Modern Science proves the Authenticity of the Glorious Qur'an

[Fatihah]

I never claimed it was a word. It is quite clearly two words. We express concepts and ideas by combining words together as a representation of those concepts and ideas. We call small combinations of words representing and idea or concept a ‘phrase’, which I believe was the word I used to describe it.

Response: How sad. A person not only makes up a word but now tries to defend the made up word as if it's logical. The extreme people will go...
Quote: themadhair
It is also quite interesting that you made no attempt to defend the falsity of run being a noun. This completely-avoiding-criticism trend of yours is funny the first twenty times. Now that it is predictable and the last refuge of the intellectually dishonest (or intellectually incapable but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt) it is frankly hilarious.

Response: And now after creating a word and defending it like it's logical, you now present yourself as clearly not being able to understand english by not knowing the difference between a noun and a verb. It just gets more and more pathetic for you. And now you want me to debate why it's difference? (Sigh). I don't debate common sense. What's next? You want to debate why 2+2 is 4?

Not to mention that all of this follows your complete display of immaturity and your vain character when you tried to defame me and seek some validation for your arguments in 531 of page 54 of the thread which a person would only do when they are handed a loss in a debate and can't stomach it. Throw in post 181 of page 17 of the thread when you deceivingly copied a post of mine from another thread and equated it with this one as if I was saying it in response to this thread, and one can clearly see the type of integrity a intelligence you have, none of which is very appealing.

 

[McBell]

I don't debate common sense.

As anyone who reads this thread will clearly understand....

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: Likewise.

Put a lot of time and effort into that one, didn't you. Almost as much as you put into examining your religion.

 

[Fatihah]

I have not communicated with Muslims until I came here, and to few other similar forums.

I've come to the conclusion that today's Muslims have no understanding of science. They don't even have understanding of their Qur'an.

They are merely fools that quoted from Qur'an, and trying to give credits for scientific-dumb Qur'an without any explanations or evidences.

Their reasoning are clearly inferior today than those Muslim scientists in their past. At least those scientists have done something useful with science and technology. Today, they only resort to propaganda, because they have no scientific reasoning left.

Response: And what I've come to learn is a complete sense of denial by non-muslims to give the qur'an it's credit for the scientific miracles. It is expected though because of a person's emotional attachment to their beliefs. What prevents the non-muslims from accepting these clear facts is that when they do, they will be giving praise to Allah(swt) a concept which they find difficulty to do because they are still so emotionally attached to their own beliefs. So a strong case of denial is built up inside which prevents them from seeing or acknowledging the truth of the qur'an.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: And now after creating a word and defending it like it's logical, you now present yourself as clearly not being able to understand english by not knowing the difference between a noun and a verb. It just gets more and more pathetic for you. And now you want me to debate why it's difference? (Sigh). I don't debate common sense. What's next? You want to debate why 2+2 is 4?

Not to mention that all of this follows your complete display of immaturity and your vain character when you tried to defame me and seek some validation for your arguments in 531 of page 54 of the thread which a person would only do when they are handed a loss in a debate and can't stomach it. Throw in post 181 of page 17 of the thread when you deceivingly copied a post of mine from another thread and equated it with this one as if I was saying it in response to this thread, and one can clearly see the type of integrity a intelligence you have, none of which is very appealing.

I see (a lot of) words, but I don't see any proof.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: And what I've come to learn is a complete sense of denial by non-muslims to give the qur'an it's credit for the scientific miracles. It is expected though because of a person's emotional attachment to their beliefs. What prevents the non-muslims from accepting these clear facts is that when they do, they will be giving praise to Allah(swt) a concept which they find difficulty to do because they are still so emotionally attached to their own beliefs. So a strong case of denial is built up inside which prevents them from seeing or acknowledging the truth of the qur'an.

Such keen insight, into your own limitations. All you need to do is switch a couple of words here and there, and you'd have yourself pegged to a tee.

 

[McBell]

Response: And what I've come to learn is a complete sense of denial by non-muslims to give the qur'an it's credit for the scientific miracles. It is expected though because of a person's emotional attachment to their beliefs. What prevents the non-muslims from accepting these clear facts is that when they do, they will be giving praise to Allah(swt) a concept which they find difficulty to do because they are still so emotionally attached to their own beliefs. So a strong case of denial is built up inside which prevents them from seeing or acknowledging the truth of the qur'an.

This is at best wishful thinking on your part.
At worst, blatant denial.

 

[themadhair]

Response: And now after creating a word

Definitional is a word according to definition: Definition from Answers.com
Equivalent is a word according to equivalent: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
I didn’t make those words up and I find it astounding that you appear to have a problem with putting words together to create a concept and/or idea. This may surprise you Fatihah, but every time you post you are also putting words together in order to form (non)conepts and/or (non)ideas.

and defending it like it's logical,

Putting words together in order to create phrases and sentences so as to communicate concepts and/or ideas is the purpose of language. I am truly surprised that I have to spell this out to you, particularly when you, as evidenced by your posts, are already familiar with the idea of putting words into phrases and sentences in order to communicate.

not knowing the difference between a noun and a verb.

According to run: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com the word run is a verb, not a noun.
According to buoyancy: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com buoyancy is a noun.
According to buoy: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com buoy is a noun.
I know they do not seem to have textbooks or other educational material where you live, but I am somewhat surprised that where you live is also deprived of a dictionary. I also failed to take into account that where you live may have placed IP blocks upon websites that can be used as dictionaries, or that your blackberry is unable to perform a dictionary search.

I don't debate common sense.

Of course you don’t. You neither seem to understand the concept nor exercise it either.

You want to debate why 2+2 is 4?

I somehow doubt that a detailed discussion on the axiomatic basis for group and field theory, as well as the foundational definitions underlining the concepts of binary operations, the importance of their commutativity, the identity element and associtated isomorphic inverses, that underpin the mathematics of arithmetic would be way over your head Fatihah.

Not to mention that all of this follows your complete display of immaturity and your vain character when you tried to defame me and seek some validation for your arguments in 531 of page 54 of the thread which a person would only do when they are handed a loss in a debate and can't stomach it.

Your inability to grasp the concept of [quοte][/quοte] tags is a source of amusment to me. Your inability to understand the very material you rely on for debate amuses me. Your constant inability to process the simpler points of logic-based argument amuses me. Your failure to realise that your actions are an embarrassment to the koran and the Muslim community amuses me – and asking the intervention of other Muslims to stop your intellectual trainwreck was an act of kindness since it is clear that you have no intent of listening to the good advice being given to you by the non-Muslims on this thread.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Throw in post 181 of page 17 of the thread when you deceivingly copied a post of mine from another thread

You should note, Fatihah, that when I quote someone I include the trackback link so people can check where that quote came from. You will note that the first quote on this post contains a blue arrow next to your name. This is the trackback link to the post I took the quote from. I included this so people can see where I take my quotes from. Obviously doing this is an act of deception.

and equated it with this one as if I was saying it in response to this thread,

I never implied you made the quote in this thread. I used that quote to give an illustration of your mindset and how you were not debating evidence.

and one can clearly see the type of integrity a intelligence you have, none of which is very appealing.

Funny how that when I quote you I give the trackback link, but when you smear me you will not do likewise. Of course you will once again use the blackberry as the basis for trying to get away with double standards like you always do.

It is also funny how, in this post, I addressed what you said and used that as the basis of my comments while you ignored my post and simply smeared me. I expect nothing less from you at this stage Fatihah, as I believe you have demonstrated a mindset incompatible with honest debate.

 

[YmirGF]

Response: And what I've come to learn is a complete sense of denial by non-muslims to give the qur'an it's credit for the scientific miracles. It is expected though because of a person's emotional attachment to their beliefs. What prevents the non-muslims from accepting these clear facts is that when they do, they will be giving praise to Allah(swt) a concept which they find difficulty to do because they are still so emotionally attached to their own beliefs. So a strong case of denial is built up inside which prevents them from seeing or acknowledging the truth of the qur'an.

But Fatihah, can you not recognize the simple inescapable fact that you (and other Muslims) have not proven to anyone with more than the intellectual grasp of a withered carrot that there are any so-called "scientific miracles" in the pages of the Qur'an?

For the record, it is a fact, I have no interest in supporting the nonesensical notion of "god" as outlined in Islam. Fortuantely reality is not so craven as Islam paints it being, certainly not in my experience, at least. I think that your posts, repeatedly underscore the reality that many Muslims are incapable of critical thought as the straightjacket of your belief structures do not allow for such thoughts to exists.

 

[YmirGF]

Definitional is a word according to definition: Definition from Answers.com
Equivalent is a word according to equivalent: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
I didn’t make those words up and I find it astounding that you appear to have a problem with putting words together to create a concept and/or idea. This may surprise you Fatihah, but every time you post you are also putting words together in order to form (non)conepts and/or (non)ideas.

Oddly, I understood the expression at first glance and am puzzled why Fatihah would take exception to it. Grammatically, it makes perfect sense, regardless of what Fatihah wishes to imagine. Like in many areas, I'd simply point to the old adage of "consider the source" of the objection. When you consider the level of credibility that Fatihah has garnered here, well... his/her/its comments are fairly small potatoes.

 

[gnostic]

And what I've come to learn is a complete sense of denial by non-muslims to give the qur'an it's credit for the scientific miracles.

If you know any real scientist then you would know that scientist don't believe in miracles.

Science allow for errors, you and your so-called Qur'an don't believe in errors.

Doubt is the cornerstone of science. It is from doubt that we gain our knowledge, and it is through doubt that we seek to learn and question what we see, hear, feel and experience.

Islam, like any religion, rely too much on faith, instead of seeking answers through reasoning. You don't doubt and you don't question...perhaps Muslims did previously, but they don't now. You just read the Qur'an and believe it without questioning. Hence, you and the Muslims of today are scientific impotent. You rely on trickery and propaganda. Why else would Muslims seek to link their Qur'an with the so-called "scientific miracles", because you are no longer able to think for yourself.

People of modern science did all the hard work, but you seek to undermine with propaganda with this so-called "scientific miracles".

So spare me you accusation of denial of the truth. You are no better than the Christian creationists and intelligent designers.

And you forgot one more thing.

What you called "denial" of miracles, I'd called skepticism. Like doubts, skepticism is another cornerstone of science.

I express my skepticism and doubts on the Qur'an's so-called claims of the existence of djinn, whom Muslims referred to as creature of smoke and fire. Have you seen any? Can you prove their existence?

When you can prove that, then I will believe that Qur'an is not spinning fairytale of ghouls and goblins.

And when you can prove people can talk and understand the language of birds, serpents or ants, and vice-versa, then I will believe that the Qur'an is not spinning fables.

 

[Fatihah]

Definitional is a word according to definition: Definition from Answers.com
Equivalent is a word according to equivalent: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
I didn’t make those words up and I find it astounding that you appear to have a problem with putting words together to create a concept and/or idea. This may surprise you Fatihah, but every time you post you are also putting words together in order to form (non)conepts and/or (non)ideas.

Response: You're still defending this? This is just another example of how extreme you will go to seek validation. Definitional is a word. Equivalent is a word. But putting them together as you have done does not make any sense within any sentence. They both are adjectives and putting them together "definitional equivalent", does not make sense. Yes you can put words together but every word does not go together. (Like defitional equivalent) "Cat" is word. "Dog" is a word. But when I create the sentence and put them side by side,"I saw a cat dog", the sentence does not make sense. It's a shame though that your pride is so big, that you're not even realizing that your defense on using such a term is making you look very absurd. How sad. You are embarassing yourself but your pride won't let you see it. To make it worst, as we speak, you will have your usual three supporters on this thread comment on my resonse in a condemning way so it makes you more comfortable to keep defending a term like "defitional equivalent". A very sad thing to watch.

Quote: themadhair
You should note, Fatihah, that when I quote someone I include the trackback link so people can check where that quote came from. You will note that the first quote on this post contains a blue arrow next to your name. This is the trackback link to the post I took the quote from. I included this so people can see where I take my quotes from. Obviously doing this is an act of deception.


I never implied you made the quote in this thread. I used that quote to give an illustration of your mindset and how you were not debating evidence.

Response: That's rediculous. In the post you deceptively copied, I'm not even debating an issue. More evidence of your deception as well as dishonesty.

Quote: themadhair
It is also funny how, in this post, I addressed what you said and used that as the basis of my comments while you ignored my post and simply smeared me. I expect nothing less from you at this stage Fatihah, as I believe you have demonstrated a mindset incompatible with honest debate.

Response: Likewise

 

[Fatihah]

But Fatihah, can you not recognize the simple inescapable fact that you (and other Muslims) have not proven to anyone with more than the intellectual grasp of a withered carrot that there are any so-called "scientific miracles" in the pages of the Qur'an?

Response: Still in denial I see.

Quote: YmirGF
For the record, it is a fact, I have no interest in supporting the nonesensical notion of "god" as outlined in Islam. Fortuantely reality is not so craven as Islam paints it being, certainly not in my experience, at least. I think that your posts, repeatedly underscore the reality that many Muslims are incapable of critical thought as the straightjacket of your belief structures do not allow for such thoughts to exists.

Response: A person in denial like yourself is incapable of acknowledging the clear evidence presented from my post. Especially if you think for a second that you've provided any sense of intelligence in your arguments.

 

[themadhair]

Response: You're still defending this? This is just another example of how extreme you will go to seek validation. Definitional is a word. Equivalent is a word. But putting them together as you have done does not make any sense within any sentence.

It would appear that there some publications that disagree with you:
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Google Book Search
Chapter 5: Testing the frequency factor — with different texts and different readers

They both are adjectives and putting them together "definitional equivalent", does not make sense.

Are you claiming that two adjectives cannot be combined? So I am mistaken if I use the phrase ‘intolerably dense person’?

Yes you can put words together but every word does not go together. (Like defitional equivalent) "Cat" is word. "Dog" is a word. But when I create the sentence and put them side by side,"I saw a cat dog", the sentence does not make sense.

‘Cat’ and ‘dog’ are nouns, the words definitional and equivalent are adjectives. I already know that you have a confusion on different words as you seem to think ‘run’ is a noun. I notice that you still haven’t retracted your incorrect claim over ‘run’ being a noun, choosing instead to avoid the issue.

To make it worst, as we speak, you will have your usual three supporters on this thread comment on my resonse in a condemning way so it makes you more comfortable to keep defending a term like "defitional equivalent".

Could it be more simple than that? Could it be that the one on this thread is wrong?

Response: That's rediculous. In the post you deceptively copied, I'm not even debating an issue. More evidence of your deception as well as dishonesty.

I note that you simply ignored my comments and still have not included a trackback. Funny that you avoid including that trackback.

 

[YmirGF]

Especially if you think for a second that you've provided any sense of intelligence in your arguments.

Well, my dear, I need only look to the source of this assertion to ascertain its validity. You must try to appreciate that you have no credibility whatsoever.

 

[Fatihah]

If you know any real scientist then you would know that scientist don't believe in miracles.

Response: Many scientists embrace islam and become muslims so that statement is untrue.

Quote: gnostic
Science allow for errors, you and your so-called Qur'an don't believe in errors.

Response: That wouldn't make sense then when you yourself try to prove something scientifically when your proof allows error.

Quote: gnostic
Doubt is the cornerstone of science. It is from doubt that we gain our knowledge, and it is through doubt that we seek to learn and question what we see, hear, feel and experience.

Response: Ageed. And doubt can turn to fact when scientifically proven like the qur'an.

Quote:
Islam, like any religion, rely too much on faith, instead of seeking answers through reasoning. You don't doubt and you don't question...perhaps Muslims did previously, but they don't now. You just read the Qur'an and believe it without questioning. Hence, you and the Muslims of today are scientific impotent. You rely on trickery and propaganda. Why else would Muslims seek to link their Qur'an with the so-called "scientific miracles", because you are no longer able to think for yourself.

Response: Perhaps some muslims have. But as I have demonstrated in the "Propaganda: Why it is necessary for islam" thread, the test provided to prove the authenticity and miracle of the qur'an shows that the qur'an is in fact what it claims.

Quote: gnostic
People of modern science did all the hard work, but you seek to undermine with propaganda with this so-called "scientific miracles".

Response: Propaganda in the eyes of those in denial, but not to those who are open-minded and seek the truth.

Quote: gnostic
So spare me you accusation of denial of the truth. You are no better than the Christian creationists and intelligent designers.

And you forgot one more thing.

What you called "denial" of miracles, I'd called skepticism. Like doubts, skepticism is another cornerstone of science.

I express my skepticism and doubts on the Qur'an's so-called claims of the existence of djinn, whom Muslims referred to as creature of smoke and fire. Have you seen any? Can you prove their existence?

When you can prove that, then I will believe that Qur'an is not spinning fairytale of ghouls and goblins.

And when you can prove people can talk and understand the language of birds, serpents or ants, and vice-versa, then I will believe that the Qur'an is not spinning fables.

Response: But they all have been proven.

 

[themadhair]

Response: Ageed. And doubt can turn to fact when scientifically proven like the qur'an.

Care to link to the peer-reviewed paper or scientific journal where this was done? You do realise what ‘scientifically validated’ means? I inserted the word ‘validated’ for ‘proven’ because science doesn’t actually do any proof unlike what your kindergarten version of it would entail.

For a claim to be ‘scientifically verified’ it has to achieve the following:

First it has to pass the process of peer-review. This is where you submit your claim to a scientific journal which then enlists experts in the requisite field to examine your claim, and any supporting research that you carried out to evidence that claim, for any errors in scientific methodology and concordance with other known scientific discoveries etc.

Second, if your claims passes peer-review, it then enters the scientific arena. This is where the scientific community attack the living daylights out of your claim looking for flaws and errors. This is where they attempt to bludgeon and debaucher your claim into a disproved disembodied disembowelled carcass.

Third, if your claim manages to survive the scientific arena, it can rightfully be considered ‘scientifically verified’.

So I ask again – can you direct me to the peer-reviewed paper or science journal that shows the koran to be ‘scientifically verified’?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

A thought just occurred to me. When someone is as blindly and zealously devoted to a religion as Fatihah is, it's actually hard to tell them from a troll.

I don't think he is smart enough to troll, but in this case, he has the same effect. He is repeating (ad nauseum) his sophomoric rant, and he is absolutely incapable of self reflection. He simply has no capacity for it.

It is his religion that suffers for it, but that is on him, not us.

 

[McBell]

For a claim to be ‘scientifically verified’ it has to achieve the following:

First it has to pass the process of peer-review. This is where you submit your claim to a scientific journal which then enlists experts in the requisite field to examine your claim, and any supporting research that you carried out to evidence that claim, for any errors in scientific methodology and concordance with other known scientific discoveries etc.

Second, if your claims passes peer-review, it then enters the scientific arena. This is where the scientific community attack the living daylights out of your claim looking for flaws and errors. This is where they attempt to bludgeon and debaucher your claim into a disproved disembodied disembowelled carcass.

Third, if your claim manages to survive the scientific arena, it can rightfully be considered ‘scientifically verified’.

Thus the reason he hasn't proven/verified/shown squat.
Hells bells, my 8 year old daughter has a much better grasp on science than Fatihah.

 

[McBell]

his sophomoric rant

Surely you jest...?

Or perhaps you are being generous?