• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Quran is free of errors

S

Shahzad

Transhumanist
The Quran makes very few statements about observable reality that go beyond a superficial description that any casual observer could give, thus presenting relatively few opportunities for a hunter of clear errors to get one's teeth into. Occasionally though it slips up beautifully. I've always liked this one:

Sura 41:9-12

[FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL, HELVETICA][SIZE=-1][Yusufali 41:9] Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.
[SIZE=-1]
[Yusufali 41:10] He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[Yusufali 41:11] Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[Yusufali 41:12] So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

I won't even go into the six days myth which is derived from Genesis, but take a look at the order of creation. First we have the Earth and all that is on it, created in four days, only then do we have the heavens and the stars completed in two days. Elements heavier than Lithium could not have existed before the stars did, being formed by nucleosynthesis in stellar cores. The Earth consists mostly of these heavy elements, thus the creation myth of the Quran contradicts reality.

Also, the Quran makes use of the "seven heavens" description, referring to the ancient view of the sky being made up of seven spheres consisting of the orbits of the Moon, Sun and the five visible planets, another clear error.

Finally stars are said to be in the lowest heaven when they're much further away than the planets are.
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
Shahzad said:
The Quran makes very few statements about observable reality that go beyond a superficial description that any casual observer could give, thus presenting relatively few opportunities for a hunter of clear errors to get one's teeth into. Occasionally though it slips up beautifully. I've always liked this one:

Sura 41:9-12

[FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL, HELVETICA][SIZE=-1][Yusufali 41:9] Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.
[SIZE=-1]
[Yusufali 41:10] He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[Yusufali 41:11] Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[Yusufali 41:12] So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

I won't even go into the six days myth which is derived from Genesis, but take a look at the order of creation. First we have the Earth and all that is on it, created in four days, only then do we have the heavens and the stars completed in two days. Elements heavier than Lithium could not have existed before the stars did, being formed by nucleosynthesis in stellar cores. The Earth consists mostly of these heavy elements, thus the creation myth of the Quran contradicts reality.

Response: There's a statement. Now just provide the proof.

Quote: Shahzad
Also, the Quran makes use of the "seven heavens" description, referring to the ancient view of the sky being made up of seven spheres consisting of the orbits of the Moon, Sun and the five visible planets, another clear error.

Response: Your giving meaning to the qur'an. Show me from the qur'an where it says that the 7 heavens is " referring to the ancient view of the sky being made up of seven spheres consisting of the orbits of the Moon, Sun and the five visible planets"?

Quote: Shahzad
Finally stars are said to be in the lowest heaven when they're much further away than the planets are.

Response: So exactly where is the proof that they are not in the lower heaven?
Click to expand...
 
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Fatihah said:
The evidence:
"In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots"(See the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page. 413). Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)"

My simple yes or no question is this: Are you telling me that this simple comprehensive statement is not evidence that mountains stabilize the earth? Yes or No?
Click to expand...
I am telling you , in no uncertain terms, that the above passage is not evidence that mountains stabilise the earth.

I previously explained, in detail for you Fatihah, the context and meaning of that passage and why it has no connection with stabilising the earth from shakes/earthquakes. I also referenced an example, the highest mountain range the Himalayas, that demonstrated that isostasy often doesn’t even occur in order to further illustrate the irrelevance of isostasy to ‘mountain shake prevention’.

Quoting a passage that one did not understand and had no relevance to one’s argument is wise in the ways of koranic science.

My contextual explanation once more for Fatihah:
themadhair said:
Once there, under the subtitle "geology", go to the second paragraph and read. In it it says "In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots"(See the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page. 413). Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)".
Click to expand...
There are two gaping holes in your interpretation Fatihah (koranic science once again huh?):

Firstly, the weight of some mountain systems can, in the absence of sufficient tectonic pressure, cause the plate containing them to sink lower into the magma layer beneath it. This is what is meant by the above passage, and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the prevention of earthquakes/quakes/shaking or stabilising the earth within the context of preventing shaking/earthquakes/quakes. Of course, why would a little thing like ‘context’ get in the way of koranic science?

Secondly, the highest mountain range in the world, the Himalayas, is not in isostatic equilibrium. The use of isostasy has to take account of the mechanics of the plate interaction being examined, and it is often the case that mountain ranges do not have deep roots at all.
Click to expand...
 
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Fatihah said:
Response: There's a statement. Now just provide the proof.
…
Response: So exactly where is the proof that they are not in the lower heaven?
Click to expand...
I encourage you, Shazhad, not to allow Fatihah to demand any proof from you until (s)he presents proof for his/her argument first.

Do not allow Faithah to get away with his/her demand for double standards.
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
themadhair said:
I am telling you , in no uncertain terms, that the above passage is not evidence that mountains stabilise the earth.

I previously explained, in detail for you Fatihah, the context and meaning of that passage and why it has no connection with stabilising the earth from shakes/earthquakes. I also referenced an example, the highest mountain range the Himalayas, that demonstrated that isostasy often doesn’t even occur in order to further illustrate the irrelevance of isostasy to ‘mountain shake prevention’.

Quoting a passage that one did not understand and had no relevance to one’s argument is wise in the ways of koranic science.

My contextual explanation once more for Fatihah:
Click to expand...

Response: Let's try it again and see if you can catch on. The question was a simple "yes" or "no" question. So once again: "In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots"(See the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page. 413). Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)"

Are you telling me that this is not proof that mountains do not stabilize the earth? "Yes" or "No"?
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
themadhair said:
I encourage you, Shazhad, not to allow Fatihah to demand any proof from you until (s)he presents proof for his/her argument first.

Do not allow Faithah to get away with his/her demand for double standards.
Click to expand...

Response: Not everyone is fond with posting absurdities.
 
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Fatihah said:
Response: Let's try it again and see if you can catch on. The question was a simple "yes" or "no" question. So once again: "In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots"(See the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page. 413). Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)"

Are you telling me that this is not proof that mountains do not stabilize the earth? "Yes" or "No"?
Click to expand...
I forgot that sentences containing many words confuse koranic scientists.

The answer is NO.

Because I know that Fatihah is going to misunderstand the triple negative involved in answering the question, I am going to make sure there is no ambiguity with my above answer by reiterating it repeatedly in the hope that Fatihah understands my answer.

Your passage is not proof that mountains stabilise the earth.
Your passage does not prove that mountains stabilise the earth.
The contents of your passage do not evidence that mountains stabilise the earth.
The claim that mountains stabilise the earth is not proved by your passage.
The passage does not have any relation to the claim ‘mountains stabilise the earth’.
The capacity for mountains to stabilise the earth is not demonstrate with your passage.
The stabilising power of mountains upon the earth is not shown in your passage.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
themadhair said:
I forgot that sentences containing many words confuse koranic scientists.

The answer is NO.

Because I know that Fatihah is going to misunderstand the triple negative involved in answering the question, I am going to make sure there is no ambiguity with my above answer by reiterating it repeatedly in the hope that Fatihah understands my answer.

Your passage is not proof that mountains stabilise the earth.
Your passage does not prove that mountains stabilise the earth.
The contents of your passage do not evidence that mountains stabilise the earth.
The claim that mountains stabilise the earth is not proved by your passage.
The passage does not have any relation to the claim ‘mountains stabilise the earth’.
The capacity for mountains to stabilise the earth is not demonstrate with your passage.
The stabilising power of mountains upon the earth is not shown in your passage.
Click to expand...
Me thinks it is far to little, far to late.
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
Response: Let's try it again and see if you can catch on. The question was a simple "yes" or "no" question. So once again: "In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots"(See the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page. 413). Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)"

Reference from the website:
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain)

Are you telling me that this is not proof that mountains do not stabilize the earth? "Yes" or "No"?

Quote themadhair:
The answer is NO. (End quote)

Response: Thank You.
 
Last edited:
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Fatihah said:
Response: Let's try it again and see if you can catch on. The question was a simple "yes" or "no" question. So once again: "In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots"(See the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page. 413). Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)"

Reference from the website:
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain)

Are you telling me that this is not proof that mountains do not stabilize the earth? "Yes" or "No"?

Quote themadhair:
The answer is NO. (End quote)

Response: Thank You.
Click to expand...

Why do I get the feeling I was right to have included this clarification when I answered Fatihah’s question?
Because I know that Fatihah is going to misunderstand the triple negative involved in answering the question, I am going to make sure there is no ambiguity with my above answer by reiterating it repeatedly in the hope that Fatihah understands my answer.

Your passage is not proof that mountains stabilise the earth.
Your passage does not prove that mountains stabilise the earth.
The contents of your passage do not evidence that mountains stabilise the earth.
The claim that mountains stabilise the earth is not proved by your passage.
The passage does not have any relation to the claim ‘mountains stabilise the earth’.
The capacity for mountains to stabilise the earth is not demonstrate with your passage.
The stabilising power of mountains upon the earth is not shown in your passage.
Click to expand...
 
YmirGF

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
themadhair said:
Why do I get the feeling I was right to have included this clarification when I answered Fatihah’s question?
Click to expand...
Maybe it is the same reason that I hear the theme from the Twilight Zone playing in my head when I read his/her/its words now.
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Fatihah said:
Response: Thank You.
Click to expand...

Response: I see a statement, but I don't see any proof.


You know, after giving it some thought, I have to say that this thread is mistitled.

Based on what eselam and Fatihah have shown us, it would have been more correct to title the thread "Quran is full of errors".
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
The Voice of Reason said:
I don't think mental age or maturity is even close. I know third graders that are more intellectually honest than Fatihah. It really isn't even close.
Click to expand...

Response: Says the self-proclaimed hypocrite.( Post 432 of page 44 in the "Modern science proves the authenticity of the glorious qur'an" thread.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top