Quran Vs Bible in light of science

[AxisMundi]

No, you misunderstand.

From the moment the ball leaves your hand it is accelerating downward. That's the equivalent of the universe accelerating "inward."

The ball is never accelerating upward once it leaves your hand; its velocity is upward but its acceleration is downward.

The universe is not behaving in that way: like I said, to use your analogy on the universe, the BBE would be the "toss" of the ball, but from that moment on even though the velocity of the universe would be outward it would already be accelerating inward from the very beginning, just like the ball is already accelerating downward even as it travels upward. (At least, if it behaved like the ball you describe).

No, the universe's velocity is outward -- and its acceleration is outward.

Going back to the analogy, it's as if you were to release a ball and instead of slowing down, reaching a height and then accelerating to the ground, it actually accelerates in the other direction altogether and only goes away from you faster and faster.

Thanks for clarifying, altohugh it is still somewhat confusing.

However, what evidence is there that the velocity and acceloration are both outwards?

Considerign that man doesn;t even constitute an eye blink tot he age of the universe, and our capacity to investigate outside of our atmosphere even shorter, whocan say for certain that my ball anology isn't correct?

 

[Meow Mix]

Thanks for clarifying, altohugh it is still somewhat confusing.

However, what evidence is there that the velocity and acceloration are both outwards?

Considerign that man doesn;t even constitute an eye blink tot he age of the universe, and our capacity to investigate outside of our atmosphere even shorter, whocan say for certain that my ball anology isn't correct?

Because we can measure its velocity and acceleration and they're both outwards.

We know for certainty it's the same thing as releasing a ball and having it accelerate away from the ground.

Here is what happens when we toss a ball (or shoot a bullet) in the air:

The left is the bullet as it's velocity is upwards, the right is as the bullet is falling back down to the earth.

As you can see even though the velocity is moving away from the earth, the bullet is actually accelerating towards the earth (we can use the word "decelerating") during its entire flight path -- it never has an acceleration moving upwards except for its initial impulse. (The acceleration is the green arrow; i.e. the force of gravity acting on the bullet; where F = ma)

So, if the universe were behaving like a bullet fired in the air, it would have an outward velocity (which we notice) but it would have an inward acceleration [i.e., "deceleration"] (which we do NOT notice, we notice the opposite).

Many people misunderstand the way acceleration works and believe that the ball accelerates upwards, decelerates, then accelerates downwards. No -- the ball is always accelerating downwards in a gravitational field.

This is why with current data we can say the universe will never come back in for a big crunch unless some new phenomenon is discovered -- the universe is accelerating its expansion, which is like if you barely tossed a ball upwards but it sped faster and faster away from you into the sky and beyond. It doesn't have that "downward" acceleration like the ball has which makes the ball slow down, stop in midair, and then fall to the ground.

 

[AxisMundi]

Because we can measure its velocity and acceleration and they're both outwards.

We know for certainty it's the same thing as releasing a ball and having it accelerate away from the ground.

Here is what happens when we toss a ball (or shoot a bullet) in the air:

The left is the bullet as it's velocity is upwards, the right is as the bullet is falling back down to the earth.

As you can see even though the velocity is moving away from the earth, the bullet is actually accelerating towards the earth (we can use the word "decelerating") during its entire flight path -- it never has an acceleration moving upwards except for its initial impulse. (The acceleration is the green arrow; i.e. the force of gravity acting on the bullet; where F = ma)

So, if the universe were behaving like a bullet fired in the air, it would have an outward velocity (which we notice) but it would have an inward acceleration [i.e., "deceleration"] (which we do NOT notice, we notice the opposite).

Many people misunderstand the way acceleration works and believe that the ball accelerates upwards, decelerates, then accelerates downwards. No -- the ball is always accelerating downwards in a gravitational field.

This is why with current data we can say the universe will never come back in for a big crunch unless some new phenomenon is discovered -- the universe is accelerating its expansion, which is like if you barely tossed a ball upwards but it sped faster and faster away from you into the sky and beyond. It doesn't have that "downward" acceleration like the ball has which makes the ball slow down, stop in midair, and then fall to the ground.

Sorry, Ms. Mix.

I jsut cannot see how we would know that said acceloration is indeed as you explain it.

 

[Meow Mix]

Sorry, Ms. Mix.

I jsut cannot see how we would know that said acceloration is indeed as you explain it.

Ok. Consider a ball thrown in the air at 10 m/s on some planet with some gravity G that I don't want to bother calculating so I'm just going to make stuff up.

As the ball goes through the air its velocities look like this:

t0: 10 m/s in +y direction (up)
t1: 9 m/s in +y direction
t2: 7 m/s in +y direction
t3: 4 m/s in +y direction
t4: 0 m/s (the top of the ball's journey)
t5: 1 m/s in -y direction (downard)
t6: 3 m/s in -y direction

(and so on until it hits the ground). See how the velocities are always trending downward? That's because the acceleration is always:

t0: 1 m/s^2 in -y direction
t1: 1 m/s^2 in -y direction
t2: 1 m/s^2 in -y direction

(and so on)

See how the acceleration is ALWAYS downward, even as the ball is rising up? It's what causes it to slow down, stop, and then fall instead of rise.

If this were happening in the universe, we would see galaxies velocities going outward because the universe is expanding, but we would measure an inward acceleration -- i.e., the galaxies' expansion would be slowing down just like the ball was slowing down the whole time it was rising (note that the ball NEVER speeds up as it travels, until it's going downward (in the same direction as its acceleration!))

What we notice with the universe is the galaxies' velocities being outward, BUT they aren't slowing down with the outward motion... they are speeding UP. Remember that the ball NEVER speeds up (until it's falling down). That's because the ball's acceleration is in the opposite direction of its velocity as it travels upwards. However, again, galaxies are travelling in the same direction as their acceleration: outward. They will never slow down and start coming back, never in principle can they do that unless the data we have on them is wrong or some other force that we don't know about yet acts on them.

 

[Bowman]

So you are trying to tell me that for 4 million years or 4 billion years, we had light to distinguish night from daylight, beginning on the 1st day, but we had no Sun nor Moon until 4 millions or 4 billion years later, on the Genesis' 4th day.

This is just plain old ignorance of the Hebrew, brother.

Please don't fall into this stereotypical polemic.

The sun, moon, and stars become visible from the vantage point of an earth-bound observer.

The key to understanding Genesis 1 is the vantage point established in the first 'day'....and the Hebrew creation verbs used.

You are wrongly attempting to interpret Genesis from the vantage point of the comsos looking towards the earth....when, in fact the narrative is written from the surface of the earth.

Can you prove this assertion of yours to be scientifically true?

Absolutely.

Do you realise your interpretation of day and assertion of day=epoch of either million or billion of year, is scientifically and astronomically impossible?

Not at all.

Don't you think that it is even more ridiculous than literal interpretation of Genesis 1?

My interpretation is literal, brother.

 

[gnostic]

This is just plain old ignorance of the Hebrew, brother.

Please don't fall into this stereotypical polemic.

You are the one who said the epoch could be 1 million years or 1 billion years.

Each 'day' in Genesis is millions to billions of years in duration, brother.

The sun, moon, and stars become visible from the vantage point of an earth-bound observer.

The key to understanding Genesis 1 is the vantage point established in the first 'day'....and the Hebrew creation verbs used.

You are wrongly attempting to interpret Genesis from the vantage point of the comsos looking towards the earth....when, in fact the narrative is written from the surface of the earth.

Did I say vantage point of the cosmos?

You're putting words in my mouth.

The stupid bible is written from a perspective of man, therefore it is from vantage point of standing at ground level.

And it is from ground level that man would experience day or night. From the cosmos, there are no day or night. Time, as in day and night are totally meaningless from space. Time only has meaning to us, especially with regarding to a specific time of day. Do you think that I that stupid?

My problem is not with day or night; my problem is you and your interpretation that a day is epoch of a million or billion years.

You said your interpretation is literal...

My interpretation is literal, brother.

Then, kindly show us where it say epoch of million or billion year duration in the Genesis.

You did say that confirm you have proof:

Can you prove this assertion of yours to be scientifically true?

Absolutely.

But as far as I can see, you haven't shown many anything, except your interpretation.

 

[Skeptisch]

Are we talking about the two books that also contain these passages?


Women in the Bible

1. God fashions a woman out of one of Adam's ribs. This was necessary since Adam couldn't find a "help meet" in any of the animals that God made for him. 2:20-22
2. Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent. 3:12-13
3. "In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. ... Thy husband ... shall rule over thee."
   God punishes Eve, and all women after her, with the pains of childbirth and subjection to men. 3:16
4. Adam is also punished, although less severely. He now will have to work for a living because he "hearkened unto the voice" of his wife. 3:17
5. Lamech is the first of a long line of biblical men with more than one wife. It seems that God approves of such marriages. 4:19, 23

Women in the Quran

1. It's OK to have sex with your wives on the night of the fast. 2:187
2. Menstruation is a sickness. Don't have sex with menstruating women. 2:222
3. Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223
4. Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228
5. A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282

 

[David M]

We are all descendents from Adam.

Eve was the first clone.

Which would mean that the Y chromosome must lead back to Adam not Noah (which is what you claimed).

Remember?
"
MDNA traces back to Eve, the first female.

Y chromosomal traces back to Noah, the last male."

So you are still facing the problem of a massively different date to that of MtDNA Eve.

 

[Bowman]

You are the one who said the epoch could be 1 million years or 1 billion years.

And...?

Did I say vantage point of the cosmos?

Your faulty interpretaion is that of one who has not even read the Hebrew.

You're putting words in my mouth.

The stupid bible is written from a perspective of man, therefore it is from vantage point of standing at ground level.

Again...you have not even read the very scripture that you are arguing.

You can do better, brother...

And it is from ground level that man would experience day or night. From the cosmos, there are no day or night. Time, as in day and night are totally meaningless from space. Time only has meaning to us, especially with regarding to a specific time of day.

Now you are getting it...

Do you think that I that stupid?

You made the claim.

My problem is not with day or night; my problem is you and your interpretation that a day is epoch of a million or billion years.

Why not look up the definition for yourself instead of sidestepping...

You said your interpretation is literal...

Yes.

Then, kindly show us where it say epoch of million or billion year duration in the Genesis.

You did say that confirm you have proof:

Define the word that you are arguing over...simple...


H3117
יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.



The term is flexible and can easily mean any length of time.

 

[Bowman]

Which would mean that the Y chromosome must lead back to Adam not Noah (which is what you claimed).

Remember?
"
MDNA traces back to Eve, the first female.

Y chromosomal traces back to Noah, the last male."

So you are still facing the problem of a massively different date to that of MtDNA Eve.

The dates for the two overlap each other no matter how you view it, brother...

 

[AxisMundi]

The dates for the two overlap each other no matter how you view it, brother...

Only when you apply Apologetic fantasy to it.

 

[Bowman]

What bowman and others who try and wiggle out of the day factor refuse to see is that, whether there are a few days between "creation" and human beings, or 13 billion years plus, the biblical timeline according to generations is STILL wrong as it gives the age of man at around 6,000 years old.

No place in the Holy Bible does it ever say to sum the generations.

Especially when there are provable gaps in the generations.

And this also places the Great Flood myth around 2,200 BCE. We have existing written records from civilizations, including from the Middle East, far, far older, and none mention so much as a passing damp.

More than 200 distinct flood stories abound in the lore of ancient civilizations, just as creation stories also do. More than 85% of these stories mention a large vessel that saved the human race from extinction.

If indeed the Biblical Genesis account is correct, then I would predict that there would be numerous flood stories from nearly every culture on this planet. That is indeed what we see today.

In general, the greater the story’s distance (in time and geography) from Mesopotamia, the greater the distortion relative to both the Biblical record (Gen 6-9) and the established scientific record. As with creation accounts, the least scientifically distorted, of the non-biblical accounts, is the Babylonian one.

The same Library of Ashurbanipal that contained the Babylonian creation story, also contained the Babylonian Flood story, the Gilgamesh Epic, a lengthy poem like the Enuma Elish. Like the Enuma Elish, the Gilgamesh Epic seems to be a reworking of the apparently older Atra-hasis Epic of Old Babylon.

The Flood poem more closely resembles its Genesis counterpart than does the creation poem. It describes the building of a large multi-story ship sealed with pitch or tar. Like Noah of Genesis, Utnapishtim of the Gilgamesh Epic, boards the ship with his whole family. The Gilgamesh Epic, like the Genesis Flood, destroys all humanity except those on board the ship, and its waters come mostly from a furious rainstorm.

Here the similarities end. The ark of Genesis had a stable shape for flotation. Utnapishtim’s cubical ship would be neither seaworthy nor water stable. The rain of the Gilgamesh account lasts only six days, and instead of rescuing eight people and pairs of all the bird and mammal species associated with humanity aboard his boat, Utnapishtim is said to have ferried all his kinsmen, all his societies craftsmen, all the cattle and beasts of the field, and the seed of all living things.

The poem differs most profoundly from the Genesis account in its portrayal of the power(s) behind the flood. The gods of Gilgamesh send the Flood not to protect mankind from its own evil, but to destroy mankind for no apparent reason. Their action is arbitrary. Once the Flood is underway, the gods flee in terror to the upper reaches of heaven, where they crouch in fear like dogs. Then, the Flood suddenly ends, in a manner of hours.

The Gilgamesh gods, like those of the Enuma Elish, seem obvious human constructs. They manifest ignorance, weakness, fear, and other human foibles. This difference and the obvious departure from scientific plausibility separate the Gilgamesh Epic from the Genesis Flood Account, which stand all the more distinctly alone. The Epic’s very existence, however, lends additional credence to the Genesis Account.

The question is which one is correct? Which one is the original? Which account has the most evidence going for it?

Ref: RTB

 

[McBell]

More than 200 distinct flood stories abound in the lore of ancient civilizations, just as creation stories also do. More than 85% of these stories mention a large vessel that saved the human race from extinction.

Interesting that you do not decry the Bible of the blatant plagiarism you have so successfully demonstrated.

 

[David M]

The dates for the two overlap each other no matter how you view it, brother...

No they don't, as you have been shown here they do not overlap at all.

 

[Bowman]

No they don't, as you have been shown here they do not overlap at all.

Yes, they do.

 

[gnostic]

The two most important civilisations of the time in the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BCE were the Sumerian-Akkadian city-states (Mesopotamia) and Egypt.

It has been well-documented that Sumerian-Akkadian myths have their own Flood legend. But in Egypt, the destruction of mankind do not contain a Flood.

In the Egyptian religion-myth (and according to the Heliopolitian tradition) there was nothing but primeval water, but this can't be counted as the Flood, because there were no humans at the time. In the Book of the Dead, it does say that the primeval water will cover the world again, but it mention nothing about humans being killed by such flood and it was supposed to be a prophecy of future event that clearly has not happen at the time of writing.

There is a myth about the destruction of mankind in the Book of the Divine Cow, but it had nothing to do with the Flood, the sun god Re (or Ra) had sent his Eye in the form of the goddess Hathor, who began killing and devouring rebellious people. She did wade through their blood (and drinking it too), but that was not killed the men. Hathor didn't want to stop. Re stopped the killing when he was satisfied that enough people were killed, by brewing beer that were colored red with ochre, to get Hathor drunk (she thought the beer were blood) and forget about the killing.

 

[AxisMundi]

No place in the Holy Bible does it ever say to sum the generations.

Especially when there are provable gaps in the generations.

Hebrew Bible: Timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm kind of dissapointed, considering you bring your own fail with you. You're not that much fun.

More than 200 distinct flood stories abound in the lore of ancient civilizations, just as creation stories also do. More than 85% of these stories mention a large vessel that saved the human race from extinction...

Sorry, doesn't make either true.

Creation stories, which vary widely, result from the creation each and every human being and animal on the planet goes through. Floods happen, sometimes devestating floods.

You are attempting an argumentum ad numerum argument, which is an argument fallacy. There is simply no scientific proof, despite millenia of searching, for any world inundating flood. Isn't enough water on the planet for such an event anyways.

Your "myth distortion theory", or whatever you wish to call it, is hardly proof of any kind.

The question is which one is correct? Which one is the original? Which account has the most evidence going for it?

Considering the complete lack of proof? None are correct.

In such a mythical flood, everything dies. Every plant, every insect, every animal, every bird, and yes, every fish as the saline and PH levels are thrown out of balance radically.

There is, firstly, not enough water on, or in, the planet to inundate the surface.

Secondly, there is no massive layer of fossils all layed down within the same year, and no multi-million year pauses while the planet somehow regenerates life, and no drastic changes in the fossil record.

Thirdly, the biblical version of this fantasy can ahrdly be correct. Consideringt he biblcial timeline, this "great flood" occured qat around 2,200 BCE. We have scrolls and other written media far older, and none mention so much as a prevailing damp.

 

[Bowman]

Hebrew Bible: Timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm kind of dissapointed, considering you bring your own fail with you. You're not that much fun.

Not a single verse mentioning summation.

Google some more...

Sorry, doesn't make either true.

Creation stories, which vary widely, result from the creation each and every human being and animal on the planet goes through. Floods happen, sometimes devestating floods.

The question boils down to which story has the most merit.

You are attempting an argumentum ad numerum argument, which is an argument fallacy. There is simply no scientific proof, despite millenia of searching, for any world inundating flood. Isn't enough water on the planet for such an event anyways.

Your "myth distortion theory", or whatever you wish to call it, is hardly proof of any kind.





Considering the complete lack of proof? None are correct.

In such a mythical flood, everything dies. Every plant, every insect, every animal, every bird, and yes, every fish as the saline and PH levels are thrown out of balance radically.

There is, firstly, not enough water on, or in, the planet to inundate the surface.

Secondly, there is no massive layer of fossils all layed down within the same year, and no multi-million year pauses while the planet somehow regenerates life, and no drastic changes in the fossil record.

Thirdly, the biblical version of this fantasy can ahrdly be correct. Consideringt he biblcial timeline, this "great flood" occured qat around 2,200 BCE. We have scrolls and other written media far older, and none mention so much as a prevailing damp.

The Biblical flood was local, not global.

 

[AxisMundi]

Not a single verse mentioning summation.

Google some more...

Do you get up in the morning and figure out ways to Fail though the day?

I win this argument.

The question boils down to which story has the most merit.

No, the question boils down to the simple fact that it cannot happen, nor did it happen.

The Biblical flood was local, not global.

1. You try to argue the validity of your biblical flood by noting flood myths from Around The Globe. Cultures from around the globe, which had no contact with Middle East cultures, could not have their own flood myths for their own people if it was a "local event".

2. The biblical flood does indeed try to claim the entire surface was inundated. It states quite clearly as a matter of fact (I know you don't like that word, sorry)...

Genesis 7 - 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [b]

Looks like I win again.

 

[Bowman]

1. You try to argue the validity of your biblical flood by noting flood myths from Around The Globe. Cultures from around the globe, which had no contact with Middle East cultures, could not have their own flood myths for their own people if it was a "local event".

All the great flood stories have the same source, brother...

2. The biblical flood does indeed try to claim the entire surface was inundated. It states quite clearly as a matter of fact (I know you don't like that word, sorry)...

Genesis 7 - 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [b]

The Biblical flood described in Genesis uses earthly and atmospheric sources of water - and, since humanity was localized, it was only necessary to flood the area in which humans lived...i.e. a local flood.

The only time that the entire earth's surface was covered in water was in its early formation (as described in Genesis and Psalm 104). This is the same as science also tells us - yet another correct prediction the Holy Bible makes.

Water never again covered the entire earth's surface, brother.

You really need to start studying what you are attempting to argue...