The movement of the earth in Qur'an

[FearGod]

Tradition shows it supported the geocentric model as the interpretation. Your link only has one source which is only believed to be heliocentric, not proven to be. Hence the word, "some" believe. The rest of the source are either neutral or against the heliocentric model.

Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0297
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 42
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 520

We're discussing the quran, so don't run away.

 

[Aquitaine]

No. Because in geocentricity the earth is fixed and this verse says the earth is moving.
Also there is another verse that says heaven is expanding by power of God:
51‌:47 " Sahih International: And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander ".

And here lies the problem with trying to rely on ancient scripture for "truth": subjective human interpretation.
To me, these verses just appear as vague observations with absolutely no scientific basis in them - similar to those found in the Bible.

All religious books are based on Faith, not Science.

 

[Shad]

Quote the verses which prove your view here, so we can discuss it.



What are you saying ? day and night is just due to the earth rotation, so IOW no need for the sun and the moon's movement.

Click the links.

No I am saying by stating the parameters of day and night followed by a sentence talking about the sun and moon is o suggest the geocentric model. Yet the Quran makes no mention of this. Tradition makes no mention of this. In fact tradition supports the geocentric model. Look at my other sources. You probably won't because clicking is hard work...

 

[Shad]

We're discussing the quran, so don't run away.

Nice try at a dodge. I quote "But still some ancient Muslim scientists believed about the heliocentric model which was even wrong ." We are already talking about sources outside of the Quran. You are moving the goal posts as an ad hoc defense. You fully accepted secondary sources by citing secondary sources yourself. Not only are you dishonest but you are inconsistent by using secondary source then claiming I can not...

 

[mojtaba]

No need as I am not saying it means both. I already told you the each reference is to night, day, sun and moon. Hence 4 parameters not 2.

Why don't you see the earth and heavens in the verse?
When someone say: " I saw Tom, Alex, Michael, Rous, Albert and Mary. Each of them was healthy ", you find from this statement that ' each reference is to Michael, Rous, Albert and Mary 'and not to Tom and Alex ?
Why you ignore heavens(Alex) and the earth(Michael) which are in verse sentence?
He created the heavens and the earth with Truth, and He causes the night to flow into the day, and causes the day to flow into the night. He has subjugated the sun and the moon (for humans). All of them(heavens, the Earth, the sun and the moon) are running

 

[FearGod]

Which is post 1930s. Surat Adh-Dhariyat [51:47] - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم

Look at the pre-1930s translation. Many do not use expander. Many do not use words which identify it as an on going process but rather "is able". Sahih International was made in 1989 which the expanding universe is common knowledge and in public education. Dr. Ghali's version likewise is post 1930. The rest are made before 1930 or the expanding theory become public knowledge. All these are authoritative as well. However when one source shows clearly ad hoc translations which are different than previous version it's authenticity becomes questionable.

I am able to cook a meal, this does not mean I am cooking a meal right now.

Accept what truth? That you come up with flawed arguments since you do not know about Islamic history, tradition along with Muslim astronomy? Like I said, provide one source pre-Copernicus from a Muslim astronomer or scholar putting forward the heliocentric model.

So in the year 1930 they read science and translated the quran differently so we can use them to debate in the 21th century.

 

[FearGod]

Why don't you see the earth and heavens in the verse?
When someone say: " I saw Tom, Alex, Michael, Rous, Albert and Mary. Each of them was healthy ", you find from this statement that ' each reference is to Michael, Rous, Albert and Mary 'and not to Tom and Alex ?
Why you ignore heavens(Alex) and the earth(Michael) which are in verse sentence?
He created the heavens and the earth with Truth, and He causes the night to flow into the day, and causes the day to flow into the night. He has subjugated the sun and the moon (for humans). All of them(heavens, the Earth, the sun and the moon) are running

It's up to him which words to choose from the verse for his twisting efforts to work.

 

[FearGod]

Nice try at a dodge. I quote "But still some ancient Muslim scientists believed about the heliocentric model which was even wrong ." We are already talking about sources outside of the Quran. You are moving the goal posts as an ad hoc defense. You fully accepted secondary sources by citing secondary sources yourself. Not only are you dishonest but you are inconsistent by using secondary source then claiming I can not...

You have asked why ancient muslims didn't think about the heliocentric model and i answered your question that they did.
How that is dishonest when i prove that you were lying ?

 

[FearGod]

Lol, what his next bla..bla...bla.

 

[FearGod]

And he re lies the problem with trying to rely on ancient scripture for "truth": subjective human interpretation.
To me, these verses just appear as vague observations with absolutely no scientific basis in them - similar to those found in the Bible.

All religious books are based on Faith, not Science.

It's about facts and not science, things which we may observe today and weren't known during the 7th century, the faith is to believe or to disbelieve.

 

[Aquitaine]

It's about facts and not science, things which we may observe today and weren't known during the 7th century, the faith is to believe or to disbelieve.

Are you telling me you think Mohammad knew scientific facts that no-one else knew in or before the 7th century?

 

[Augustus]

It's about facts and not science, things which we may observe today and weren't known during the 7th century, the faith is to believe or to disbelieve.

This is the process to believe:

Book is miraculous and cannot be incorrect. This rule trumps all others.

Book says something incorrect. Experience cognitive dissonance. Reinterpret comment as a metaphor, no longer incorrect.

Book says something metaphorical. Use post hoc reinterpretation to make it literal and 'miraculous'.

Book says something vague. Use post hoc reinterpretation to make it clear and 'miraculous'.

Post hoc reinterpretation turns out to be incorrect. Experience cognitive dissonance. Post hoc reinterpret the post hoc reinterpretation so that it is still miraculous.

Post hoc reinterpretation cannot be defended as miraculous. Experience cognitive dissonance. Reinterpret as vague or a metaphor again, no longer incorrect or needing defence.

etc.

The scientific miracles hypothesis was a creation of the 1980s, it relies on the flexibility of language and how easy it is to redefine or reinterpret things when it is beneficial. You can find 'miracles' in any text if you look hard enough and think laterally enough. I proved this earlier.

Another problem with the hypothesis is that once apologists start to encounter people who actually understand the science, they end up getting looking stupid as the scientist tears their specious argument to shreds. The argument only work on people who don't understand the science, don't realise the flexibility of language, those who don't understand history and those, like our friends here, who are overly credulous and lack critical insight. The sort of people who would readily buy some magic beans off you if you gave them a nice story as to why they are amazing.

To quote well know buffoon and apologist Hamza Tzortsis:

"Due to this intense popularisation over the past few decades, there is now a growing counter movement that attempts to demystify the so-called scientific statements, and they seem to be more nuanced, with a growing popularity. A significant number of apostates from Islam (many of whom I have had private conversations with) cite the counter movement’s work as a causal factor in deciding to leave the religion... Regrettably, the scientific miracles narrative has become an intellectual embarrassment for Muslim apologists, including myself."

Does the Qur’an Contain Scientific Miracles? A New Approach on how to Reconcile and Discuss Science in the Qur’an | Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

And when a clown such as Tzortzis worries about something making him look stupid, then it's time to take notice.

This short video demonstrates everything wonderfully and rather humorously:

The Quran is a religious text, just treat it as a religious text. That it is what it was, is, and always will be.

 

[FearGod]

Are you telling me you think Mohammad knew scientific facts that no-one else knew in or before the 7th century?

I don't think but i'm sure about it, it isn't scientific facts but observations and science only helped us to understand and study them, one example that one verse about the month of fasting (Ramadan) says ((and eat and drink until the white thread becometh distinct to you from the black thread of the dawn)), they asked the prophet, what that thread (line) between day and night, then the prophet said it's when light is distinguished from darkness, so they didn't know about the line because it can be only observed from looking to earth from space and science helped us to fly and to observe such fact.

 

[FearGod]

This is the process to believe:

Book is miraculous and cannot be incorrect. This rule trumps all others.

Book says something incorrect. Experience cognitive dissonance. Reinterpret comment as a metaphor, no longer incorrect.

Book says something metaphorical. Use post hoc reinterpretation to make it literal and 'miraculous'.

Book says something vague. Use post hoc reinterpretation to make it clear and 'miraculous'.

Post hoc reinterpretation turns out to be incorrect. Experience cognitive dissonance. Post hoc reinterpret the post hoc reinterpretation so that it is still miraculous.

Post hoc reinterpretation cannot be defended as miraculous. Experience cognitive dissonance. Reinterpret as vague or a metaphor again, no longer incorrect or needing defence.

etc.

The scientific miracles hypothesis was a creation of the 1980s, it relies on the flexibility of language and how easy it is to redefine or reinterpret things when it is beneficial. You can find 'miracles' in any text if you look hard enough and think laterally enough. I proved this earlier.

Another problem with the hypothesis is that once apologists start to encounter people who actually understand the science, they end up getting looking stupid as the scientist tears their specious argument to shreds. The argument only work on people who don't understand the science, don't realise the flexibility of language, those who don't understand history and those, like our friends here, who are overly credulous and lack critical insight. The sort of people who would readily buy some magic beans off you if you gave them a nice story as to why they are amazing.

To quote well know buffoon and apologist Hamza Tzortsis:

"Due to this intense popularisation over the past few decades, there is now a growing counter movement that attempts to demystify the so-called scientific statements, and they seem to be more nuanced, with a growing popularity. A significant number of apostates from Islam (many of whom I have had private conversations with) cite the counter movement’s work as a causal factor in deciding to leave the religion... Regrettably, the scientific miracles narrative has become an intellectual embarrassment for Muslim apologists, including myself."

Does the Qur’an Contain Scientific Miracles? A New Approach on how to Reconcile and Discuss Science in the Qur’an | Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

And when a clown such as Tzortzis worries about something making him look stupid, then it's time to take notice.

This short video demonstrates everything wonderfully and rather humorously:

The Quran is a religious text, just treat it as a religious text. That it is what it was, is, and always will be.

Tzortsis isn't a doctor and he don't know Arabic which is the language of the quran.

Embryology and human creation between Quran and science

If you want to have a fair judgement on the quran then you should study its language otherwise i advise you to read comics.

 

[Augustus]

Tzortsis isn't a doctor and he don't know Arabic which is the language of the quran.

Embryology and human creation between Quran and science

If you want to have a fair judgement on the quran then you should study its language otherwise i advise you to read comics.

If I want to truly analyse the Quran as a religious text, I should study the language. Correct. But, I'm not studying or criticising the Quran in any way. I'm criticising this modern innovation of claiming it contains 'scientific miracles' that are self-evident to any open minded individual.

I don't need to know any Arabic to point out the nonsense in your arguments. The refutations are not dependent on the specific language. Understand? (I doubt it)

Anyway, you should actually watch the video I linked to, the chap PZ Myers happens to be an embryologist. Let's just say he doesn't find Quranic embryology miraculous in any way. But, no doubt, you know best, and he is simply 'stubbornly clinging' to his scientifically validated opinions out of spite and hostility rather than because he sees your sort of arguments for the nonsense they actually are. Watch and see what he says, and then tell me why he is wrong if you like.

And while I stick to comics, you should stick to the Quran rather than scientific texts you clearly don't understand and usually have never actually read. Actually, don't, I find it quite amusing

 

[FearGod]

If I want to truly analyse the Quran as a religious text, I should study the language. Correct. But, I'm not studying or criticising the Quran in any way. I'm criticising this modern innovation of claiming it contains 'scientific miracles' that are self-evident to any open minded individual.

I don't need to know any Arabic to point out the nonsense in your arguments. The refutations are not dependent on the specific language. Understand? (I doubt it)

I didn't say it's a scientific miracles but i'm saying it's facts and observations and modern science approved it to be correct, so don't twist my words in such a stupid way.

Anyway, you should actually watch the video I linked to, the chap PZ Myers happens to be an embryologist. Let's just say he doesn't find Quranic embryology miraculous in any way. But, no doubt, you know best, and he is simply 'stubbornly clinging' to his scientifically validated opinions out of spite and hostility rather than because he sees your sort of arguments for the nonsense they actually are. Watch and see what he says, and then tell me why he is wrong if you like.

The embryologist in this silly video is saying that bones and flesh(muscles) occurs simultaneously and as to say bones first then flesh second according to what the quran says is wrong.

Do you agree first with the embryologist so i can prove both of you being wrong.

And while I stick to comics, you should stick to the Quran rather than scientific texts you clearly don't understand and usually have never actually read. Actually, don't, I find it quite amusing

I know Arabic besides English and from that point i can kick off, but your knowledge in Arabic is zero, so you can never have a fair judgement, it's as silly as me judging the work of Shakespeare.

 

[Augustus]

I didn't say it's a scientific miracles but i'm saying it's facts and observations and modern science approved it to be correct, so don't twist my words in such a stupid way.

If it is not miraculous then why go on about it?

That embryo stuff is vague, metaphorical and contains no insight that wasn't already known by other people the time. But you managed to find it miraculous that someone noticed the difference between night and day, so you are pretty easily amazed.

What is supposed to be so amazing about all of this?

IThe embryologist in this silly video is saying that bones and flesh(muscles) occurs simultaneously and as to say bones first then flesh second according to what the quran says is wrong.

Do you agree first with the embryologist so i can prove both of you being wrong.

I know nothing about embryology. Will take his word over yours though.

I know Arabic besides English and from that point i can kick off, but your knowledge in Arabic is zero, so you can never have a fair judgement, it's as silly as me judging the work of Shakespeare.

Not as silly as you judging the merits of theoretical physics though

One final time, I'm not judging the Quran, I'm judging your fallacious logic as to why we should all be amazed at these scientific miracles that didn't even exist until the 1980s and are not based on the subtleties of Arabic grammar. For example, even if I accept your '6 epochs' innovation it is still nonsense.

 

[FearGod]

If it is not miraculous then why go on about it?

That embryo stuff is vague, metaphorical and contains no insight that wasn't already known by other people the time. But you managed to find it miraculous that someone noticed the difference between night and day, so you are pretty easily amazed.

What is supposed to be so amazing about all of this?

Did anyone ask you to be amazed ?
I think it's amazing but it's up to you if you don't see it in similar way as i do.

I know nothing about embryology. Will take his word over yours though.

Blind faith on him regardless of your ignorance in embryology, that's a pity.

Not as silly as you judging the merits of theoretical physics though

One final time, I'm not judging the Quran, I'm judging your fallacious logic as to why we should all be amazed at these scientific miracles that didn't even exist until the 1980s and are not based on the subtleties of Arabic grammar. For example, even if I accept your '6 epochs' innovation it is still nonsense.

No one asked you to be amazed.

 

[Shad]

Why don't you see the earth and heavens in the verse?
When someone say: " I saw Tom, Alex, Michael, Rous, Albert and Mary. Each of them was healthy ", you find from this statement that ' each reference is to Michael, Rous, Albert and Mary 'and not to Tom and Alex ?
Why you ignore heavens(Alex) and the earth(Michael) which are in verse sentence?
He created the heavens and the earth with Truth, and He causes the night to flow into the day, and causes the day to flow into the night. He has subjugated the sun and the moon (for humans). All of them(heavens, the Earth, the sun and the moon) are running

I do. However the format of the verse "He causes the night to flow into day" is followed right after by the old geocentric concept of the Sun and Moon causing it by Allah subjugating both. There is no reason to state Allah subjugated either if not and day were not caused by both. This is one sentence flowing into another. The verse could of easily said Allah created all 4. However by making a specific statement regarding the subjugation of the sun and moon right after talking about night and day provides parameters. Hence Earth and Heaven were merely establish Allah is powerful, Earth and Heaven do nothing more than that.

Your example is flawed as you remove the conflicting sentence that breaks the flow of speech. Day and night are not objects but local based perception. So "I see Tom and Alex. I danced Tuesday and Friday. I see Albert and Bob. The 2nd sentence creates a fragmented sentence, it is out of place. Just as day and night are out of place with objects. Day and night have no time to run as neither is an object. Just as Friday and Tuesday are not people.


(All) is still wrong, learn English. All is collective thus all run a shared course or end in this case. This is incoherent as Heaven has no shared course with either unless you take the view that the verse is about judgment day. The Sun and Earth has a shorter "life" span than "Heaven". Hence why each is used not all. Hence why other translations use each not all. They understand both languages well enough to understand context in Arabic and context in English. You do not.

 

[Shad]

Tzortsis isn't a doctor and he don't know Arabic which is the language of the quran.

Embryology and human creation between Quran and science

If you want to have a fair judgement on the quran then you should study its language otherwise i advise you to read comics.

Same arguments Tzortsis used but far less developed. If you dismiss Tzortsis arguments you have dismissed the same ones found in the link.