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

[sniper762]

but most theologians as well as genealogists agree that adam was created about 6000 years ago. that was on the 6th day.

how do you justify that with your interpretation of the length of "a day"?

 

[A Thousand Suns]

but most theologians as well as genealogists agree that adam was created about 6000 years ago. that was on the 6th day.

how do you justify that with your interpretation of the length of "a day"?

According to Quran ,Adam(pbuh) was sent Earth after the creation Earth(time isn't mentioned) so not at sixth day

 

[Bowman]

According to Quran ,Adam(pbuh) was sent Earth after the creation Earth(time isn't mentioned) so not at sixth day

Ayah?

 

[sniper762]

so, when do YOU think that adam was created (what date) and why do you think it?

 

[skydivephil]

The verse mentions Arabic word 'Yaum' which means long period /epoch . You can use online Arabic dictionary to check it up

it could be 50,000 years or one billion or anything,

period isn't fixed in Quran , but if the Quran specificly mentions 1000/50000 years in the context ,it has to be used for that context only

The problem is the Qur'an says 6 days. If the the word "yuam" means a long period or any lentght of time thhat is not well defined then why specify 6? It deosnt make any sense . Imagine I tell you I will get something done in 6 periods of time . Such a statement would make no sesnse if you didnt know long the period of time is.

 

[Falvlun]

I already showed you where early islamic tafsirs interpreted these verses to mean 6,000 years.

So you admit that there is ambiguity in the verse. (Otherwise, why rely upon an "interpretation" and not the verse itself? Precisely because the word in question can be translated so many different ways: day, period, eon, etc.)

Which brings me back to my original and fundamental question: Why should that particular interpretation be the only valid one?

The purpose is to show the age of the Universe.

You sidestepped my point. The point of the entire passage (at least how it reads to me) is not to show the age of the universe, but to show the vastness of God.

Again...I already showed where tafsirs state the very same thing.

They obviously came to this conclusion hundreds of years before I did.

​

Where did I say that your interpretation was unique? You have yet to show why yours should be a) the only interpretation and b) the correct one. It simply comes down to what you want to believe.

 

[Falvlun]

jarofthoughts, thank you for your well-thought out reply. Unfortunately, I think we are at an impasse. You believe that science makes a positive statement upon absence of evidence: This does not exist. I believe that science defers judgement, or rather, makes no judgement, on that which has no evidence: Basically, science says "no comment".

 

[jarofthoughts]

jarofthoughts, thank you for your well-thought out reply. Unfortunately, I think we are at an impasse. You believe that science makes a positive statement upon absence of evidence: This does not exist. I believe that science defers judgement, or rather, makes no judgement, on that which has no evidence: Basically, science says "no comment".

Nonsense.

Science says that unless you have evidence you have no case. And until you do, whatever claims you make are worthless. Period.

That is the basis of the scientific method and that is how it must logically work.
If I make a claim, the onus of evidence is upon me, otherwise there is no reason for anyone to take me seriously, and they are logically correct in assuming my claim is false.
That is the scientific and the only logically acceptable stance.

And if you disagree, why do you not believe in faeries or dragons or ghosts or magic or extra terrestrials or any number of unsubstantiated claims that are being made every day?

Because unless they can provide some evidence to back their claims up it is assumed that they are wrong. In other words, that whatever they claim the existence of does not, in fact, exist.

Science is ready to change its position though, when and if evidence should surface. But until it does, the only viable position is to dismiss those claims.

 

[Willamena]

Science says that unless you have evidence you have no case.

That is the position that defers judgement, until there is a case.

And until you do, whatever claims you make are worthless. Period.

That's not science, though.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That is the position that defers judgement, until there is a case.

I said in an earlier post that the scientific position is to assume non-existence until evidence of existence is produced. Which means that gods, ghosts, unicorns and big-foot are all in the same box. They are assumed not to exist.

 

[Willamena]

I said in an earlier post that the scientific position is to assume non-existence until evidence of existence is produced. Which means that gods, ghosts, unicorns and big-foot are all in the same box. They are assumed not to exist.

And I disagree. I'm with Falvlun in asserting that science makes no positive claims, such as "non-existence," until there are claims to be made (supported by a case).

 

[jarofthoughts]

And I disagree. I'm with Falvlun in asserting that science makes no positive claims, such as "non-existence," until there are claims to be made (supported by a case).

I never said it made a positive claim such as "X does not exist".
In a scientific sense something is either relevant or it is not.
You either take it in as a factor in your equation or you do not.
And in the case of reality, of which science is so far the best tool we have for figuring out what's what, you do not factor in things like the supernatural because there is no evidence for its existence. Hence, for the sake of our "equation", meaning scientific reality, meaning the physical world, these things are not relevant. Hence, it is assumed that they do not exist.

The point is that we should not remain ambivalent about stuff that has no evidence for it.
We should, in fact, dismiss it as irrelevant, that is, assume that it doesn't exist, until evidence of some kind is presented that it is indeed relevant, that is, that it exists.

 

[Willamena]

I never said it made a positive claim such as "X does not exist".
In a scientific sense something is either relevant or it is not.
You either take it in as a factor in your equation or you do not.
And in the case of reality, of which science is so far the best tool we have for figuring out what's what, you do not factor in things like the supernatural because there is no evidence for its existence. Hence, for the sake of our "equation", meaning scientific reality, meaning the physical world, these things are not relevant. Hence, it is assumed that they do not exist.

Ah, perhaps that's where the confusion lies. To assume a thing is to posit it. For science to assume non-existence is for it to make a positive claim, in other words proceeding on the basis that "these things do not exist." I don't believe science could, does, or should make that assumption. If it did, that's not science.

For instance, does a scientist go out into the woods assessing wildlife on the assumption that Bigfoot doesn't exist? No. They go out assessing wildlife with (hopefully) a blank slate attitude, and if they run into Bigfoot great, and if they don't, great.

Not relevant = judgement deferred.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Ah, perhaps that's where the confusion lies. To assume a thing is to posit it. For science to assume non-existence is for it to make a positive claim, in other words proceeding on the basis that "these things do not exist." I don't believe science could, does, or should make that assumption. If it did, that's not science.

For instance, does a scientist go out into the woods assessing wildlife on the assumption that Bigfoot doesn't exist? No. They go out assessing wildlife with (hopefully) a blank slate attitude, and if they run into Bigfoot great, and if they don't, great.

Not relevant = judgement deferred.

The point I was trying to make earlier (perhaps clumsily so) was that nothing, according to science, exists until there is evidence that it does. It is not a factor. It is irrelevant.
And that means that big-foot, in a scientific sense, does not exist until we have evidence that it does, at which point it becomes relevant, and after which science changes its mind.
Which, I'm sure you'll agree, is one of science's greatest strengths.

 

[Willamena]

The point I was trying to make earlier (perhaps clumsily so) was that nothing, according to science, exists until there is evidence that it does. It is not a factor. It is irrelevant.
And that means that big-foot, in a scientific sense, does not exist until we have evidence that it does, at which point it becomes relevant, and after which science steps in.
Which, I'm sure you'll agree, is one of science's greatest strengths.

I have only one small problem with the wording... there, fixed. Now we can agree.

 

[Bowman]

So you admit that there is ambiguity in the verse.

Nope.

(Otherwise, why rely upon an "interpretation" and not the verse itself? Precisely because the word in question can be translated so many different ways: day, period, eon, etc.)

lol...this interpretation is ancient and directly comes from the Arabic.

It clearly shows how the early Koranic commentators viewed the age of the Universe.

Which brings me back to my original and fundamental question: Why should that particular interpretation be the only valid one?

Its one of the original islamic tafsirs, that's why...

You sidestepped my point. The point of the entire passage (at least how it reads to me) is not to show the age of the universe, but to show the vastness of God.

What Arabic words convey this message to you...?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I have only one small problem with the wording... there, fixed. Now we can agree.

Fair enough.
But do you agree that claims that are not backed by evidence does not in any useful manner matter to science and therefore for all practical purposes are ignored, and hence does not in a scientific sense exist?

 

[Willamena]

But do you agree that claims that are not backed by evidence does not in any useful manner matter to science and therefore for all practical purposes are ignored, and hence does not in a scientific sense exist?

Ostensibly. Unless it isn't.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know, but I've definitely gone a few rounds with some Muslim Young Earth Creationists here at RF and boy, were they hard-headed. Fatiha to this day denies that speciation happens. When shows the studies, he replied that the scientists are lying. I despair.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Ostensibly. Unless it isn't.

Well, everything in science is to some degree tentative, it's just that in certain cases the degree is very very small.