Islam

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#41
ParkBoyz said:
^^LOL. Your witty sarcasm is refreshing.. I'd say he provided a good case at most...
Not really. You could have the same shit - take with the ancient Mayans or whomever or the Torah, and point to some things that were accurately observed and then say, "well, the chances or probability of these people randomly being correct on all 50 of these things all of those years ago is so tiny, that it must mean their religion is correct, therefore god exits." It's silly.

Plus, as I mentioned years ago, the so called science in the koran is so vague that it's impossible for it not to be correct. It reminds me a lot of Nostradamus predictions - they are so freakin vague, you can take any one of them and make complete sense out of it if you try hard enough.

Another thing, not only are the vague, most of the "science" is based on extremely simple observations, then people like the guy in the video will make it seem so complex and scientific.

For example:

"Do you not see that Allah drives along the clouds, then gathers them together, then piles them up, so that you see the rain coming forth from their midst? And He sends down of the clouds that are (like) mountains wherein is hail, afflicting therewith whom He pleases and turning it away from whom He pleases; the flash of His lightning almost takes away the sight.[Koran 24:43]​

All the Koran did was provide a simple observation of storm clouds forming and what can happen when they form. Of course, it also assumes Allah is the force behind the formation! So revolutionary! Ask any meteorologist why these things occur and I'm pretty sure they're not going to say Allah pushes them together!

And then you have stuff like:

Then he turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke (dukhaan): He said to it and to the earth: come you together, willingly or unwillingly. They said: we do come (together) in willing obedience. (koran 41:11).​

Wow, so scientific! This just explained the formation of earth, or a planet, or a star or the universe or whatever.

On top of all this, the most important part is that one must assume that the Koran is full of correct science in order for the guy in the video's argument to be valid, but it simply is not. It has inconsistencies, contradictions, and frankly unscientific information in it, just as any other holy book. Like sections saying the earth is flat and spread out like a carpet, or saying that the Earth came before the "heavens" (universe).

If anyone is interested in reading more about incorrect science in the Koran, check out this forum, where people obviously spent an insane amount of time and research doing so.
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#43
2-0-Sixx said:
Not really. You could have the same shit - take with the ancient Mayans or whomever or the Torah, and point to some things that were accurately observed and then say, "well, the chances or probability of these people randomly being correct on all 50 of these things all of those years ago is so tiny, that it must mean their religion is correct, therefore god exits." It's silly.
The Torah has been exposed for so many inconsistencies, it isn't even a fair comparison. The Torah merely consists of the 5 books of Moses, there were no startling scientific revelations found within the texts.. In order for your Maya comparison to hold, you'd have to give examples and not generalize because besides the precise calender and supreme architecture, I'm not aware of any modern scientific revelations (that are even claimed) from the Maya. When you have no means of attaining certain data, probability indeed comes into play since you can't explain how they knew what was disclosed within the text. They claim that it was from God, how can you refute this?



Plus, as I mentioned years ago, the so called science in the koran is so vague that it's impossible for it not to be correct. It reminds me a lot of Nostradamus predictions - they are so freakin vague, you can take any one of them and make complete sense out of it if you try hard enough.
Not true since those who literally understand the noble verses (not trying to poison the well at all) in its Arabic form, translate it the same way, and there is nothing vague if you're to take it literally. For instance, the Koran describes the primordial state of the universe (big bang) which ultimately led to the creation of life:

Do those who are disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were sewn together and then We unstitched them and that We made from water every living thing? So will they not have faith? - (Surat al-Anbiya': 30)


^You cannot tell me that this isn't scientifically accurate, yet stated in layman terms, c'mon now..

Another thing, not only are the vague, most of the "science" is based on extremely simple observations, then people like the guy in the video will make it seem so complex and scientific.
^Cosmology is not based on simple observation and neither is biology..

For example:

"Do you not see that Allah drives along the clouds, then gathers them together, then piles them up, so that you see the rain coming forth from their midst? And He sends down of the clouds that are (like) mountains wherein is hail, afflicting therewith whom He pleases and turning it away from whom He pleases; the flash of His lightning almost takes away the sight.[Koran 24:43]​

All the Koran did was provide a simple observation of storm clouds forming and what can happen when they form. Of course, it also assumes Allah is the force behind the formation! So revolutionary! Ask any meteorologist why these things occur and I'm pretty sure they're not going to say Allah pushes them together!
^But the point is that you do not deny its accuracy and you've cited conveniently one of the most least relied upon examples.. Here's the Quran describing part of the water cycle:

“Have you not seen that Allah sent rain down from the sky and caused it to penetrate the ground and come forth as springs, then He caused crops of different colors to grow...” Qur’an,39:21

Commentary from Dr. Maurice Bucaille
Such notions seem quite natural to us today, but we should not forget that, not so long ago, they were not prevalent. It was not until the sixteenth century, with Bernard Palissy, that we gained the first coherent description of the water cycle. Prior to this, people believed that the waters of the oceans, under the effect of winds, were thrust towards the interior of the continents. They then returned to the oceans via the great abyss, which, since Plato’s time was called the Tartarus .In the seventeenth century, great thinkers such as Descartes still believed in this myth. Even in the nineteenth century there were still those who believed in Aristotle’s theory that water was condensed in cool mountain caverns and formed underground lakes that fed springs. Today, we know that it is the infiltration of rain water into the ground that is responsible for this. If one compares the facts of modern hydrology with the data found in numerous verses of the Qur’an on this subject, one cannot fail to notice the remarkable degree of agreement between the two.
And then you have stuff like:

Then he turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke (dukhaan): He said to it and to the earth: come you together, willingly or unwillingly. They said: we do come (together) in willing obedience. (koran 41:11).​

Wow, so scientific! This just explained the formation of earth, or a planet, or a star or the universe or whatever.
^You've merely quoted a random verse in the Koran that describes an observation. The fact that it isn't compelling isn't an argument against divine revelation, that is logically absurd to say the least. Again, here are more elaborate quotes describing stages in embryology:

We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then from a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed ... and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes. - Sura 22:5

and:

(God) placed him as (a drop of) sperm (nutfah) in a place of rest, firmly fixed; then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqa); then out of that clot We made a (foetus) lump (mudghah), then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature. - Sura 23:13-14

^I guess the prophet just guessed all of this by random chance, eh?:cool:

On top of all this, the most important part is that one must assume that the Koran is full of correct science in order for the guy in the video's argument to be valid, but it simply is not. It has inconsistencies, contradictions, and frankly unscientific information in it, just as any other holy book. Like sections saying the earth is flat and spread out like a carpet, or saying that the Earth came before the "heavens" (universe).
Assumptions are based on lack of contrary evidence, which you have not provided. You have not pointed out one error so your critique is essentially baseless. Can you please quote where the Quran makes such a claim? This is contrary to what is actually stated, where do you get "the earth is flat like a carpet"? Ironically you so readily quote the accuracies contained within, but cannot bring yourself to support your negative claims. From my knowledge, the Koran states that the earth is egg shaped. You've taken the quote out of context.. This is what is stated:

And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out). That ye may go about therein, in spacious roads. - Sura 71:19-20


^This is in reference to earth's surface, not its shape. Carpets can spead and fold, it doesn't have to conform to a straight lay out, but can wrap around. The shape of the earth is described as thus:

And we have made the earth egg shaped - Sura 79:30

As far as the heavens being created before the earth, I've killed two birds in one stone and have addressed this already in the quote where it mentions that the heavens and earth were joined together and then dispersed.. There was no one before the other if we're to be technical..

If anyone is interested in reading more about incorrect science in the Koran, check out this forum, where people obviously spent an insane amount of time and research doing so.
OMG, did you actually reference this renowned hate site filled with cowards and selective propaganda? Hahaha.. Ali Sina contributed a long ass rebuttal to Dr. Naik on that site and when Dr. Naik accepted his challenge to a debate, asking him to debate him one on one before an audience, he came up with so many gay excuses, it's ridiculous. Shit about people threatening his life, wanting a written debate, and a whole bunch of bullshit, all of this has been addressed and debunked. They consider all Islamics to be terrorists and hijackers and the fact that you so readily rely on them for information speaks volumes about you, or at least shows that you're a bit naive and willing to accept anything convenient without doing your own research.


I will post this again for those who missed it the first time and I'd like to see someone refute it. Dr. Campbell made himself look like a fool at the end of the debate, lol..

Qur'an and bible in the Light of Science 1 of 4

Qur'an and bible in the Light of Science 2 of 4

Qur'an and bible in the Light of Science 3 of 4

Qur'an and bible in the Light of Science 4 of 4


Suggested reading: THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE by Dr. Maurice Bucaille, Edited by Dr. A. A. B. Philips
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#44
We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then from a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed ... and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes. - Sura 22:5

and:

(God) placed him as (a drop of) sperm (nutfah) in a place of rest, firmly fixed; then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqa); then out of that clot We made a (foetus) lump (mudghah), then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature. - Sura 23:13-14
So this is scientific and accurate according to you????

No wonder you believe in fairy tales...
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#45
“Have you not seen that Allah sent rain down from the sky and caused it to penetrate the ground and come forth as springs, then He caused crops of different colors to grow...” Qur’an,39:21
Commentary from Dr. Maurice Bucaille

Such notions seem quite natural to us today, but we should not forget that, not so long ago, they were not prevalent. It was not until the sixteenth century, with Bernard Palissy, that we gained the first coherent description of the water cycle. Prior to this, people believed that the waters of the oceans, under the effect of winds, were thrust towards the interior of the continents. They then returned to the oceans via the great abyss, which, since Plato’s time was called the Tartarus .In the seventeenth century, great thinkers such as Descartes still believed in this myth. Even in the nineteenth century there were still those who believed in Aristotle’s theory that water was condensed in cool mountain caverns and formed underground lakes that fed springs. Today, we know that it is the infiltration of rain water into the ground that is responsible for this. If one compares the facts of modern hydrology with the data found in numerous verses of the Qur’an on this subject, one cannot fail to notice the remarkable degree of agreement between the two.
I do not see any reference to a water cycle in the quote from the Qur'an provided. It is obvious that when there is no rain crops don't grow and it is more than certain that people have noticed this very long for the simple reason they had to starve during droughts

All the quote says is that rain is needed fro crops to grow, there is nothing about the water cycle...

If anything, it says that Allah sends the rain down from the sky which is exactly the opposite to the scientific truth - there is no Allah who sends rain from the sky, it is the natural processes of evaporation and condensation that do it

Stop making things up
 
Aug 26, 2002
14,639
826
0
43
WWW.YABITCHDONEME.COM
#46
That video of dude trying to make an Atheist believe in God in comedy...

1 upon 2...
1 upon 6...


1 upon 72...

isnt it Ironic that everytime a Theist goes out to try and discuss/prove God, they say something to the effect of "Imagine this......" or "imagine that...."...similar to this guy in the video when he is talking about a flying object....


no my friend that is the problem, you are using imagination as base of your arguement, not facts.

5000
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#47
Why hasn't anyone refuted anything tho? That was a red herring G, I specifically stated that it describes part of the water cycle and added commentary from an Islamic scholar. This is elaborated on in the book/suggested reading I posted above, not to mention numerous other sources, and that was merely a bare boned example. The fact that it states that God is responsible is immaterial since God is said to have been responsible for everything (the existence of God cannot be refuted or physically proven). The point is that they are not in disagreement with scientific observations of the material world.. Also, you have not addressed why the stages in embryology are inaccurate as is stated in the Qu'ran, maybe you're just being spiteful since you have no answers as usual.. Those particular verses are elaborated on in the videos I've posted and Dr. Campbell could not refute it. Naik cited a Medical Dr. in India who converted to Islam based on that sura alone! We can't depend on you for interpretation, especially when you haven't said anything..


JLMACN, you have provided nothing of value as well and obviously didn't understand the analogy.. It wasn't "based on imagination", this is a ridiculous comment, and actually quite ignorant. That was an argument by way of Paley's watchmaker (look up William Paley).. His point was that either these people were geniuses or guessed by random chance, and if it is random then probability must be noted. You guys can do better than that, these arguments are pathetic to say the least..
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#50
In the early 1980s, Prof. Keith Moore, formerly an anatomist at the University of Toronto, Canada produced a special edition of his embryology textbook, the standard version of which has been widely used in medical schools around the world. Apparently when he first read what the Qur'an had to say about the development of the human embryo he was "astonished by the accuracy of the statements that were recorded in the 7th century AD, before the science of embryology was established"[1]. Much has subsequently been written by Muslims in an attempt to demonstrate that the Qur'an, which is claimed to be God's ultimate revelation contains statements about how humans develop inside the womb which could not possibly have been known at the time that it was revealed to Muhammed. Indeed, a recent book confirms the extent to which this has been happening:
Embryology in the Qur'an(Link)



THE WATER CYCLE AND THE SEAS

When the verses of the Qur'an concerning the role of water in man's existence are read in succession today. they all appear to us to express ideas that are quite obvious. The reason for this is simple: in our day and age, we all, to a lesser or greater extent, know about the water cycle in nature.

If however, we consider the various concepts the ancients had on this subject, it becomes clear that the data in the Qur'an do not embody the mythical concepts current at the time of the Revelation which had been developed more according to philosophical speculation than observed phenomena. Although it was empirically possible to acquire on a modest scale, the useful practical knowledge necessary for the improvement of the irrigation, the concepts held on the water cycle in general would hardly be acceptable today.

Thus it would have been easy to imagine that underground water could have come from the infiltration of precipitations in the soil. In ancient times however, this idea, held by Vitruvius Polio Marcus in Rome, 1st century B.C., was cited as an exception. For many centuries therefore (and the Qur'anic Revelation is situated during this period) man held totally inaccurate views on the water cycle.

Two specialists on this subject, G. Gastany and B. Blavoux, in their entry in the Universalis Encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Universalis) under the heading Hydrogeology (Hydrogéologie), give an edifying history of this problem.

"In the Seventh century B.C., Thales of Miletus held the theory whereby the waters of the oceans, under the effect of winds, were thrust towards the interior of the continents; so the water fell upon the earth and penetrated into the soil. Plato shared these views and thought that the return of the waters to the oceans was via a great abyss, the 'Tartarus'. This theory had many supporters until the Eighteenth century, one of whom was Descartes. Aristotle imagined that the water vapour from the soil condensed in cool mountain caverns and formed underground lakes that fed springs. He was followed by Seneca (1st Century A.D.) and many others, until 1877, among them O. Volger . . . The first clear formulation of the water cycle must be attributed to Bernard Palissy in 1580. he claimed that underground water came from rainwater infiltrating into the soil. This theory was confirmed by E. Mariotte and P. Perrault in the Seventeenth century.

In the following passages from the Qur'an, there is no trace of the mistaken ideas that were current at the time of Muhammad:

--sura 50, verses 9 to 11:

"We[68] sent down from the sky blessed water whereby We caused to grow gardens, grains for harvest, tall palm-trees with their spathes, piled one above the other-sustenance for (Our) servants. Therewith We gave (new) life to a dead land. So will be the emergence (from the tombs)."

--sura 23, verses 18 and 19:
"We sent down water from the sky in measure and lodged it in the ground. And We certainly are able to withdraw it. Therewith for you We gave rise to gardens of palm-trees and vineyards where for you are abundant fruits and of them you eat."

--sura 15, verse 22:
"We sent forth the winds that fecundate. We cause the water to descend from the sky. We provide you with the water-you (could) not be the guardians of its reserves."

There are two possible interpretations of this last verse. The fecundating winds may be taken to be the fertilizers of plants because they carry pollen. This may, however, be a figurative expression referring by analogy to the role the wind plays in the process whereby a non-raincarrying cloud is turned into one that produces a shower of rain. This role is often referred to, as in the following verses:

--sura 35, verse 9:
"God is the One Who sends forth the winds which raised up the clouds. We drive them to a dead land. Therewith We revive the ground after its death. So will be the Resurrection."

It should be noted how the style is descriptive in the first part of the verse, then passes without transition to a declaration from God. Such sudden changes in the form of the narration are very frequent in the Qur'an.

--sura 30, verse 48:
"God is the One Who sends forth the winds which raised up the clouds. He spreads them in the sky as He wills and breaks them into fragments. Then thou seest raindrops issuing from within them. He makes them reach such of His servants as He wills. And they are rejoicing."

--sura 7, verse 57:
"(God) is the One Who sends forth the winds like heralds of His Mercy. When they have carried the heavy-laden clouds, We drive them to a dead land. Then We cause water to descend and thereby bring forth fruits of every kind. Thus We will bring forth the dead. Maybe you will remember."

--sura 25, verses 48 and 49:
"(God) is the One Who sends forth the winds like heralds of His Mercy. We cause pure water to descend in order to revive a dead land with it and to supply with drink the multitude of cattle and human beings We have created."

--sura 45, verse 5:
". . . In the provision that God sends down from the sky and thereby He revives the ground after its death and in the change (of direction) of winds, there are Signs for people who are wise."

The provision made in this last verse is in the form of the water sent down from the sky, as the context shows. The accent is on the change of the winds that modify the rain cycle.

--sure 13, verse 17:
"(God) sends water down from the sky so that the rivers flow according to their measure. The torrent bears away an increasing foam."

-sura 67, verse 30, God commands the Prophet:
"Say. Do you see if your water were to be lost in the ground, who then can supply you with gushing water?"

-sura 39, verse 21:
"Hast thou not seen that God sent water down from the sky and led it through sources into the ground? Then He caused sown fields of different colors to grow."

--sura 36, verse 34:
"Therein We placed gardens of palm-trees and vineyards and We caused water springs to gush forth."

The importance of springs and the way they are fed by rainwater conducted into them is stressed in the last three verses. It is worth pausing to examine this fact and call to mind the predominance in the Middle Ages of views such as those held by Aristotle, according to whom springs were fed by underground lakes. In his entry on Hydrology (Hydrologie) in the Universalis Encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Universalis) M.R. Remenieras, a teacher at the French National School of Agronomy (Ecole nationale du Genie rural, des Eaux et Forêts), describes the main stages of hydrology and refers to the magnificent irrigation works of the ancients, particularly in the Middle East. He notes however that an empirical outlook ruled over everything, since the ideas of the time proceeded from mistaken concepts. He continues as follows:

"It was not until the Renaissance (between circa 1400 and 1600) that purely philosophical concepts gave way to research based on the objective observation of hydrologic phenomena. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) rebelled against Aristotle's statements. Bernard Palissy, in his Wonderful discourse on the nature of waters and fountains both natural and artificial (Discours admirable de la nature des eaux et fontaines tant naturelles qu'artificielles (Paris, 1570)) gives a correct interpretation of the water cycle and especially of the way springs are fed by rainwater."

This last statement is surely exactly what is mentioned in verse 21, sura 39 describing the way rainwater is conducted into sources in the ground.

The subject of verse 43, sura 24 is rain and hail:
"Hast thou not seen that God makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them a heap. And thou seest raindrops issuing from within it. He sends down from the sky mountains of hail, He strikes therewith whom He wills and He turns it away from whom He wills. The flashing of its lightning almost snatches away the sight." The following passage requires some comment:

--sura 56, verses 68-70:
"Have you observed the water you drink? Do you bring it down from the rainclouds? Or do We? If it were Our will, We could make it salty. Then why are you not thankful?"

This reference to the fact that God could have made fresh water salty is a way of expressing divine Omnipotence. Another means of reminding us of the same Omnipotence is the challenge to man to make rain fall from the clouds. In modern times however, technology has surely made it possible to create rain artificially. Can one therefore oppose the statement in the Qur'an to man's ability to produce precipitations?

The answer is no, because it seems clear that one must take account of man's limitations in this field. M.A. Facy, an expert at the French Meteorological Office, wrote the following in the Universalis Encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Universalis) under the heading Precipitations (Precipitations): "It will never be possible to make rain fall from a cloud that does not have the suitable characteristics of a raincloud or one that has not yet reached the appropriate stage of evolution (maturity)". Man can never therefore hasten the precipitation process by technical means when the natural conditions for it are not present. If this were not the case, droughts would never occur in practice-which they obviously do. To have control over rain and fine weather still remains a dream therefore.

Man cannot willfully break the established cycle that maintains the circulation of water in nature. This cycle may be outlined as follows, according to modern ideas on hydrology.

The calories obtained from the Sun's rays cause the sea and those parts of the Earth's surface that are covered or soaked in water to evaporate. The water vapour that is given off rises into the atmosphere and, by condensation, forms into clouds. The winds then intervene and move the clouds thus formed over varying distances. The clouds can then either disperse without producing rain, or combine their mass with others to create even greater condensation, or they can fragment and produce rain at some stages in their evolution. When rain reaches the sea (70% of the Earth's surface is covered by seas), the cycle is soon repeated. When rain falls on the land, it may be absorbed by vegetation and thus aid the latter's growth; the vegetation in its turn gives off water and thus returns some water to the atmosphere. The rest, to a lesser or greater extent, infiltrates into the soil, whence it is either conducted through channels into the sea, or comes back to the Earth's surface. network through springs or resurgences.

When one compares the modern data of hydrology to what is contained in the numerous verses of the Qur'an quoted in this paragraph, one has to admit that there is a remarkable degree of agreement between them.
http://www.tempemasjid.com/maurice/18earth.htm
 
Aug 26, 2002
14,639
826
0
43
WWW.YABITCHDONEME.COM
#51
In reality we can sum up that whole video in the first 1 minute:

"I would congradulate the atheist because he is right, there is no God"


"There is no god but the one God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God" is the central proclamation of Islam.[/B] Muslims see themselves as rescuing Judaism from the cumbersome complexity of the Torah, and rescuing Christians from the Gentile (Greco-Roman) tendency to anthropomorphize God, and return believers to the simple and straight path that existed between God and Abraham.
That makes sooooo much sense. There is NO siccness but one siccness!
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#52
^^Not even worth responding to; I have no time for this type of nonsense.. You misquoted Naik and don't even understand what the concept of "one God" means, so you're obviously hopeless and can't be helped. Good luck with that..:cool:
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#60
ParkBoyz said:
Why hasn't anyone refuted anything tho? That was a red herring G, I specifically stated that it describes part of the water cycle and added commentary from an Islamic scholar. This is elaborated on in the book/suggested reading I posted above, not to mention numerous other sources, and that was merely a bare boned example. The fact that it states that God is responsible is immaterial since God is said to have been responsible for everything (the existence of God cannot be refuted or physically proven). The point is that they are not in disagreement with scientific observations of the material world.. Also, you have not addressed why the stages in embryology are inaccurate as is stated in the Qu'ran, maybe you're just being spiteful since you have no answers as usual.. Those particular verses are elaborated on in the videos I've posted and Dr. Campbell could not refute it. Naik cited a Medical Dr. in India who converted to Islam based on that sura alone! We can't depend on you for interpretation, especially when you haven't said anything..
Why don't you post the whole thing then and not just parts of it that are supposed to exist but nobody has seen them....

I am not going to read the Qur'an, that should be clear to you...