Universe & life coming into existence

[A Thousand Suns]

There's all sorts of other fallacious garbage that I've heard people claim is in the Quran on everything from chemistry to anatomy to fetal development. Are you saying that absolutely none the "science" you claim is in the Quran has any practical use?

Why is it so hard for you to understand

first, The purpose of Quran is not to teach us science

second ,The information is not enough and you cannot drive a complete theory out of it ----infact at that time you couldn't even understand what is being told

It would be same as if Teach a kindergarten kid some stuff about University----Does that mean that the kindergarten Kid doesn't has to go to class 1,2,3,4,5,6,7... and can directly study in university , infact he could never understand what is being taught in university unless he passes class 1,2,3,4,5,6,7...

In same way to understand what is being told in Quran you require certain level of knowledge

I'm saying that somebody wrote the words of the Quran down. Whether he (whoever he was) came up with them himself or whether Muhammad dictated them to him, we know that at least one educated person had direct contact with the author of the Quran.

That couldn't be correct either because apart from the verses I mentioned earlier there are hundreds of facts mentioned in Quran which we came to know just recently

 

[Kerr]

Hmmm---As far as i remember it was circular

I have read a book about scientific history. I am very sure that it stated that they considered the Earth to be spherical.

Ostich egg is basically more accurate and you missed my point that the shape of earth is changing and so are all the shape/size of egg varies

So i would say Ostrich egg is identical to Earth but not similar

No, an ostrich egg is prolate spheroid (I have one at home, so I know) while the Earth is more similar to an oblate spheroid.
Prolate spheroid:

Oblate spheroid:

And about the Earth changing shape, of course it does. Otherwise we wouldn´t have mountains. But it has to my knowledge never been a porlate spheroid. Have never seen or heard of an ostrich egg that is a oblate spheroid either.

 

[Kerr]

Yes, they did.

And Eratosthenes relied on this for his calculations. His method is actually really neat, considering how difficult it would be to do two simultaneous measurements in different cities in an era before clocks: Eratosthenes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I know about that. My signature is a reflection on the topic... assuming I am thinking of the same guy .

They're not equally wrong; it's more wrong to say that that the Earth has the shape of an ostrich egg.

Maybe, I don´t know, you got a point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is it so hard for you to understand

first, The purpose of Quran is not to teach us science

But you are arguing that it has scientific information in it, right?

second ,The information is not enough and you cannot drive a complete theory out of it ----infact at that time you couldn't even understand what is being told

It would be same as if Teach a kindergarten kid some stuff about University----Does that mean that the kindergarten Kid doesn't has to go to class 1,2,3,4,5,6,7... and can directly study in university , infact he could never understand what is being taught in university unless he passes class 1,2,3,4,5,6,7...

In same way to understand what is being told in Quran you require certain level of knowledge

Here's what I think is a more plausible scenario: you're reading stuff into the text that isn't there. You're looking at language that's often vague or poetic, and looking for coincidental similarities to things you already know. This is why, when you read stuff about the Earth looking like an ostrich egg, you can say "aha! This bit is meant to be factual!" while ignoring things like the passage where the Quran describes the sun coming to rest in a muddy stream, since you assume it's just a metaphor.

Am I right on that?

Exactly what standard do you use to decide whether something in the Quran was meant to be interpreted as a "scientific fact"?

That couldn't be correct either because apart from the verses I mentioned earlier there are hundreds of facts mentioned in Quran which we came to know just recently

Wait: what you do mean "it couldn't be correct"? Do you dispute that whoever actually wrote the Quran down was literate? Or do you dispute that he was taught how to read and write? It's a written book; both of these ideas are rather basic (and IMO necessary) assumptions.

And I can only respond to the arguments you actually present. It's very convenient for you to have "hundreds of facts mentioned in Quran" that you're keeping in your pocket, but the fact of the matter remains: educated people in Muhammad's time and region did know that the Earth was round.

Maybe some uneducated people didn't know this, but it doesn't matter. We know that Muhammad had contact with at least one educated person, because whoever wrote the Quran down was at least educated enough to be literate.

Now... given all this, do you think it's implausible to say that in any conversation between this person and Muhammad, the subject of the shape of the world might have come up once or twice?

The fact that the Quran refers to a spheroid Earth doesn't need any supernatural explanation. A perfectly natural, sensible explanation is staring you in the face.

Actually, the supernatural explanation brings up new problems, because as I pointed out, the description is slightly wrong: it says that the Earth is the wrong shape. The error is completely understandable and acceptable for 7th Century people with limited scientific knowledge, but it's not understandable at all if you're attributing the entire Quran to a perfect God.

 

[YmirGF]

Actually, the supernatural explanation brings up new problems, because as I pointed out, the description is slightly wrong: it says that the Earth is the wrong shape. The error is completely understandable and acceptable for 7th Century people with limited scientific knowledge, but it's not understandable at all if you're attributing the entire Quran to a perfect God.

It also completely ignores the NUMEROUS verses in the Qur'an that imply the shape of the earth is flat. There was a scholar not too long ago who proved, via the Qur'an that the world was indeed flat and that this conjecture about it being round was a hoax.

 

[A Thousand Suns]

I have read a book about scientific history. I am very sure that it stated that they considered the Earth to be spherical.

you might wanna share your sources

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/ProlateSpheroid.png[/IMG]

Well that isn't correct either if you see ostrich egg its something like this-------not exactly 'prolate spheroid'

Oblate spheroid:

doest this looks like earth to you

And about the Earth changing shape, of course it does. Otherwise we wouldn´t have mountains. But it has to my knowledge never been a porlate spheroid. Have never seen or heard of an ostrich egg that is a oblate spheroid either.

We are talking about the future not the past

 

[A Thousand Suns]

But you are arguing that it has scientific information in it, right?

The scientific information present is the signs of the creator

Here's what I think is a more plausible scenario: you're reading stuff into the text that isn't there. You're looking at language that's often vague or poetic, and looking for coincidental similarities to things you already know.

I already told you in the Tafsir which are the interpretation of Quran almost 600-800 tell us the same thing----and if you think I am mistranslating you can always use Arabic dictionary

This is why, when you read stuff about the Earth looking like an ostrich egg, you can say "aha! This bit is meant to be factual!" while ignoring things like the passage where the Quran describes the sun coming to rest in a muddy stream, since you assume it's just a metaphor.

I am having Deja Vu all over again----but i will copy-paste it again

18:85-86 "One (such) way he followed,Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: near it he found a people: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority), either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

The verse, as is obvious, is not referring to a scientific reality, but to a person's vision. In other words, the verse is not saying that the sun, at the referred place, used to set in a murky lake; on the contrary, it is informing us that Dhu al-Qarnain reached a place where it appeared to him as if the sun was setting in a murky lake. This, "non-scientific", observation has been mentioned in the referred words to imply that at that time Dhu al-Qarnain reached a place from where if one were to look westwards, he would find nothing but the murky waters of the sea/lake and thus, it would appear to him as if the sun was setting in the lake.

Wait: what you do mean "it couldn't be correct"? Do you dispute that whoever actually wrote the Quran down was literate? Or do you dispute that he was taught how to read and write? It's a written book; both of these ideas are rather basic (and IMO necessary) assumptions.

I was replying to this
'I'm saying that somebody wrote the words of the Quran down. Whether he (whoever he was) came up with them himself or whether Muhammad dictated them to him'

And I can only respond to the arguments you actually present. It's very convenient for you to have "hundreds of facts mentioned in Quran" that you're keeping in your pocket, but the fact of the matter remains: educated people in Muhammad's time and region did know that the Earth was round.

I have written down other stuff too on RF unfortunately that thread got deleted----I'm guessing that you are mod here and you might be able to see my thread

Maybe some uneducated people didn't know this, but it doesn't matter. We know that Muhammad had contact with at least one educated person, because whoever wrote the Quran down was at least educated enough to be literate.

Like I said before there are hundreds of other stuff written in Quran which we came to know scientifically just recently

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you might wanna share your sources


Well that isn't correct either if you see ostrich egg its something like this-------not exactly 'prolate spheroid'

doest this looks like earth to you

Okay... let's try this one more time a different way:

A prolate spheroid is a spheroid in which the polar axis is greater than the equatorial diameter.

(source)

An oblate spheroid is a rotationally symmetric ellipsoid having a polar axis shorter than the diameter of the equatorial circle whose plane bisects it.

(source)

So...

- for a prolate spheroid, the diameter along the polar axis is more than the diameter at the equator. This is the situation with an ostrich egg.

- for an oblate spheroid, the diameter along the polar axis is less than the diameter at the equator.

So what about the Earth? Its polar diameter is less than its equatorial diameter. About 40 km less. This isn't much - the Earth is very close to spherical, but it's still an oblate spheroid, not a prolate spheroid like an egg.

Now... I've asked you some questions before. I'd like you to answer them now:

- is pointy the same as flat?
- is short the same as tall?
- is less the same as more?

 

[YmirGF]

Like I said before there are hundreds of other stuff written in Quran which we came to know scientifically just recently

But that is only because somewhat delusional Muslims are seeing things in the text that simply is not there. In answer to the question, "How could Muhammad have known these thing back then?" The answer is as simple, as it is instructive. He didn't know and Muslims today are imagining things based on a flimsy understanding of science. This is to be expected from a group that has contributed relatively little to scientific knowledge for over five hundred years.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The scientific information present is the signs of the creator

I'll take that as a "yes".

I already told you in the Tafsir which are the interpretation of Quran almost 600-800 tell us the same thing----and if you think I am mistranslating you can always use Arabic dictionary

It's not a matter of language choice. It's a matter of you choosing how you want to interpret texts based on your preconceived biases.

I am having Deja Vu all over again----but i will copy-paste it again

18:85-86 "One (such) way he followed,Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: near it he found a people: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority), either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

The verse, as is obvious, is not referring to a scientific reality, but to a person's vision. In other words, the verse is not saying that the sun, at the referred place, used to set in a murky lake; on the contrary, it is informing us that Dhu al-Qarnain reached a place where it appeared to him as if the sun was setting in a murky lake. This, "non-scientific", observation has been mentioned in the referred words to imply that at that time Dhu al-Qarnain reached a place from where if one were to look westwards, he would find nothing but the murky waters of the sea/lake and thus, it would appear to him as if the sun was setting in the lake.

I think that the only reason you say that it's not scientific is because it's obviously false.

And BTW - it doesn't say that it appeared as if the sun was setting in the lake; it says that the sun did set in a lake, doesn't it?

I was replying to this
'I'm saying that somebody wrote the words of the Quran down. Whether he (whoever he was) came up with them himself or whether Muhammad dictated them to him'

Then I don't see how your objection follows.

What I'm saying is this: assuming that Muhammad really did dictate the Quran to a scribe, then Muhammad knew at least one educated person: his scribe. Since we've established that educated people knew that the Earth was round, I'd say that it's more plausible that if Muhammad knew the Earth was round, he could've learned this from one of his educated friends (since we know he had some).

I have written down other stuff too on RF unfortunately that thread got deleted----I'm guessing that you are mod here and you might be able to see my thread

We keep moderation matters confidential here. I'm not at liberty to discuss a deleted thread in an open forum.

Like I said before there are hundreds of other stuff written in Quran which we came to know scientifically just recently

Great - then demonstrate this. The examples you've given don't work.

 

[A Thousand Suns]

Okay... let's try this one more time a different way:


(source)


(source)

So...

- for a prolate spheroid, the diameter along the polar axis is more than the diameter at the equator. This is the situation with an ostrich egg.

- for an oblate spheroid, the diameter along the polar axis is less than the diameter at the equator.

So what about the Earth? Its polar diameter is less than its equatorial diameter. About 40 km less. This isn't much - the Earth is very close to spherical, but it's still an oblate spheroid, not a prolate spheroid like an egg.

Now... I've asked you some questions before. I'd like you to answer them now:

- is pointy the same as flat?
- is short the same as tall?
- is less the same as more?

Well I think I already answered this
1)According to Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The shape of the Earth is very close to that of an oblate spheroid' but its not exactly 'oblate spheroid'

2)Shape of Ostrich Egg isnt like

So it can be clearly noticed it's not that pointy as prolate spheroid , infact it would be more like Prolate+Oblate spheroid

3) I agree that Ostrich Egg and Shape of Earth is similar but not identical but the fact the shape of Earth is still changing---and in near future both of them could be identical----who knows

 

[A Thousand Suns]

It's not a matter of language choice. It's a matter of you choosing how you want to interpret texts based on your preconceived biases.

I always put the translation when I interpret a verse and if I'm mis-interpreting anyone can point that out-----anyone can judge from the translation if I'm lying or not

I think that the only reason you say that it's not scientific is because it's obviously false.

And BTW - it doesn't say that it appeared as if the sun was setting in the lake; it says that the sun did set in a lake, doesn't it?

You completely missed my point like I said , Quran is describing the vision of person---how should that be scientific

Then I don't see how your objection follows.

What I'm saying is this: assuming that Muhammad really did dictate the Quran to a scribe, then Muhammad knew at least one educated person: his scribe. Since we've established that educated people knew that the Earth was round, I'd say that it's more plausible that if Muhammad knew the Earth was round, he could've learned this from one of his educated friends (since we know he had some).

Ok---i even if I agree with you on this verse but what about those other hundreds of verses??----And I post few later

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So it can be clearly noticed it's not that pointy as prolate spheroid , infact it would be more like Prolate+Oblate spheroid

Ah... I've found the problem: you don't know what the terms "prolate spheroid" or "oblate spheroid" actually mean.

There's no such thing as a "prolate+oblate spheroid".

Let's say we have some sort of spheroid... i.e. a 3-D shape that's sphere-like. Now, let's ask ourselves some questions about it:

- is the polar diameter greater than the equator diameter? If so, it's a prolate spheroid.
- is the polar diameter equal to the equator diameter? If so, it's a sphere.
- is the polar diameter less than the equator diameter? If so, it's an oblate spheroid.

Now... before I go any further, do you know what I mean when I say "polar diameter" and "equator diameter"?

 

[A Thousand Suns]

Ah... I've found the problem: you don't know what the terms "prolate spheroid" or "oblate spheroid" actually mean.

There's no such thing as a "prolate+oblate spheroid".

Let's say we have some sort of spheroid... i.e. a 3-D shape that's sphere-like. Now, let's ask ourselves some questions about it:

- is the polar diameter greater than the equator diameter? If so, it's a prolate spheroid.
- is the polar diameter equal to the equator diameter? If so, it's a sphere.
- is the polar diameter less than the equator diameter? If so, it's an oblate spheroid.

Now... before I go any further, do you know what I mean when I say "polar diameter" and "equator diameter"?

lol--I invented it----anyways i guess you got my point that Ostrich Egg isn't pointy like 'prolate spheroid'

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

lol--I invented it----anyways i guess you got my point that Ostrich Egg isn't pointy like 'prolate spheroid'

Please tell me what you think the term "prolate spheroid" means.

Edit: the fact that you think that "prolate+oblate spheroid" isn't just a contradiction tells me that you don't know what the term means. It'd be like saying "tall midget".

 

[YmirGF]

*Listens carefully*

Is that the sound of crickets?

 

[Kerr]

you might wanna share your sources

Sure.
Big Bang (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of geodesy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note this part in the wikipedia article:
"Since the spherical shape was the most widely supported during the Greek Era, efforts to determine its size followed."

Well that isn't correct either if you see ostrich egg its something like this-------not exactly 'prolate spheroid'

I do not mean it should be looking exactly as on the image. After all, I have an ostrich egg where I live so I know what it looks like. The shape is basically a "tall sphere". The Earth is more of a "thick sphere".

doest this looks like earth to you

Yes, but that picture doesn´t make the Earth into a prolate spheroid. It is thicker at the equator and not taller.

We are talking about the future not the past

I am confused why this matters?

 

[Kerr]

lol--I invented it----anyways i guess you got my point that Ostrich Egg isn't pointy like 'prolate spheroid'

A prolate spheroid doesnt have to be pointy. It just have to be "taller" then "thicker".

 

[YmirGF]

A prolate spheroid doesnt have to be pointy. It just have to be "taller" then "thicker".

I doubt very much that Thousand suns will be arguing the point any further. What is the point? He has already admitted he is making things up. It doesn't get much better than that.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I think he is pretty spot on with time no longer considered to be absolute and existed forever in the past, but time and space did in fact have a beginning.
I am of the view the universe is much older than I happen to observe as I am like I am just immersed in a phase which is friendly to the existence of living things and the "self" is just but an illusion that this is the present moment, where in reality my life is like watching a sequence of an old movie I have never seen before. I have no idea of the plot and I am so involved with the story line we feel the future of it has yet to happen. But it has already being made as the reel had already been stored in an old movie archive for years.

The same applies to the universe and I just happen to be existing in the middle or even near the beginning of its history about 13.7 billion years after its creation, but I cannot be observing it when it was just a few million years because it had yet to enter into its phase of metallicity and as such no living things could exist to create an observer. I also could not be observing it in the hypothetical "big chill" or "big rip" era which could be taking place billions or trillions of years into my future because again it would be so hostile the existence of any biological observer, with most main sequence stars like the sun being swallowed up in black holes or in some other dangerous phase hostile to all life. So there could be far more future in the universe relative to our existence than a past, which is why the true objective age of is considerably much older than the one I happen to be observing. So here I am! in a certain spacio-temporal district of spacetime fabric of the universe 13.7 billion years after time began, in the Milky Way galaxy, on a little rocky planet friendly to live orbiting a G2 Main sequence yellow star.