There are no mistakes in Quran

[Shad]

For those who do not believe the Quran is divine. There is no way an ancient scripture could have the utmost elegance and purity of language. It must be divine. There is much more proof scientifically and in others branches.

Argument from incredulity. Arabic is a human language thus a human is capable of making the Quran. Just because you are unable to conceive this is not an argument for your claim. Also argument from ignorance since you are putting forward your presupposition as true without showing it is true.

 

[Shad]

The creation of the universe is explained by astrophysicists in a widely accepted phenomenon, popularly known as the ‘Big Bang’. It is supported by observational and experimental data gathered by astronomers and astrophysicists for decades. According to the ‘Big Bang’, the whole universe was initially one big mass (Primary Nebula). Then there was a ‘Big Bang’ (Secondary Separation) which resulted in the formation of Galaxies. These then divided to form stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc. The origin of the universe was unique and the probability of it occurring by ‘chance’ is zero. The Qur’aan contains the following verse, regarding the origin of the universe: "Do not the Unbelievers see That the heavens and the earth Were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove themasunder?" [Al-Qur’aan 21:30]

Since the Earth is only 4-5 billion years old and the universe is 13-14 billion the fact that this verse includes the Earth during the Big Bang shows this is an error. Also the Earth is part of the Universe not separate from it

Scientists say that before the galaxies in the universe were formed, celestial matter was initially in the form of gaseous matter. In short, huge gaseous matter or clouds were present before the formation of the galaxies. To describe initial celestial matter, the word ‘smoke’ is more appropriate than gas. The following Qur’aanic verse refers to this state of the universe by the word dhukhan which means smoke.

"Moreover, He Comprehended In His design the sky, And it had been (as) smoke: He said to it And to the earth: ‘Come ye together, Willingly or unwillingly.’ They said: ‘We do come (Together), in willing obedience.’" [Al-Qur’aan 41:11]

Smoke include materials as it is not a gas but a collection of materials that have burned. Smoke is not a gas. Hence the Quran is wrong again

THE SPHERICAL SHAPE OF THE EARTH

In early times, people believed that the earth is flat. For centuries, men were afraid to venture out too far, lest they should fall off the edge. Sir Francis Drake was the first person who proved that the earth is spherical when he sailed around it in 1597. Consider the following Qur’aanic verse regarding the alternation of day and night: "Seest thou not that Allah merges Nightinto Day And He merges Day into Night?" [Al-Qur’aan 31:29]

Merging here means that the night slowly and gradually changes to day and vice versa. This phenomenon can only take place if the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat, there would have been a sudden change from night to day and from day to night.

The following verse also alludes to the spherical shape of the earth: "He created the heavens And the earth In true (proportions): He makes the Night Overlap the Day, and the Day Overlap the Night." [Al-Qur’aan 39:5]

The Arabic word used here is Kawwara meaning ‘to overlap’ or ‘to coil’– the way a turban is wound around the head. The overlapping or coiling of the day and night can only take place if the earth is spherical.

The earth is not exactly round like a ball, but geo-spherical i.e. it is flattened at the poles. The following verse contains a description of the earth’s shape:

"And the earth, moreover, Hath He made egg shaped." [Al-Qur’aan 79:30] [The Arabic word dahaha has been translated by A. Yusuf Ali as "vast expanse", which also is correct. The word dahaha also means an ostrich-egg.]

The Arabic word for egg here is dahaha, which means an ostrich-egg. The shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth. Thus the Qur’aan correctly describes the shape of the earth, though the prevalent notion when the Qur’aan was revealed was that the earth is flat.

No dahaha means flat not egg shaped. Besides the Greeks figured out the world was a sphere centuries before Islam. You are repeating a flat earth myths, nothing more. Also these verses support the geocentric model as no Muslim developed a heliocentric model.

 

[Shad]

THE LIGHT OF THE MOON IS REFLECTED LIGHT

It was believed by earlier civilizations that the moon emanates its own light. Science now tells us that the light of the moon is reflected light. However this fact was mentioned in the Qur’aan 1,400 years ago in the following verse:

"Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies, And placed therein a Lamp And a Moon giving light." [Al-Qur’aan 25:61]

The word means light not reflected light. Also the Greeks figured this out centuries before Islam.

THE SUN ROTATES

For a long time European philosophers and scientists believed that the earth stood still in the center of the universe and every other body including the sun moved around it. In the West, this geocentric concept of the universe was prevalent right from the time of Ptolemy in the second century B.C. In 1512, Nicholas Copernicus put forward his Heliocentric Theory of Planetary Motion, which asserted that the sun is motionless at the centre of the solar system with the planets revolving around it.

In 1609, the German scientist Yohannus Keppler published the ‘Astronomia Nova’. In this he concluded that not only do the planets move in elliptical orbits around the sun, they also rotate upon their axes at irregular speeds. With this knowledge it became possible for European scientists to explain correctly many of the mechanisms of the solar system including the sequence of night and day.

After these discoveries, it was thought that the Sun was stationary and did not rotate about its axis like the Earth. I remember having studied this fallacy from Geography books during my school days. Consider the following Qur’aanic verse: "It is He Who created The Night and the Day, And the sun and the moon: All (the celestial bodies) Swim along, each in its Rounded course." [Al-Qur’aan 21:33]

The Arabic word used in the above verse is yasbahûn . The word yasbahûn is derived from the word sabaha. It carries with it the idea of motion that comes from any moving body. If you use the word for a man on the ground, it would not mean that he is rolling but would mean he is walking or running. If you use the word for a man in water it would not mean that he is floating but would mean that he is swimming.

Similarly, if you use the word yasbah for a celestial body such as the sun it would not mean that it is only flying through space but would mean that it is also rotating as it goes through space. Most of the school textbooks have incorporated the fact that the sun rotates about its axis. The rotation of the sun about its own axis can be proved with the help of an equipment that projects the image of the sun on the table top so that one can examine the image of the sun without being blinded. It is noticed that the sun has spots which complete a circular motion once every 25 days i.e. the sun takes approximately 25 days to rotate around its axis.

In fact, the sun travels through space at roughly 150 miles per second, and takes about 200 million years to complete one revolution around the center of our Milky Way Galaxy.

"It is not permitted To the Sun to catch up The Moon, nor can The Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along In (its own) orbit (According to Law)." [Al-Qur’aan 36:40]

This verse mentions an essential fact discovered by modern astronomy, i.e. the existence of the individual orbits of the Sun and the Moon, and their journey through space with their own motion. The ‘fixed place’ towards, which the sun travels, carrying with it the solar system, has been located exactly by modern astronomy. It has been given a name, the Solar Apex. The solar system is indeed moving in space towards a point situated in the constellation of Hercules (alpha Layer) whose exact location is firmly established.

The moon rotates around its axis in the same duration that it takes to revolve around the earth. It takes approximately 29½ days to complete one rotation. One cannot help but be amazed at the scientific accuracy of the Qur’aanic verses. Should we not ponder over the question: "What was the source of knowledge contained in the Qur’aan?"

Which fits a flat earth model. There was no Muslim heliocentric model so your interpretation is an ad hoc rescue, nothing more

THE SUN WILL EXTINGUISH AFTER A CERTAIN PERIOD

The light of the sun is due to a chemical process on its surface that has been taking place continuously for the past five billion years. It will come to an end at some point of time in the future when the sun will be totally extinguished leading to extinction of all life on earth. Regarding the impermanence of the sun’s existence the Qur’aan says: "And the Sun Runs its course For a period determined For it; that is The decree of (Him) The exalted in Might, The All-Knowing." [Al-Qur’aan 36:38] [A similar message is conveyed in the Qur’an in 13:2, 35:13, 39:5 and 39:21]

The Arabic word used here is mustaqarr, which means a place or time that is determined. Thus the Qur’aan says that the sun runs towards a determined place, and will do so only up to a pre-determined period of time – meaning that it will end or extinguish.

Which isn't anything special. The destruction of the Sun is found in a number of mythologies if you look around for 10 minutes. Also that verse is not about the life span of the Sun but it's movement.

THE PRESENCE OF INTERSTELLAR MATTER

Space outside organized astronomical systems was earlier assumed to be a vacuum . Astrophysicists later discovered the presence of bridges of matter in this interstellar space. These bridges of matter are called plasma, and consist of completely ionized gas containing equal number of free electrons and positive ions. Plasma is sometimes called the fourth state of matter (besides the three known states viz. solid, liquid and gas). The Qur’aan mentions the presence of this interstellar material in the following verse: "He Who createdthe heavens And the earth and all That is between." [Al-Qur’aan 25:59]

No details at all and vague. Post hoc rationalization. If I claim stuff makes up everything at the Quantum level then someone later discovers this "stuff" that does not mean my claim was true because of my argument. Also the idea of ether existed for centuries as the mysterious stuff.

THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE

In 1925, an American astronomer by the name of Edwin Hubble, provided observational evidence that all galaxies are receding from one another, which implies that the universe is expanding. The expansion of the universe is now an established scientific fact. This is what Al-Qur’aan says regarding the nature of the universe: "With the power and skill Did We construct TheFirmament: For it is We Who create The vastness of Space." [Al-Qur’aan 51:47]

The Arabic word mûsi‘ûn is correctly translated as ‘expanding it’, and it refers to the creation of the expanding vastness of the universe. StephenHawking, in his book, ‘A Brief History of Time’, says, "The discovery that the universe is expanding was one of the great intellectual revolutions of the 20th century."

The Qur’aan mentioned the expansion of the universe, before man even learnt to build a telescope! Some may say that the presence of astronomical facts in the Qur’aan is not surprising since the Arabs were advanced in the field of astronomy. They are correct in acknowledging the advancement of the Arabs in the field of astronomy. However they fail to realize that the Qur’aan was revealed centuries before the Arabs excelled in astronomy. Moreover many of the scientific facts mentioned above regarding astronomy, such as the origin of the universe with a Big Bang, were not known to the Arabs even at the peak of their scientific advancement. The scientific facts mentioned in the Qur’aan are therefore not due to the Arabs’ advancement in astronomy. Indeed, the reverse is true. The Arabs advanced in astronomy, because astronomy occupies a place in the Qur’aan.

The word does not mean expanding at this time. All translations before this used the same type of idea that the heavens are vast but not currently expanding. Only later when such an idea was shown to be true does this view come to light. Never before. Read the Bible, same type of claim. Heaven is vast. Other mythology mentions a vast heaven created by gods. Your claims are nothing special and actually young in relation to other mythology making similar claims.

 

[Shad]

@YmirGF
II. PHYSICS

THE EXISTENCE OF SUBATOMIC PARTICLES

In ancient times a well-known theory by the name of ‘Theory of Atomism’ was widely accepted. This theory was originally proposed by the Greeks, in particular by a man called Democritus, who lived about 23 centuries ago. Democritus and the people that came after him, assumed that the smallest unit of matter was the atom. The Arabs used to believe the same. The Arabic word dharrah most commonly meant an atom. In recent times modern science has discovered that it is possible to split even an atom. That the atom can be split further is a development of the 20th century. Fourteen centuries ago this concept would have appeared unusual even to an Arab. For him the dharrah was the limit beyond which one could not go. The following Qur’aanic verse however, refuses to acknowledge this limit: "The Unbelievers say, ‘Never tous will come The Hour’: say, ‘Nay! But most surely, By my Lord, it will come Upon you – by Him Who knows the unseen – From Whom is not hidden The least little atom In the Heavens or on earth: Nor is there anything less Than that, or greater, but Is in the Record Perspicuous.’" [Al-Qur’aan 34:3] [A similar message is conveyed in the Qur’an in 10:61]

This verse refers to the Omniscience of God, His knowledge of all things, hidden or apparent. It then goes further and says that God is aware ofeverything, including what is smaller or bigger than the atom. Thus the verse clearly shows that it is possible for something smaller than the atom to exist, a fact discovered only recently by modern science.

Refuted your own argument as such ideas existed centuries before and required no divine knowledge. Repeating the same idea is not divine.

 

[firedragon]

Nope I have reject argument based on poor knowledge of Arabic. None of these scholars meets even your criteria which amusing vanishes when someone supports your view. Also their error in what Mo never hit anyone, he did see my previous posts



Not dubious since many were endorsed by one of primary Islamic universities on the planet, none of your authors have that. Many of my source know Arabic as a professional and native tongue while your sources do not. One took 3 years of Arabic yet Shakir spoke Arabic from childhood. You own source rely on their ignorance of these sources, after all one of their premises is that Mo didn't hit anyone yet he did even in ahdaith So they rely on the same source, they just happen to be ignorant of these sources against their views



Oh please. Your own standards vanish when you find fringe scholars that agree with you but do not meet your own criteria you used against my argument. Amusing double-standards and a break down in your logic.

I know a person like will bring this argument, thats why I did not quote scholars to support my argument. I dont need them.

 

[firedragon]

So you early complaint was nothing

You said that I used Laraba and had problems with Daraba. Which means when you quoted the Arabic word cut and paste from a site you didnt know what in the world you were talking about.

I always used Ilribuhunna, Yalrib and Yulrib. All are Laraba or Daraba or what ever you wanna use. When you cut and paste an Arabic word or sentence at least know that particular word.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

@ A Greased Scotsman Can you avoid the nonsense talk and give me one error in the Quran because you seriously are beating around the bush. I have given my evidence. You have not even given me one actual error. (NO MISCONCEPTIONS OR MISTRANSLATIONS)

I get the impression there's nothing I can give you that you won't dismiss out of hand as either a mistranslation or misconception. I've already given you the verse which claims that fresh & salt water do not mix - to which you reacted that the verse is true, then immediately contradicted yourself by saying fresh & salt water do mix. That is a scientific error in the Quran because the Arabs would not have had the technology to measure saline levels in the waters of river estuaries - if they had they'd have known this sort of absolute statement is false. Speaking of mistranslations, this:

@A Greased Scotsman This is a mistranslation. Right translation: Indeed we have sent down the Reminder and indeed we of it surely Guardians.

doesn't make linguistic sense. I get the feeling it's supposed to say "Indeed we have sent down the Reminder and we of it are surely Guardians." or "Indeed we have sent down the Reminder and we are surely Guardians of it." which at the end of the day means the exact same thing as the Yusuf Ali translation - that the Quran is pure because Allah made it so and will keep it so. Which leads me neatly to my next point:

You're arguing against the work of someone who knew enough about Arabic-English translation to give us his own interpretation of the Quran and did it well enough that not only is it accepted by many orthodox Muslims, the 'Yusuf Ali' translation is one of the most widely accepted translations today. What knowledge could you possibly bring to the table at this point that would give me sufficient reason to believe I should take you more seriously than a world-renowned linguistics expert. Further, the Muhsin Khan, Pickthall, Sahih International, and Yusuf Ali all translate the verse as the moon giving off its own light. Are they all 'mistranslations'?

http://www.quran.com/25/61-71 - obviously if the translations don't all automatically appear you can turn them on yourself.

On a more general note - you're the one applying a flawed exegesis to the verses. You're claiming the Quran is referring to humans which predate Adam & Eve's supposed creation by Allah even though the Quran doesn't mention any such humans - the verse indicates that the angels are concerned that Allah is going to make the human race his successors on Earth rather than them because the angels do not question Allah and they know (or could guess) what the humans will end up doing.

You claim elsewhere that the Quran's linguistically elegance and purity is an indicator of its divine origins.

For those who do not believe the Quran is divine. There is no way an ancient scripture could have the utmost elegance and purity of language. It must be divine. There is much more proof scientifically and in others branches.

The problem with that is it's only ' linguistically elegant and pure' in one language. You've seen yourself how badly that falls apart the moment the Quran is when it is translated into another language and it becomes linguistically clumsy - vis a vis your translation of the "We of it are Guardians" verse above. Further, you have used this as an excuse to justify scientific errors in the Quran from the first instance of being provided them. Surely if the Quran was divinely then translating it into a different language would never cause confusion because the Quran itself claims Allah (and maybe his angels too) as its guardian. You then claim the Quran is not a science book:

I never said it was, it is not a science book

... which neatly side-steps all the problems brought up - even while you maintain the pretence that it originated from a being for whom scientific inconsistencies of any kind should not be a factor. The mere fact that you're jumping through hoops to explain away flaws in a book (using your own flawed interpretation) shows you're incapable of believing it contains errors - otherwise everything else you believe would fall apart in a hurry.


I'm done. It's pretty obvious neither of us are going to change our minds here because your standards of argument amount to little more than baseless, out-of-hand dismissal of anything that challenges your world-view, while at the same time your standards of evidence are hypocritical - you demand the moon from me, probably don't bother to follow up the information I've already given you and even dismiss what I've said out of hand because it conflicts with the Quran - but will settle for your own interpretation while rubbishing translations made by men more knowledgeable than yourself in Arabic-English translation & linguistics.

I've got better things to do than talk to someone who has no interest in having their precious beliefs challenged in any way.

 

[Jabar]

@gnostic It created it through the Big Bang as modern science approves of. So to say it does not describe how the Earth was made is absurd.

There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in the Biblical [ The Biblical description mentioned here is taken from the so-called Sacerdotal version discussed in the first part of this work; the description taken from the so-called Yahvist version has been compressed into the space of a few lines in today s version of the Bible and is too insubstantial to be considered here.] description of the Creation in six days followed by a day of rest, the sabbath, analogous with the days of the week. It has been shown how this mode of narration practiced by the priests of the Sixth century B.C. served the purpose of encouraging the people to observe the sabbath. All Jews were expected to rest [ 'Sabbath' in Hebrew means 'to rest'.] on the sabbath as the Lord had done after he had laboured during the six days of the week.

The way the Bible interprets it, the word 'day' means the interval of time between two successive sunrises or sunsets for an inhabitant of the Earth. When defined in this way, the day is conditioned by the rotation of the Earth on its own axis. It is obvious that logically-speaking there can be no question of 'days' as defined just now, if the mechanism that causes them to appear-i.e. the existence of the Earth and its rotation around the Sun-has not already been fixed in the early stages of the Creation according to the Biblical description. This impossibility has already been emphasized in the first part of the present book.

When we refer to the majority of translations of the Quran, we read that-analogous with the Biblical description-the process of the Creation for the Islamic Revelation also took place over a period of six days. It is difficult to hold against the translators the fact that they have translated the Arabic word by its most common meaning. This is how it is usually expressed in translations so that in the Quran, verse 54, sura 7 reads as follows:

"Your Lord is God Who created the heavens and the earth in six days."

There are very few translations and commentaries of the Quran that note how the word 'days' should really be taken to mean 'periods'. It has moreover been maintained that if the Quranic texts on the Creation divided its stages into 'days', it was with the deliberate intention of taking up beliefs held by all the Jews and Christians at the dawn of Islam and of avoiding a head-on confrontation with such a widely-held belief.

Without in any way wishing to reject this way of seeing it, one could perhaps examine the problem a little more closely and scrutinize in the Quran itself, and more generally in the language of the time, the possible meaning of the word that many translators themselves still continue to translate by the word 'day' yaum, plural ayyam in Arabic. [ See table on last page of present work for equivalence between Latin and Arabic letters.]

Its most common meaning is 'day' but it must be stressed that it tends more to mean the diurnal light than the length of time that lapses between one day's sunset and the next. The plural ayyam can mean, not just 'days', but also 'long length of time', an indefinite period of time (but always long). The meaning 'period of time' that the word contains is to he found elsewhere in the Quran. Hence the following:

--sura 32, verse 5:

". . . in a period of time (yaum) whereof the measure is a thousand years of your reckoning."
(It is to be noted that the Creation in six periods is precisely what the verse preceding verse 5 refers to).

--sura 70, verse 4:

". . . in a period of time (yaum) whereof the measure is 50,000 years."

The fact that the word , yaum' could mean a period of time that was quite different from the period that we mean by the word 'day' struck very early commentators who, of course, did not have the knowledge we possess today concerning the length of the stages in the formation of the Universe. In the Sixteenth century A.D. for example, Abu al Su'ud, who could not have had any idea of the day as defined astronomically in terms of the Earth's rotation, thought that for the Creation a division must be considered that was not into days as we usually understand the word, but into 'events' (in Arabic nauba).

Modern commentators have gone back to this interpretation. Yusuf Ali (1934), in his commentary on each of the verses that deals with the stages in the Creation, insists on the importance of taking the word, elsewhere interpreted as meaning 'days', to mean in reality 'very long Periods, or Ages, or Aeons'.

It is therefore possible to say that in the case of the Creation of the world, the Quran allows for long periods of time numbering six. It is obvious that modern science has not permitted man to establish the fact that the complicated stages in the process leading to the formation of the Universe numbered six, but it has clearly shown that long periods of time were involved compared to which 'days' as we conceive them would be ridiculous.

One of the longest passages of the Quran, which deals with the Creation, describes the latter by juxtaposing an account of earthly events and one of celestial events. The verses in question are verses 9 to 12, sura 41:

(God is speaking to the Prophet)

"Say. Do you disbelieve Him Who created the earth in two periods? Do you ascribe equals to Him. He is the Lord of the Worlds.
"He set in the (earth) mountains standing firm. He blessed it.
He measured therein its sustenance in four periods, in due proportion, in accordance with the needs of those who ask for (sustenance? or information?).
"Moreover (tumma) He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth: come willingly or unwillingly! They said: we come in willing obedience.
"Then He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and He assigned to each heaven its mandate by Revelation. And We adorned the lower heaven with luminaries and provided it a guard. Such is the decree of the All Mighty, the Full of Knowledge."

These four verses of sura 41 contain several points to which we shall return. the initially gaseous state of celestial matter and the highly symbolic definition of the number of heavens as seven. We shall see the meaning behind this figure. Also of a symbolic nature is the dialogue between God on the one hand and the primordial sky and earth on the other. here however it is only to express the submission of the Heavens and Earth, once they were formed, to divine orders.

Critics have seen in this passage a contradiction with the statement of the six periods of the Creation. By adding the two periods of the formation of the Earth to the four periods of the spreading of its sustenance to the inhabitants, plus the two periods of the formation of the Heavens, we arrive at eight periods. This would then be in contradiction with the six periods mentioned above.

In fact however, this text, which leads man to reflect on divine Omnipotence, beginning with the Earth and ending with the Heavens, provides two sections that are expressed by the Arabic word tumma', translated by 'moreover', but which also means 'furthermore' or 'then'. The sense of a 'sequence' may therefore be implied referring to a sequence of events or a series of man's reflections on the events mentioned here. It may equally be a simple reference to events juxtaposed without any intention of bringing in the notion of the one following the other. However this may be, the periods of the Creation of the Heavens may just as easily coincide with the two periods of the Earth's creation. A little later we shall examine how the basic process of the formation of the Universe is presented in the Quran and we shall see how it can be jointly applied to the Heavens and the Earth in keeping with modern ideas. We shall then realize how perfectly reasonable this way is of conceiving the simultaneous nature of the events here described.

There does not appear to be any contradiction between the passage quoted here and the concept of the formation of the world in six stages that is to be found in other texts in the Quran.
In http://www.islam-guide.com/bqs/16creation.htm
You are again making false claims.

 

[Jabar]

@ A Greased Scotsman I do not believe it was an error. It does not matter about whose translation is known to be better. If it is not giving the right word of God, then what you accuse of is not true. You are misconcepting the word of God.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

That is just one's misunderstanding. One is welcome to correct one's misconception, no compulsion, however.
Regards

Good to know the bit you highlighted seems to be the only portion of my post you take issue with.

 

[Jabar]

@ A Greased Scotsman You say all the translate that moon give off its own light but you are misconcepted. If you do not misconcept and do not look at mistranslations, then you will find no error in it. It is the human being that make the error, not the divine book. I gtg cya.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It created it through the Big Bang as modern science approves of. So to say it does not describe how the Earth was made is absurd.

The Big Bang is what (scientists think) created the Universe, not Earth. Earth formed long after the Big Bang. I've already given you a website which explains theories of how the Earth came to be. I'll bring it up again.

http://www.space.com/19175-how-was-earth-formed.html

This link explains the core accretion and disk instability models for formation of our star system.

 

[Jabar]

@A Greased Scotsman The Big Bang Theory is most accurate compared to the other theories of how the universe came to be.

 

[Jabar]

@A Greased Scotsman
1. Redshift of Galaxies
The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.

Cosmic Microwave Background


2. Microwave Background
Very early in its history, the whole Universe was very hot. As it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory not only predicts that this glow should exist, but that it should be visible as microwaves - part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.

This is the Cosmic Microwave Background which has been accurately measured by orbiting detectors, and is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct.

The Sun is a fairly new star


3. Mixture of Elements
As the Universe expanded and cooled down, some of the elements that we see today were created. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element should have been made in the early universe, and what we see in very distant galaxies and old stars is just right.

You cannot look in new stars, like the Sun, for this evidence, because they contain elements that were created in previous generations of stars. As such, the composition of new stars will be very different from the composition of stars that existed 7 billion years ago, shortly after the Big Bang.

Galaxies of long ago


4. Looking back in time
The main alternative to the Big Bang theory of the Universe is called the Steady State theory. In this theory, the Universe does not change very much with time.

Remember that because light takes a long time to travel across the Universe, when we look at very distant galaxies, we are also looking back in time.

From this we can see that galaxies a long time ago were quite different from those today, showing that the Universe has changed. This fits better with the Big Bang theory than the Steady State theory. At: http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid

 

[Jabar]

@A Greased Scotsman http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1560/quran-on-expanding-universe-and-big-bang-theory/

 

[Jabar]

@A Greased Scotsman I am sorry, i made a misconception on what you said. But yes i would agree Big bang theory did not create earth. Allah created the earth.

 

[paarsurrey]

I know that in the back of your mind even you don't believe such a thing. You feel you should but you don't. Inside your much smarter. Break through the mental prison. See past a book.

You are simply wrong. I believe Quran is 100% correct, if correctly understood.
Regards

 

[firedragon]

@A Greased Scotsman I am sorry, i made a misconception on what you said. But yes i would agree Big bang theory did not create earth. Allah created the earth.

Brother. When the Quran says earth, or Ardha, it does not always refer to earth. As in the planet earth.

If you write aw fasadhin fil ardha, it means corruption on the land. Thus, ardha also refers to land. It depends on the context. Ma akthara ardha bani means "How many are the lands of the sons of such a one" as Edward Lane cites.

When God says U'tiya or come you two to Samaa or heavens and Ardha or earth, it does not mean earth like the planet earth. It means earth or land.

He says come to both the heaven that was like smoke and the land. Not the planet earth.

Read 41:11 with this light and you will see.

 

[Jabar]

@firedragon Thanks for the correction brother. I did not intend this, as we are bound to make mistakes. Yes, this is the correct way to translate this as.

 

[Shad]

I know a person like will bring this argument, thats why I did not quote scholars to support my argument. I dont need them.

No credible scholar agrees with you that is why you do not cite any.

You said that I used Laraba and had problems with Daraba. Which means when you quoted the Arabic word cut and paste from a site you didnt know what in the world you were talking about.

No you complained the example was Laraba then later claimed both were the same, you contradicted yourself

I always used Ilribuhunna, Yalrib and Yulrib. All are Laraba or Daraba or what ever you wanna use. When you cut and paste an Arabic word or sentence at least know that particular word.

Still contradicted yourself.

Your own argument is from apologist websites. Same form too. You avoid citing scholars since those from the Muslim world reject your views. You reject ahadith since these show your argument to be nonsense.