOD. You can never have required information to ask this question. In this sensory illusion only thing possible for you to do is either:
a) decide that there is GOD who initiates/repeats this world of illusion
OR
b) decide that there is no GOD and existence of matter is absolute where the world is governed by itself

Thus, it becomes a rhetorical question to ask who created GOD. There are many other similar question, eg: Can God create a stone that He cannot lift?

Thus, before you ask a question you must remember the rules that you are bound to.

Hopefully this clarified some of the issues.

Nasif

Navarene
February 24, 2004, 04:15 PM
Did any of you guys read Aroj Ali Matobbor? Or his book "Shotter Shondhaney" to be in precise. I think that reading this book would spice up the debate of Nasif's thoughts.

Nasif
February 24, 2004, 04:34 PM
Who are the writers? But really "Aroj Ali Matobbar"?

By the way, none of the above is my discovery. These have been talked about for centuries, starting with Plato, remember "Plato's cave"? Most provocative of them being Decartes Meditations. Here is a link to read some quickly
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dcarg.htm

adnan
February 24, 2004, 04:44 PM
Nav bhai,

That book was one the best rational books ever written by a non-educated person.

THe translation of his book may be read from the following link:

http://www.humanists.net/avijit/aroj_ali/quest_for_truth_1.html

Arnab
February 24, 2004, 05:32 PM
1. Human Existence:
How do you know you exist at all? Is it because you can see/smell/touch/hear/taste the world around you? The fact is we can never be 100% sure of our existence. We exist/or not exist in a void of nothingness. The world around us is a result of our senses. We can never validate the existence of any matter in this world. Because there is no 3rd party viewer, neither can you come out of your shell and be above of your senses. You are nothing but the slave of your senses. Please consider the "Matrix" situation

Here's what I think of your wonderful theory. It's the hallucination of a Matrix nerd on weed who is almost on the verge of a lobotomy.

NO, the matrix situation will NOT be considered seriously because OUR REAL LIFE IS NOT LIKE THE MATRIX.

I think that you don't really believe in that crap. There are mental patients who think like that. I don't think you are one of them.

adnan
February 24, 2004, 05:46 PM
The problem with nasif's logic is very clear.

With considering everything to be very unrealistic and doubtful, how could you say that your believed GOD is the real one? Or, how could you even realize GOD within your boundary?

You cant ask GOD's existance cause you are bounded but How do find him? Why god gives the ability to find him but not to prove his existance ?

When its existance of matter, you throw out the idea of "matrix" but when its about GOD, how could you be so sure?
Actually your claim goes reversely back to you. Your claim proves that the believe GOD which you can see/smell/hear/read can only be an illusion.



Because everything is illusion according to you, it makes no sense to discuss any rational debate with you.



[Edited on 2/25/2004 by adnan]

Nasif
February 24, 2004, 05:46 PM
LOL, I knew that was coming.

As I have stated before, none of the above was my discovery. Just stating what others have been saying since dawn of time.

In any event, I do truely believe in that "crap" 100%. It is a choice that I have made some years ago.

That doesn't mean apathy has crept into me. On the contrary, winning the illusion is everything but apathy.

Nasif
February 24, 2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by adnan
Why god gives the ability to find him but not to prove his existance ?

Why do you believe in Islam? Not hindu or christian?

All illusion?

Because everything is illusion according to you, it makes no sense to discuss any rational debate with you.

Aparently, you haven't clicked on the Decartes' link that I provied and neither did you delve into the matter in depth. You keep on asking the rhetoric question over and over again. That doesn't strengthen your point. You asked one question before about God's own creation and I answered it. Now you are asking how God gives the ability to us to find him, and why do I believe in Islam. Just circular question.

I fail to see what has me believing in Islam got anything to do with this discussion. In any event I will let you know why I believe in Islam in due time.