Quran and Science : Just wanted some comments

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you think that I have quoted vague verses, feel free to correct me. I am open for correction . Plz tell me how those verses are vague and how I have mis-interpreted them ( plz include the correct interpretation).

To start out with, the verse about the "three veils of darkness" is, IMO, very vague.

And I can't provide the "correct" interpretation. That's the whole point: it's too vague to determine whether the author was actually referring to what you say he was.

 

[McBell]

I have asked it before and ask again, can someone explain this forer effect to me.

From post #17:
Vagueness, The Forer Effect, & Confirmation Bias

For even more information on the forer effect,
please feel free to stop by post #17
and check out ALL the links for the forer effect.

 

[McBell]

If you think that I have quoted vague verses, feel free to correct me. I am open for correction . Plz tell me how those verses are vague and how I have mis-interpreted them ( plz include the correct interpretation).

You have been told in posts:

24
36
60
67
107
114
130
​

And you forgot to address these questions:

Is not the premise of your argument that no one could have known these "scientific facts" back when the Quran was being revealed?
And that this premise that no one could have known these things back then is 'proof' that the Koran is divinely written?
​

( plz include the correct interpretation)

Why is it I get the impression that you are looking for someone else to do your homework for you?

I mean really, post #17 has several links to the Forer Effect, yet you repeatedly ask for clarification...
You have been told repeatedly of the flowery/poetic/vague language of the verses...
You want everyone else to explain the vagueness of your own holy book to you...

 

[Quoth The Raven]

[quote =9-10ths_Penguin]Heck, I'd bet dollars to donuts that even the Hardy Boys mysteries have a few statements in them that could be interpreted to be more or less true in a manner that would be beyond the level of scientific knowledge at the time the book was written.[/quote]
I'm currently working on a theory that Lady McBeth's 'Out damn spot' speech was a reference to the use of Luminol in modern crime scene investigation. Her references to not being able to remove all the blood - and thus evidence of the crime - despite frequent washings clearly suggests that even in Elizabethan England, William Shakespeare knew that there was a chemical that could reveal blood even when it was invisible to the naked eye. I haven't quite decided yet if I'm going to work the divine inspiration angle, or if I'm going to lean more towards the suggestion he had a time machine. Both are equally compelling.:yes:

MFaraz_Hayat[/B]]Quran was revealed, as a guidance and book of miracles. Most atheists only consider Science as the truly greatest explanation to all things. How else Am I supposed to answer questions that why I believe in Islam, other than providing such verses to atheists. ( Do not think that I believe in Islam only because of these scientific miracles, to me Quran is far greater than science but this is the only way to explain to atheists).

I don't think you give atheists enough credit on a number of fronts. For starters, most of them don't really care why you believe what you do, they just don't believe the same thing. Of course, if you ask them why they don't believe, they may then ask you why you do, but most of the ones I know are happy to accept that you feel you've had some sort of experience that's proven the existence of diety to you. I'n my experience it's more often certain varieties of theist who want -to them - a logical explaination of why atheists do not believe.
Now, as to 'science' being the way to make them understand why you believe, frankly it's a little difficult for the non-Muslim theistic amongst us to understand why any of the stuff you've posted would make a believer of someone...you're certainly not explaining anything to atheists. Rather you're showing that despite any logical argument from any other source, you're blinded by your religion. You're seeing what you want to see - or in actual fact in this case, what you've been told is there, seeing as you freely admitted in the thread where I disproved the verse you claimed referred to continental drift by something as simple as putting it in context that you've done no research of your own into this but are simply parroting - and the atheists you're attempting to convince are quite aware of it. So are the theists that have weighed into the argument.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

You have been told in posts:

24
36
60
67
107
114
130
​

And you forgot to address these questions:

Is not the premise of your argument that no one could have known these "scientific facts" back when the Quran was being revealed?
And that this premise that no one could have known these things back then is 'proof' that the Koran is divinely written?
​

Why is it I get the impression that you are looking for someone else to do your homework for you?

I mean really, post #17 has several links to the Forer Effect, yet you repeatedly ask for clarification...
You have been told repeatedly of the flowery/poetic/vague language of the verses...
You want everyone else to explain the vagueness of your own holy book to you...

In the end you misquoted me. If you read my post, you will find that I am saying that though my interpretation is correct, yet you guyz keep emphasizing how I am trying to fit in explanations by mis-interpreting. If I am mis-interpreting, possibly you would know the correct one.
Let me remind you the rules of debate: we have to provide evidence for our talks. I have provided verses with explanation, yet all I heard was that I am mis-interpreting, or that Quran uses vague sentences. If my interpretation is wrong, prove it wrong by providing correct interpretation.
Please also explain that when Quran directly calls embryo: "leech like substance" and in reality it does resemble a leech, is it vague? I don't think so. Further, when it calls it "chewed like substance" and embryo actually has teeth like marks on it, is it vague? I don't think so.

 

[camanintx]

In the end you misquoted me. If you read my post, you will find that I am saying that though my interpretation is correct, yet you guyz keep emphasizing how I am trying to fit in explanations by mis-interpreting. If I am mis-interpreting, possibly you would know the correct one.
Let me remind you the rules of debate: we have to provide evidence for our talks. I have provided verses with explanation, yet all I heard was that I am mis-interpreting, or that Quran uses vague sentences. If my interpretation is wrong, prove it wrong by providing correct interpretation.
Please also explain that when Quran directly calls embryo: "leech like substance" and in reality it does resemble a leech, is it vague? I don't think so. Further, when it calls it "chewed like substance" and embryo actually has teeth like marks on it, is it vague? I don't think so.

We are not necessarily saying that your interpretation is incorrect, rather we are saying that either 1) your claim that they didn't know this 1,400 years ago is unfounded, or 2) the author could have had a different interpretation which is equally valid.

While embryos may resemble a leech or a "chewed like substance" at various stages, how would they have not known this 1,400 years ago? Miscarriages were extremely common back then so it's not like embryos would not have been available for examination.

Peace4all says that the line "and the mountains as pegs" describes mountain roots which exist far below the Earth's crust, but how do you know they weren't equating mountains to the stakes that held their tents in place?

Just because you choose to interpret it a certain way isn't proof of divine inspiration.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

We are not necessarily saying that your interpretation is incorrect, rather we are saying that either 1) your claim that they didn't know this 1,400 years ago is unfounded, or 2) the author could have had a different interpretation which is equally valid.

While embryos may resemble a leech or a "chewed like substance" at various stages, how would they have not known this 1,400 years ago? Miscarriages were extremely common back then so it's not like embryos would not have been available for examination.

Peace4all says that the line "and the mountains as pegs" describes mountain roots which exist far below the Earth's crust, but how do you know they weren't equating mountains to the stakes that held their tents in place?

Just because you choose to interpret it a certain way isn't proof of divine inspiration.

First of all, such claims could not have been made by just observing miscarriaged babies. The scientists of modern age are not stupid, to have spent so many thousand dollars for equipment, which showed them the appearance of embryo etc. when it was simply a case of studying miscarriages.
The only slight significant knowledge of embryos was with Greeks. And It has been proven in a previous post ( As a response to Fluffy) that these could not have been copied from Greek books.
The answer to mountains part too had been posted before, let me post it again:
"Well, I did some research on the net and there is no denying that mountains indeed have deep roots. If you are unsure search Google on topic of isostasy and mountain formation etc. I think that peace4all is trying to imply is, that as we all know that large parts of earth's lithosphere is floating on the underlying layer, the asthenosphere, the mountains having deep roots ( look at it logically) having deep roots, would hinder movements caused by such floating. ( i took some info from information available on online Britannica)
As far as language of Quran is concerned, well it's in the form of poetry. The Quran was not only revealed for this particular age you know. When it was revealed, particularly in Arabia, literature was given most importance. Infact, Arabs were at height of literature and in arrogance used to call, those unable to speak Arabic "dumb" . Thus, the Quran was revealed to show that their literature was nothing compared to Quran's literary excellence.
You are saying that "pegs/stakes" is wrongly used. The word is being used to describe mountains and as I have made clear in my previous posts, mountains do have deep roots. Now consider a stake, it is driven in the ground such that majority of it's part is beneath the surafce, and so do mountains. Stakes and pegs are used as comparisons to "deep roots" of mountains. And seeing that mountains indeed have deep roots, which in fact are more longer than the part above land, the Quran is completely accurate."
First of all the verse did not say tent pegs. It just said pegs. Even if you argue, I believe that both descriptions can fit.

 

[McBell]

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means:

1. to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2. to use (another's production) without crediting the source
3. to commit literary theft
4. to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
​

Source:
Plagiarism.org : Learning Center : Plagiarism Definitions, Tips on avoiding Plagiarism, Guidelines for proper citation, & Help Indentifying Plagairism


You copied that work from a website without saying so or providing a link to the site you got it from.

If I had not provided the link above, I would be also be guilty of plagiarism.
The source above is kinda tricky though because the source I quoted is also quoting, or perhaps paraphrasing, another source.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means:

1. to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2. to use (another's production) without crediting the source
3. to commit literary theft
4. to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
​

Source:
Plagiarism.org : Learning Center : Plagiarism Definitions, Tips on avoiding Plagiarism, Guidelines for proper citation, & Help Indentifying Plagairism


You copied that work from a website without saying so or providing a link to the site you got it from.

If I had not provided the link above, I would be also be guilty of plagiarism.
The source above is kinda tricky though because the source I quoted is also quoting, or perhaps paraphrasing, another source.

I believe the thread concerns science? Discuss moral issues in another forum. I have copied and pasted what? I have taken directly from source ( if you are talking about scientific claims). It's a pdf file available for download.
Anyways, any response to the scientific aspect of post?

 

[credance]

I think you are doing your religion a disservice by using these obviously ancient revelations to prove modern science or vice versa.
As to the sun, who dug it out of the muddy boog?
These points your are trying to make are not going to take root with someone who has not been preconditioned to accept them. What you are showing however is the mind's ability to except almost anything with the proper conditioning.
I think your time would be better spent pointing out how the Quran holds the keys to peace and abundant life for all God's children.
Let us discuss Khadijah's influence over Muhammed's early "revelations" when she held the purse strings (money). How she convinced him his revelations were from the God of Abraham.
How after her death his view towards women, Jews, and Christians changed so drastically.
What is really baffling to many un-believers is Allah's eagerness to change his mind to please Muhammed's desires.

Are you up to the challenge?

 

[McBell]

I believe the thread concerns science? Discuss moral issues in another forum. I have copied and pasted what? I have taken directly from source ( if you are talking about scientific claims). It's a pdf file available for download.
Anyways, any response to the scientific aspect of post?

Interesting.
You ask what plagiarism is and now jump all over the answer.

The post in question is ADMITTED BLATANT PLAGIARISM, which is flat out against forum rules.

As far as the alleged science of the post, I am pretty sure you need not hear my thoughts yet again on your blatant use of the forer effect.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVISORY***

Plagiarism is against forum rules and is not tolerated. Also, long quotes from the internet are also against the rules. If you want people to read stuff online, just provide the URL and why it pertains to the debate.

Some plaigarised posts have been removed, some posts may be edited to add sources.

Thanks,
Angellous

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

I think you are doing your religion a disservice by using these obviously ancient revelations to prove modern science or vice versa.
As to the sun, who dug it out of the muddy boog?
These points your are trying to make are not going to take root with someone who has not been preconditioned to accept them. What you are showing however is the mind's ability to except almost anything with the proper conditioning.
I think your time would be better spent pointing out how the Quran holds the keys to peace and abundant life for all God's children.
Let us discuss Khadijah's influence over Muhammed's early "revelations" when she held the purse strings (money). How she convinced him his revelations were from the God of Abraham.
How after her death his view towards women, Jews, and Christians changed so drastically.
What is really baffling to many un-believers is Allah's eagerness to change his mind to please Muhammed's desires.

Are you up to the challenge?

Who did dig sun out of "booz"? Give the verse plz. The thread's topic is Quran and Science. The questions you are asking belong to the thread " What do you feel is wrong with Islam" in Religious debates forum. Don't make this an off-topic discussion, thank you.

 

[YmirGF]

Who did dig sun out of "booz"? Give the verse plz. The thread's topic is Quran and Science. The questions you are asking belong to the thread " What do you feel is wrong with Islam" in Religious debates forum. Don't make this an off-topic discussion, thank you.

Well M_H, it seems that you are clearly on the losing side of this thread. Have you noted that the only folks who agree with your esteemed thinking are fellow Muslims? That ought to act as a blazing neon sign, quite frankly. Aside from this, don't you personally find it fascinating how you use "western" science (the combined knowledge of the infidels) to explain the passages of the "Noble" Qur'an? One would expect that Muslims themselves would be the ones to created "modern" sciences. Sadly, that is simply not the case. Heck, Muslims have not been at the forefront of scientific thought for centuries and I would suggest there is a very good reason for that.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Interesting.
You ask what plagiarism is and now jump all over the answer.

The post in question is ADMITTED BLATANT PLAGIARISM, which is flat out against forum rules.

As far as the alleged science of the post, I am pretty sure you need not hear my thoughts yet again on your blatant use of the forer effect.

Well, my posts have been deleted.

As far as the forer effect you have mentioned still: (check these verses)
1)“It is not permitted
to the Sun to catch up the Moon,
nor can the Night outstrip the Day:
Each (just) swims along
in (its own) orbit
(according to Law).”
[Al-Qur’an 36:40]


“It is He Who created
the Night and the Day,
and the sun and the moon:
All (the celestial bodies)
swim along, each in its
rounded course.”[Al-Qur’an 21:33]

Personally, I find a statement clear if it directly states a thing. Here, it is clearly being mentioned that each celestial body moves according to orbits. Even sun ( a fact which was recently discovered), I don't see what is vague here. Plz explain.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Well M_H, it seems that you are clearly on the losing side of this thread. Have you noted that the only folks who agree with your esteemed thinking are fellow Muslims? That ought to act as a blazing neon sign, quite frankly. Aside from this, don't you personally find it fascinating how you use "western" science (the combined knowledge of the infidels) to explain the passages of the "Noble" Qur'an? One would expect that Muslims themselves would be the ones to created "modern" sciences. Sadly, that is simply not the case. Heck, Muslims have not been at the forefront of scientific thought for centuries and I would suggest there is a very good reason for that.

I might be losing side, as no one wants to abandon what he thinks is right. For you the Quran is wrong (not from God) and no matter what, it will remain so. For me It is correct ( From God) and will remain so.
As far as only muslims agreeing with my thinking: Well I did mention 4 non-muslim scientists who accepted these facts in Quran, and one had even converted:
1. Prof. Tejasen (converted after Quran talked about pain felt due to receptors in skin)
2. Professor Keith Moore ( accepted facts on embryology in Quran)
3. Professor Marshall Johnson( accepted Quran to have divine origins and facts of embryology in it)
4.Prof. Durga Rao (concerning darkness in depths of ocean)
You talk as if "infidels" are too be ridiculed and disregarded in Islam? ( again off-topic). Scientific discoveries by whomever still are scientific discoveries.
Issues of Muslim world do not concern me ( at least in this topic). I talk about the Quran.

 

[camanintx]

Personally, I find a statement clear if it directly states a thing. Here, it is clearly being mentioned that each celestial body moves according to orbits. Even sun ( a fact which was recently discovered), I don't see what is vague here. Plz explain.

Even in the earliest geocentric models of the solar system dating back centuries before the Quran, the Sun and the Moon had their own orbits.

And doesn't the line "It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon" concern you since this is exactly what appears to happen when you watch the sky over the course of a month?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, I find a statement clear if it directly states a thing. Here, it is clearly being mentioned that each celestial body moves according to orbits. Even sun ( a fact which was recently discovered), I don't see what is vague here. Plz explain.

To an observer on Earth, the Sun, planets and stars all appear to move in circular arcs across the sky. A person who believed that the Earth was the fixed point that everything else moved around could still come up with a description like the one you quoted.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Even in the earliest geocentric models of the solar system dating back centuries before the Quran, the Sun and the Moon had their own orbits.

And doesn't the line "It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon" concern you since this is exactly what appears to happen when you watch the sky over the course of a month?

First of all I did not claim anything about the part of verse you quoted. I just do not like to present incomplete verses. I was specifically referring to orbitals part. And even the part you quoted is not incorrect. It is scientifically correct.

Secondly, provide evidence for your statement. As far as I knew, before Quran was revealed this fact was not known. Provide evidence or anyone can just stand up and pass of such statements. The claim made in my post had verses to support it. You are just passing statements that this was a known fact.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

To an observer on Earth, the Sun, planets and stars all appear to move in circular arcs across the sky. A person who believed that the Earth was the fixed point that everything else moved around could still come up with a description like the one you quoted.

If you would read the second verse, it clearly says that all celestial bodies are in motion.This even includes earth. Notice that the word "All" has been used. Thus, Earth according to Quran is not stationary.
Secondly, did I mention that there were no telescopes at that time to observe planets?

“It is He Who created
the Night and the Day,
and the sun and the moon:
All (the celestial bodies)
swim along, each in its
rounded course.”
[Al-Qur’an 21:33]
The Arabic word used in the above verse is
yasbahoon . This word is derived from the word
sabaha. It carries with it the idea of motion that
comes from any moving body. If you use this word
for a person on the ground, it would not mean that
he is rolling but would imply that he is walking or
running. If you use this word for a person in water,
it would not mean that he is floating but would
imply that he is swimming.
Similarly, if you use the word yasbah for a celestial
body such as the sun, it would not only mean that it
is flying through space but would also mean that it
is rotating as it goes through space. Most school
textbooks have now incorporated the fact that the
sun rotates about its axis. The rotation of the sun
about its own axis can be proved with the help of an
equipment that projects the image of the sun on the
top of a table, so that one can examine the image of
the sun without being blinded. It is noticed that the
sun has spots which complete a circular motion once
every 25 days i.e. the sun takes approximately 25
days to rotate round its axis.

Book :The Quran And Modern Science, Author: Zakir Naik, Islamic Research Foundation. ( Hope this solves moderation issues)