I know clearly where you stand. You don't need to worry or get confused about misinterpretation of your position. I am neither concerned nor expected your approval or agreement. All what I am asking for is an honest response (in case you choose to respond) where it is appropriate to do so Vs. some irrelevant nonsense. You already admitted lack of knowledge. Thanks for your response.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?
- Thread starter NoorNoor
- Start date
I know clearly where you stand. You don't need to worry or get confused about misinterpretation of your position. I am neither concerned nor expected your approval or agreement. All what I am asking for is an honest response (in case you choose to respond) where it is appropriate to do so Vs. some irrelevant nonsense. You already admitted lack of knowledge. Thanks for your response.
Agreed, it's a "Belief". It's neither a fact nor can be used to prove an argument.
You have to admit that many, including yourself use the word "unscientific" as synonymous to "non existent/not true".
On your end, If you think that what's outside the material is scientifically indeterminate, then you have no reason to either believe it or deny it. You should be neutral about it. On my end, I think that the limits of the empirical method, don't limit us as rational beings to venture beyond the physical limits through alternative means. That doesn't mean the physical world itself doesn't provide clues for whats beyond, but it's meaning is subject to an overall interpretation. Observations wouldn't have any meaning without logical interpretations. interpretations are "a product of intellect". It's not absolute reference for what is true.
No, you admit we don't know, yet you confirm a view. What are the basis for such confirmation? (Other than your beleif)
On the other hand, I say that scientists (including lawrence krauss the theoretical physicist famous of his multiple debates against theism) acknowledge the view that space, time and every thing physical started after the beginning point at the big bang. The beginning of the universe at a specific point requires a cause, if nothing physical existed beyond the beginning then the cause is necessarily not physical.
I am not debating with a book. I am debating with you. You provide your understanding and I provide my comments (if any). If you don't know, then just say so or ignore the question.
Refer to #726. I specifically referenced a "complex life model". regardless, any organism must be alive and able to grow/reproduce to be subject to evolution.
the life of any organism of any kind depends on essential systems. The essential systems would vary from one species to another but prior existence of these systems is required for any organism to be alive and to have that fundamental ability to grow and reproduce . If its not alive, If it can't grow/reproduce, It can't evolve.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
No, all you know is that nether "X" nor "Y" has actually been proven true, that's quite different.
No, facts/absolute existence or truth are never determined, only probabilities.
There is no evidence that would lead one to think otherwise, if you have some, please present it ... else you're just back into the argument from ignorance that you so love.
No the existence of god should be easily accomplished, your failure to do so speaks volumes.
No, the basis of the argument is that an all powerful, all knowing, all everything being should be the "elephant" in the room. When I enter the room and see no elephant ... I really don;t then have to prove that there is no elephant there.
No, once again you have failed in your attempt to camouflage horse pucky as logic and as a result your attempt to shift the burden goes down the tubes.
There you go again, I hate to say it, logical fallacy ... argument from ignorance. blah. blah. blah.
You want to shift the burden and the goalposts ... sorry ... no sale.
Actually there are numerous competing explanations.
It is unlikely there ever will be, the exact conditions are unknown and the stochastic terms will never be known. But we do know that it is possible.
No, not great mystery, it can all be summed up in two words: Natural Selection.
Again, two words: Natural Selection.
There is an ongoing argument over what came first, nutrition or reproduction. If reproduction came first, there was natural selection before life.
Nah, no creditable biologist or biochemist would agree with you.
Again, natural selection provides the required insights.
But your strawman of prior existance of all these organs ..." is horse pucky.
Anything that reproduces with any degree of inexactness at a rate larger than its niche can support evolves.
So you say, I say otherwise, let's consider the sources, eh?
False and false ... sorry.
Last edited:
No, the basis of the argument is that an all powerful, all knowing, all everything being should be the "elephant" in the room. When I enter the room and see no elephant ... I really don;t then have to prove that there is no elephant there.
No, once again you have failed in your attempt to camouflage horse pucky as logic and as a result your attempt to shift the burden goes down the tubes.
There you go again, I hate to say it, logical fallacy ... argument from ignorance. blah. blah. blah.
You want to shift the burden and the goalposts ... sorry ... no sale.
Actually there are numerous competing explanations.
It is unlikely there ever will be, the exact conditions are unknown and the stochastic terms will never be known. But we do know that it is possible.
No, not great mystery, it can all be summed up in two words: Natural Selection.
Again, two words: Natural Selection.
There is an ongoing argument over what came first, nutrition or reproduction. If reproduction came first, there was natural selection before life.
Nah, no creditable biologist or biochemist would agree with you.
Again, natural selection provides the required insights.
But your strawman of prior existance of all these organs ..." is horse pucky.
Anything that reproduces with any degree of inexactness at a rate larger than its niche can support evolves.
So you say, I say otherwise, let's consider the sources, eh?
False and false ... sorry.[/QUOTE]
Why would some one go through the effort of splitting a post to 18 quotes, then provide no answer to any of them?? If you have nothing to say, maybe it's better for you that you don't.
Not true, 1999 & 2015 Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to Muslim scientists. This is not the subject of this discussion. In any case, yes, it's very true that Islam's golden age has ended long time ago.
The golden age proves that faith is not against the state of inquiring minds. Actually, it's totally the opposite. The Islamic faith is what created the Islamic golden age. Gradual disconnect from faith, was the main reason behind the end of the golden age.
No, Qur'an is not a science textbook. But for argument sake, if you consider that God approached humans with a messeage. Not specific humans but all humans who lived thousands of years ago, today and in the future. Illiterates and scientists. What kind of message would that be? It has to be simple enough to be understood by people at the time of revelation, yet includes signs/hints targeting people with higher level of knowledge.
In fact, scholars and translators being not aware of actual meaning of the text involving scientific hints beyond their knowledge , provided twisted meanings that explain away from the original meaning of the text (because it was not understood at their time).
As some one who speaks the language of Quran, (Arabic), I can clearly see statements involving scientific hints that were not known 1400 years ago. I neither need some one to provide a twisted meaning to me nor I would impose a twisted meaning as a tactic to trick myself.
if some one first accepts the existence of Deity, then understanding Quran (in its entirety) would support that faith. Important thing to understand, is that translations of Quran is not Quran. Interpretation of the Quran whether in Arabic or any other language is not equal in any way to the original text.
I know you consider the issue of science in Quran as some dishonest tactic by Muslims. since you raised the issue, I'll provide my take on it. The following are some opinions by non-muslim scientists (actually some of them accepted Islam)
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
No. I don't believe that I have. I may use "unscientific" as part of my basis for holding something to be "non existence" / "not true"; but not that in its entirety.
One such example would be ESP; though I don't believe "Extrasensory"; though I hold the real possibility that we are able to perceive more about the world around us than what science has yet been able to define. Thus, my holding that "we are able to perceive more about the world around us than what science has yet been able to define" is unscientific. I, however, can not state this stand as anything more than a belief.
I have reason to deny it; or I wouldn't deny it. I hold that what's outside the material is not only unscientific; but illogical as well.
We don't seem to have reliable "alternative means". If we someday discover reliable "alternative means", then that would be great.
Which view?
gnostic
The Lost One
Science involved clear and "verifiable" EXPLANATION, not hint, NoorNoor.
Science is supposed to EXPLAIN as much it could possibly can, and to test whatever the explanation may be. And testing it involve attempts at refuting more so than verifying.
If the Qur'an doesn't explain this silly hints or signs of yours, then it is not science.
Until you understand this, NoorNoor, you don't really understand what science is all about.
Any idiot can provide hints or describe something that true.
The Qur'an only provide mythological and superstitious
Does the Qur'an explain how smokeless fire be beings known as the jinns be even possibly real?
Or explain how Solomon can understand the languages of birds and ants, or command birds and jinns to fight in his battles? Or how Solomon can control winds?
Can the Qur'an explain how rain is possible or how are storms produced, like wild winds, lightning strike and thunders, without superstitious nonsense that it is caused by God?
If the Qur'an cannot provided logical explanations to these questions that I have asked, then it is in no way "scientific".
And if the Qur'an cannot provide any mean to test the existence of jinns, or to test how it is possible for Solomon and animals to communicate with each others, then the Qur'an is not scientific.
I can read and quote Babylonian epics of Atrahasis or Gilgamesh, or the Greek Works and Days or Theogony by Hesiod, or the Prose Edda by Snorri Sturluson, and reinterpret whatever passages I like and claim that there are just hints of something "scientific" in them, just like the ways Muslims do. But whether I do this reinterpreting with Babylonian Greek and Norse myths, or Muslims twist the passages within Qur'an, or creationists do with Genesis, Job or John, each one and every ones of them would dishonestly twisting the contexts to suit whatever religion follow.
NoorNoor, I have been at this forum for 10 years now, and I have been members of other forums before joining this one, and I already come across many Muslims' topics that twist passages from the Qur'an to meet with modern science, and I am still not convince by Muslims' reinterpretations now as well back then, that they are scientific.
Just because you can put a couple of absurd videos by former non-Muslims, who are now convinced of the Qur'an inerrancy or infallibility, still don't make them truly scientific.
I have found flaws not only from Muslims twisting the passages, but the flaws on those quoted passages themselves.
BTW, I really do enjoy reading creation myths, they be from the Qur'an, bible or gnostic cosmogony, or from Egyptian, Sumerian-Babylonian, Greek, Norse or Japanese literature, doesn't mean that I believe in them to be true - historically or scientifically. I don't make these mistakes as Muslims and creationists or some Christian theists do, attempting to blur the line between science and theology or religion.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
You made a large number of claims and asked a large number of questions and I dealt with them. Do you need lessons in how to use the QUOTE function?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
No. If someone tells you, when you are a youngster, that there is a bus stop at the corner, you're likely to believe them. But ... if for the rest of your life you never see a bus there, despite passing the corner at all hours and even camping out on the corner for days, even weeks, at a time, it becomes quite reasonable, as the years go by, to state that it is less and less likely that a bus is ever going to come. You can never say, in absolute terms that it is never going to happen, only that, based on your experience, it is very unlikely. Same with your god.
life.period
Member
You doubt
You don't think
So your words could be false .
I can prove you are easily .
It mentioned in Islam that major judgement signs is Sun rises from west .
NASA proved it will rise from west .
There are many scientific discoveries mentioned in Qur'an previously
You can found it in YouTube .
If we share same ancestors that mean aps turned to human in some point .
Not proven .
Neither such thing mentioned in history .
McBell
Unbound
And here we see the root of your problem....
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
There is no truth to this statement. Others claim that NASA claims they have proven the sun will rise from the West; but NASA never makes nor ever made this claim.
[GALLERY=media, 7555]SeriousCatYouFail by NewGuyOnTheBlock posted Jul 14, 2016 at 4:58 AM[/GALLERY]
You really didn't understand. I said Quran is not a science book nonetheless, Quran referred to already proven scientific facts (require no verification) but in a language that can be accepted by people at the time of revelation. Facts such as the oblate spheroid (oval) shape of the earth or the fact that night and day exist/move together at same time and they together create a shape of a sphere, The universe is expanding, iron came from outside of planet earth. (It's a fact that meteoric iron was historically the only source of iron before the iron age. In addition, iron is created by fusion in high mass stars), Accurate description of human reproduction and prenatal development. All of that are scientific facts that were referenced in the Quran. Its all already established facts that require no further verification.
Illiterate beduins in the desert of arabia 1400 years ago, made exact same claims about Quran. They literally called the revelation an ancient myth and similarly requested physical proof. Exact same reaction repeated throughout history with almost all messengers. This reaction is not necessarily triggered by a scientific perspective but rather it's a reaction of an individual that doesn't depend on a specific level of knowledge or intelligence.
Your denial is solely based on your reaction to what is unknown/unusual to you but that lack of knowledge is not a proof of what is real or not. Supernatural and Paranormal Phenomena exist. Its true that science doesn't explain it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It was recently proven that ants use sounds to communicate. Some people made claims of their ability of telepathic communications with animals or other humans. Again, the lack of knowledge about a phenomena is not a justification to deny it.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/02/shhh-ants-are-talking#
Quran is not a science book. Quran neither explains nor was intended to explain natural phenomena. Quran actually urges believers to study and learn how things work in nature. These specific teachings where behind scientific achievement during Islam's golden age. The notion that Quran should explain all or any natural phenomena is not logical.
Yes,Quran stated that Solomon did communicate with other creatures as a fact. Again, lack of knowledge or explanation of any supernatural or unusual Phenomena, doesn't prove the phenomena as non existent. We actually are gaining more knowledge about communications of animals. It may not be impossible as you might think.
Quran may tell us that the earth has a spherical shape but you shouldn't expect Quran to provide any mean to test that fact. If we already found the mean, if we proved it, then Quran stated a truth that was not known at the time of revelation.
you don't give much or any credit to the conclusion of some of the top scientists in their specific fields. That is not logical. If you consider the judgement of scientists of that caliber to be non-credible, what would make your own judgement credible? I am sure its not the 10 years experience on forums?
I wouldn't be able to list all these scientists or their credentials but the following are some examples.
-Keith L. Moore:
Professor Emeritus, Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Toronto. Distinguished embryologist and the author of several medical textbooks, including Clinically Oriented Anatomy (3rd Edition) and The Developing Human (5th Edition, with T.V.N. Persaud).
Dr. Moore was a former President of the Canadian Association of Anatomists, and of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists. He was honoured by the Canadian Association of Anatomists with the prestigious J.C.B. Grant Award and in 1994 he received the Honoured Member Award of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists "for outstanding contributions to the field of clinical anatomy."
-E. Marshall Johnson:
Professor and Chairman of the Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, and Director of the Daniel Baugh Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Author of over 200 publications. Former President of the Teratology Society among other accomplishments. Professor Johnson began to take an interest in the scientific signs in the Qur'an at the 7th Saudi Medical Conference (1982), when a special committee was formed to investigate scientific signs in the Qur'an and Hadith. At first, Professor Johnson refused to accept the existence of such verses in the Qur'an and Hadith. But after a dicussuion with Sheikh Zindani he took an interest and concentrated his research on the internal as well as external development of the fetus.
-Joe Leigh Simpson:
Professor and Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
He is the President of the American Fertility Society. He has received many awards, including the Association of Professors of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Public Recognition Award in 1992. Like many others, Professor Simpson was taken by surprise when he discovered that the Qur'an and Hadith contain verses related to his specialised field of study. When he met with Sheikh Abdul-Majeed A.Zindani, he insisted on verifying the text presented to him from the Qur'an and Hadith.
Shad
Veteran Member
You mean after someone else made the discovery Muslim rushed to distort the text to align with modern knowledge.
You speak standard Arabic. Quranic Arabic is know only to a minority of professionals. You are certainly not one of those people since all your resources are from apologists sites rather than your own published work. Most Qurans are based upon the 1938 Cairo edition which is Standard Arabic not Quranic Arabic. Having knowledge of a modern language does not make you an expert on an older form. Otherwise anyone can claim to be an expert of Old English by the fact they know modern English
Moore never published the edited version with the Quran in academy. You wont find it anywhere outside a Muslim insutution. That says a lot about his "endorsement". You should go look up videos of former speakers at this conference which they not only deny what Muslims claim they endorsed but also how Muslims manipulated the verses provided to these speakers. Their statements were also edited.
Last edited:
Before the definition of modern science was coined in the 19th century, natural philosophy was the only means to investigate nature in general. the modern term “science" was intended to separate the modern empirical method from philosophy but in fact, complete separation never happened. The utilization of philosophy/logic allows rational interpretations of data towards the process of initiating/proving a theory before it can be accepted scientifically. Even with the empirical method, the only possible reference or means through which data would be rationally interpreted is logic. The state of Consciousness is what allows the mental ability of receiving and processing data logically. The problem of consciousness was never resolved/explained. Yet, the ultimate reference for the interpretation of our world is logic. Philosophy/logic continues beyond the limits where the empirical method would stop. The empirical understanding of the physical world wouldn’t have any meaning without logical interpretation but In turn, the logical interpretations itself would require a reference through which, it would attain its validity.
Shad
Veteran Member
The shift was due to Kant, a philosopher. Read Copernican Revolution of Philosophy. You are two centuries out of alignment. This separation is flawed as philosophy needs science while science need philosophy nor what Kant intended
Last edited:
You have no idea what you are talking about. The original Arabic text was never changed. Maybe you mean the interpretations or translations but that would be wrong as well because most of those don't align with modern knowledge. Or were never updated in light of modern knowledge. if you speak the arabic language, you can read original text and you are aware of the scientific facts, then you will see it.
It may be possible that you copy original Arabic text in a translator such as "google translate" and see what you get. You may not get an accurate translation but you may see the meaning of the key words.
Obviously, you neither speak Arabic nor know much about Arabic. Do you? Yet, you make such claims about something you have no idea about.
The formal Arabic (al Arabiyah al fusha) which is used in formal writing and speech, is based on Quran. It's the same formal language in all Arabic speaking countries but the arabic dialect or spoken language, changes depending on the region. Nonetheles, the teaching of the language/ grammar is always in formal Arabic. Any educated Arabic speaking person can read/understand Quran. It's true that some words are not common or overall interpretation would require higher level of knowledge about Quran but again, any Arabic speaking person understands Quran.
I am sorry but I am afraid this is total nonsense. You maybe revering to one of many books that discuss the meanings or interpretation of Quran. The language of these books are also formal Arabic. The issue of old and new English is totally different. Your knowledge of English doesn't make you expert on Arabic. Non Arabic speaking persons (specialy those with presuppositions about Quran) would applaud your claim but any Arabic speaking person would see it as total ignorance.
Why should he? He only verified that Quran includes an accurate description of human reproduction and prenatal development consistent with the modern scientific understanding that was not known 1400 years ago.
I am aware of one of them who made claims about manipulation of verses. I am not sure why he made this claim but regardless. I don't need any one to tell me about manipulated verses. I know formal arabic. I can directly read original text of Quran. I can make the judgment for myself.
Shad
Veteran Member
The changes in translation and interpretation are evident with even a passing glance over the last two centuries of the changes. The science you find is all a product of later interpretation to molded to match science. Nothing more. The 1970s quran science movement is also evidence that these views are modern, made in modern light while professional in the past, and modern times, still ignore the Quran as a resource in modern science.
I use lexicons which show the distortion of words for your apologetics tripe.
Doesn't matter. Lexicons are enough to show the manipulation by your apologists
So what. Old English is a basis for modern English. This still does not make you an expect on Quranic Arabic by knowledge of Modern Arabic. They can read the Quran as it is based on the Standard Arabic version from 1938....
Actually its not. The 1938 edition is the standard which is based upon a 1924 edition. I am not talking about English.
Except he didn't write the book, another author did. You have statements known to be made out of context along with a figure that never published views, that he supposedly endorsed, in his own book with his own writing which mentioned every other important figure and culture regarding embryology. For Islam there is a single line and a reference to the Greeks. None of the babble in his video is put on record for his own peers to read. It is only published as fodder for the religion's masses, that's you.. by a Muslim author. Read his book. If a person can not even endorse his supposed view in his own field that says a lot regarding the credibility of his statements. He had another person write those views and never published it for academic use as every other edition was.
He made the claim since Muslims like you parade around using him as an endorsement when he never supported the claim you are making. You knowledge of Arabic means nothing nor does it qualify you to interpret scientific knowledge. Unlike you this man is qualified.He is talking to you and people like you. Pay attention to what he says about scientific theories.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
I would also point out how much Moore is turning vague terms into technical terms far more than what is suggested. Also he made a basic mistake stating bones form before flesh which is wrong as both form simultaneously. Since you claim since I do not know Arabic makes me unqualified to make statements this must also apply to Moore which in your own linked videos says he doesn't know Arabic...
And I raise you a PZ Meyers. Do note the thumma example. I enjoyed the lol's, did you?
And I raise you a PZ Meyers. Do note the thumma example. I enjoyed the lol's, did you?
The translations/interpretations are so many but you have to understand that none of it is Quran. Quran is only the original Arabic text. A single letter, may not change in original text otherwise, it's not Quran. You may find a Bible in Greek, English, French or any language. But Quran is only the original Arabic text without any variation. Otherwise, it's only interpretations of Quran.
Of course these views are modern? Quran is not a resource in modern science. What are you talking about?
You are confusing the whole thing. Modern Science revolutionized our understanding of the world around us but the learning curve never ends. modern science provided new understandings/facts that were not known to us. Muslims (including myself) have seen that many of these modern facts are consistent with the original Arabic text of the Quran. Old Translations/interpretations could not capture actual meaning of the text because these facts were never known before. Even today, a translator without scientific background may not link the text to the scientific facts. Consequently, he wouldn't provide correct translation. So it's 100% the opposite. Interpretations/translations were not molded to match science but to the contrary, I can see that interpretations explained away from the scientific meaning in the original text.
I use lexicons my self. Different lexicons provide different meanings. Without some understanding of the language, you may easy get lost. Especially if you want to.
Maybe it's enough for you to quickly jump to your desirable conclusion but lexicons are not enough at all for someone who doesn't have any understanding of the language.
You still insist on your ignorant claim of Quranic Arabic? Again, formal Arabic is Quranic Arabic. This Standard Arabic version from 1938 is total nonsense. Quran is about 1400 years old. In fact, some of the oldest manuscripts are kept in the university of Birmingham. It was radiocarbon dated to the period between 568 and 645 AD. (The age means, its very likely that the writer lived in the time of the prophet). I have seen photos of these manuscripts and many others at later dates. I can easily read it/understand it. Same is true for any educated Arabic speaking person.
I am sorry but this just some ignorant nonsense. There is no such thing as 1938 edition of the Quran. The original text never changed. Before any hard copy is authorized, it had to be reviewed, scrutinized to make sure it's an exact match to original Arabic text. Then it would be authorized. This is what you are referring to (1938 edition) but its by no means any different at all, its not ALLOWED to change a very single letter from the original text of Quran. Otherwise, it's not Quran.
The amazing fact is that, you would find young kids (7 years old) in the Islamic world who memorize %100 the entire Quran. When they memorize it, again, a single letter change is not allowed. I would claim that it's impossible to entirely memorize any other book of the same size. This is amazing but the real miracle (at least to me) is the fact that none Arabic speaking Muslims can also memorize the entire Quran without a single letter deviation from original text. Its actually stated in Quran that Quran was made easy for remembrance.
Is the question whether Moore made these statements or not? I would say, see his video. Frankly, his statements may (or may not) make a difference for non muslims but in my case, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever. Again, I can read Quran, I can understand it and I can verify the consistency with the modern scientific facts for myself.
I can agree with many points of that video and disagree with some.
Yes, it's true that both scientists and Muslim scholars, should together review the meanings of these verses to update the interpretations of the original text but I don't agree that these scientists should be necessarily Muslims. In fact, they shouldn't (to make sure they are neutral without any bias). After all, what is required is only the scientific knowledge.
Quran is not stating theories at all. Only facts. I agree that linking the verse to theory may not be appropriate. I agree with this guy (Hafez Khan?) about using apparent meaning but apparent meaning depends on the specific knowledge of the reader.
You got my attention to this verse (Al-Anbiya 30). as an Arabic speaker, I also agree with his translation of the Quranic verse "Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens (sky) and earth were one but we broke it apart". Thats all what the verse literally say in Arabic. You may see different interpretations or translations according to individual understanding of scholars or translators. So what does it mean? Heavens and earth where one. what is this oneness mean? It's interesting that modern science States that the beginning was a "singularity" undefined singularity, after the singularity state, the separation took place at the big bang through which the universe was created. Quran doesn't identify the meaning of this "oneness" but neither does Science identify the "singularity" . Nonetheless, modern science support the singularity state at the beginning which I find it to be very consistent with this Quranic verse (Al-Anbiya 30).
That said, I told you the literal meaning of the verse, how would you understand it and whether you see it consistent with modern science or not, is up to you. In my case, I do see the consistency.