Quran is free of errors

[gnostic]

Response: You are correct. And both silicon and oxygen make up the human body. They may not form together to make silicate minerals, but the elements are still there.

But even with the trace element of silicon there, it prove nothing, because it doesn't make silicate in any shape or form.

Response: Actually, not this time. You are correct. And all of these elements can be found in the human body. The difference is that Allah has made them work independently of one another so our clay like structure or resemblence is no more. But the elements found in clay still exists in us. My advice to you would be the same. If you look up some biology books on what humans are made of you will discover the same.

But that mean you have no evidences, let alone proof.

Don't confuse evidences with proof, fatihah. Evidences can be use to either prove or disprove any given theory.

And since you don't have evidence, then you can't prove it.

And when I mean evidence, I mean more than just "Allah say so..." If a book make a claim, then you will have to find evidence that would support the claim. You don't have the evidences, so you have no proof, and certainly it is not a fact.

You have admitted that there are no clay in our no body, but you also have evidences to support that were any clay in our original ancestors (eg Adam, although I don't believe that Adam was ever a real man, created or otherwise) having form out of clay.

Another thing you can't prove is God put those elements in the human body.

So your (and the Qur'an's) claim is unsupported and unvalidated.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:darkendless]Fatihah we've all tried to be reasonable with you, but you seem unable to understand what we're communicating to you. I don't know why that is, but your defiance in the face of common sense is more than frustrating.

If you could demonstrate that you understand what we post, we may have more respect for you. But your blatent ignoring of our evidence is rude and frustrating.[/QUOTE]

Response: And like wise, I've demonstrated that your evidence is not evidence at all. A fact in which you keep ignoring as well.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:JMorris]i do find it curious as to why Muslims keep making threads like this, but only putting them in the Quran DIR. there was this one, and others claiming the Quran is full of scientific facts and the such.

it would seem to me, that the only reason to make a thread like this in a DIR, is to keep non-Muslims out of the discussion. then all of you can gather and nod your head and say, "yes, it is a perfect. yes, it is perfect". do not misunderstand me, i am not pointing this accusation at you .lava, but it seems to be this was the intent of the people who create these threads.(End quote)

Response: This is a debate forum so you are allowed to debate. As for your claim of these threads just being in Qur'anic DIR, that's not true. There is a thread called "Modern science proves the authenticity of the glorious qur'an" in the "general religious debate" forum.

Quote: JMorris
if muslims dont want to be ridiculed, dont make threads claiming that everything in the quran is 100% scientifically true and proven. it is obviously not. like i've said a number of times, the entire debate on this thread is over, people are not made of clay, so the quran has atleast 1 error, and thus, not "free of error".(End quote)

Response: No one ever said that we don't want to be ridiculed. And there is no error in the qur'an.


i also find it curious that i dont notice any other religion on this forum doing this. if there were christian threads claiming these silly things, we'd be there debating them too. but they dont make claims like "The Bible is free of error", now do they? i wonder why that is.(End quote)

Response: Because they know that it has errors. But they do not see this as any reason to jeapordize their faith because they feel as though the errors have nothing to do with their religion.

Quote: JMorris
so why are muslim so afraid of having non-muslims coming into their threads and pointing out the obvious?[/QUOTE]

Response: No one is afraid. You are more than welcomed to come.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:gnostic]But even with the trace element of silicon there, it prove nothing, because it doesn't make silicate in any shape or form.(End quote)

Response: I never said it did prove anything. That's the whole point. What it comes down to is that neither side can prove their point scientifically. You have no proof that man was not created from clay scientifically, nor do I have any scientific evidence that they were. However, I can and have provided evidence to support my claim scientifically, but support is not solid proof. Likewise, you have done the same.The best both sides can do is reason. My reason is because the creator knows his creation. So if Allah says man was created from clay, then man was created from clay. But neither side has any proof scientifically, if we were truthful.

Quote: gnostic
But that mean you have no evidences, let alone proof.

Don't confuse evidences with proof, fatihah. Evidences can be use to either prove or disprove any given theory.

And since you don't have evidence, then you can't prove it.

And when I mean evidence, I mean more than just "Allah say so..." If a book make a claim, then you will have to find evidence that would support the claim. You don't have the evidences, so you have no proof, and certainly it is not a fact.(End quote)

Response: And once again, that proof has been provided in post 961 of page 97 of the thread.

Quote: gnostic
You have admitted that there are no clay in our no body, but you also have evidences to support that were any clay in our original ancestors (eg Adam, although I don't believe that Adam was ever a real man, created or otherwise) having form out of clay.(End quote)

Response: You are absolutely right. My claims are not proofs at all. I agree. It is evidence to support my claim. But that does not make it true. Likewise, all you have is the same. Evidence trying to support your claims, but they are not proofs. My proof is the infallible word of Allah.

Quote: gnostic
Another thing you can't prove is God put those elements in the human body.

So your (and the Qur'an's) claim is unsupported and unvalidated.[/QUOTE]

Response: Post 961 proves to the contrary.

 

[darkendless]

[QUOTE:darkendless]Fatihah we've all tried to be reasonable with you, but you seem unable to understand what we're communicating to you. I don't know why that is, but your defiance in the face of common sense is more than frustrating.

If you could demonstrate that you understand what we post, we may have more respect for you. But your blatent ignoring of our evidence is rude and frustrating.

Response: And like wise, I've demonstrated that your evidence is not evidence at all. A fact in which you keep ignoring as well.[/quote]

Why is it not evidence? Because its not scripture?

 

[gnostic]

Response: I never said it did prove anything.

Yes you did. I asked you specifically if you could prove that God created man out of clay.

I asked you can you verify it, and you said "yes".

And I also asked if the evidence can be tested, and again you said "yes".

What do you think I mean by "test" and "verify", fatihah?

I was asking if you could prove it, but you didn't.

I wrote in post 889:

So what evidences do you provide? Have you any evidence?

If you think the Qur'an is free from errors, then you should be the ones to provide some, if any, when you come to debate. Well, to date, you have not provided a single shred of evidence, whenever you debate. All you have done is say "where is your evidence".

Show me your evidence that man is made out of clay. C'mon, man. Prove to me that I am not communicating to a religious simpleton.

You replied with, in post 896:

Response: The one who created man would no their creation. So if Allah says he created man from clay, he created man from clay. What other proof is needed?

And in post 910, I replied with this:

That's not proof, you're simpleton.

Proof is something that you can observed, verified, quantified and test. You're an simpleton, if you don't understand that.

Can you verify what the Qur'an say?

Can you test it?

Can you observe and see that man is made out of clay?

And you responded with the following answers, in post 950:

Response: Yes.

Response: Yes.

Response: No. But you can't prove that man wasn't created from clay either.

The truth of the matter is, that your "yes" answers should have been "no" instead, because you "test" and you can't "verify" it.

Because if you could observe it, test it and verify it (verify it with more tests or new evidences), then you would have your proof. But you didn't.

And now you are saying you don't evidences to support it.

That's the whole point. What it comes down to is that neither side can prove their point scientifically. You have no proof that man was not created from clay scientifically, nor do I have any scientific evidence that they were.

But then you contradict yourself again with this:

However, I can and have provided evidence to support my claim scientifically, but support is not solid proof.

Oh, I must have missed that? *dryly*

Where is your "scientifically" evidence?

I certainly did see you provide anything remotely "scientifically".

Evidences without test or verificationis not proof. Do you even get that yet?

If no one can verify your claim or evidence, then is not proof. Verifying usually consist of observations, measuring (quantifying) and heaps of test.

And Allah saying so, do not comprise as being "scientific".

And I did prove to you, that man is not made out clay, several times, but apparently you're not understanding what is written in front of you. :banghead3:

 

[Gharib]

seeing that man is not created from clay as some say, then what is man created from. if memorie serves me right i think it is stated that life began in water, so are we made from water? does anyone of you guys know?

 

[JMorris]

Elemental composition

Main article: Chemical makeup of the human body
Element Percent by mass
Oxygen 65
Carbon 18
Hydrogen 10
Nitrogen 3
Calcium 1.5
Phosphorus 1.2
Potassium 0.2
Sulfur 0.2
Chlorine 0.2
Sodium 0.1
Magnesium 0.05
Iron 3.8g in men, 2.3g in women
Cobalt, Copper, Zinc, Iodine < 0.05 each
Selenium, Fluorine < 0.01 each
(from Chang, Raymond (2007). Chemistry, Ninth Edition. McGraw-Hill. pp. p. 52. ISBN 0-07-110595-6. )[1]

Other elements necessary for human life (see dietary mineral) are:

• manganese
• molybdenum
• nickel

A small amount of chromium is necessary for health.
Boron has been found necessary for optimal health in rats, so presumably it plays a role in humans as well.
The elements needed for life are relatively common in the Earth's crust, and conversely most of the common elements are necessary for life. An exception is aluminium, which is the third most common element in the Earth's crust (after oxygen and silicon), but seems to serve no function in living cells. Rather, it is harmful.
Besides these elements that are necessary for life, our bodies contain trace quantities of most other elements, including some that are harmful, such as mercury, cadmium, and lead.


Composition of the human body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. The composition of clay materials

Clay materials are composed of solid, liquid and vapour phases. The solid phases are of mineral and organic phases that make up the framework of the clay materials. The mineralogy can be broadly subdivided into the clay and non-clay minerals, including poorly crystalline, so-called ‘amorphous’ inorganic phases. By definition, minerals are crystalline solids with well-ordered crystal structures but clay minerals and other inorganic phases in clay materials are often poorly crystalline compared to minerals such as quartz and feldspar. Some clay materials may be dominated by one mineral phase, e.g. smectite in bentonites, opal in diatomaceous earths. However, most clay materials are composed of heterogenous mineral mixtures. Based on the bulk mineral analysis of over 400 samples, Shaw & Weaver (1965) reported the modal mineralogical composition of siliciclastic mudrocks to be:
60% clay minerals
30% quartz and chert
5% feldspar
4% carbonates
1% organic matter
1% iron oxides
There is a general increase in the predominance of clay minerals in sedimentary rocks with decreasing grain size (Fig. 2.1) (Blatt et al 1972). However, it needs to be stressed that, whilst clay minerals are usually significant, if not predominant, phases in clay materials, other mineral phases are usually present in varying amounts and can significantly affect the properties and behaviour of the materials. In soils, mineral and organic compositional variations reflect the weathered parent rocks and the physical, chemical and biological factors controlling the soil forming processes

2. The composition of clay materials -- 21 (1): 13 -- Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications

hmmm....... there seems to be a significant difference

 

[themadhair]

seeing that man is not created from clay as some say, then what is man created from. if memorie serves me right i think it is stated that life began in water, so are we made from water? does anyone of you guys know?

Depends how you asking the question and in what context you are asking it. I&#8217;m going to answer it in a biology context &#8211; the first human came from non-human ancestors. Thus the first humans were made from the biological tissues of that ancestor.

You ask how did life get started. This is more chemistry than biology and to answer it we need to establish what we mean by life. I&#8217;m going to take a self-replicating cellular micro organism to be the starting point of life. There are a number of steps to be explored:

1) How did the organic chemicals arise for that life? At the moment it seems that many of these simple organic chemicals will quite happily form on their own under the right conditions. Meteorites that have fallen to earth have been found to contain organic compounds (organic compounds are carbon based molecules that are essential for life). The exact nature of the chemistry gets complicated but the short answer is they seem to combine naturally from elements and other commonplace natural chemicals. Materials on the early earth, such as montmorillonite clay, could have acted as catalysts for the processes of producing these organic chemicals. At present quite a lot of these organic chemicals have been shown to form under natural conditions. There are a lot of unanswered questions, such as why some chemicals seem thermodynamically favoured over others and exactly what rations these chemicals would need to have arisen, but the chemistry to date suggests no real problem to these chemicals forming.

2) The first step on the road to life is the ability to self-replicate. Scientists have already created a variety of self-replicating molecules from simple organic compounds. The question of what self-replicating molecules were the precursors to life is again an open question and in need of more research. Whenever self-replication is achieved a sort of &#8216;chemical evolution&#8217; (different from biological evolution but has similarities) takes over. Errors creep in to the replication process. Some of those errors will lead to self-replicating molecules that don&#8217;t replicate quite as well, while other errors will create more efficient self-replicators. The more efficient self-replicators will out-compete others. In this way you would have the basis for a progression towards increased replication efficiency. At present the best candidate for this precursor self-replicating molecule is RNA (whose base constituents such as nucleotides has been shown can occur naturally). As RNA continued to replicate it would get more efficient as more errors creep in with the good errors being selected for.

3) The next step to life is DNA. Essentially DNA is a double stranded more complex version of RNA. The steps to get from RNA to DNA are totally unknown (and this scenario may not even be the case). The hypothesis is that RNA, given enough generations, would become DNA with enough selection and enough molecular errors to select from. DNA is a highly efficient slef-replicating molecule.

4) An important step in life is the formation of cells. Whether the cells came first before RNA self-replication or much later in the process is an open question &#8211; and one hotly debated by scientists researching this topic. The idea that the most primitive cell membranes were composed of lipids makes a lot of sense since &#8216;lipid bubbles&#8217; can form on their own (it has been shown that lipids and fatty acids can arise naturally). A cell membrane would be a great source of protection for any early self-replicating molecule so a progression from there makes a lot of sense chemically &#8211; just how that first cell and self-replicator combined is another open question being explored by research.

Those are the basic outlines of the steps needed for life. The topic, called abiogenesis, involves some of the most complicated chemistry on the planet and is under active research. Lots of unanswered questions but it has produced useable technologies (knowledge of protein foldings discovered through abiogenesis has led to new means of protein synthesis).

To answer you question of what life is made from &#8211; simple organic chemicals and water.

That was fun.

 

[Alla Prima]

hmmm....... there seems to be a significant difference

Koran not free of errors! Sorry Muslims. What can you do.

 

[Fatihah]

QUOTE:darkendless

Why is it not evidence? Because its not scripture? (End quote)

Response: Not at all. It's because it simply didn't prove anything.

 

[Fatihah]

Yes you did. I asked you specifically if you could prove that God created man out of clay.

I asked you can you verify it, and you said "yes".

And I also asked if the evidence can be tested, and again you said "yes".

What do you think I mean by "test" and "verify", fatihah?

I was asking if you could prove it, but you didn't.

I wrote in post 889:



You replied with, in post 896:


And in post 910, I replied with this:


And you responded with the following answers, in post 950:





The truth of the matter is, that your "yes" answers should have been "no" instead, because you "test" and you can't "verify" it.

Because if you could observe it, test it and verify it (verify it with more tests or new evidences), then you would have your proof. But you didn't.

And now you are saying you don't evidences to support it.
But then you contradict yourself again with this:



Oh, I must have missed that? *dryly*

Where is your "scientifically" evidence?

I certainly did see you provide anything remotely "scientifically".

Evidences without test or verificationis not proof. Do you even get that yet?

If no one can verify your claim or evidence, then is not proof. Verifying usually consist of observations, measuring (quantifying) and heaps of test.

And Allah saying so, do not comprise as being "scientific".

And I did prove to you, that man is not made out clay, several times, but apparently you're not understanding what is written in front of you. :banghead3:

Response: You somehow completely misread or couldn't comprehed. Read your own post again. In post 896 said "yes" I can test and verify that the "qur'an" is true. In post 950 I said "no" I can not test and verify that a body is made of clay. There is no contridiction, just you not comprehending. I said I can produce scientific evidence that supports that man is created from clay. The funny thing is that you quoted in your own post of me saying all of this and still didn't comprehend your own post.

 

[JMorris]

I said I can produce scientific evidence that supports that man is created from clay.

i have asked you repeatedly to produce some scientific evidence, and you have refused. why are you afraid to let us see this "scientific" evidence?

so far you have 0

 

[gnostic]

In post 896 said "yes" I can test and verify that the "qur'an" is true.

I was not asking if you think or believe that the Qur'an ITSELF was true.

We were debating on GOD CREATING HUMAN OUT OF CLAY, and I was asking if could observe, test and validate any of this, HENCE I was asking you for proof. And you said "yes" and "yes" and then "no".

What do you think I was talking about?

Can you provide a single shred of your so-called "scientific" evidence (about human created out of clay) to support YOUR CLAIM as well as the claim of the Qur'an?

Which is it, yes or no?

If you say "yes" then where is this evidence?

Do you understand yet, what I am saying?

Because so far, none of us who has been debating with you, have read detail of your evidences. You have not given us anything. WHERE ARE THEY?

My goodness, you are so thick. We repeatedly ask you again and again and again, but you always say that you have one, but we have not seen them.

 

[darkendless]

[QUOTE:darkendless]Fatihah we've all tried to be reasonable with you, but you seem unable to understand what we're communicating to you. I don't know why that is, but your defiance in the face of common sense is more than frustrating.

If you could demonstrate that you understand what we post, we may have more respect for you. But your blatent ignoring of our evidence is rude and frustrating.

Response: And like wise, I've demonstrated that your evidence is not evidence at all. A fact in which you keep ignoring as well.[/quote]

Because i dont believe in the Quran? The Quran is a book with no credibility, only 1.5 billion sheep who think they know better than the real world. Sad really.

If my evidence is not evidence, then you sir are retarded, im sorry, but its the truth. Evidence is facts, not fiction. Science is fact, the Quran is fiction.

 

[Gharib]

can i ask if we are not made out of clau then why is eating clay good for you?

 

[darkendless]

can i ask if we are not made out of clau then why is eating clay good for you?

Its rich in minerals that are good for us, iron, zinc.... a lot of things. Its like taking those Swiss Ultivites to some extent (i assume as an Aussie resident you've seen the ads with Ricky Ponting????).

 

[Gharib]

themadhair said:

To answer you question of what life is made from – simple organic chemicals and water.

That was fun.

wiki says:

Organic chemistry is a discipline within chemistry which involves the scientific study of the structure, properties, composition, reactions, and preparation (by synthesis or by other means) of chemical compounds that contain carbon. These compounds may contain any number of other elements, including hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, the halogens as well as phosphorus, silicon and sulfur.[1][2][3]
The original definition of "organic" chemistry came from the misconception that organic compounds were always related to life processes. However, organic molecules can be produced by processes not involving life. Life as we know it also depends on inorganic chemistry. For example, many enzymes rely on transition metals such as iron and copper; and materials such as shells, teeth and bones are part organic, part inorganic in composition. Apart from elemental carbon, only certain classes of carbon compounds (such as oxides, carbonates, and carbides) are conventionally considered inorganic. Biochemistry deals mainly with the natural chemistry of biomolecules such as proteins, nucleic acids, and sugars.
Because of their unique properties, multi-carbon compounds exhibit extremely large variety and the range of application of organic compounds is enormous. They form the basis of, or are important constituents of many products (paints, plastics, food, explosives, drugs, petrochemicals, to name but a few) and (apart from a very few exceptions) they form the basis of all earthly life processes.
The different shapes and chemical reactivities of organic molecules provide an astonishing variety of functions, like those of enzyme catalysts in biochemical reactions of live systems.
Organic chemistry is a discipline within chemistry which involves the scientific study of the structure, properties, composition, reactions, and preparation (by synthesis or by other means) of chemical compounds that contain carbon. These compounds may contain any number of other elements, including hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, the halogens as well as phosphorus, silicon and sulfur.[1][2][3]
The original definition of "organic" chemistry came from the misconception that organic compounds were always related to life processes. However, organic molecules can be produced by processes not involving life. Life as we know it also depends on inorganic chemistry. For example, many enzymes rely on transition metals such as iron and copper; and materials such as shells, teeth and bones are part organic, part inorganic in composition. Apart from elemental carbon, only certain classes of carbon compounds (such as oxides, carbonates, and carbides) are conventionally considered inorganic. Biochemistry deals mainly with the natural chemistry of biomolecules such as proteins, nucleic acids, and sugars.
Because of their unique properties, multi-carbon compounds exhibit extremely large variety and the range of application of organic compounds is enormous. They form the basis of, or are important constituents of many products (paints, plastics, food, explosives, drugs, petrochemicals, to name but a few) and (apart from a very few exceptions) they form the basis of all earthly life processes.
The different shapes and chemical reactivities of organic molecules provide an astonishing variety of functions, like those of enzyme catalysts in biochemical reactions of live systems.

Organic chemistry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

then you said:

Its rich in minerals that are good for us, iron, zinc.... a lot of things. Its like taking those Swiss Ultivites to some extent (i assume as an Aussie resident you've seen the ads with Ricky Ponting????).

yes i have seen those ads.

so according to your post, we are made from clay.

themadhair said that we are made from water and organic chemicals, (what are organic chemicals?)

and as it seems that our body requires a great number of different metals then we are made from clay. since we, just as how clay is and us being made from it, are in need of metals.

are we not?

 

[darkendless]

so according to your post, we are made from clay.

themadhair said that we are made from water and organic chemicals, (what are organic chemicals?)

and as it seems that our body requires a great number of different metals then we are made from clay. since we, just as how clay is and us being made from it, are in need of metals.

are we not?

No, clay is an organic compound, but so is salt, are we made from salt? No, but that is also good for us.
There are many many organic chemicals. Most of which are not found in our bodies due to their toxicity.

We need pretty much every metal. Zinc, magnesium, potassium, Iron, sodium.

Of those i mentioned, sodiums use is to transmit signals from our brain around our body such as to make me type right now.

Clay doesn't need metals. Clay contains tiny little particles FROM rocks which can contain metals due to the igneous, methamorphic and sometimes but rarely sedimentary rock formation cycles.

Us using metal is in now way, shape or form evidence to suggest we're made of clay.

Clay is a naturally occuring compound that tends to dominate the environment is is found in. In engineering, when we talk about soil properties, we only talk about the dominating soil type which if clay is found, always clay. This is because it poses the greatest threat to stability, and is downright dangerous when it gets wet. Strangely, when we find large amounts of pottery (hardened clay) its also dangerous, because it instantly suggests the soil is weak. What im getting at is that clay is such a useless structural material (unless you want to talk about composite ceramics) that it can never be useful enough to produce humans.

 

[Fatihah]

i have asked you repeatedly to produce some scientific evidence, and you have refused. why are you afraid to let us see this "scientific" evidence?

so far you have 0

Response: Likewise, you haven't produced a single piece of proof showing man not to be made of clay. As for my evidence, you've already done it for me in post 988 of page 99.