Quran Vs Bible in light of science

[McBell]

My advice , keep your mouth shut

That's it?
That is the best you got?
I have given you far to much credit.
I thought it would take at least another week before you were reduced to this childishness.

My Bad.

 

[McBell]

Its useless explaining divine scripture to those who don't even know what divinity is.

To bad no one is trying to explain scripture in this thread, divine or otherwise.

First define it to them, if they open themselves to understand, well and good, otherwise, they are not willing to listen, they are just there to argue and corner the reality into useless argument to establish their own thought process as superior.

Or, just as been repeatedly shown in this thread and many just like it, you will be shown that your use of the Forer Effect does not work outside your choir.

No one is willing to agree,and none WILL agree, no matter how true or agreeable the substance is.

Problem here is that they are not presenting truth.
They are merely parroting the already shown to be flat out wrong claims of scientific miracles in the Koran.

Its takes some base knowledge,courage and faith to dive into divinity, otherwise what ever normal day to day phenomenon was offered to these people, they will mock it over and over just for the sake of argument.

Perhaps it does.
However, what we have in this here thread is a couple Muslims trying in vain to feed bull **** and out right lies to people outside of their choir.

Allah says in the Quran as, ' I have kept the need to search for the truth inside all people, and only those shall find me who take heed and ask for guidance', And Allah does not guide vain and boastful people'.

Yet here we have Muslims boasting in vain about the non-existent scientific miracles in the Koran.

I wonder if that verse also applies to them...?

 

[AxisMundi]

Its useless explaining divine scripture to those who don't even know what divinity is. First define it to them, if they open themselves to understand, well and good, otherwise, they are not willing to listen, they are just there to argue and corner the reality into useless argument to establish their own thought process as superior. No one is willing to agree,and none WILL agree, no matter how true or agreeable the substance is. Its takes some base knowledge,courage and faith to dive into divinity, otherwise what ever normal day to day phenomenon was offered to these people, they will mock it over and over just for the sake of argument.

Allah says in the Quran as, ' I have kept the need to search for the truth inside all people, and only those shall find me who take heed and ask for guidance', And Allah does not guide vain and boastful people'.

Ah yes, the arrogant "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.

"We know something you don't," or the ever popular, "We know something you can't because we're special".

I am a very religious man, very dedicated to my God and Goddess, a steadfast champion of the Deities of my Irish Forefathers. But I do not follwo them blindly.

Blind faith, as evidenced by most of the Muslim's who post on this, and other forums, is not only intellectual bankruptcy at it's finest, but inherently dangerous as well.

Any charismatic personality can come along, say the right things at exactly the right times, and gather what he is actually after in multitude, ie political power and wealth.

Power corrupts, and absolute theopolitical power corrupts absolutely, to the point where the original message in scriptures becomes garbled and unrecognizable, the very basis of said religion corrupted as well.

We non-Muslims, indeed most non-Abrahamics as well, listen. Often. With quiet patience most often among we non-Abrahamics.

What we see is in fact blind faith, obedience not to religion but to culture and clergy.

 

[Meow Mix]

Ah yes, the arrogant "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.

"We know something you don't," or the ever popular, "We know something you can't because we're special".

I am a very religious man, very dedicated to my God and Goddess, a steadfast champion of the Deities of my Irish Forefathers. But I do not follwo them blindly.

Blind faith, as evidenced by most of the Muslim's who post on this, and other forums, is not only intellectual bankruptcy at it's finest, but inherently dangerous as well.

Any charismatic personality can come along, say the right things at exactly the right times, and gather what he is actually after in multitude, ie political power and wealth.

Power corrupts, and absolute theopolitical power corrupts absolutely, to the point where the original message in scriptures becomes garbled and unrecognizable, the very basis of said religion corrupted as well.

We non-Muslims, indeed most non-Abrahamics as well, listen. Often. With quiet patience most often among we non-Abrahamics.

What we see is in fact blind faith, obedience not to religion but to culture and clergy.

Hey, I'm 100% Irish. Put in a good word for me just in case, okay?

 

[AxisMundi]

Hey, I'm 100% Irish. Put in a good word for me just in case, okay?

Bright and intelligent, beautiful, well matured opinion, and now Irish?

Lass, ye sunder the heart of this ol' seanathair.

But aye, we'll put inna good word for ye.

 

[Meow Mix]

Bright and intelligent, beautiful, well matured opinion, and now Irish?

Lass, ye sunder the heart of this ol' seanathair.

But aye, we'll put inna good word for ye.

My natural hair color

 

[AxisMundi]

My natural hair color

Crrraaaaaa-ACK!

Ow, my heart, MY heart!!!!

And I just ducktaped it back together after getting a huge smile to my innocent flirting from a rather attractive nurse this afternoon.

Dammit!

 

[gnostic]

Its useless explaining divine scripture to those who don't even know what divinity is. First define it to them, if they open themselves to understand, well and good, otherwise, they are not willing to listen, they are just there to argue and corner the reality into useless argument to establish their own thought process as superior. No one is willing to agree,and none WILL agree, no matter how true or agreeable the substance is. Its takes some base knowledge,courage and faith to dive into divinity, otherwise what ever normal day to day phenomenon was offered to these people, they will mock it over and over just for the sake of argument.

You do realize you are in the debate section of RF. You are relatively new here.

If you don't want to debate any issue then go to the Islam Discussion Forum. This is discussion section, where people can ask their questions, but cannot debate and cannot give opinions.

If you only want to debate with fellow with fellow-Muslims ONLY, then the you go to Same Faith Debates.

The thread you are in now, Quran Vs Bible in light of science, is in the Science vs Religion Debates forum, which means everything is open to scrutiny and criticism, but giving you a friendly reminder that criticism doesn't mean you can insult other members.

Lastly this thread was started by a Muslim (Supernova66) with the intention of saying that the Qur'an is better scripture than the Bible, with regards to science. So this Muslim wanted to argue against Christians (and possibly with Jews too) over the issue of science in the bible. However, what he got is a lot of non-Christians who believe that the Qur'an are no better than the Bible when it comes to science. If Muslim make unsubstantiated claims of their Qur'an on selective verses as having "scientific merit", then of course, you will get into argument with non-Muslims.

The question here, for you, do you want to debate here in this thread or not?

If not, then you are free not to participate.

If you, then be prepare that we will prove.

You should understand that some of us have qualification, experiences or background in one form of science or another, so if you think have verses that fit the bill, and can provide logical argument with evidences to support, then by all mean present it to us.

 

[futureplanet]

Both bible and Koran say humans were made in 1 day from either nothing, or a blood clot, or a rib. Basically conjured up on the spot.

Scientifically in contradiction with what we know today. Both are proven to be like every other religion through the dawn of time. Myth and superstition. Nothing more.

 

[Bowman]

Its useless explaining divine scripture to those who don't even know what divinity is. First define it to them...

The Koran never once claims divine inspiration, brother.

Thus....we should not expect that it was...

 

[AxisMundi]

The Koran never once claims divine inspiration, brother.

Thus....we should not expect that it was...

Yes, it does, just like yours does.

The trouble is, neither scripture is self-supporting evidence. Attempting to say your scriptures are the words of your god because tyour scriptures say they are is...

Well, let's just say there are a few argument fallacies involved.

 

[Bowman]

Yes, it does, just like yours does.

Then show us...

Good luck.

The trouble is, neither scripture is self-supporting evidence. Attempting to say your scriptures are the words of your god because tyour scriptures say they are is...

Any scripture is only as good as its predictive power.

The predictive power of the Holy Bible clearly disproves all other books of faith.

Well, let's just say there are a few argument fallacies involved.

Let's just say.....you have nothing...

 

[jonman122]

Then show us...

Good luck.





Any scripture is only as good as its predictive power.

The predictive power of the Holy Bible clearly disproves all other books of faith.






Let's just say.....you have nothing...

what has the bible predicted will come true, that has come true? so far, i see nothing

 

[Bowman]

what has the bible predicted will come true, that has come true? so far, i see nothing

That Homo Sapiens Spaiens came from one male and one female.

That the Universe had a beginning.

That time has a beginning.

That time will end.

Etc, etc...

 

[Meow Mix]

That Homo Sapiens Spaiens came from one male and one female.

False. If you're referring to mitochondrial eve and y chromosomal adam then you don't understand just what those two people represent. First of all, mDNA eve and y-chrom adam lived thousands of years apart and one was quite dead when the other lived.

Secondly, they weren't by any means the only humans alive during their time. They are simply the earliest common ancestors to all living humans for mDNA and y-chomrosomes respectively.

That the Universe had a beginning.

False. The universe's current state had a beginning, yes; which started with the big bang event. The popular science media does indeed treat the big bang event (BBE) as a "something coming from nothing," but that is not what physics or physicists assert. In truth, we can't scientifically assert anything before the first Planck time after the BBE, let alone that it was a creation ex nihilo. It would be perfectly consistent with modern physics if the universe has always existed in some form, but changed states with the BBE.

That time has a beginning.

This one is probably true but in a limited sense. "Time" is ultimately thermodynamic; it doesn't make a lot of sense (as we understand it) to say anything happened "before" the first Planck time of the BBE -- it's sort of like asking what's north of the north pole in modern physics. However, there are different sorts of times and causalities that are logically consistent and extant in quantum physics -- which the universe was subject to [quantum effects] during and shortly after the BBE, so in a sense "time had a beginning" is still a false statement.

That time will end.

There are no indications that time will end. If the universe continues to accelerate its expansion then there will be an end to habitability, but time will keep on tickin' because even a system in thermodynamic equilibrium will continue to -- by sheer probabilities -- have portions of lower entropy and therefore the gradient that we call "time's arrow" will keep right on tickin'.

 

[Bowman]

False. If you're referring to mitochondrial eve and y chromosomal adam then you don't understand just what those two people represent. First of all, mDNA eve and y-chrom adam lived thousands of years apart and one was quite dead when the other lived.

MDNA traces back to Eve, the first female.

Y chromosomal traces back to Noah, the last male.

Secondly, they weren't by any means the only humans alive during their time. They are simply the earliest common ancestors to all living humans for mDNA and y-chomrosomes respectively.

Nuclear DNA shows that there are no ancestors linked to Homo Sapines Sapiens.

False. The universe's current state had a beginning, yes; which started with the big bang event. The popular science media does indeed treat the big bang event (BBE) as a "something coming from nothing," but that is not what physics or physicists assert. In truth, we can't scientifically assert anything before the first Planck time after the BBE, let alone that it was a creation ex nihilo. It would be perfectly consistent with modern physics if the universe has always existed in some form, but changed states with the BBE.

Completely false.

Einstein's SR & GR theories are the most proven principles in all of physics, of which, point to a Universe with a beginning.

This one is probably true but in a limited sense. "Time" is ultimately thermodynamic; it doesn't make a lot of sense (as we understand it) to say anything happened "before" the first Planck time of the BBE -- it's sort of like asking what's north of the north pole in modern physics. However, there are different sorts of times and causalities that are logically consistent and extant in quantum physics -- which the universe was subject to [quantum effects] during and shortly after the BBE, so in a sense "time had a beginning" is still a false statement.

Time does not exist outside of matter.

That matter, energy, space and time are related are contained in the SR & GR formulas, of which, are the most proven in physics.

Even Hawking's theories decades ago demonstrated that time had a beginning.

There are no indications that time will end. If the universe continues to accelerate its expansion then there will be an end to habitability, but time will keep on tickin' because even a system in thermodynamic equilibrium will continue to -- by sheer probabilities -- have portions of lower entropy and therefore the gradient that we call "time's arrow" will keep right on tickin'.

The Universe will eventually suffer a heat death, at which time there will no longer be any reference with which to measure time, thus it will have ended.

 

[jonman122]

MDNA traces back to Eve, the first female.

Y chromosomal traces back to Noah, the last male.

do you have proof? No idea where you got this "the last male" thing either, considering we're still around.

Nuclear DNA shows that there are no ancestors linked to Homo Sapines Sapiens.

nuclear DNA? do you mean the nuclei contained within DNA? i've never heard of DNA referred to as "nuclear" before, and i'm fairly sure that all evidence that we have points towards homo sapiens having ancestors linked to them. so i'll go with your own answer here: Completely false.

after sobering up i realize i'm wrong here and he's talking about the eukaryotic nuclei WOOOPS but i still dont see how that links to there being no ancestors.

Time does not exist outside of matter.

no idea where you got this one from, wouldn't you agree that energy is also constrained to the limits of time? it may react almost instantaneously, but it cant go backward through time or anything.

The Universe will eventually suffer a heat death, at which time there will no longer be any reference with which to measure time, thus it will have ended.

and why would the universe suffer a heat death? there isn't enough energy that can possibly be produced that would cause the entire universe to heat up and die, especially since 99.9% of it is completely empty..

 

[painted wolf]

Nuclear DNA shows that there are no ancestors linked to Homo Sapines Sapiens.

I have no idea where you got this idea, but genetics clearly shows we have a common ancestor with H. neanderthanensis about 400,000 years ago, shared common ancestor with Chimpanzees about 5-7 million years ago and so on back though time to LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) about 3.5-3.8 billion years ago.

wa:do

 

[Bowman]

I have no idea where you got this idea, but genetics clearly shows we have a common ancestor with H. neanderthanensis about 400,000 years ago, shared common ancestor with Chimpanzees about 5-7 million years ago and so on back though time to LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) about 3.5-3.8 billion years ago.

wa:do

Completely and utterly false.

You have just dated yourself, sister.

The old theories were thrown out years ago with the advent of nuclear DNA testing which completely obliterates any notion that we have a common ancestor.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Completely and utterly false.

You have just dated yourself, sister.

The old theories were thrown out years ago with the advent of nuclear DNA testing which completely obliterates any notion that we have a common ancestor.

Mm...care to provide a source for that one? No offence, but in most situations, I would take the word of a biologist over a non-biologists in a situation relating to biology.