Quran Vs Bible in light of science

[Shad]

These concepts of matter and space were non-existent during the times of the Arab Bedouins

Read your Quran 4:40, dharratin ie particles. Seems like they had a grasp of substance, which we now call matter, since there is an Arabic word for it...... Now why use the word for Earth when one could of used dharratin instead. For exactly the reason I said, it was about the Earth not matter, not atoms, not particles, etc. You could also read 10:61.

Yah Arabs had no idea what matter was when there are two verse that not only mention matter but also one that goes into more details about it.... Yup they had no word for it at all. These verses must be my imagination.....

 

[Shad]

Oooooh I love this. The Qur'an doesn't reject evolution, as a matter of fact, it clearly supports it.

Made from water is not evolution. Evolution does not say we are made from water nor is water the only chemical structure involved.. Do you know what the word made means?

Also Ibn Khaldun's book was not about evolution. He makes the leap from veins are the precursor to other animals which is false. Also he includes angels and prophets as part of his work and structure with both being the highest. Since when were angel even shown to be real let along part of evolution... Hint neither are. He is creating a hierarchy based on a religious social structure not biology. Read the pages in your own video.

"The last stages of minerals is connected with the first stages of plants" This is nonsense.

"The word connected with regard to these created things (that isn't evolution that is creationism) means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group" More nonsense. Let see the evidence of a mineral becoming a plant.....

Do note that the highlighted parts are confirmation bias yet the normal parts refute the claim about Ibn Khaldun's work.

 

[gnostic]

Since Georges Lemaître first noted, in 1927, that an expanding universe might be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.

Actually, no.

You are wrong on several accounts, OurCreed.

Georges Lemaître may have produced the idea of the expanding universe, but 5 years before him (1922), the Russian physicist, Alexander Friedman was the first to speak of it, which Albert Einstein knew of. Unfortunately, Friedman died before he could investigate his idea further.

Second, the whole universe was a single point, so there was actually know centre of the universe or a single point of origin. The singularity is the universe its entirety, so the Big Bang occurred pretty much everywhere...hence no single point.

Again, you don't understand the concept of the Big Bang, and you are unaware the historical background behind the expanding universe model.

Strangely enough, in the beginning Einstein didn't like or accept Lemaître's hypothesis (he did accept it later), and yet his theory on General Relativity (GR) provided much of the framework for expanding universe model (or BB).

 

[OurCreed]

You only pointed out how people misapplied the term of science but used the same arguments regardless of your issues with the label. Same type of arguments of reading modern science into the Quran. I pointed out your arguments are the same regardless of the label. It is these arguments which are still flawed regardless of the label one picks.




No you said matter and space are separate per your argument. However matter does not exist without space so there is no true separation of the two. More so the singularity still contains space, just a smaller amount of space than currently.



A "single point" is still space. The expansion is just a change from a single point in space to a larger one. However there is no separation of matter from space involved. Matter is still within space.



I didn't comment on ratqan because it was already obvious in the verse itself.

Actually no space is not longer considered emptiness between objects of matter.





So disregard traditional sources until it matches what you want it to say. Hilarious, you just admitted to post hoc rationalization by showing your interpretation changes to match science. You just admitted your use fallacious reasoning for your argument. Well done son..



More post hoc rationalization.





Yet you just admitted to this above

"There are mysteries that many of us have understood from some verses, and there are probably still many more mysteries that we are unaware of. The best humans can do is understand these verses through the light of science or other knowledge which we have currently. The more we humans increase our knowledge of science and the universe as the Qur'an commands us to, the more we will understand the Qur'anic verses."

Hence the interpretation and exegesis changes to match science. Hilarious.



Except that the Earth didn't exist at the time. You provide no justification for Earth meaning all matter in the universe. You just made a claim about it without support since it fits the science, which you admit to follow for your interpretation only. More post hoc rationalizations and fallacious reasoning. Well done son.

Also note that you selection of definition only aligns with your view which is based on science while no other translations even refers to matter but is specific that it is the Earth itself. This, son, is called confirmation bias. You picked the definition to match the theory and rejected 1400 years of tradition which puts forward no such view.

You only pointed out how people misapplied the term of science but used the same arguments regardless of your issues with the label. Same type of arguments of reading modern science into the Quran. I pointed out your arguments are the same regardless of the label. It is these arguments which are still flawed regardless of the label one picks.

The argument isn't the same. Because those Muslims try to claim there is some scientific value in a verse, and then boast how the Qur'an knew about this before anyone else. Yet my argument is the opposite. There are verses in the Qur'an that we don't know much about, and only through scientific knowledge and other forms of knowledge could we understand these verses. And the purpose for these verses is to find God. So there IS no post hoc rationalizations and fallacious reasoning.

No you said matter and space are separate per your argument. However matter does not exist without space so there is no true separation of the two. More so the singularity still contains space, just a smaller amount of space than currently.

They aren't separate in the beginning, they get separated once the big bang heavens, when the heavens (space), and the earth (matter), split/separate from each other. And nobody is claiming that matter existed, all the Qur'an is saying is that the space and matter were just one entity, there wasn't any matter, nor was there technically any space. It was an infinitely dense point, and THEN they separated into matter and space.

A "single point" is still space. The expansion is just a change from a single point in space to a larger one. However there is no separation of matter from space involved. Matter is still within space.

If you knew science, it wasn't even a single point. It was an infinitely dense object, something that we cannot rationalize. There was no space in this point, nor was there matter. It was a different form of something unknown to us. This single entity could have become anything else too which is unknown to us. Scientists use the term "energy" to describe this singularity. Also, matter being in space doesn't mean they are a single entity, they are separate. If you have a glass of coke with ice in it, the ice and coke are still separate from each other, it's just that one is within the other.

Actually no space is not longer considered emptiness between objects of matter.

Doesn't matter, heavens in the verse, which is Samawat in Arabic, can refer to openness or even skies. There is a clear difference between the solid things based off of particles, and the openness that surrounds it. The entire universe is mostly empty space, and only a small percentage of it has matter or some form of substance.

So disregard traditional sources until it matches what you want it to say. Hilarious, you just admitted to post hoc rationalization by showing your interpretation changes to match science. You just admitted your use fallacious reasoning for your argument. Well done son..

Already told you, that you're looking at it the opposite way. God has determined to create some verses in the Qur'an which are signs for His existence. Many of these verses contain some deep meanings which will only be better understood in the FUTURE when mankind has gained more knowledge about the world. This isn't some game where we first learn about some fact (whether we learned it through science or some other means), and then we go into the Qur'an and see if any verses match it to prove the Qur'an's authenticity.

No, that's not what is going on at all. What is going on is that through outside knowledge, it helps the person seeking for truth to better understand some Qur'anic verses in order to understand God more than the person who is just a casual reader. The person who realizes the reality of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe will understand God better, His power, His might, than someone who has no idea about any of these things. This is the purpose of these verses.

Except that the Earth didn't exist at the time. You provide no justification for Earth meaning all matter in the universe. You just made a claim about it without support since it fits the science, which you admit to follow for your interpretation only. More post hoc rationalizations and fallacious reasoning. Well done son.

I already explained this to you. You want me to repeat myself? When you take these verses literally, you're not going to understand anything. The Qur'an already tells us in chapter 3, verse 7, that there are some verses which are susceptible of different interpretations. They have different meanings, and what you read is not exactly what you think it means. The Qur'an uses the word Garden for paradise where good people go to when they die. Yet the Qur'an also says elsewhere that no human being has seen, nor can they ever perceive how paradise looks like.

So why use the word Garden? Because it is representative. Garden represents many different things. One interpretation of Garden can be that everything in gardens grow. So similarly, all beings in the next world will be in a continuous growth. Another thing a garden can represent is that fruits grow in them. Fruits can represent the different varieties of blessings the good people will get, and these bounties and blessings will be never ending.

You need to realize that only people who have been blessed with knowledge will be able to understand the deeper meanings, while those with lesser knowledge will just take them literally without any understanding from them.

In the very end, what matters is that the sign that the Qur'an is trying to get you to understand is recognized. Verse 21;30 is already understood by most Muslims around the world to be referring to the Big Bang, so this sign has already been recognized, and the book's mission has been accomplished.

 

[OurCreed]

The Qur'an doesn't describe any science, because every claims that Muslims have made, have been shown to be wrong.





First, Qur'an 21:30 doesn't describe the Big Bang.

If you actually understood the Big Bang, you would know that there was no Earth in the beginning of the universe. There were no galaxies, stars or planets. The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The first generation of stars, didn't form until 560 million years after the Big Bang.

And the Earth (4.67 billion years old) along with the rest of the solar system didn't form until 9 billion years after the Big Bang. Our Sun is actually a much younger star, and at about the same age of earth; the Sun is probably 3rd, or even 4th generation star.

So how could 21:30 describe the Big Bang, when the earth didn't exist yet, for it to be cleave from the heavens (universe)?

Modern Muslims who used the 21:30 to claim this refer to the Big Bang cosmology are wrong, because the Earth didn't exist in the first place. And that because the verse is describing heaven as the SKY, and NOT as the universe.Which lead to my third point.

And earth wasn't the only object that didn't exist in the early young universe. And this leads me to my second point.

Second...

And the last part of the verse, "and made from water every living thing?" Muslims are wrong about that too, because in the the early universe after the Big Bang, there were no water. That's because before there were stars, there were no water.

Water is a molecule of one oxygen atom and 2 hydrogen atoms. The Big Bang explained that before there were stars, there were only elements in the periodic table that exist, the 3 lightest elements:

1. Hydrogen
2. Helium
3. Lithium

Oxygen didn't exist at this time.

It is star that make heavier elements in the earlier universe.

The star, especially at the birth of young star, they are mostly comprise of hydrogen, with helium being the second abundant element in a star. The star used lighter element, more specifically hydrogen, to bind two hydrogen atoms to form helium. This process of heavier element formed from lighter elements, is known as stellar nucleosynthesis.

It is only when the star run out of hydrogen fuel to bind them into helium, that the star will begin to fuse helium atoms to into elements heavier than helium, like the other gases - nitrogen, oxygen and carbon. Heavier elements will only form at NEAR the last stage of star life cycle.

So there were no Earth and no water, at the early stage of the young universe.


...THIRD. The verse 21:30 describe the SKY, not the universe, because the author is not aware of the universe. The word "heaven" is not the only word to describe the sky; there are also "dome", "vault", "firmament", "roof", "canopy" (or "tent" or "pavilion"), "expanse". See point 4.

The sky only referred to what WE, humans, can see from the ground, without the aid of optical telescopes and radio telescopes. The "heaven" that the Qur'an described are the same one that the bible (Genesis 1) and every other religious cosmologies describe - the SKY.

And that would lead me to my fourth point.


FOURTH. The verse 21:30, in which the verse describe about separation of the SKY from Earth, is not a original idea. What 21:30 describe, is precisely the same with Genesis' "second day" of creation:






The reasons why I have provided 4 different translations, is so that (A) you can compare these translations that show the separation of the sky (or heaven) and the Earth, and (B) like the verse in Qur'an 21:30, Genesis also provided water, so that you can compare that against them to the Qu'ran.

The translations to the Qur'an 21:32 show that like Genesis 1:6-8, chose to give different names to the SKY or heaven, like roof, ceiling and canopy:





And even the bible (Genesis) is not the first to describe dividing the Earth from the sky.

In Sumerian poem of Gilgamesh - Bilgames and the Netherworld - from the late 3rd millennium BCE:


None of the texts I had quoted (Genesis, Qur'an or the Epic of Gilgamesh), describe the Big Bang.

And personally I don't think you (or any other Muslims here) understand the concept of the Big Bang, especially if you think the Earth was there, before all the earliest stars.

This is why I think most Muslims are backward thinking with science and technology; they have lost the abilities to think. All I see Muslims (who mixed science with religion) here taking their own verses OUT-OF-CONTEXT, and twisting science to fit with their scriptures.

If you don't understand the science, then don't make silly claims of what you don't understand.

One of the biggest fool out there, is Zakir Naik. Naik has done the same things as so many Muslims have done here, they used propaganda, not science, to promote the Qur'an, and it is disgustingly dishonest of Naik. This is why there are only so few respected Muslim scientists out there today, but even these scientists have made no new discoveries, because they have lost the abilities for scientific inquiry and scientific discoveries.

FIRST

Please refer to my previous reply to Shad. When you take some of the things literally, you will fall into error.

SECOND

The verse is not saying that there was water in the beginning of the universe. Can you read? You wrote all of that for nothing.

THIRD & FOURTH

The Qur'an uses TWO words, Sama, and Samawat. These two words is what makes the difference. Samawat is the plural form of Sama.

Everytime the Qur'an uses the word Sama, it is referring to the immediate openness above the earth, the sky.
When the Qur'an uses the word Samawat, it isn't referring to the immediate sky, it is referring to the openness beyond that, the heavens, the rest of the universe.

This is why the Qur'an uses this phrase multiple times over and over again, "Samawat wal Ardh" which translates to "Heaven and Earth." It is never translated as "Sky and Earth."

The verse you quoted, 21;32, uses the word SAMA. So the translation should be "Sky", and NOT "Heavens".

So no, your comparison is inaccurate. Whereas the Bible uses the word "Sky", the Qur'an clearly does not. Nor does the Qur'an state that water existed in the beginning or early parts of the universe.

This is why I think most Muslims are backward thinking with science and technology; they have lost the abilities to think. All I see Muslims (who mixed science with religion) here taking their own verses OUT-OF-CONTEXT, and twisting science to fit with their scriptures.

Read my reply to Shad. While I don't disagree that a lot of Muslims do this, that's not what is going on here. The purpose of these statements in the Qur'an is not to show you, "Oh look, there's science in the Qur'an, it must be from God!"

That's not the reason! The reason for these verses is that they are simply stating facts about the universe, but they are stated in a way which cannot be understood easily unless a person has been given a greater understanding of knowledge, whether it's scientific knowledge or otherwise. Chapter 3, verse 7 confirms that there are some verses of the Qur'an which are susceptible to different interpretations, they have different meanings, and only God knows their true meanings.

God will bless those with knowledge and grant them the understanding of the meanings of some verses, and the purpose of all those verses is simply to understand God better. So those Muslims who understand the Big Bang from 21;30, and realize God's Might and Power from that, that is the purpose those verses serve. There's no way to understand 21;30 (or other unclear verses) unless God Himself reveals the knowledge and wisdom to the person or people.

And Muslims have not been backward in thinking with science and technology. Go do some research on the Islamic Golden Age. Muslims even knew about evolution long before Darwin. This was an era where Muslims were being blessed with new knowledge, and they used it to further advance the society around them, and this has helped the world today. No scientist, mathematician, or historian denies this fact.

One of the biggest fool out there, is Zakir Naik. Naik has done the same things as so many Muslims have done here, they used propaganda, not science, to promote the Qur'an, and it is disgustingly dishonest of Naik. This is why there are only so few respected Muslim scientists out there today, but even these scientists have made no new discoveries, because they have lost the abilities for scientific inquiry and scientific discoveries.

Just stop bringing personas into this. I could care less what Naik says or preaches. This isn't about him, this is about what the Qur'an says.

 

[OurCreed]

Read your Quran 4:40, dharratin ie particles. Seems like they had a grasp of substance, which we now call matter, since there is an Arabic word for it...... Now why use the word for Earth when one could of used dharratin instead. For exactly the reason I said, it was about the Earth not matter, not atoms, not particles, etc. You could also read 10:61.

Yah Arabs had no idea what matter was when there are two verse that not only mention matter but also one that goes into more details about it.... Yup they had no word for it at all. These verses must be my imagination.....

Dharratin doesn't refer to matter. It wasn't a word used by Arabs that described matter or the nature of general substances.

And the reason the Qur'an uses the phrase "heavens and earth" is because everytime God uses this phrase, it denotes the meaning of "the entirety of existence."

For example:

7;54
"Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne..."

20;6
"To Him belongs what is in the Heavens and what is on Earth and what is between them and what is under the soil."

40;57
"The creation of the heavens and earth is greater than the creation of mankind, but most of the people do not know."

42;29
“Among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the 'dabba' (creatures) He spreads in them both. He is able to gather them all if He so wills.”

So basically, everytime the Qur'an uses the phrase "heavens and earth", it is referring to the entirety of existence, or everything that exists, the whole universe in essence. This is why 21;30 is indeed referring to the Big Bang, because the entirety of existence was at one instance a ratqan, a singular entity, just as the modern theory states.

 

[OurCreed]

Made from water is not evolution. Evolution does not say we are made from water nor is water the only chemical structure involved.. Do you know what the word made means?

Also Ibn Khaldun's book was not about evolution. He makes the leap from veins are the precursor to other animals which is false. Also he includes angels and prophets as part of his work and structure with both being the highest. Since when were angel even shown to be real let along part of evolution... Hint neither are. He is creating a hierarchy based on a religious social structure not biology. Read the pages in your own video.

"The last stages of minerals is connected with the first stages of plants" This is nonsense.

"The word connected with regard to these created things (that isn't evolution that is creationism) means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group" More nonsense. Let see the evidence of a mineral becoming a plant.....

Do note that the highlighted parts are confirmation bias yet the normal parts refute the claim about Ibn Khaldun's work.

No one is saying Ibn Khaldun was 100% accurate in his understanding. And yes, he did combine the spiritual matters with the physical, but that still doesn't refute anything. He firmly believed that the creatures went through an evolutionary development, and he described it in detail according to his own knowledge.

The video also proves that Darwin's contemporaries recognized this understanding of evolution, and they called it "The Mohammaden theory of evolution of man from lower forms." It's in William Draper's book.

Disregarding all of this, the Qur'an clearly supports the fact that life has evolved from simple substances. Dust can refer to two things. Star dust and the minerals found in the soils. Water was also an ingredient used to make life. Clay is also shown by scientists to have caused the development of life from inorganic matter. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131105132027.htm
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4784/20131106/life-evolved-clay-researchers-find.htm

 

[OurCreed]

Actually, no.

You are wrong on several accounts, OurCreed.

Georges Lemaître may have produced the idea of the expanding universe, but 5 years before him (1922), the Russian physicist, Alexander Friedman was the first to speak of it, which Albert Einstein knew of. Unfortunately, Friedman died before he could investigate his idea further.

Second, the whole universe was a single point, so there was actually know centre of the universe or a single point of origin. The singularity is the universe its entirety, so the Big Bang occurred pretty much everywhere...hence no single point.

Again, you don't understand the concept of the Big Bang, and you are unaware the historical background behind the expanding universe model.

Strangely enough, in the beginning Einstein didn't like or accept Lemaître's hypothesis (he did accept it later), and yet his theory on General Relativity (GR) provided much of the framework for expanding universe model (or BB).

Second, the whole universe was a single point, so there was actually know centre of the universe or a single point of origin. The singularity is the universe its entirety, so the Big Bang occurred pretty much everywhere...hence no single point.

The Big Bang didn't occur everywhere. If it did, then there wouldn't be an expansion.

 

[YmirGF]

And Muslims have not been backward in thinking with science and technology. Go do some research on the Islamic Golden Age. Muslims even knew about evolution long before Darwin. This was an era where Muslims were being blessed with new knowledge, and they used it to further advance the society around them, and this has helped the world today. No scientist, mathematician, or historian denies this fact.

At the same time, in the last 500+ years, the contributions of Muslims in the scientific arena has been virtually nothing. So, at one time some Muslims were quite progressive in their thinking, but since being booted out of Andalusia Islamic scientific thought has ossified. I simply don't see how it could be argued.

 

[OurCreed]

At the same time, in the last 500+ years, the contributions of Muslims in the scientific arena has been virtually nothing. So, at one time some Muslims were quite progressive in their thinking, but since being booted out of Andalusia Islamic scientific thought has ossified. I simply don't see how it could be argued.

I just made that point to show that Muslims were not like this all the time. I fully understand now that it's not the case. Muslims today have corrupted themselves, they have lost the high valued place they were once in before. They have left their religious teachings, and favored worldly greed and prosperity instead. That is what caused the decline of the Islamic Golden Age. The fathers ruled the kingdoms with justice, but their sons inherited their lands with only one thing in mind, power.

All in all, people who were once spiritually and scientifically enlightened, were replaced by people who knew nothing except their own selfish motives.

 

[YmirGF]

The Big Bang didn't occur everywhere. If it did, then there wouldn't be an expansion.

Incorrect. Given that time and space did not exist prior to the big bang, Gnostic is actually right. ALL of the universe came out of the big bang in a rapid expansion that continues to this day. It is the expansion of space, in time.

 

[OurCreed]

Incorrect. Given that time and space did not exist prior to the big bang, Gnostic is actually right. ALL of the universe came out of the big bang in a rapid expansion that continues to this day. It is the expansion of space, in time.

Yeah I see now. He is right on this, thanks for the clarification.

 

[YmirGF]

I just made that point to show that Muslims were not like this all the time. I fully understand now that it's not the case. Muslims today have corrupted themselves, they have lost the high valued place they were once in before. They have left their religious teachings, and favored worldly greed and prosperity instead. That is what caused the decline of the Islamic Golden Age. The fathers ruled the kingdoms with justice, but their sons inherited their lands with only one thing in mind, power.

All in all, people who were once spiritually and scientifically enlightened, were replaced by people who knew nothing except their own selfish motives.

My point is that I simply don't believe that the scientific trend was quite so widespread. It is inconceivable to think that the average man on the street was aware of the bleeding edge thinking of the time, say unlike today with the advent of 24 media coverage. Today we are scientifically literate and even a school kid could teach one of the towering geniuses from the era a few neat ideas. So rather than being a society that was deeply scientific and exploring knowledge bases and adding to those knowledge bases, you have a few elites who took up this endeavor that the masses were largely ignorant of.

My guess is that being booted from the Iberian peninsula, the home of this so-called "golden age", caused a huge psychological crisis in the minds of the intellectuals. God had forsaken them and sent them packing. Islamic scientific influence didn't peter out or dwindle... it simply died. As I say, it has to be tied to losing Andalusia...

 

[OurCreed]

My point is that I simply don't believe that the scientific trend was quite so widespread. It is inconceivable to think that the average man on the street was aware of the bleeding edge thinking of the time, say unlike today with the advent of 24 media coverage. Today we are scientifically literate and even a school kid could teach one of the towering geniuses from the era a few neat ideas. So rather than being a society that was deeply scientific and exploring knowledge bases and adding to those knowledge bases, you have a few elites who took up this endeavor that the masses were largely ignorant of.

My guess is that being booted from the Iberian peninsula, the home of this so-called "golden age", caused a huge psychological crisis in the minds of the intellectuals. God had forsaken them and sent them packing. Islamic scientific influence didn't peter out or dwindle... it simply died. As I say, it has to be tied to losing Andalusia...

Yeah, it wasn't like how it was today. Today most people know about the basic things, we are taught in schools. But the Golden Age wasn't all related with science either. There were many other advancements and fields of knowledge which were advanced during those times, and things which were invented or improved upon.

 

[gnostic]

Except that the Earth didn't exist at the time. You provide no justification for Earth meaning all matter in the universe. You just made a claim about it without support since it fits the science, which you admit to follow for your interpretation only. More post hoc rationalizations and fallacious reasoning. Well done son.

I already explained this to you. You want me to repeat myself? When you take these verses literally, you're not going to understand anything. The Qur'an already tells us in chapter 3, verse 7, that there are some verses which are susceptible of different interpretations. They have different meanings, and what you read is not exactly what you think it means. The Qur'an uses the word Garden for paradise where good people go to when they die. Yet the Qur'an also says elsewhere that no human being has seen, nor can they ever perceive how paradise looks like.

So why use the word Garden? Because it is representative. Garden represents many different things. One interpretation of Garden can be that everything in gardens grow. So similarly, all beings in the next world will be in a continuous growth. Another thing a garden can represent is that fruits grow in them. Fruits can represent the different varieties of blessings the good people will get, and these bounties and blessings will be never ending.

You need to realize that only people who have been blessed with knowledge will be able to understand the deeper meanings, while those with lesser knowledge will just take them literally without any understanding from them.

In the very end, what matters is that the sign that the Qur'an is trying to get you to understand is recognized. Verse 21;30 is already understood by most Muslims around the world to be referring to the Big Bang, so this sign has already been recognized, and the book's mission has been accomplished.

They...and you...are still bloody wrong, because 21:30 doesn't describe the Big Bang.

It actually doesn't even describe the universe.

I don't know if you have read my previous post - post 540 - in which I had quoted 3 different translations of verse 21:32.

Yusuf Ali
And We have made the heavens as a canopy well guarded: yet do they turn away from the Signs which these things (point to)!

Sahih International
And We made the sky a protected ceiling, but they, from its signs, are turning away.

Pickthall
And we have made the sky a roof withheld (from them). Yet they turn away from its portents.

It showed that the heaven or heavens in 21:32 (in the Sahih International and Pickthall translations) use the word or describe the SKY, not the universe.

If 21:32 doesn't describe heavens the "universe", then more than likely, 21:30 doesn't describe the "universe". I

It is all about the context of not one verse, but all other verses that speak of heavens in that chapter.

If the passage is talking about the Earth, there is no possible way that heaven could mean the universe, because our fricking planet is tiny. So heavens must mean the sky. If the verse is talking about sun or the moon, then of course, these celestial bodies are related to the Earth (21:33 for example), so heaven must mean the sky, and not the universe.

The problem is not the translations or the original. The REAL PROBLEM is you lot, modern Muslims (like yourself, Jabar, FearGod, and outsiders (Zakir Naik)), who make claim of the Big Bang in this verse or that (21:30).

The problem is you all who post webpages, blogs or YouTube videos, twisting the Qur'an out of context so that it fit with modern science. What you all posting are propaganda and pseudoscience. Each one of you, make the mistake of trying to put modern context (in this case, science) and reinterpreting verses for your own agenda. It is shameless and dishonest tactics. Modern Muslims (especially those who use the Qur'an to take credits for modern science) lacked integrity and modesty, boasting of how there is science in the Qur'an.

But why shouldn't I even be surprise. I found Muhammad to be a poor role of honesty and integrity.

1. He professed to be a lawgiver, like Moses, and yet he and his followers go on raids upon merchant caravans (623 and 624), stealing like robbers and pirates.
   
2. Muhammad and Muslims were homeless and went into exile, so Muhammad should know better, but what does he do in Medina in less than 2 years, he banished the Banu Qaynuqa and confiscated their lands and wealth (624).
   
3. When he was still living in Muhammad, he was persecuted and feared assassination, and yet in 624, Muhammad approve of Abdullah Ibn Unais and 'Abdullah ibn 'Atik murders of his critics.

All of these events happened, when he has only been in Medina. What a hypocrite.

Muhammad has perfected the art of hypocrisy and double standard, just as modern Muslims use modern science to promote the Qur'an, through dishonesty and double standard.

 

[gnostic]

Yeah, it wasn't like how it was today. Today most people know about the basic things, we are taught in schools. But the Golden Age wasn't all related with science either. There were many other advancements and fields of knowledge which were advanced during those times, and things which were invented or improved upon.

I don't deny that Muslims were more knowledgable and inventive during the Golden Age, but some of these knowledge didn't come from nowhere.

The Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantine Empire, didn't go through the Dark Ages, like that in the western counterpart. So science still existed in the eastern Mediterranean, before, during and after Muhammad.

And it was the same with Sassanid Persia; they didn't go through Dark Ages, so their science, philosophy and literature still exist before and during Muhammad's time.

So when Arab Muslims invaded Byzantine territories (Syria, Egypt and Anatolia), they had taken a lot of knowledge from these people, especially those Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians or Persians who converted to Islam.

So a lot of what we called Islamic science during the Golden Age, were actually rediscoveries or improvements of existing science, knowledge and technology, not new discoveries.

 

[Shad]

The argument isn't the same. Because those Muslims try to claim there is some scientific value in a verse, and then boast how the Qur'an knew about this before anyone else. Yet my argument is the opposite. There are verses in the Qur'an that we don't know much about, and only through scientific knowledge and other forms of knowledge could we understand these verses. And the purpose for these verses is to find God. So there IS no post hoc rationalizations and fallacious reasoning.

Same type of argument of changing verses to align with science. Post hoc rationalization is exactly what you are doing. You are interpreting the Quran after the scientific discoveries as a justification, in part, for your beliefs. Also you employ an ad hoc rescue by changing Earth to mean matter.

They aren't separate in the beginning, they get separated once the big bang heavens, when the heavens (space), and the earth (matter), split/separate from each other. And nobody is claiming that matter existed, all the Qur'an is saying is that the space and matter were just one entity, there wasn't any matter, nor was there technically any space. It was an infinitely dense point, and THEN they separated into matter and space.

It makes no such claim as you are changing the verse to mean matter, to align with science, when it doesn't.

If you knew science, it wasn't even a single point. It was an infinitely dense object, something that we cannot rationalize. There was no space in this point, nor was there matter. It was a different form of something unknown to us. This single entity could have become anything else too which is unknown to us. Scientists use the term "energy" to describe this singularity. Also, matter being in space doesn't mean they are a single entity, they are separate. If you have a glass of coke with ice in it, the ice and coke are still separate from each other, it's just that one is within the other.

If there is no matter there is no density. If there was no single point you just refuted your previous argument about being a single point. If we can not rationalize it you have no grounds for making any claims about it. Matter being is space means it is not separate from it nor will be. As I said you are using an outdated idea of space as if it were empty, it isn't, called space-time. Matter is within the universe only the scale has changed.

Actually the cola and ice will be interacting as either the ice melts or the cola becomes ice. Cola and ice both contain water thus interact as pointed out previously.

Doesn't matter, heavens in the verse, which is Samawat in Arabic, can refer to openness or even skies. There is a clear difference between the solid things based off of particles, and the openness that surrounds it. The entire universe is mostly empty space, and only a small percentage of it has matter or some form of substance.

Actually it does since you claimed space is empty and a vacuum while only the former is true. Samawat can also mean sky but you pick the defination which aligns with science, the same as you have done for the Earth.

Already told you, that you're looking at it the opposite way. God has determined to create some verses in the Qur'an which are signs for His existence. Many of these verses contain some deep meanings which will only be better understood in the FUTURE when mankind has gained more knowledge about the world. This isn't some game where we first learn about some fact (whether we learned it through science or some other means), and then we go into the Qur'an and see if any verses match it to prove the Qur'an's authenticity.

No I actually pointing out that you ignored the tradition meaning of the verse in order to for it to align with science. Again all you have done is fit the Quran with science as post hoc rationalization and ad hoc rescue. When you need to change the meaning of the verse, like Earth to matter, you are using fallacious reasoning to maintain your faith, nothing more.

No, that's not what is going on at all. What is going on is that through outside knowledge, it helps the person seeking for truth to better understand some Qur'anic verses in order to understand God more than the person who is just a casual reader. The person who realizes the reality of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe will understand God better, His power, His might, than someone who has no idea about any of these things. This is the purpose of these verses.

Which are just using fallacious reasoning based on post hoc rationalization and ad hoc rescues. In the verse using the normal Earth definition makes the verse incorrect so you change it to match.

I already explained this to you. You want me to repeat myself? When you take these verses literally, you're not going to understand anything. The Qur'an already tells us in chapter 3, verse 7, that there are some verses which are susceptible of different interpretations. They have different meanings, and what you read is not exactly what you think it means. The Qur'an uses the word Garden for paradise where good people go to when they die. Yet the Qur'an also says elsewhere that no human being has seen, nor can they ever perceive how paradise looks like.

You seem to forget that I have rejected your argument long ago. I am pointing out how you have changed the verse since Earth is a obvious error. So you change it to matter, without cause, to align with science. 3:7 does not specificy which verses so all you have done is use this as a basis to change whatever verse you want to align with science. ore fallacious reasoning on your part.

So why use the word Garden? Because it is representative. Garden represents many different things. One interpretation of Garden can be that everything in gardens grow. So similarly, all beings in the next world will be in a continuous growth. Another thing a garden can represent is that fruits grow in them. Fruits can represent the different varieties of blessings the good people will get, and these bounties and blessings will be never ending.

I already pointed out there is an Arabic word for atom, particles or substance. So this argument fails. Also a garden invokes a mental image, we know what gardens are and we extrapolate upon this knowledge to the best garden imaginable or not. The Earth contains no such metaphorical basis.

You need to realize that only people who have been blessed with knowledge will be able to understand the deeper meanings, while those with lesser knowledge will just take them literally without any understanding from them.

You are not one of these people. It is nice making grand claims. Here is one. I am the only one able to interpret the Quran but found it flawed thus man-made. See how grand claims such as yours are meaningless.

In the very end, what matters is that the sign that the Qur'an is trying to get you to understand is recognized. Verse 21;30 is already understood by most Muslims around the world to be referring to the Big Bang, so this sign has already been recognized, and the book's mission has been accomplished.

Only because such miracles nonsense, which you deny, has been used around the Muslim world since the 70s. It is the standard apologists tripe made and used before I was born. However the verse has no such meaning prior to the BB discovery. As I said it is fallacious reasoning used to bolster naive Muslims and it works on you.

 

[Shad]

Dharratin doesn't refer to matter. It wasn't a word used by Arabs that described matter or the nature of general substances.

Yes it was. Read the verses.

And the reason the Qur'an uses the phrase "heavens and earth" is because everytime God uses this phrase, it denotes the meaning of "the entirety of existence."
Empty statement based on nothing but your opinion, which I have already dismissed.



For example:

7;54
"Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne..."

20;6
"To Him belongs what is in the Heavens and what is on Earth and what is between them and what is under the soil."

40;57
"The creation of the heavens and earth is greater than the creation of mankind, but most of the people do not know."

42;29
“Among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the 'dabba' (creatures) He spreads in them both. He is able to gather them all if He so wills.”

No Heaven could mean everything without using the Earth. However by using the Earth it is being specific and about this planet, not every planet.

So basically, everytime the Qur'an uses the phrase "heavens and earth", it is referring to the entirety of existence, or everything that exists, the whole universe in essence. This is why 21;30 is indeed referring to the Big Bang, because the entirety of existence was at one instance a ratqan, a singular entity, just as the modern theory states.

Not really since Earth is a specific label.

 

[Shad]

No one is saying Ibn Khaldun was 100% accurate in his understanding. And yes, he did combine the spiritual matters with the physical, but that still doesn't refute anything. He firmly believed that the creatures went through an evolutionary development, and he described it in detail according to his own knowledge.

I was pointing out that his idea was not about evolution but about prophethood. That is actually what the chapter is about not biology. Read the whole chapter in which he starts to prattle on about souls for the rest of the chapter, 5 pages.

He provided only one mechanic which is God. He made mistakes about minerals becoming plants, veins becoming snails, etc. He states that previous stages are ready to become later stages but in no way does he say this actually happens.

The video also proves that Darwin's contemporaries recognized this understanding of evolution, and they called it "The Mohammaden theory of evolution of man from lower forms." It's in William Draper's book.

Draper was wrong as Darwin's idea was not based on ideas from Muslims nor was the Muslim idea actually evolution. Darwin wrote about mechanics involved with Muslims didn't.

Disregarding all of this, the Qur'an clearly supports the fact that life has evolved from simple substances. Dust can refer to two things. Star dust and the minerals found in the soils. Water was also an ingredient used to make life. Clay is also shown by scientists to have caused the development of life from inorganic matter. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131105132027.htm
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4784/20131106/life-evolved-clay-researchers-find.htm

Dust is ambiguous. Some dust contain elements that are toxic to humans. Some dust contains far to much of one material and not enough of another. The same is true for clay. So all you are doing is defining dust based on science which is an ad hoc rescue. Also being made from dust and clay was a religious view that predates Islam by centuries. Repeating established ideas is nothing special. It is found in Chinese, Egyptian, Sumerian, etc mythology.

You are repeating the same scientific miracle claims without using the label. Same type of argument, same shifting of definition to align with science, etc. You think by not calling it science makes a difference, it doesn't. It is merely hedging your bets in case one of the ideas from science ends up being wrong you can backpedal without problems.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, I suppose it's better that Muslims try to twist the Quran to fit science rather than how Christians try to twist science to fit the Bible.