How old would an Muslim say the Earth/Universe is?

[Bowman]

Where? Quote the relevant verse please.

Regards

According to your book of faith, 1 day = 1,000 years (22.47 & 32.5).

According to your book of faith the universe was created in 6 days (7.54, 10.3, 11.7, 25.59, 32.4, 50.38, & 57.4).



32.4 states that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days.

32.5 (the very next ayah!) states that 1 day = 1,000 years!



6 x 1,000 = 6,000 years for the creation of the Universe, according to your Koran…and, according to your ‘scholars’ as well...

Renowned Koranic commentator Ibn Abbas steps up to the plate and claims a 6,000 year old creation, based upon his reading of the Koran, as thus…

(Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days) of the beginning of the life of this world, each day the equivalent of a thousand years, (then mounted He the Throne) then He proceeded to create the Throne; it is also said that this means: He seated Himself on the Throne. (He covereth the night with the day) and the day with the night, (which is in haste to follow it) i.e. the day is in haste to follow the night and the night is in haste to follow the day, (and hath made the sun and the moon and the stars subservient by His command) by His leave. (His verily is all creation) the creation of the heavens and the earth (and commandment) i.e. the judgement of people on the Day of Judgement (Blessed be Allah) the Possessor of grace; it is also said that this means: elevated is Allah; as it is said that this means: far exalted is Allah, (the Lord of the Worlds!) the Master and Disposer of the Worlds.

[Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas]

Ibn Abbas’ continues as he tells the reader that your god “allah” mounts the throne before the throne is even created!

We understand that “allah” must have been tired after those 6,000 years so that he needed to sit and rest upon a throne…but, how can he rest when his place of rest has not even been created yet?



To reinforce his position, Ibn Abbas’ continues on with his 6,000 year creation theory in this quote…

وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلأَرْضَ وَمَابَيْنَهُمَا فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ وَمَا مَسَّنَا مِنلُّغُوبٍ​

“And indeed We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in six Days and nothing of fatigue touched Us”
[Qaaf 50:38]

(And verily We created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them) of created beings and marvels, (in six Days) of the days of the beginning of the life of the world, each day the equivalent of 1,000 years of present days, the first day being Sunday and the last Friday, (and naught of weariness touched Us) We were not tired as claimed by the Jews who said: when Allah finished the creation of the heavens and earth, he put one leg on the other and rested on Saturday. The enemies of Allah have lied against Allah.

[Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas]

Here, we even have your “scholar” declaring the 6,000 year-days as Sunday through Friday….!

 

[A-ManESL]

The word day is metaphorical there and indeed not all people translate it like that. From this Quran:

32:4 IT IS GOD who has created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in six aeons, and is established on the throne of His almightiness. You have none to protect you from God, and none to intercede for you [on Judgment Day]: will you not, then, bethink yourselves?

32:5 He governs all that exists, from the celestial space to the earth; and in the end all shall ascend unto Him [for judgment] on a Day the length whereof will be [like] a thousand years of your reckoning.

50:38 and [who knows that] We have indeed created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in six aeons, and [that] no weariness could ever touch Us.

And 32.5 is regard to judgement day.
Regards

 

[jarofthoughts]

Regarding the 1st two you are simply mistaken by taking it out of context.

Please explain what you mean by this.

As for the last three could you point me to the relevant scientific papers from peer reviewed journals discrediting these ideas as wrong. It would be something new for me.

You've got it all backwards. It's the LACK of peer reviewed papers CONFIRMING this that makes these claims unscientific. Well, that and the fact that they are unfalsifiable. If they were falsifiable scientists would no doubt have run the tests long time ago...

In my view, if it hasn't been confirmed by science and evidence I do not include it as a part of my reality.

 

[A-ManESL]

Please explain what you mean by this.

Read my other posts on this thread please.

You've got it all backwards. It's the LACK of peer reviewed papers CONFIRMING this that makes these claims unscientific. Well, that and the fact that they are unfalsifiable. If they were falsifiable scientists would no doubt have run the tests long time ago...

In my view, if it hasn't been confirmed by science and evidence I do not include it as a part of my reality.

I dont say that these claims are scientific or unscientific. I dont claim anything in that regard at all. They are verifiable by a different kind of knowledge which comes for those who tread the spiritual path.

Your not including all that as part of your reality, doesnt mean that it isnt true.

Regards

 

[jarofthoughts]

I dont say that these claims are scientific or unscientific. I dont claim anything in that regard at all. They are verifiable by a different kind of knowledge which comes for those who tread the spiritual path.

Your not including all that as part of your reality, doesnt mean that it isnt true.

Well, as it is, science is the big kahuna when it comes to defining reality, and I'm afraid all of your faiths will just have to accept that, whether you like it or not.
Why?
Because unlike the claims made by religion (any religion), science actually works.
It has actual practical applications.
And it has been DAMN successful when it comes describing reality so far. 'fraid we can't say the same for religion.

And that means that if you make a claim that in any conceivable way even so much as touches upon physical reality in any shape or form, then you are making a scientific claim. And when you make a scientific claim you better have the evidence to back it up.

And to me, physical reality IS reality.

 

[A-ManESL]

Well, as it is, science is the big kahuna when it comes to defining reality, and I'm afraid all of your faiths will just have to accept that, whether you like it or not.
Why?
Because unlike the claims made by religion (any religion), science actually works.
It has actual practical applications.
And it has been DAMN successful when it comes describing reality so far. 'fraid we can't say the same for religion.

And that means that if you make a claim that in any conceivable way even so much as touches upon physical reality in any shape or form, then you are making a scientific claim. And when you make a scientific claim you better have the evidence to back it up.

And to me, physical reality IS reality.

Good for you if you feel that way my friend. I dont believe that physical reality is the only reality. Firstly, in its very core religion isnt about describing physical reality, it is about describing metaphysical Reality. I never claimed that religion is about describing physical reality. The verses etc which give examples from physical reality, arent seeking to describe the physical reality, but to use the examples to convey their message. This will become obvious if they are studied in proper context.

What I said was this: it is wrong to claim that physical reality is all there is, there is the knowledge of the metaphysical Reality(God or whatever) which is obtained by those who have treaded the spiritual path. Everyone is welcome to explore the spiritual aspects of any religion one chooses, develop himself/herself to an extent that the knowledge starts revealing itself. But to shut off ears and eyes to all non-scientific means of knowledge, and to say "this is all there is" just because from our present position we can't see anything else is plain ignorance.

Regards

 

[jarofthoughts]

Firstly, in its very core religion isnt about describing physical reality, it is about describing metaphysical Reality. I never claimed that religion is about describing physical reality.

Every miracle ever described in any holy book anywhere is a scientific claim.

What I said was this: it is wrong to claim that physical reality is all there is, there is the knowledge of the metaphysical Reality(God or whatever) which is obtained by those who have treaded the spiritual path.

You are of course free to follow whichever "path" that suits you, but to obtain actual knowledge about something, as in, you know, facts, you need evidence.
And so far religion seems to come up really short in that department.
In other words, if you claim that there is a "metaphysical" reality either provide some evidence or stop claiming you "know".
What you know and what you believe are two completely different concepts.

But to shut off ears and eyes to all non-scientific means of knowledge, and to say "this is all there is" just because from our present position we can't see anything else is plain ignorance.

Actually, that has worked out pretty well so far, seeing as all of the achievements of modern society is based completely on science, whereas following Bronze-age myths seems to be, at best, a waste of time, and at worst, a bloody menace.

 

[A-ManESL]

Every miracle ever described in any holy book anywhere is a scientific claim.

It isnt. A serious study will easily show that all what is there in the holy books, is for the purposes of guiding people towards God, and is not making scientific claims. Anyway, thats the conclusion I reached to. Some miracles may be true or not, but thats not really important to the person who really is wanting to learn from these books.

You are of course free to follow whichever "path" that suits you, but to obtain actual knowledge about something, as in, you know, facts, you need evidence.
And so far religion seems to come up really short in that department.
In other words, if you claim that there is a "metaphysical" reality either provide some evidence or stop claiming you "know".
What you know and what you believe are two completely different concepts.

I said its about what can be obtained by knowledge. And empirical evidence might not be there for everyone to see, but for those who bother to do the experiment and tread the spiritual path, the proof is out there. Its so silly, to say no it isnt out there because it cant be tested by science, and since everything related to physical reality can be tested by science, inductively all things can be tested by science. Its like you are working in a system and saying that anything not verifiable by the system doesnt exist.

Actually, that has worked out pretty well so far, seeing as all of the achievements of modern society is based completely on science, whereas following Bronze-age myths seems to be, at best, a waste of time, and at worst, a bloody menace.

Well this is a matter of debate.
Your statement follows from the implicit (unproven) assumption that a modern man lives a more fulfilling life then a "bronze-age" man. I dont agree that more materialistic wealth brings a more complete and fulfilling life. Also I feel on an average, as regards as humanity is concerned, people thousands of years ago and today are just about the same. And I do think that is an essential criterion to judge the actual achievement of the human condition. So really science has given us many good things physically, but hasnt changed us from the inside. Spiritually speaking, science is irrelevant.

Regards

 

[jarofthoughts]

It isnt. A serious study will easily show that all what is there in the holy books, is for the purposes of guiding people towards God, and is not making scientific claims. Anyway, thats the conclusion I reached to. Some miracles may be true or not, but thats not really important to the person who really is wanting to learn from these books.

So, are you saying that these holy books, claimed for centuries to be the absolute infallible word of god are neither absolute nor infallible?
That kinda makes you wonder about the third characteristic too, don't you think?

I said its about what can be obtained by knowledge. And empirical evidence might not be there for everyone to see, but for those who bother to do the experiment and tread the spiritual path, the proof is out there.

If it works consistently and evidentially then you should have no problems publishing a study about it in a scientific journal.

Its so silly, to say no it isnt out there because it cant be tested by science, and since everything related to physical reality can be tested by science, inductively all things can be tested by science. Its like you are working in a system and saying that anything not verifiable by the system doesnt exist.

That is because no-one has been able to produce the slightest shred of evidence that there is anything at all "outside the system". In other words the evidence for anything supernatural at the moment is absolute zip. Nada. Nothing. So there is no reason to think that there is anything at all "outside the system". And you're calling me silly?

Your statement follows from the implicit (unproven) assumption that a modern man lives a more fulfilling life then a "bronze-age" man. I dont agree that more materialistic wealth brings a more complete and fulfilling life.

There is nothing at all stopping you from going into the wilderness some place and continue living like a Bronze-age man. If that's what makes you fulfilled, go right ahead. No? Didn't think so...

Also I feel on an average, as regards as humanity is concerned, people thousands of years ago and today are just about the same.

Genetically the difference is next to nothing.

And I do think that is an essential criterion to judge the actual achievement of the human condition. So really science has given us many good things physically, but hasnt changed us from the inside.

That depends on what you mean by "from the inside". Science has certainly given us a completely new view of our place in nature and in the universe.

I now know, as far as we can know anything, that I am an insignificant piece of carbon on an insignificant planet next to a sun that really isn't that special.
I know that our galaxy is one of hundreds of billions in a universe too vast for me to grasp and that perhaps, somewhere in this vast universe there might be someone on a different planet near a different sun in a different galaxy thinking the exact same thing.

I know that I am related genetically to every other form of life on this planet, whether they are apes, birds, fish, trees or bacteria.
I know that my consciousness is an emergent property and that I cannot perceive, let alone control most of what goes on in my brain.
I know that even as I fight them I am a slave to my genetically imposed instincts, and I know that someday I will die.
And that will, as far as anyone knows, be the end of everything that is me.

But I also know that there has never been nor will there ever be anyone quite like me.
I know that the atoms that make up my body were once cooked in the core of a massive star, making us essentially stardust.
I am as much the universe as a supernova.

And I know all of this because of science.

Spiritually speaking, science is irrelevant.

Scientifically speaking the spiritual doesn't exist.

 

[A-ManESL]

So, are you saying that these holy books, claimed for centuries to be the absolute infallible word of god are neither absolute nor infallible?
That kinda makes you wonder about the third characteristic too, don't you think?

What third characteristic? And these books are not absolute in the sense that not all verses have to be taken literally. Spiritual persons generally take that approach, I cant speak for the theologians. Even the Quran says that in verse 3:7: "He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical." You are missing the whole point, in a hurry.

If it works consistently and evidentially then you should have no problems publishing a study about it in a scientific journal.

As I said it works by a non-scientific method (I assume you mean what the scientific method is), practicing spirituality gives you the gnostic knowledge. and that by no means means it is wrong. And why should it be even considered for publishing in a scientific journal when it is not scientific.

That is because no-one has been able to produce the slightest shred of evidence that there is anything at all "outside the system". In other words the evidence for anything supernatural at the moment is absolute zip. Nada. Nothing. So there is no reason to think that there is anything at all "outside the system". And you're calling me silly?

Thats what I have been saying. Why dont you study spirituality or mysticism, practice its methods, within the context of any religion you feel comfortable with. Once you do that, you'll find enough proof to convince yourself. Don't sit here and say there isnt any proof because I havent seen it.

There is nothing at all stopping you from going into the wilderness some place and continue living like a Bronze-age man. If that's what makes you fulfilled, go right ahead. No? Didn't think so...

Arrgh...That wont make me any more fulfilled then living like the modern man. Its just about the same. Didnt you understand my point.

Genetically the difference is next to nothing.

And so what?

That depends on what you mean by "from the inside". Science has certainly given us a completely new view of our place in nature and in the universe.

I now know, as far as we can know anything, that I am an insignificant piece of carbon on an insignificant planet next to a sun that really isn't that special.
I know that our galaxy is one of hundreds of billions in a universe too vast for me to grasp and that perhaps, somewhere in this vast universe there might be someone on a different planet near a different sun in a different galaxy thinking the exact same thing.

I know that I am related genetically to every other form of life on this planet, whether they are apes, birds, fish, trees or bacteria.
I know that my consciousness is an emergent property and that I cannot perceive, let alone control most of what goes on in my brain.
I know that even as I fight them I am a slave to my genetically imposed instincts, and I know that someday I will die.
And that will, as far as anyone knows, be the end of everything that is me.

But I also know that there has never been nor will there ever be anyone quite like me.
I know that the atoms that make up my body were once cooked in the core of a massive star, making us essentially stardust.
I am as much the universe as a supernova.

And I know all of this because of science.

Well this is only one dimension of thought of existence, and I wouldnt consider it "knowledge of man inside". You are quite right when you say that it depends on what you mean by the inside. I obviously mean something different from you. There are many dimensions of human beings. If you don't believe that, good for you.

Scientifically speaking the spiritual doesn't exist.

I never claimed it did scientifically speaking.

In a nutshell:
You say that you know that spirituality doesnt exist since it cant be proved by science, and I say that this comes from your unproven belief that only science is the only valid source of knowledge. And obviously you wont agree that this is a belief, you say it is fact. Pray, what is the evidence of that. You can't simply generalize and say, since science is good physically, it can pass a judgement on the metaphysical too. Do you have any deductive logic? And come to think of it, why use science at all, to judge something which by its essence claims to be non-scientific. That would be unfair and biased, asking the judge himself to pass judgement on whether something is against his/her ideas. Why don't you develop a non-scientific philosophical argument to judge all this? At least then you will have a stronger case.


Regards

 

[Bowman]

The word day is metaphorical there and indeed not all people translate it like that. From this Quran:

32:4 IT IS GOD who has created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in six aeons, and is established on the throne of His almightiness. You have none to protect you from God, and none to intercede for you [on Judgment Day]: will you not, then, bethink yourselves?

32:5 He governs all that exists, from the celestial space to the earth; and in the end all shall ascend unto Him [for judgment] on a Day the length whereof will be [like] a thousand years of your reckoning.

50:38 and [who knows that] We have indeed created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in six aeons, and [that] no weariness could ever touch Us.

And 32.5 is regard to judgement day.
Regards

It is clear that Ibn 'Abbas, after reading the Koran, came to the obvious conclusion that the Universe was 6,000 years old.

Thus...your assertion that no one can draw this conclusion from the Koran, has been nullified.

After all, do you really think that you, as a follower of islam, know more about the Koran than Ibn Abbas...?

 

[A-ManESL]

It is clear that Ibn 'Abbas, after reading the Koran, came to the obvious conclusion that the Universe was 6,000 years old.

Thus...your assertion that no one can draw this conclusion from the Koran, has been nullified.

After all, do you really think that you, as follower of islam, know more about the Koran than Ibn Abbas...?

I wouldnt comment on what Ibn Abbas has said. You are misinterpreting his words like this, which were conveying the fundamental idea (which you are overlooking in the verse) differently back in his time. The tafsirs are to be understood in context of the time they were propounded. Modern commentators stress the interpretation of the Arabic word ayyaam, (one translation of which is ‘days&#8217, as meaning ‘long periods’ or ‘ages’ rather than periods of twenty-four hours. This isnt my interpretation.

Regards

 

[Bowman]

I wouldnt comment on what Ibn Abbas has said. You are misinterpreting his words like this, which were conveying the fundamental idea (which you are overlooking in the verse) differently back in his time. The tafsirs are to be understood in context of the time they were propounded. Modern commentators stress the interpretation of the Arabic word ayyaam, (one translation of which is ‘days’), as meaning ‘long periods’ or ‘ages’ rather than periods of twenty-four hours. This isnt my interpretation.

Regards

You just back-handed Ibn Abbas by trumping his 6,000 year old Universe Koranic interpretation by mentioning 'modern commentators'.

So....now the time honored tafsirs are no good?

Just face the facts....you were shown where the Koran mentions a 6,000 year old Universe...and you were shown where an ancient Koranic tafsir proclaimed the very same!

Busted.

 

[skydivephil]

I wouldnt comment on what Ibn Abbas has said. You are misinterpreting his words like this, which were conveying the fundamental idea (which you are overlooking in the verse) differently back in his time. The tafsirs are to be understood in context of the time they were propounded. Modern commentators stress the interpretation of the Arabic word ayyaam, (one translation of which is ‘days&#8217, as meaning ‘long periods’ or ‘ages’ rather than periods of twenty-four hours. This isnt my interpretation.

Regards

The problem if you translate it as ages then it doesnt make sense .
If I asked you when a project was going to be finished and I said 6 days, 6 weeks, 6 years, 6 decades... all of these make sense. If its an undetermined period of time such as it will take ages , then one wouldn't specifiy 6 of them.
Imagine I told you your project will be finsihed in 6 period, but i dont tell you what the periods are. You would conclude I was talking gibberish. So either the Qur'an means 6 days in which case its worng. or it doesnt mena it and hence its meaningless statement and thhe claim that the Qur'an is a work of literary perfection is flawed. After all it would hve a leats one meaningless statement.

 

[A-ManESL]

You just back-handed Ibn Abbas by trumping his 6,000 year old Universe Koranic interpretation by mentioning 'modern commentators'.

So....now the time honored tafsirs are no good?

Just face the facts....you were shown where the Koran mentions a 6,000 year old Universe...and you were shown where an ancient Koranic tafsir proclaimed the very same!

Busted.

No, you didnt show me a single verse where the Quran mentions a 6000 year old universe. You picked verses out of context and quoted them, and yes, no tafsir is eternally good. Secondly one day is equal to thousand days in mentioned in regard to judgement, or when God will punish the sinners, not in regard to how many days it took for creation.

Even if we accept that the Quran claims that one day of God is a 1000 human days and God created the world in 6 days (neither of which I accept personally), it doesnt mean that the age of the universe is 6000 years. All it means is that God created the universe in 6000 human days.

Regards

 

[skydivephil]

If my maths is correct 6000/365 = 16.5 years. But the Earth formed 4.5 bln years ago and the big bang was 13.7 bln years ago. So what occured in 16.5 years?

 

[jarofthoughts]

What third characteristic?

That would be the one that claims that the book contains the word of God.

And these books are not absolute in the sense that not all verses have to be taken literally. Even the Quran says that in verse 3:7: "He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical." You are missing the whole point, in a hurry.

So, what is the measuring stick used to determine which passages are to be taken as literal truth and which to be taken as allegory?

As I said it works by a non-scientific method (I assume you mean what the scientific method is), practicing spirituality gives you the gnostic knowledge. and that by no means means it is wrong. And why should it be even considered for publishing in a scientific journal when it is not scientific.

Knowledge is defined as: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject: (Oxford Online Dictionary), which means that if what you call knowledge is anything more than unfounded belief one should either statistically or through other forms of evidence be able to confirm this a fact. This however, is not the case, and it is therefore based on nothing but blind faith.

Thats what I have been saying. Why dont you study spirituality or mysticism, practice its methods, within the context of any religion you feel comfortable with. Once you do that, you'll find enough proof to convince yourself. Don't sit here and say there isnt any proof because I havent seen it.

Now here's the problem with that concept. Like most Theists you make the statement that I would first have to believe, THEN I would receive proof. Which is ridiculous. Evidence before belief. Always. Of course, if we had evidence then it wouldn't really be belief. It would be...knowledge.

Arrgh...That wont make me any more fulfilled then living like the modern man. Its just about the same. Didnt you understand my point.

Apparently not. Do explain.

Well this is only one dimension of thought of existence, and I wouldnt consider it "knowledge of man inside". You are quite right when you say that it depends on what you mean by the inside. I obviously mean something different from you. There are many dimensions of human beings. If you don't believe that, good for you.

Are you talking about souls? Because if you do, please provide evidence for their existence.

I never claimed it did scientifically speaking.

Just showing you that the "argument" can be turned around and why science and religion should not mix. And if there ever is a conflict, one should ALWAYS go by the way of science. After all, science has the evidence...

In a nutshell:
You say that you know that spirituality doesnt exist since it cant be proved by science, and I say that this comes from your unproven belief that only science is the only valid source of knowledge.

Incorrect. I say that I do not allow anything supernatural into my view of reality since there is absolutely no evidence that anything supernatural exists. I'm not making an absolute claim here, but until such evidence arrives it is safe to disregard any notions about the supernatural.

You can't simply generalize and say, since science is good physically, it can pass a judgement on the metaphysical too.

First provide evidence that there even is something metaphysical.

Do you have any deductive logic? And come to think of it, why use science at all, to judge something which by its essence claims to be non-scientific. That would be unfair and biased, asking the judge himself to pass judgement on whether something is against his/her ideas. Why don't you develop a non-scientific philosophical argument to judge all this? At least then you will have a stronger case.

All claims should be judged by the same standard; Evidence.
I see no reason why religion should be given a free pass.

 

[Bowman]

No, you didnt show me a single verse where the Quran mentions a 6000 year old universe. You picked verses out of context and quoted them, and yes, no tafsir is eternally good. Secondly one day is equal to thousand days in mentioned in regard to judgement, or when God will punish the sinners, not in regard to how many days it took for creation.

Even if we accept that the Quran claims that one day of God is a 1000 human days and God created the world in 6 days (neither of which I accept personally), it doesnt mean that the age of the universe is 6000 years. All it means is that God created the universe in 6000 human days.

Regards

Wrong.

You were shown two sequential ayahs from your book of faith in full context.

You can't keep running...

 

[Falvlun]

You just back-handed Ibn Abbas by trumping his 6,000 year old Universe Koranic interpretation by mentioning 'modern commentators'.

So....now the time honored tafsirs are no good?

Just face the facts....you were shown where the Koran mentions a 6,000 year old Universe...and you were shown where an ancient Koranic tafsir proclaimed the very same!

Busted.

I read the exact same verses you posted and A-Mansel posted, and I am not seeing where the Koran explicitly states that the world was created 6000 years ago. Sorry, it's just not good enough to state "Hey, well this guy interpreted these two verses this way, so that must be what the Koran is saying". To back up your claim, you need a more specific verse.

Besides, the whole "one day is like a thosand years to God" verse reads rather metaphorically to me. It's simply illustrating that God doesn't necessarily experience time in the same way that humans do; it's not saying that God rigidly experiences one day as a thousand years.

[EDIT] I just realized you didn't actually post verses from the Koran-- just quotes from the commentator.

Scientifically speaking the spiritual doesn't exist.

What a bonehead thing to say. Scientifically speaking, science makes no claims about the spiritual. It can not make claims about anything it can't study, and as of now, science can't study the spiritual.

 

[A-ManESL]

I read the exact same verses you posted and A-Mansel posted, and I am not seeing where the Koran explicitly states that the world was created 6000 years ago. Sorry, it's just not good enough to state "Hey, well this guy interpreted these two verses this way, so that must be what the Koran is saying". To back up your claim, you need a more specific verse.

Besides, the whole "one day is like a thosand years to God" verse reads rather metaphorically to me. It's simply illustrating that God doesn't necessarily experience time in the same way that humans do; it's not saying that God rigidly experiences one day as a thousand years.

[EDIT] I just realized you didn't actually post verses from the Koran-- just quotes from the commentator.


What a bonehead thing to say. Scientifically speaking, science makes no claims about the spiritual. It can not make claims about anything it can't study, and as of now, science can't study the spiritual.

+1
jarofthoughts, there are no claims by science about the existence or non existence of the metaphysical Reality. If there are, kindly show me the relevant peer reviewed papers from acclaimed journals.