Quran is free of errors

[themadhair]

All the time I keep hearing, that I am saying something implausiible etc. well, explain it to me, that where am I incorrect?

I think your mistake started when you made the claim your argument was scientific. It is a total joke for you to claim this. When you then introduce the supernatural as a means of avoiding the scientific shortcomings of your argument then you espousing something that isn’t deserving of debate but ridicule.

Why not be honest? Simply come right out and say it:
“I don’t give a hoot about science and I believe in pure freaking magic.00”

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

I think your mistake started when you made the claim your argument was scientific. It is a total joke for you to claim this. When you then introduce the supernatural as a means of avoiding the scientific shortcomings of your argument then you espousing something that isn’t deserving of debate but ridicule.

Why not be honest? Simply come right out and say it:
“I don’t give a hoot about science and I believe in pure freaking magic.00”

Okay....so after much search, I give you this 'reliable' link:
Clay's matchmaking could have sparked life - 23 October 2003 - New Scientist
Now what do you have to say about this issue?
BTW, even in my previous argument supernatural force is not necessary. All we need is sufficient energy.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

More disinformation. Son, Muslim's are not a race, they are a religious group -- whose ranks are currently swollen with an unhealthy number of fanatics. To support my thinking on this, not a single Muslim (to my memory) has stated that the ideas expressed in this miserable thread by their fellow Muslims are patently ridiculous. That glaring reality does not bode well.

I do feel that this microcosm of Muslim sentiments could be substantiated over a far larger sampling that would bear out what I am saying. It is already a matter of public record that Muslim nation's have less scientists per capital than any other. I would suggest there is a significant reason for that and the sentiments expressed by Muslims in this thread are highly instructive as to why that is.

Yes, I read your tiresome, juvenile responses to Darkendless and would also state that if you supplied the requisite energy that indeed pigs could fly. So what? It proves nothing. Would have and could have, have no place in science. Muslims would do well to try to appreciate that small detail.​

Just check the link I gave to themadhair.
And btw, you claimed that muslims would never excel in science in the future ever again. A bold claim, unless of course one has seen the future.

 

[YmirGF]

And if you think I am wrong, why not just give an argument rather than using insults? All the time I keep hearing, that I am saying something implausiible etc. well, explain it to me, that where am I incorrect?

To edify an absurd argument with a meaningful reply simply lends credibility to the argument to begin with. I hope you understand what I am meaning here. Besides this is the simple fact that the scientific community has largely ignored the pronouncements of Muslims on these supposed "scientific miracles".

To illustrate what I am saying try to tell me why these so-called "scientific miracles" are not officially presented to relevant scientific groups in standard peer-reviewed journals. (The Saudi's could certainly afford the pittance required for such a venture.) Instead, these arguments are advanced to laypeople directly, who are by definition not experts. These ideas are given as being valid arguments, where in fact they are paper thin hypotheses that are based on what is known as "junk science".

 

[themadhair]

Okay....so after much search, I give you this 'reliable' link:
Clay's matchmaking could have sparked life - 23 October 2003 - New Scientist
Now what do you have to say about this issue?
BTW, even in my previous argument supernatural force is not necessary. All we need is sufficient energy.

Do you really think that abiogenesis research suggests that humans came from clay?? Do you even understand what a catalyst is and why it facilitates chemical reactions without actually contributing material to it??? And if you really want to take this line of argumentation then prove you are not simply quote-mining and scraping the bottom of the barrel – tell Fatihah he was wrong when he challenged my post regarding hominid evolution. Unless you didn’t understand why abiogenesis supports that.

Sufficient energy? Because introducing sufficient energy to break the chemical bonds in clay to into its elements wouldn’t have raised the temperature of environment to point of killing off any humans that resulted.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

To edify an absurd argument with a meaningful reply simply lends credibility to the argument to begin with. I hope you understand what I am meaning here. Besides this is the simple fact that the scientific community has largely ignored to pronouncements of Muslims on these supposed "scientific miracles".

To illustrate what I am saying try to tell me why these so-called "scientific miracles" are not officially presented to relevant scientfic groups in standard peer-reviewed journals. (The Saudi's could certainly affort the pittance required for such a venture.) Instead, these arguments are advanced to laypeople directly, who are by definition not experts. These ideas are given asbeingvalid arguments, where in fact they are paper thin hypothosies that are based on what is known as "junk science".

I was never arguing about whether it's a miracle or not (check my posts). I was replying as to whether the verse is scientifically incorrect or no. Quite a difference.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Do you really think that abiogenesis research suggests that humans came from clay?? Do you even understand what a catalyst is and why it facilitates chemical reactions without actually contributing material to it??? And if you really want to take this line of argumentation then prove you are not simply quote-mining and scraping the bottom of the barrel – tell Fatihah he was wrong when he challenged my post regarding hominid evolution. Unless you didn’t understand why abiogenesis supports that.

Sufficient energy? Because introducing sufficient energy to break the chemical bonds in clay to into its elements wouldn’t have raised the temperature of environment to point of killing off any humans that resulted.

I never said break all of them into elements. Rather simpler compounds and elements only in certain cases.
Anyways, I gave you the scientific source. I will continue discussion when you accept that the verse is not incorrect scientifically. If not, still, then please state reasons. Any other thing, I'll do it after this.
PS:the link I quoted, told that clay could have played an important role. Yet scientists are still confused over how all the stuff got together to form life. So basically, it shows that while clay may have played an integral role in life formation, its not proven still that life can form on its own.
From the source:
Research has already shown that some of building blocks for RNA-like molecules and membranes are spontaneously created by chemical reactions in outer space and in conditions that may have existed on the primordial Earth. But how these subunits were then assembled is still debated.
Please read the source, properly.

 

[themadhair]

I was never arguing about whether it's a miracle or not (check my posts). I was replying as to whether the verse is scientifically incorrect or no. Quite a difference.

Of course you never claimed it was a miracle. That attempt to introduce ‘allahdidit’ as a means of getting around the science couldn’t possibly be construed as trying to claim it was miraculous.

 

[YmirGF]

I was never arguing about whether it's a miracle or not (check my posts). I was replying as to whether the verse is scientifically incorrect or no. Quite a difference.

*sigh* Very well. Ignore everything else I was saying.

The problem with this viewpoint is which translation do we use?
Which meanings of the Arabic words do we use?
Which interpretation do we use?

Sadly, it's little more than an intellectual version of "ring around the rosy".

Of course you never claimed it was a miracle. That attempt to introduce ‘allahdidit’ as a means of getting around the science couldn’t possibly be construed as trying to claim it was miraculous.

Thanks Hairyone, I missed that wee tidbit. You are, as usual, correct.

 

[themadhair]

I will continue discussion when you accept that the verse is not incorrect scientifically.

If you take ‘not incorrect scientifically’ utterly reliant on violating the science by introducing supernatural causation then we agree.
If you take ‘not incorrect scientifically’ to mean ‘not incorrect scientifically’ then we do not agree.

But keep pretending that you know anything about science. It is actually rather entertaining.

 

[YmirGF]

I will continue discussion when you accept that the verse is not incorrect scientifically.

But the verse is not scientifically correct. We are not made out of clay. What part don't you understand? If you are going to trot out the idea that because we have a number of the same ingredients of clay, so we are made from clay, then you would also have to agree that we are made out of alcohol (or the essence of alcohol), as we have all the ingredients of alcohol in our body as well. The point is that saying we are made from clay or even the essence of clay is relatively meaningless, thus there is no scientific accuracy, per se.

The point is that quite obviously, the Qur'an is wrong and Muslims are now tripping over themselves to show how it isn't really wrong in a "kinda", "sorta" way. As I said, given enough energy, even pigs can fly. So what?

 

[themadhair]

I don’t know why I am bothering here. Must be that MFaraz_Hayat’s staggeringly poor attempt to play scientist got my goat.

Okay....so after much search, I give you this 'reliable' link:
Clay's matchmaking could have sparked life - 23 October 2003 - New Scientist
Now what do you have to say about this issue?

From the article:

Two of the crucial components for the origin of life - genetic material and cell membranes - could have been introduced to one another by a lump of clay, new experiments have shown.

The study of montmorillonite clay, by Martin Hanczyc, Shelly Fujikawa and Jack Szostak at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, revealed it can sharply accelerate the formation of membranous fluid-filled sacs.

Tell me MFaraz_Hayat – did you really think that I wasn’t aware of this research? From earlier in the thread:

Depends how you asking the question and in what context you are asking it. I’m going to answer it in a biology context – 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’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 ‘chemical evolution’ (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’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 – 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 ‘lipid bubbles’ 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 – 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 – simple organic chemicals and water.

That was fun.

So you linked to an article that pretty much matches something I had already posted? And, being the koranic scientist that you were, you didn’t even read the article to see that it doesn’t even support your claim?

Tell me this MFaraz_Hayat. If you were in my shoes would you be any less dismissive? Linking to an article you don’t even understand, that doesn’t even support your claim, is a joke.

 

[gnostic]

What you don't understand that the sun has many of the same ingredients that are found in the human body, does that mean the sun is "human"?

The sun has many of the ingredients (elements) like clay, is the sun made out of "clay"?

We have the some of the same ingredients as wood, but are we (humans) made out of woods?

The above questions are the same as your flawed logic.

I have made the same points to Fatihah, but what he supposed to read would just ricochet off his pupils, so that the message does not reach his brains.

The clay having some elements in their molecules as the human body, but don't mean that the human body is made out of clay, or even extract of clay.

You don't know how much the Muslims looked like ignorant fools when they make such outrageous claims. And the logic within the Qur'an is equally flawed. Only Muslims will try to twist science and their Qur'an to ensure that their precious scripture would SEEM TO BE perfect. But the perfection is only an illusion, and the Qur'an being free of errors is simply collective delusions of the Muslims.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:gnostic]What you don't understand that the sun has many of the same ingredients that are found in the human body, does that mean the sun is "human"?

The sun has many of the ingredients (elements) like clay, is the sun made out of "clay"?

We have the some of the same ingredients as wood, but are we (humans) made out of woods?

The above questions are the same as your flawed logic.

I have made the same points to Fatihah, but what he supposed to read would just ricochet off his pupils, so that the message does not reach his brains.

The clay having some elements in their molecules as the human body, but don't mean that the human body is made out of clay, or even extract of clay.

You don't know how much the Muslims looked like ignorant fools when they make such outrageous claims. And the logic within the Qur'an is equally flawed. Only Muslims will try to twist science and their Qur'an to ensure that their precious scripture would SEEM TO BE perfect. But the perfection is only an illusion, and the Qur'an being free of errors is simply collective delusions of the Muslims.[/QUOTE]

Response: Post 1147 on page 115 proves to the contrary.

 

[gnostic]

Response: "Verily, We created man from an extract of clay". (Ch.23:12)

Tell us gnostic, if you are so right, then why do I have to catch you in another lie?

You seem to have forgotten verse 23:12. Check it.

I didn't lie, fatihah. I just didn't use the same translation as you.

The Pickthall's translation, which I used to find all reference to the word "clay", didn't use the word "clay" in 23:12; it used "earth" instead. You can't accuse me of lying, when I had based my findings on one translation, and you had relied on something else.

All that you can accuse me of, is not basing my finds on the same translation as yours.

Verily We created man from a product of wet earth;

The "wet earth" can mean anything from clay, to soil, wet sands, and even wet rocks, etc.

As to the "wet rocks", this example I would admit is a poor one, but there are some rocks that are quite porous, that it can hold water like sponge, at certain temperature, it would leak out, seemingly make the rocks looked it's weeping.

So one translation, I don't know which one you used, have extract of clay. Still don't mean we're made out of clay. Any doctor or scientist around the world would see that the human body, inside and out, don't have any clay MOLECULES.

Prove it, fatihah and MFaraz_Hayat.

Prove it with not simply quote from the Qur'an, but with science. You have to validate your claims that humans are made out of clay (molecules).

Prove that the human body have CLAY MOLECULES, not elements. Many things have different type of trace elements, but even the same elements don't necessarily make clay.

 

[darkendless]

There you have it. They are dangerous in certain forms. But how do you know that these forms were involved when human was being made. Might I remind you, not all of Phosphorous and Nitrogen compounds are harmful. Plus, as I said, its not necessary to break them down to element level. The compounds can be decomposed to simpler compounds. Plus, it is scientifically possible provided you have sufficiently large source of energy (as in the case of God).

I find it important to separate God and science for this very reason. Science works independent of God. Religion must function independent of science to avoid making claims that are not there to be made. What you're basically saying is you know that physically clay cannot be broken down as far as you want it to be to serve your purpose, so you add the God factor to make it work. You just lost all credability right there. If things cannot work independent of God they don't work physically in nature, thus they do not conform to observable laws of nature, thus they are lies. Unless of course you "believe" but since when has that got anyone, anywhere?

Energy is not the problem by the way, it is time. Over about 40 million years in perfect conditions (which are never found) clay may break down into individual molecules. Over another 40 million years under Different conditions than required to break down clay into molecules, the molecules will break down. Energy is only required for the latter process to break bonds. Sufficient energy would only come from a God source, thus it is impossible because no human will ever see God do a thing.

 

[gnostic]

I find it important to separate God and science for this very reason. Science works independent of God. Religion must function independent of science to avoid making claims that are not there to be made. What you're basically saying is you know that physically clay cannot be broken down as far as you want it to be to serve your purpose, so you add the God factor to make it work.

The reliance on Qur'an (and hence, indirectly on God) for the so-called scientific miracles, don't allow Muslims to actually discover and investigate matters on their own. No thinking is require except to corrupt their scripture, so that they can say Allah knows this or Allah knows that. What it does do, is demonstrate that Allah know very little about science.

Science is where investigate how nature or man-made object/device works (eg. cause-and-effect), or through experiments or testing (or trial-and-errors).

How can Allah know science if he knows everything?
Do Allah perform test to see if things work or not, through trial-and-errors?
If there's no errors, then how can there be scientific discovery?

The Qur'an provide flowering verses without evidence to support and substantiate its claims, then the Qur'an is neither scientific, nor has scientific values.

You just lost all credability right there.

In the field of science, yes, they have lost all credibility.

Had they been satisfy keeping Islam and its Qur'an as in the field of theology, I would not go out of my way to disprove their so-called claims (involving the Qur'an) so relentlessly.

Don't get me wrong. I am not just targeting Islam or Muslims. I would do the same things, if Christians, Jews or Hindu have make similar claims.

I am not belittling the achieving of Muslim scientists from 750-1400 CE in any way, because they deserve the respects in the science communities for their discoveries. The same can't be said about Muslims today, using propaganda and twisting the meanings of their Qur'an, with their claims and interpretations that Allah discover this or that first, before modern science discoveries.

That's where I draw the line.

 

[TashaN]

Based on what I have read in this very thread, reality tends to support my assertion even if you don't like the truth. Can you, in all honesty, point at a single post by a Muslim in this whole sorry thread that is even particularly reasonable?

So this thread should represents ALL Muslims? What a pathetic answer!

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

When you interpret poetry, you do the same thing you do when you interpret anything:

1.Understand the explicit, literal meaning.
2.Consider what's implied, unsaid, or suggested

I believe we can agree that Quran is in from of poetry. Now I will analyze the verse for both interpretations.

1: The verse states that humans are formed from clay. Now as you people were quick to point out, I introduced the God-Factor. Now just for an instance, I am assuming that God does not exist. Even then the statement is not unscientific. Just replace God with a source of energy. Provided we have sufficient energy(and there is no God), complex compounds in clay can be decomposed into simpler compounds and even elements found in human body. themadhair then asked that the energy released would kill the life created. The point is, I am not saying that as soon as you decompose clay, life starts. I am saying that the compounds present in human body can easily have come from clay. Whether this is a miracle or not, is a separate issue. But by all means, the statement is not unscientific because decomposition is quite possible(even if you remove the God-Factor).
2: Now someone may say that this is too literal an interpretaion. All that was meant to be understood was that humans were made using some clay and thats it. This is supported by the link I gave, which clearly states that life may have been a result of some action of clay. themadhair then asked that the link supports abiogenesis. I ask him to read the source again carefully, for the link clearly states that though clay may have played an important role, yet abiogenesis is still not established since scientists are still unsure about how all sub-units, conveniently got together. Hence, even though the link is on the subject of abiogenesis, it still states the major problem with abiogenesis while accepting that clay may have played an important role.
PS: rather than using insults and claiming that you have all so much knowledge, why don't you mention precisely where I am wrong. Rather than blatantly stating that I have no understanding etc.
Up till now I haven't used a single taunt, unlike most on this thread. Perhaps some of us do not understand the meaning of civil discussion.
(except darkendless, for he did use scientific arguments rather than rants)

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:gnostic]I didn't lie, fatihah. I just didn't use the same translation as you.

The Pickthall's translation, which I used to find all reference to the word "clay", didn't use the word "clay" in 23:12; it used "earth" instead. You can't accuse me of lying, when I had based my findings on one translation, and you had relied on something else.

All that you can accuse me of, is not basing my finds on the same translation as yours.(End quote)

Response: Even more ridiculous. In post 1144 you accused brother MFaraz of doing what "all muslims are doing" and that's twisting the qur'anic verse to suit the so-called "scientific miracle".

You don't know arabic and you already know that there are several translations of the qur'an besides Pickthall. Therefore, you know that the wording in your translation may be slightly different than another translation. So in order for you to accuse someone of twisting words, you would have to know the actual meaning of the arabic and/or have the one and only correct and acceptable english translation of the qur'an. But you have neither. In order for him to twist a verse in the qur'an in the manner in which you accused him, he would have to know the arabic word and purposely disregard the meaning and interpolate another word different from the meaning. Now how on earth do you know he's doing that when you don't even know arabic to know if that's what he's doing? Thus making you a liar. You claimed to know something that you didn't know. You don't know arabic and you know that there are other acceptable translations besides Pickthall. Yet you made a judgement soley on Pickthall. Thus, once again, showing you are a liar. To make matters worse, you then create a thread hours later in which you are asking for the most reliable translation of the qur'an. How hypocritical is that?!

You had absolutely know credit before this claim and now knowing that you are a liar, your arguments now stand on nothing. Only those who do not have the knowledge in what they say and know that they are wrong would lie. So thank you for confirming that. It helps to show more credit to the truth in the qur'an.