Modern Science proves the Authenticity of the Glorious Qur'an

[Gharib]

Since when has science only been about humans and things that live? Do you know what geology is? We will have a discussion when you've done your homework.

Show me Quranic evidence of geology and ill give the Quran some more credit.

ok tell me what geology is. so that i can give you evidence from the quran.

 

[darkendless]

ok tell me what geology is. so that i can give you evidence from the quran.

Geology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is better at explaining it than myself

 

[Gharib]

Geology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is better at explaining it than myself

i've got geological evidence from the quran, that is also supported by science.

are mountains and their structure geological?

 

[England my lionheart]

far too many western scientists do prove that the scientific evidences found in the Qur'an are not man made.

"Again, the point has been made, I think, repeatedly by other speakers this morning: these hadeeths could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available [at] the time of their writing . ."
Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson

note: he is talking about hadiths, hadiths ussually elaborate most of the verses in the quran. Dr. Simpson is actually taling about the following hadiths;

"In every one of you, all components of your creation are collected together in your mother’s womb by forty days..."

"If forty-two nights have passed over the embryo, God sends an angel to it, who shapes it and creates its hearing, vision, skin, flesh, and bones...."

these claims are also supported by another scientist, who happens to be an expert in the same fields as Simpson

"The Quran describes not only the development of external form, but emphasizes also the internal stages, the stages inside the embryo, of its creation and development, emphasizing major events recognized by contemporary science.”
Dr. E. Marshall Johnson

note: they are not "back to back", there may be some years in difference to both statements.

Also he (Dr. Johnson) says;
“As a scientist, I can only deal with things which I can specifically see. I can understand embryology and developmental biology. I can understand the words that are translated to me from the Quran. As I gave the example before, if I were to transpose myself into that era, knowing what I knew today and describing things, I could not describe the things which were described. I see no evidence for the fact to refute the concept that this individual, Muhammad, had to be developing this information from some place. So I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved in what he was able to write.”

i think i'll let this sink in first and post some more statements later. i also have the actual comparisons made between the scientific miracles of the Qur'an and actual scientific facts, wich i trust they will not be called "BIASED" by some non muslims as then they will be contradicting modern science.

Esalam,it's threads such as this that invite criticism and ridicule of Islam

 

[painted wolf]

are mountains and their structure geological?

Yup, but it still gets them wrong on many levels.

1) Mountains do not hold the land in place. Mountains are dragged around by the continents as they drift.
2) Mountains do not prevent earthquakes... indeed earthquakes are more common in areas with mountains.
3) Mountains aren't really all that peg shaped... they are more like buldges and are not much deeper than the rest of the continental crust.

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

Retroactive fitting is when you take a vague allegedly-divine passage and interpret it to fit known facts and/or knowledge. It is a worthless procedure.

There is a very easy way to determine whether retroactive fitting is occurring. If the allegedly-divine passage in question cannot be used to discover NEW facts and/or knowledge then retroactive fitting is clearly going on.

If the hordes of koran and biblical literalists would stop stifling science and history education it wouldn’t be so bad. For people who have access to the archives of history and science, this practice of retroactive fitting makes the literalists look like complete and utter muppets.

Please continue with your consistent non-discussion wherein you use the conflict as the means of avoiding substantive criticisms of your claims. It must really help reinforce your dogmatism that you can use this subterfuge as a means of avoiding when you have been clearly shown to be wrong.

This link is to a post containing a valid and substantive criticism that directly refutes your claims regarding koranic embryology. The fact that nearly eight pages of argumentation has passed since this post without a single comment being rendered on it by the koran literalists in this thread is not terribly surprising. After all this thread is merely a circle-jerk in which dogma can be reinforced and an ego-massage can be had by fostering the delusion that this type of behaviour is glorifying your deity. And if there is an refuting material there is also the option of picking comments to erect embattlements on to shield that criticism.

 

[gnostic]

The more Muslims keep posting stuff like this, thinking that their Qur'an having scientific merits with these vague verses, which are opened to interpretation, then the more they looked like fools.

If it has one quota of scientific value, the silly divine being would have explained in detail, with the physical evidences and mathematical proof inside the Qur'an itself. This Allah should have given up 500-page description with mathematical equations on quantum mechanics, the Big Bang and the laws of relativity, instead of waiting for Einstein and other modern scientists to explain all this.

Strangely Allah seemed to be scientifically and mathematically inept and impotently ignorant.

 

[eugenius]

The more Muslims keep posting stuff like this, thinking that their Qur'an having scientific merits with these vague verses, which are opened to interpretation, then the more they looked like fools.

If it has one quota of scientific value, the silly divine being would have explained in detail, with the physical evidences and mathematical proof inside the Qur'an itself. This Allah should have given up 500-page description with mathematical equations on quantum mechanics, the Big Bang and the laws of relativity, instead of waiting for Einstein and other modern scientists to explain all this.

Strangely Allah seemed to be scientifically and mathematically inept and impotently ignorant.

Great points, but you're wasting your breath, I haven't seen one of his arguments that haven't been dismantled and debated and he still holds onto this bizarre and unwarranted beliefs. It's people like the OP that are holding back this world from improving. Living your life by a book that was written thousands of years ago is simply insane.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... so that makes about a dozen people who had a "hand" in this, and what exactly are you trying to say by it?

I am saying that any book that is the result of a human's work is, by definition, NOT inerrant.

The fact that over a dozen people (by your count) had input into the writing of the Koran simply compounds your problem.

When you (or anyone else) claims that an angel (Gabriel) was speaking in the ear of the humans that memorized the text, I simply have to laugh at the claim.

You are not an adherent to the religion - you are an apologist that can't keep from tripping over the truth - and still denying that the truth even exists.

Surely the religion of Islam has smarter followers that can speak for it. If not, it is of even less value than I had ascribed it (which is hard to do).

 

[Fatihah]

Yup, but it still gets them wrong on many levels.

1) Mountains do not hold the land in place. Mountains are dragged around by the continents as they drift.
2) Mountains do not prevent earthquakes... indeed earthquakes are more common in areas with mountains.
3) Mountains aren't really all that peg shaped... they are more like buldges and are not much deeper than the rest of the continental crust.

wa:do

Response: On the contrary, mountains do in fact hold the land in place. Mountains are formed from the collision of two massive plates in the earth's crust. When they collide, the larger plate goes under the smaller one, creating a rippled affect to the smaller one which forms the layers of mountains above the earth's surface. Hence, the portion of the mountain shown above the earth is the same as below the earth's surface. This process is known as "isostacy".

Once the mountains are formed, it holds the plates together at the conjunction of the collision, preventing the earth from shaking. When the qur'an refers to mountains preventing the earth from shaking, it is speaking in this way. It is not referring to "earthquakes". And yes, because a portion of the mountain is under the earth's surface, it does act as "pegs".

So the bigger question is, how did the qur'an mention this scientific fact 1400 years ago when this knowledge was not yet known?

 

[painted wolf]

Response: On the contrary, mountains do in fact hold the land in place. Mountains are formed from the collision of two massive plates in the earth's crust. When they collide, the larger plate goes under the smaller one, creating a rippled affect to the smaller one which forms the layers of mountains above the earth's surface. Hence, the portion of the mountain shown above the earth is the same as below the earth's surface. This process is known as "isostacy".

Actually that isn't 100% accurate... in many places mountains are also formed by volcanic activity of plates ripping themselves apart. California for example is not held together by it's mountains...It's mountains are the result of the fracturing of the surrounding land.... The Mountains of the Great Rift Valley in Africa are the result of the land pulling apart and causing volcanic upheaval as well as fractional upheaval. These are called block mountains.

As for Isostasy... it isn't really that dramatic. Most of the mass of the mountain is above the ground line... and the mountain extends very shallowly below the rest of the crustal plate. Again it doesn't stop the plates from moving... as evidenced by the fact that there are still plenty of earthquakes in those uplift mountain areas.
The irony is that these mountains are where you find the most earthquakes... not the least.
If their job it to hold the earth still... well then, they are the worst plan ever.

Once the mountains are formed, it holds the plates together at the conjunction of the collision, preventing the earth from shaking.

Untrue... these areas the highest in earthquakes. The exact opposite you would expect if the mountains were preventing the earth from shaking.

When the qur'an refers to mountains preventing the earth from shaking, it is speaking in this way. It is not referring to "earthquakes". And yes, because a portion of the mountain is under the earth's surface, it does act as "pegs".

So now you are redefining what "the earth shaking" means?
That's convenient.
Regardless they don't stop the tectonic plates from moving in any way shape or form.

So the bigger question is, how did the qur'an mention this scientific fact 1400 years ago when this knowledge was not yet known?

I'm not seeing a scientific fact yet... and as I said before... lots of cultures all around the world were discovering scientific facts long before and totally without the qur'an.
Creator loves spreading knowledge around the world it seems.
This hardly makes a few bits of knowledge justification for faith.

wa:do

 

[Fatihah]

Actually that isn't 100% accurate... in many places mountains are also formed by volcanic activity of plates ripping themselves apart. California for example is not held together by it's mountains...It's mountains are the result of the fracturing of the surrounding land.... The Mountains of the Great Rift Valley in Africa are the result of the land pulling apart and causing volcanic upheaval as well as fractional upheaval. These are called block mountains.

Response: Do you have any evidence for your statements?

Quote: painted wolf
As for Isostasy... it isn't really that dramatic. Most of the mass of the mountain is above the ground line... and the mountain extends very shallowly below the rest of the crustal plate. Again it doesn't stop the plates from moving... as evidenced by the fact that there are still plenty of earthquakes in those uplift mountain areas.
The irony is that these mountains are where you find the most earthquakes... not the least.
If their job it to hold the earth still... well then, they are the worst plan ever.

Response: The verse does not say that it prevents "earthquakes".

Quote: painted wolf
Untrue... these areas the highest in earthquakes. The exact opposite you would expect if the mountains were preventing the earth from shaking.

Response: And once again, the verse does not say that mountains prevent earthquakes.

Quote: painted wolf
So now you are redefining what "the earth shaking" means?
That's convenient.
Regardless they don't stop the tectonic plates from moving in any way shape or form.

Response: It's not being redifined. You are redifining it by equating it with earthquakes.

 

[painted wolf]

Response: Do you have any evidence for your statements?

this is as good a start as any...
Fault-block mountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Volcano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Response: The verse does not say that it prevents "earthquakes".

Perhaps you can tell me then what "shaking of the earth" is... ?
Is this some phenomena that we haven't heard about?

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

I expect this debate to go somewhat along these lines.

 

[Fatihah]

this is as good a start as any...
Fault-block mountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Volcano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Response: All true. But block mountains are still formed from the friction of the tectonic plates against each other. Perhaps "collision" was not the best word. As for volcanoes forming mountains, it does say the specifics in the link. In fact, it actually says, "mountain like".

Quote: painted wolf
Perhaps you can tell me then what "shaking of the earth" is... ?
Is this some phenomena that we haven't heard about?

wa:do

Response: It simply is referring to the "friction" of the plates. The mountains formed hold the plates together and prevent the shaking of the earth when they are rubbing against each other. But back to the subject at hand, how was this fact stated in the qur'an 1400 years ago?

 

[painted wolf]

Response: All true. But block mountains are still formed from the friction of the tectonic plates against each other. Perhaps "collision" was not the best word. As for volcanoes forming mountains, it does say the specifics in the link. In fact, it actually says, "mountain like".

The rocky mountains are volcanic mountains. Hardly "mountain like".
Again, block mountains and volcanic mountains do not hold tectonic plates together... they are the result of plates pulling apart or sliding alongside each other.

Response: It simply is referring to the "friction" of the plates. The mountains formed hold the plates together and prevent the shaking of the earth when they are rubbing against each other.

Not they don't. The plates are moving just fine along the Rocky Mountains, Himalayas (chugging along quite quickly there actually 67mm a year!) Alps, Andies and so on. Nothing stops or slows this process. Mountains are the most geologically active areas and the last place you want to be to avoid "shaking".
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/

But back to the subject at hand, how was this fact stated in the qur'an 1400 years ago?

I have yet to hear a genuine fact... Mountains do not stop the Earth from doing anything.
It sounds like a good guess... quite logical in a way, but unfortunately it just isn't supported by the facts.
This is why trying to use science to justify faith is a silly idea. Faith is a matter between the individual and Creator.

wa:do

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Dont mountains occur because the plates that collide force land up? Not too sure. By the way, i would rather hear painted wolf's answer, since if you are argue science with her, then you are wrong.

 

[painted wolf]

Most.. but not all... a great many mountains also form as block mountains.. and one can't forget volcanic mountain building. This process is different from uplift mountain building, though there can be a small bit of uplift as one plate subducts under the other.

Just to clear up.. I think there are some good things in the Koran... I think Islam is as justifiable as any other faith... however when you start claiming scientific backing... well, then you had best have all your facts in a row. Otherwise you can look very silly very quickly.

wa:do

 

[YmirGF]

however when you start claiming scientific backing... well, then you had best have all your facts in a row. Otherwise you can look very silly very quickly.

I agree 100%.

:areyoucra You can almost see the commercials. :areyoucra

 

[themadhair]

Commercials?