FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Scientific Predictions from the Quran (+other Holy Books?)





HalfBloodPrince
Before I start, I would like to say that I believe that the Quran, the Bible, and the Tankah are all the word of the one and same God that Muslims, Christians, and Jews believe. I myself am Muslim, and want to share some things about the Quran which confirm scientific beliefs, which gives me a greater faith in my God, who is also the Christians' God, and the Jews' God...the One True God.

I'm sure that many of these were also mentioned in the Bible and the Tankah, but since the Quran (the Final Testament) came centuries after the Old Testament (Tankah) and the New Testament (the Bible), God may have decided to share more information with us.

The Quran was revealed 1,400 years ago, where it was quite beyond human capability to discover some of these scientific facts.

Finally, if you just saw the word 'Quran' in the title of this thread and have come to give a reply along the lines of "z0mg islam is teh suxorz!!!!!lolllol!!!!!!!//one!!!!!111!!!tehres no god lloooolll!!!!/!!one11!" then get out please. Share your opinion in a dignified and rational way.

Lets begin. (the quotes were translated into simple, modern English to make them easier to understand. "Heavens" is referring to the skies, space, and atmosphere in this context)

The Quran wrote:
Iron was sent to earth by God [57:25]

Scientists now believe that iron was introduced to earth by an outside force...how did God send it to us? Meteors.

Quote:
The heavens and the earth were one before they were ripped apart. Life started in the water and living things are mostly water [21:30]

Today when scientists look for traces of life on Mars or Jupiter moons, they look for water. Humans and other forms of life are made up of a high proportion of water (our brain alone is 80% water)

Quote:
The heavens are expanding [51:47]

Modern science tells us that the universe was started from a singularity. The pictures taken by Edwin Hubbell in Mount Wilson observatory in 1929 showed that the universe was expanding which led to the Big Bang theory. The Qur'an anticipated this "discovery" by 14 centuries.

Quote:
The heaven used to be smoke [41:11]

We know that smoke is a mixture of hot gases and suspended particles. Scientists have confirmed that the universe did indeed originate from a gaseous mass composed of hydrogen and helium, a big mass of hot gases.

Quote:
The atom is not the smallest unit of matter in the universe.[34:3]

...Protons, neutrons, electrons. 'Nuff said.

Quote:
The earth rotates around its axis [27:88], rotates around the sun [7:54], is not flat but is like a ball [39:5] or an egg [79:30]

Need I say more? Or are you going to argue that the Earth is flat? (which was the common belief back then)

Quote:
The lowest point on earth is near the dead sea [30:3]

Confirmed.

Quote:
The oceans have layers of waves and layers of darkness in which some creatures have light [24:40]

Scientists have discovered that there are different currents at different depths.

Quote:
When different seas ( i.e. different in salinity, temperature, oxygen content, etc. ) meet, there is a barrier between them that they do not violate [55:19-20]

This is not apparent by visual observation but temperature sensitive satellite pictures confirm this.

Quote:
Mountains are pegs that have roots extending below the surface of the earth [78:7], mountains stabilize the earth's crust by minimizing earthquakes [16:15]

'Nuff said.

Quote:
Earthquakes precede volcanic eruptions [99:1]

They do most of the time.

Quote:
The earth's core is heavier than its crust [99:2]

Confirmed.

Quote:
Our sun is not the only sun in the universe [25:61]

Modern astronomy tells us that the sun is actually a star, and therefore the universe is full of suns.

Quote:
They [the Astronomers] will find other planets [65:12]

What is NASA looking for now? They did find three more planets very similar to Pluto, but decided to not call them planets, and also scrapped Pluto from the list (because they had different properties). More are being searched for.

Quote:
Morning is associated with breathing [81:18]

Now we know that plants produce oxygen in presence of light and consume carbon dioxide.

Quote:
Sperm attaches itself to the egg to form an attachment or a leach then a chewed-like lump which develops bones which are covered with flesh and then changed into a different form [ 23:14]

This refers to facts discovered when scientists, using special scopes, followed the development of the fetus from a fertilized egg to a form resembling lower vertebrae before turning into the human form. After contemplating the descriptions of embryonic stages as a leach then a chewed-like lump, Professor Keith Moore, a Canadian embryologist, compared pictures of different embryonic stages to pictures of leaches and chewed clay and confirmed the accuracy of the Quranic verses.

Quote:
Human pregnancy passes through 3 trimesters [39:6]

First trimester...second trimester...third trimester...

Quote:
Different clouds (positively and negatively charged?) are harmonized (collide) to produce droplets of water and lightning [24:43]

As differently charged clouds collide, they produce thunder, lightning, rain, or other precipitation.

And the last one...(I could not find a simplified translation)

Quote:
The heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of mass), before we clove them asunder [21:30]

Does this sound familiar? Sounds like the Big Bang to me.

The other Holy Books (from the word of God); the Bible and the Tankah, also confirm modern scientific beliefs. But since the Quran came centuries later than either of those, the theories are stronger and more pronounced in the Quran.

Thanks for reading, feel free to comment.

-HBP

You may also want to see these links
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Science/2002/10/article11.shtml
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_4_section_5.html
http://home.att.net/~a.f.aly/creation.htm
Bikerman
HalfBloodPrince wrote:

Lets begin. (the quotes were translated into simple, modern English to make them easier to understand. "Heavens" is referring to the skies, space, and atmosphere in this context)
The Quran wrote:
Iron was sent to earth by God [57:25]

Scientists now believe that iron was introduced to earth by an outside force...how did God send it to us? Meteors.
No they don't. The inner core of the Earth is thought to be iron. How could that have been introduced by meteors? Iron is abundant on earth.
Quote:

Quote:
The heavens and the earth were one before they were ripped apart. Life started in the water and living things are mostly water [21:30]

Today when scientists look for traces of life on Mars or Jupiter moons, they look for water.
But what about the first part of the quote? Sounds like nonsense to me since the Earth was never 'ripped apart' from the heavens.
Quote:
Quote:
The heavens are expanding [51:47]

Modern science tells us that the universe was started from a singularity. The pictures taken by Edwin Hubbell in Mount Wilson observatory in 1929 showed that the universe was expanding which led to the Big Bang theory. The Qur'an anticipated this "discovery" by 14 centuries.
Well..given the three choices (expanding, collapsing, static) we can say that this represents a 1/3 probability...not really that impressive....
Quote:
Quote:
The heaven used to be smoke [41:11]

We know that smoke is a mixture of hot gases and suspended particles. Scientists have confirmed that the universe did indeed originate from a gaseous mass composed of hydrogen and helium, a big mass of hot gases.
Wrong again. The universe, as you said above, started as a singularity. The mass of hot hydrogen/helium was not smoke (which is a suspension of particles in a gas) but was a plasma (which is another state of matter completely).
Quote:
Quote:
The atom is not the smallest unit of matter in the universe.[34:3]

...Protons, neutrons, electrons. 'Nuff said.
Since the text was written before we knew what an atom actually was, this is not really so impressive.
Quote:
Quote:
The earth rotates around its axis [27:88], rotates around the sun [7:54], is not flat but is like a ball [39:5] or an egg [79:30]

Need I say more? Or are you going to argue that the Earth is flat? (which was the common belief back then)
It was not a common belief - that is a popular misconception. Most people knew the Earth was not flat. The ancient Greeks knew that the Earth rotated and that it was spherical about 2 thousand years before the Quran was written so this is not even slightly impressive....
Quote:
Quote:
The lowest point on earth is near the dead sea [30:3]

Confirmed.
Nope. The lowest point on Earth is the bottom of the Marianas trench (about 7 miles down).
Quote:
Quote:
The oceans have layers of waves and layers of darkness in which some creatures have light [24:40]
Scientists have discovered that there are different currents at different depths.
But there are not layers of waves and there are not layers of darkness, so that's all wrong really.
Quote:
Quote:
When different seas ( i.e. different in salinity, temperature, oxygen content, etc. ) meet, there is a barrier between them that they do not violate [55:19-20]

This is not apparent by visual observation but temperature sensitive satellite pictures confirm this.
I notice that you added your own explanation of what different means. I think it is far more likely that the text means different as in the names applied to them. If that is the case then the text is wrong.
Quote:
Quote:
Mountains are pegs that have roots extending below the surface of the earth [78:7], mountains stabilize the earth's crust by minimizing earthquakes [16:15]

'Nuff said.
Really? Not for me. Where is the evidence that mountains stabilise the crust and minimise earthquakes? Your sources please.
Quote:
Quote:
Earthquakes precede volcanic eruptions [99:1]

They do most of the time.
It doesn't say 'most of the time' so it is wrong.
Quote:
Quote:
The earth's core is heavier than its crust [99:2]

Confirmed.
Err...well...yes...Duh. Not a very impressive prediction.
Quote:
Quote:
Our sun is not the only sun in the universe [25:61]

Modern astronomy tells us that the sun is actually a star, and therefore the universe is full of suns.
This was known long before the Quran was written and is simply the reporting of common knowledge, not some prediction.
Quote:
Quote:
They [the Astronomers] will find other planets [65:12]

What is NASA looking for now? They did find three more planets very similar to Pluto, but decided to not call them planets, and also scrapped Pluto from the list (because they had different properties). More are being searched for.
That is not what it says at all! The verse reads:
Quote:
[65:12] GOD created seven universes and the same number of earths.
Now there is no evidence at all that this is true.
Quote:
Quote:
Morning is associated with breathing [81:18]

Now we know that plants produce oxygen in presence of light and consume carbon dioxide.
And we also know that the rate increases with sunlight so, therefore, afternoon is associated with breathing more than morning is.
Quote:
Quote:
Sperm attaches itself to the egg to form an attachment or a leach then a chewed-like lump which develops bones which are covered with flesh and then changed into a different form [ 23:14]
This is a complete mistranslation.
Quote:
Quote:
Human pregnancy passes through 3 trimesters [39:6]

First trimester...second trimester...third trimester...
Again that is a complete mistranslation - quite dishonestly so. The actual translation is:
Quote:
He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, in three layers of darkness.

Given that you are mistranslating at least some of the Quran and that the other claims to this point are either bogus or easily explicable, I can't be bothered continuing to the end.
If you are going to try and make a proper case then you cannot simply give what you think the quran might say, or what you want it to say, you should give what it actually DOES say.
HalfBloodPrince
[quote="Bikerman"]
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Morning is associated with breathing [81:18]

Now we know that plants produce oxygen in presence of light and consume carbon dioxide.
And we also know that the rate increases with sunlight so, therefore, afternoon is associated with breathing more than morning is.


Well, the Quran is a book of guidance, not a science book. It wasn't trying to 'predict' anything, and explaining the process of photosyntheses to people back then would be absurd to most people.

Bikerman wrote:
The universe, as you said above, started as a singularity. The mass of hot hydrogen/helium was not smoke (which is a suspension of particles in a gas) but was a plasma (which is another state of matter completely).


Again, these were 6th century people living in the desert areas of Saudi Arabia. I'm quite sure the majority of these people were not familiar with the idea of hydrogen and helium or the conceptual differences between gas and plasma.

In about 1,000 years people are going to look back at us, laugh at us for only being able to fit so little data on a portable device, for not being able to explore distant planets that we can't today, and for having such little scientific knowledge. They will think "imagine trying to explain this to someone from the 21st century".

--
The Quran, like the Bible, tells how to live your life, donate to the poor, be kind to fellow man, be a good parent, seek knowledge, etc....it wasn't revealed to humanity to explain the difference between a gas and a plasma.

[quote="Bikerman"]
Quote:

The earth rotates around its axis [27:88], rotates around the sun [7:54], is not flat but is like a ball [39:5] or an egg [79:30]

Need I say more? Or are you going to argue that the Earth is flat? (which was the common belief back then)
It was not a common belief - that is a popular misconception. Most people knew the Earth was not flat. The ancient Greeks knew that the Earth rotated and that it was spherical about 2 thousand years before the Quran was written so this is not even slightly impressive....


The Quran was revealed to a man, Muhammed, living in 6th century desert Saudi Arabia. If the Quran is not the word of God, then how is this uneducated man supposed to know this? Obviously, it is the word of God, who revealed it to him, so he could reveal it to his people. Muhammed didn't even know how to read or write until later in his life, and I'm quite sure he didn't know the rotation and revolution of the Earth, or its shape.

Also, I'm sure the Greek didn't have satellite pictures of the Earth, so how do they know its egg shaped? They know its round. They may have figured out its egg shaped, but how do 6th century desert people know? God told them.
Bikerman
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Well, the Quran is a book of guidance, not a science book. It wasn't trying to 'predict' anything, and explaining the process of photosyntheses to people back then would be absurd to most people.
But you titled the thread "Scientific Predictions...." and you said
Quote:
I myself am Muslim, and want to share some things about the Quran which confirm scientific beliefs
and you also said
Quote:
The Quran was revealed 1,400 years ago, where it was quite beyond human capability to discover some of these scientific facts.
I am saying that the Quran does NOT confirm scientific beliefs and that it does NOT contain scientific facts which could not have been known at the time...
Quote:
Again, these were 6th century people living in the desert areas of Saudi Arabia. I'm quite sure the majority of these people were not familiar with the idea of hydrogen and helium or the conceptual differences between gas and plasma.
The point remains that the quote is scientifically incorrect.
Quote:
In about 1,000 years people are going to look back at us, laugh at us for only being able to fit so little data on a portable device, for not being able to explore distant planets that we can't today, and for having such little scientific knowledge. They will think "imagine trying to explain this to someone from the 21st century".
But I am not claiming to be a prophet or to know things which I could not know by completely rational means....
Quote:
The Quran, like the Bible, tells how to live your life, donate to the poor, be kind to fellow man, be a good parent, seek knowledge, etc....it wasn't revealed to humanity to explain the difference between a gas and a plasma.
So why claim it was revealing scientific facts unknown at the time? - it wasn't.
Quote:
The Quran was revealed to a man, Muhammed, living in 6th century desert Saudi Arabia. If the Quran is not the word of God, then how is this uneducated man supposed to know this? Obviously, it is the word of God, who revealed it to him, so he could reveal it to his people. Muhammed didn't even know how to read or write until later in his life, and I'm quite sure he didn't know the rotation and revolution of the Earth, or its shape.
It was fairly common knowledge. The Arabs were, in fact, ahead of the West at this period of history since most of the writings of the Ancient Greeks passed through Arab hands before being later rediscovered in the West....
Quote:
Also, I'm sure the Greek didn't have satellite pictures of the Earth, so how do they know its egg shaped? They know its round. They may have figured out its egg shaped, but how do 6th century desert people know? God told them.
Well, the fact is that it is NOT egg shaped. The Greeks first proposed that the Earth is round on aesthetic principles - Pythagoras thought there was something more 'harmonious' about a sphere. Later philosophers used physical observations to confirm the theory...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
HalfBloodPrince
Bikerman wrote:
HalfBloodPrince wrote:

The Quran, like the Bible, tells how to live your life, donate to the poor, be kind to fellow man, be a good parent, seek knowledge, etc....it wasn't revealed to humanity to explain the difference between a gas and a plasma.

So why claim it was revealing scientific facts unknown at the time? - it wasn't.


I know that, this hints were placed in the Quran not for the people of that time. They are there so that when people actually discover it (ie. living things are mostly made up of water) they could see it is already in the Quran (and maybe the Bible and the Tankah) and believe.
Bikerman
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
HalfBloodPrince wrote:

The Quran, like the Bible, tells how to live your life, donate to the poor, be kind to fellow man, be a good parent, seek knowledge, etc....it wasn't revealed to humanity to explain the difference between a gas and a plasma.

So why claim it was revealing scientific facts unknown at the time? - it wasn't.


I know that, this hints were placed in the Quran not for the people of that time. They are there so that when people actually discover it (ie. living things are mostly made up of water) they could see it is already in the Quran (and maybe the Bible and the Tankah) and believe.

So why would the Quran get those hints wrong then? You are still claiming that the scientific 'facts' were place in the Quran for later discovery - that means they could not have been known at the time. This is, as I have demonstrated, untrue.
HalfBloodPrince
Why are you so critical of every word I say? Some of them applied to people back then, some apply to us, some apply to people ten years in the future, and some could even apply to people a hundred million years in the future. (if humans are still here)
Bikerman
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Why are you so critical of every word I say? Some of them applied to people back then, some apply to us, some apply to people ten years in the future, and some could even apply to people a hundred million years in the future. (if humans are still here)

I am critical of the words you write because I believe they are wrong. You are making claims about your religion in a public forum. Those claims are unfounded and I, as a member of the public, wish to point this out.
If you post in a Philosophy forum then you must expect your views to be examined critically. If you do not want this, and simply want everyone to say how clever you are and how everything you say is true, then perhaps you should post in a different arena.
Afaceinthematrix
Sorry to butt into this argument, but the problem with saying that the Quran teaches scientific facts (most of which weren't facts at all) is that many times you'll be taking quotes out of context and twisting them to serve your own points, such as the scripture you posted about there being three trimesters in pregnancy. That was taken out of context. I was raised in a Christian home and I still attend a Christian church and I see the same thing happening there. I remember one time as a kid I was sitting in church and I was annoyed because they were trying to tell people that the bible must be true because it contains scientific facts. I can't remember the specific verse, but it basically said, "The body cannot live without blood." Since people used to bleed themselves as a cure to many diseases, the pastor at church claimed that this verse was intended to stop these people from bleeding themselves because you need blood.

I believe that that was taken completely out of context and that that doesn't show any significance when it comes to the bible teaching science. That is what you are doing there when you wrote about scientific verses in the Koran.
liljp617
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Why are you so critical of every word I say? Some of them applied to people back then, some apply to us, some apply to people ten years in the future, and some could even apply to people a hundred million years in the future. (if humans are still here)

lol cause you're spewing a hell of a load of immense crap
HalfBloodPrince
liljp617 wrote:
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Why are you so critical of every word I say? Some of them applied to people back then, some apply to us, some apply to people ten years in the future, and some could even apply to people a hundred million years in the future. (if humans are still here)

lol cause you're spewing a hell of a load of immense crap


Wow, what an argument! Hear that folks, I'm spewing a hell of a load of immense crap! That's got to be the best insult I've heard today! I should really give you an award for how you eloquently articulated that! If you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion, get the hell out.
HereticMonkey
Although Bikerman was wrong in a number of cases (for example, the Marianas Trench is the deepest part of the Earth, not the lowest part (semantics, I know, but blame Ripley's)), overall, HBP, he was right. When the only way you can back your statement is to mistranslate it, and you do it a number of times, then you shoot your own case. Worse, even when you were right, your errors cause your point to be simply be as valid as if you had bothered to do your actual research.

And, given Bikerman's semantic issues of late, your post was doomed to die a horrible death. Wanna try again?

HM
Bikerman
Wrong in a number of cases?
OK if you want to define 'lowest' as 'nearest the ground' then there is a semantic point of contention. You can equally well define low as "Situated below the surrounding surfaces".
Whatever definition you choose it is difficult to see why the Dead Sea would qualify and the Marianas trench would not since both are below sea level.
What other mistakes did I make?
liljp617
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Why are you so critical of every word I say? Some of them applied to people back then, some apply to us, some apply to people ten years in the future, and some could even apply to people a hundred million years in the future. (if humans are still here)

lol cause you're spewing a hell of a load of immense crap


Wow, what an argument! Hear that folks, I'm spewing a hell of a load of immense crap! That's got to be the best insult I've heard today! I should really give you an award for how you eloquently articulated that! If you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion, get the hell out.

Why would I type more when Bikerman has already pretty much debunked everything you've said?
HereticMonkey
Bikerman wrote:
What other mistakes did I make?


Just as HBP made a number of translation errors, you made a number of semantics errors. For example, the Dead Sea is considered the lowest point in land, even as the Marianas Trench is considered the deepest point period. HBP's contention was not that the Dead Sea was the lowest point period, just the lowest point in the land.

In essence, where HBP erred in translating something to far, you erred in analyzing it too far. So, whereas it could be argued that you broke down the semantics, it could be argued that you broke them down past the point where it was useful for you point...

HM
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
What other mistakes did I make?


Just as HBP made a number of translation errors, you made a number of semantics errors. For example, the Dead Sea is considered the lowest point in land, even as the Marianas Trench is considered the deepest point period. HBP's contention was not that the Dead Sea was the lowest point period, just the lowest point in the land.
Sorry, that will not do. HBP said
HBP wrote:
The lowest point on earth is near the dead sea
If you want a semantic argument then I'm happy to have one.
1) The Earth is NOT the land. There is no semantic error on my part. If he had said 'the lowest point on land' I would not have disagreed, but he didn't. The implication is clear and the semantics are equally clear - 'the lowest point on earth' refers to the lowest point on the planet, which is, as I said, a point in the Marianas trench. There are a number of semantic objections you could make to this. You could, for example, argue that the lowest point on Earth is at the centre of the Earth. I cannot, however, see any semantic argument in support of the dead sea as the lowest point on Earth.....
2) You said I had made errors (plural). I asked for any other examples. Please tell me what my 'number of semantic errors' consists of.
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
In essence, where HBP erred in translating something to far, you erred in analyzing it too far. So, whereas it could be argued that you broke down the semantics, it could be argued that you broke them down past the point where it was useful for you point...
HM

I did not base any of my arguments, with the possible exception of the one above, on purely semantic issues - that is not my style. If I am challenged on semantics, of course, then I am happy to respond, as in this case. I do not, however, generally 'nit-pick' over grammatical/syntactical errors and nor do I knowingly base any counter-argument purely on self-serving semantic interpretations. I normally try to see what is meant by a particular point or contention, regardless of errors in expression, and then formulate my own argument.
There are many contributers to this forum who have meaningful points to make and for whom English is not their first language. I like to think that I respect this, and that I debate the points of substance, rather than home-in on semantic point-scoring possibilities.
HereticMonkey
First off, let me say that the OP needs to seriously work on his basic interpretation skills. [That's a lot nicer than I was originally going to say...]

That said, a lot of what the Quran said, rather than his poor translation, is essentially true. We know that most of the iron that we have access to does come from meteors (both meteors and Earth are 5% iron (on average)), but we can't exactly get to most of the Earth's iron. We've also found a lot more actual planets than you're aware of, and (just for semantic nitpicking) you're ignoring that there is a difference between suns and stars (one of them has no possibility of supporting life, which we also think we may have found (or at least an extra-solar planet capable of supporting it)).

In essence, even though the OP's logic is at fault, his logic isn't. And he should have been seriously teased about that...

HM
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
First off, let me say that the OP needs to seriously work on his basic interpretation skills. [That's a lot nicer than I was originally going to say...]

That said, a lot of what the Quran said, rather than his poor translation, is essentially true. We know that most of the iron that we have access to does come from meteors (both meteors and Earth are 5% iron (on average)), but we can't exactly get to most of the Earth's iron. We've also found a lot more actual planets than you're aware of, and (just for semantic nitpicking) you're ignoring that there is a difference between suns and stars (one of them has no possibility of supporting life, which we also think we may have found (or at least an extra-solar planet capable of supporting it)).
I don't think you read what I wrote - either that or you didn't understand it.
  • My understanding is that most iron we have access to does NOT come from meteors.* The fact that both the Earth's crust and meteors are about 5% iron is down to the fact that the precursor material from which Earth formed, and the meteoritic material that falls on Earth, are essentially the same stuff.
  • I know roughly how many planets have been found, (260 last time I checked). That was my whole point. The Quran predicts 7 'Earths', for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
  • A star with planets is called a sun. I did not ignore the difference, I just ignored the mistranslation. The verse in question actually reads
    Quote:
    Blessed (is) who made/put in the sky/space constellations and He made/put in it a lamp (light) and a luminous moon .
    You will note that there is actually no mention of 'sun' let alone mention of other 'suns'**.
* http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec98/OriginEarthMoon.html (of course if you have evidence to the contrary, I would be glad to consider it).

** Some translations do include different wording but in all of these (that I am aware of) 'constellations' is translated as 'stars' NOT 'suns'. Note also that the description of the moon is wrong - the moon is NOT luminous. http://islamawakened.org/Quran/25/61/default.htm

Quote:
In essence, even though the OP's logic is at fault, his logic isn't. And he should have been seriously teased about that
I don't know what this means..
smarter
Before all, I want to say that generally Bikerman is right but a couple of details are wrong.
As regards HalfBloodPrince's claim than Kuran makes scientific predictions that's laughable!

Bikerman wrote:
Wrong in a number of cases?
OK if you want to define 'lowest' as 'nearest the ground' then there is a semantic point of contention. You can equally well define low as "Situated below the surrounding surfaces".
Whatever definition you choose it is difficult to see why the Dead Sea would qualify and the Marianas trench would not since both are below sea level.


You are wrong, Bikerman. The Dead Sea level (not bottom) is the lowest point on earth. Mariana Trench is the deepest point in the ocean (or the lowest point in the ocean). The rest is semantics for the English words "lowest" and "earth".

Quote:
What other mistakes did I make?


Let's see:
Quote:
Most people knew the Earth was not flat. The ancient Greeks knew that the Earth rotated and that it was spherical about 2 thousand years before the Quran was written


You mean a few! In ancient Greece there were various schools of learning. Some of them argued that the Earth is round about 1000 years before Mohammed. After Aristotle this view generalized among learned people but for the common people that's a different story.

Quote:
The Arabs were, in fact, ahead of the West at this period of history since most of the writings of the Ancient Greeks passed through Arab hands before being later rediscovered in the West....

That's completely wrong. Only after Mohammed died did the Arabs conquered Persia and later Egypt from the Roman Empire and had access to advanced science compared to the Germanized Western Europe.
In 641 general Amr wrote to the Caliph Omar, that he had finally conquered Alexandria containing "4,000 palaces, 4,000 baths, 12,000 dealers in fresh oil, 12,000 gardeners, 40,000 Jews who pay tribute, 400 theaters or places of amusement." That's western civilization after Mohammed died a few years before.

And FYI the later Roman Empire (even if renamed afterwards Byzantine) is WEST by any definition.
HereticMonkey
Obvious stupid question: If the Romans were the successors to the Greeks (with Greek philosophers teaching Roman kids), when did the writings of the Greeks have a chance to go through Arab hands before being "rediscovered"?

Also, Bikerman, your understanding that most of the iron we have access coming from the Earth itself is, well, wrong; any given location would have been mined through quickly. BTW: It's not that I don't understand what you are posting; I think that your need to disprove any religious school of thought linds you to a lot of the silliness you post...

HM
Bikerman
smarter wrote:
You are wrong, Bikerman. The Dead Sea level (not bottom) is the lowest point on earth. Mariana Trench is the deepest point in the ocean (or the lowest point in the ocean). The rest is semantics for the English words "lowest" and "earth".
Well I disagree. The Earth is a planet. The lowest point on the planet's surface is the Marianas trench, therefore the lowest point on Earth's surface is the Marianas trench. Your interpretation assumes that 'Earth' refers to land.
Quote:

Quote:
Most people knew the Earth was not flat. The ancient Greeks knew that the Earth rotated and that it was spherical about 2 thousand years before the Quran was written

You mean a few! In ancient Greece there were various schools of learning. Some of them argued that the Earth is round about 1000 years before Mohammed. After Aristotle this view generalized among learned people but for the common people that's a different story.
I would agree to some extent but not entirely. I accept the chronological correction unreservedly...I don't know why I quoted 2000 years but you are quite correct - it was more like 1000 years. I'm not sure about the 'most people' bit, and to that extent I withdraw it, however, it is obviously difficult to know what the 'common person' thought during this period because, almost by definition, the works that survive from that period were written by the more educated 'elite'. We could possible agree, therefore, that the fact that the world was spherical was 'well known'?
Quote:
Quote:
The Arabs were, in fact, ahead of the West at this period of history since most of the writings of the Ancient Greeks passed through Arab hands before being later rediscovered in the West....
That's completely wrong. Only after Mohammed died did the Arabs conquered Persia and later Egypt from the Roman Empire and had access to advanced science compared to the Germanized Western Europe.
In 641 general Amr wrote to the Caliph Omar, that he had finally conquered Alexandria containing "4,000 palaces, 4,000 baths, 12,000 dealers in fresh oil, 12,000 gardeners, 40,000 Jews who pay tribute, 400 theaters or places of amusement." That's western civilization after Mohammed died a few years before.
And FYI the later Roman Empire (even if renamed afterwards Byzantine) is WEST by any definition.
I stand corrected. My chronology was inaccurate - I clearly got my dates wrong. My knowledge in this area is primarily of the later history of cosmology in the West from the 15th century onwards. I stand-by the point that the works of the Ancient Greeks passed through Arab hands before being 're-discovered' in the Neo-Aristotelian renaissance in Europe. I must, however, concur with you - this was after the death of Mohammed, not before.

PS - Although I retract the statement that the Arabs were well ahead of the West at this point, I would still like to assert that the Arabs had access to the knowledge of the ancient Greeks well before Mohammed. There is certainly evidence for transfer of such knowledge between India and Greece as far back as 350BC (Alexander the Great) and the trade routes certainly involved Arabs.

PPS - There is some evidence to support the notion that the Quran actually refers to Alexander the Great *
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_in_the_Qur%27an_%28Theory%29

{edited several times to correct errors and add the PSs}
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
Also, Bikerman, your understanding that most of the iron we have access coming from the Earth itself is, well, wrong; any given location would have been mined through quickly. BTW: It's not that I don't understand what you are posting; I think that your need to disprove any religious school of thought linds you to a lot of the silliness you post...
I don't think I post silliness. I do make mistakes, and like to think I admit them when revealed. You should examine your own postings with the same candour.
Do you still maintain that most available iron on Earth is meteoritic? You say I am wrong in thinking otherwise, so where is your evidence?
Do you still maintain that the Quran predicts 'Suns' (with planets) outside our own system?
Do you still maintain that I misunderstood the Quran's predictions about extra-solar planets and that it doesn't, in fact, predict 7 Earths ?
HereticMonkey
You go away for a days, and...

As I said: Although the OP got a lot wrong, your issue was that you interpreted it far too literally. In essence, between the two of you, you've said a number of things that were blatantly aggressive rather than strictly logical.

In essence, there is some truth to the predictions in the Qoran, but there are some times when it overstates the situation. Nonetheless, it interesting that there is something that does come close...

HM
Bikerman
I'm still waiting for you to show that:
1) The majority of usable iron on Earth is meteoritic
2) The Quran predicts 'Suns' (with planets) outside our own system
3) I misunderstood the Quran's predictions about extra-solar planets and that it doesn't, in fact, predict 7 Earths

If you can point to things I have written that are not logical (aside from the mistakes I have corrected above) then I ask you to do so, since I wish to see them, and where necessary, correct myself.
Bikerman
Still waiting....
HereticMonkey
1) Given the number of times I've apologized re: being wrong on these forums, I think I can reasonably state that I can back down occasionally. For example, I'll admit being wrong on #3, but only because I was working from your quotes...

2) As for the other two points:
a) Astronomers have detected a number of stars with their own solar systems. I'm not understanding why you are disputing that. Unless you don't think the method they are using doesn't work...
b) It's pretty much a given that most of the accessible iron would have to be from meteors. At least, that's what them pesky geologists keep saying, and what do they know, right?

3) It's interesting that you only facts when it builds your case, but when the facts of the matter disagree, all of sudden people in their chosen fields are wrong. Interesting that...

HM
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
1) Given the number of times I've apologized re: being wrong on these forums, I think I can reasonably state that I can back down occasionally. For example, I'll admit being wrong on #3, but only because I was working from your quotes...

2) As for the other two points:
a) Astronomers have detected a number of stars with their own solar systems. I'm not understanding why you are disputing that. Unless you don't think the method they are using doesn't work...
And where in the Quran does it predict this?
Quote:
b) It's pretty much a given that most of the accessible iron would have to be from meteors. At least, that's what them pesky geologists keep saying, and what do they know, right?
Obvious to you, perhaps, but not others. Please give me one source which supports this contention...just one....
Quote:
3) It's interesting that you only facts when it builds your case, but when the facts of the matter disagree, all of sudden people in their chosen fields are wrong. Interesting that...
I have yet to see a fact from you....
HereticMonkey
Bikerman wrote:
And where in the Quran does it predict this?

25:61.

Quote:
Obvious to you, perhaps, but not others. Please give me one source which supports this contention...just one....

One.

Quote:
I have yet to see a fact from you....

Only because you would dispute that nitrogen makes up most of the atmosphere...

HM
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
And where in the Quran does it predict this?

25:61.
Err...that reads:
"Blessed (is) who made/put in the sky/space constellations and He made/put in it a lamp (light) and a luminous moon ."
Where exactly is the prediction of extra-solar planets?
Quote:
Quote:
Obvious to you, perhaps, but not others. Please give me one source which supports this contention...just one....

One.
And where in that wiki article does it say that most usable iron is meteoritic? I read it and didn't see any such reference....Perhaps you mean the section which starts
"The first iron used by mankind, far back in prehistory, came from meteors."
but that is hardly the same as saying most usable iron on Earth is meteoritic in origin is it?
HereticMonkey
Bikerman wrote:
Err...that reads:
"Blessed (is) who made/put in the sky/space constellations and He made/put in it a lamp (light) and a luminous moon ."
Where exactly is the prediction of extra-solar planets?

Again, quoting you, and you didn't question it at the time. At least, not until the second time. BTW: It turns out that "constellations" is the translated form; the word origin itself is more like fortresses or castles (here), which is probably why it is used as proof of other solar systems.

Quote:
And where in that wiki article does it say that most usable iron is meteoritic? I read it and didn't see any such reference....Perhaps you mean the section which starts
"The first iron used by mankind, far back in prehistory, came from meteors."
but that is hardly the same as saying most usable iron on Earth is meteoritic in origin is it?

It would have been at the end of the paragraph of "Occurences". You're browser does have a "Find" function, correct? For mine, it's CTRL-F...

HM
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Err...that reads:
"Blessed (is) who made/put in the sky/space constellations and He made/put in it a lamp (light) and a luminous moon ."
Where exactly is the prediction of extra-solar planets?

Again, quoting you, and you didn't question it at the time. Shows the value of your sources...
What sources? I claimed that the quran does not predict extra-solar planets. You claim that this verse above does predict them....I disagree...
Quote:
Quote:
And where in that wiki article does it say that most usable iron is meteoritic? I read it and didn't see any such reference....Perhaps you mean the section which starts
"The first iron used by mankind, far back in prehistory, came from meteors."
but that is hardly the same as saying most usable iron on Earth is meteoritic in origin is it?

It would have been at the end of the paragraph of "Occurences". You're browser does have a "Find" function, correct? For mine, it's CTRL-F...

Ahh I see, I presume you mean this bit...
"About 5% of the meteorites similarly consist of iron-nickel alloy. Although rare, these are the major form of natural metallic iron on the earth's surface."
OK...I see your point. You are conflating natural metallic iron and usable iron. Understandable and true (before the invention of the furnace).
OK there is a genuine difference here which can probably be resolved. How about this:
Most usable iron on Earth is NOT meteoritic BUT, in the days before the advent of the technology necessary to extract Iron from hematite, meteoritic iron did represent the only source of usable iron.
Will that do?
HereticMonkey
1) Note the edits. I got curious why that verse was used to show proof of solar systems, and so I did some checking around. Apparently, when you translate it more literally, (castles, like solar systems, being structures of areas within areas), it can appear that way, especially when constellations are more groups of things. Just thought it was interesting...

2) As for iron: The research I've been doing shows that a lot of iron mines opened up on meteor craters, and that a lot of the iron used in our earlier history was from meteor strikes...So I'm going with that there is a lot of iron in our upper crust from meteors, with most of our "native" iron being collected into the core (which I'm also finding some support for)...

HM
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
1) Note the edits. I got curious why that verse was used to show proof of solar systems, and so I did some checking around. Apparently, when you translate it more literally, (castles, like solar systems, being structures of areas within areas), it can appear that way, especially when constellations are more groups of things. Just thought it was interesting...
That strikes me as a long stretch of the imagination...
Quote:
2) As for iron: The research I've been doing shows that a lot of iron mines opened up on meteor craters, and that a lot of the iron used in our earlier history was from meteor strikes...So I'm going with that there is a lot of iron in our upper crust from meteors, with most of our "native" iron being collected into the core (which I'm also finding some support for)...
I will be interested to see the results. My own researches tend to support the idea that meteoritic iron represents a small amount of the iron available in the crust, the majority of which is contained in the ore Hematite which is of terrestial origin.
jmlworld
Humans were born full of ERRORS, However, the most wrongful person on this thread is Bikerman... And for him I say:

If you want to disaprove true citations of sientific relations with the QURAN you must read the original Arabic version, if you don't speak ARABIC, try translations near to Arabic like Spanish version of the QURAN, otherwise you'll get maddened between the lines! You'll not understand the translation of the English version of the QURAN because you don't want to understand it!

By the way, you must Google any term atleast two times before you comment! You'll find thousands of articles agreeing it, while only hundrends disagree it!
Bikerman
jmlworld wrote:
Humans were born full of ERRORS, However, the most wrongful person on this thread is Bikerman... And for him I say:

If you want to disaprove true citations of sientific relations with the QURAN you must read the original Arabic version, if you don't speak ARABIC, try translations near to Arabic like Spanish version of the QURAN, otherwise you'll get maddened between the lines! You'll not understand the translation of the English version of the QURAN because you don't want to understand it!

By the way, you must Google any term atleast two times before you comment! You'll find thousands of articles agreeing it, while only hundrends disagree it!

Well..for you I say show me the translations that disprove my points...
I'm pretty good at using Google and other search engines and my filtering skills are not really in question.
jmlworld
Bikerman wrote:
Well..for you I say show me the translations that disprove my points...
I'm pretty good at using Google and other search engines and my filtering skills are not really in question.


First tell me which Language do you want other than English Question
Bryan_Bezzle
Why would English not suffice?
Bikerman
jmlworld wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Well..for you I say show me the translations that disprove my points...
I'm pretty good at using Google and other search engines and my filtering skills are not really in question.


First tell me which Language do you want other than English Question

What's wrong with English? If that is a problem then I can cope with French.
Bryan_Bezzle
I understand some languages have words for things that others do not, but there should be no problem in translating it in English. It is not that I would not want to understand it.
HereticMonkey
Bikerman wrote:
That strikes me as a long stretch of the imagination...

Admittedly; nonetheless, it is interesting that a word that translates better as "fortress" was used, rather than, say, "group". When that difference is used, people tend to pay attention to the language used, and therefore it can take on its own life.

Quote:
I will be interested to see the results. My own researches tend to support the idea that meteoritic iron represents a small amount of the iron available in the crust, the majority of which is contained in the ore Hematite which is of terrestial origin.

Yet another Bikerman fact-check that depends more on semantics than actual facts. The key word is "accessible". I'm not arguing that the vast majority of iron in the planet is "native" (even though a lot of astrophysicists would argue that point, as our sun); what I'm saying is that most of the iron that we have access to is from outer space. After all, the deepest mine we have is less than a half-mile deep; we haven't scratched the surface. As we have yet to really access the iron that lays in the crust, we need to depend on surface mines, of which a number are based around craters.

However, it is hardly a major prediction; it would have been obvious to anyone thinking about. It's more interesting to see the degree to which you are willing to debunk it than to actually argue it as a prediction...

As for the language issue: I'm with the B's on this: Why is English not a good language?

HM
jmlworld
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Why would English not suffice?

English suffices! But since English and Arabic are two very different languages, it's Difficult to understand the exact meaning of the Arabic version. Quran is divine Words; no one will understand it, unless the Mighty God makes it being understood.
jmlworld
Bikerman wrote:
jmlworld wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Well..for you I say show me the translations that disprove my points...
I'm pretty good at using Google and other search engines and my filtering skills are not really in question.


First tell me which Language do you want other than English Question

What's wrong with English? If that is a problem then I can cope with French.


You understood a blunt translation without smooth, sharp and understandable clarification… That means, the translations you said, were WRONG, were not, but HBP made it simple to be understood, since ENGLIS IS ENGLISH.

Go and read translations in simple languages close to Arabic, eg: Spanish… Thank you, Scientist.

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
I understand some languages have words for things that others do not, but there should be no problem in translating it in English. It is not that I would not want to understand it.


The Problem is NOT the English, it's the Arabic language that contains the largest words, eg: English Dictionary contains utmost three books, while only the “A” word in Arabic contain at least 2 books. I saw an Arabic dictionary containing more than “13” books.

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
I understand some languages have words for things that others do not.


That's what I meant, Engineere.
smarter
jmlworld wrote:
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Why would English not suffice?

English suffices! But since English and Arabic are two very different languages, it's Difficult to understand the exact meaning of the Arabic version. Quran is divine Words; no one will understand it, unless the Mighty God makes it being understood.


Oh... I see!

Though this "Mighty God" likes to play hide-and-seek, riddles and mind games. And only worthy people like you are "allowed" to understand it and only in Arabic! LOL

LOL again!
jmlworld
smarter wrote:
jmlworld wrote:
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
Why would English not suffice?

English suffices! But since English and Arabic are two very different languages, it's Difficult to understand the exact meaning of the Arabic version. Quran is divine Words; no one will understand it, unless the Mighty God makes it being understood.


Oh... I see!

Though this "Mighty God" likes to play hide-and-seek, riddles and mind games. And only worthy people like you are "allowed" to understand it and only in Arabic! LOL

LOL again!


Sorry, Smarty, here is not CAFETERIA, it's a public forum, and it's not to abuse one's religion and believes... If you have something useful, share it, of you have a question, ask it... But, if you got drunk, go to hell!

I shut up!
HalfBloodPrince
The Old and New Testament, just like the Final Testament, cannot be exactly translated into simple English. Into complex, old-fashioned English somewhat, but that just makes it hard to understand in another way.

The quotes I put in the OP were not the exact translation of the sentence that I was referring to, I said the fact and the sentence that it can be FOUND referred to...
Bikerman
jmlworld wrote:
You understood a blunt translation without smooth, sharp and understandable clarification… That means, the translations you said, were WRONG, were not, but HBP made it simple to be understood, since ENGLIS IS ENGLISH.

Go and read translations in simple languages close to Arabic, eg: Spanish… Thank you, Scientist.
Well, English is one of the richest languages in the world. There are some concepts in some languages that do not readily translate into English, but not many.
The Quran has been translated into English by Quranic scholars who are surely capable of translating the meaning of the verses into comprehensible English. I admit that it is always best to read works of literature in their original language but, unfortunately, I don't speak Arabic - being fluent only in English and 'competent' in French, so that option is not open to me.

In the same way most people, religious or otherwise, do not speak ancient Hebrew and have to rely, instead, on the translations of the original books of the Bible into their own language. If you are saying that the Quranic verses that HBP quoted are wrongly translated or contain some deeper hidden meaning which is lost in the translation, then give me some examples and I will look into it.
HalfBloodPrince
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
The quotes I put in the OP were not the exact translation of the sentence that I was referring to, I said the fact and the sentence that it can be FOUND referred to...
HereticMonkey
jmlworld wrote:

The Problem is NOT the English, it's the Arabic language that contains the largest words, eg: English Dictionary contains utmost three books, while only the “A” word in Arabic contain at least 2 books. I saw an Arabic dictionary containing more than “13” books.

Er....By what reckoning? English has over 250,000 words in it...How many in Arabic?

HM
jmlworld
HereticMonkey wrote:
jmlworld wrote:

The Problem is NOT the English, it's the Arabic language that contains the largest words, eg: English Dictionary contains utmost three books, while only the “A” word in Arabic contain at least 2 books. I saw an Arabic dictionary containing more than “13” books.

Er....By what reckoning? English has over 250,000 words in it...How many in Arabic?
HM

I think English has more than 300,000 words, rather than 250,000, becauze, they add new words into it every year, as I think.
I'm not Arabic guru, but since Arabic language is so OLD, it contains over 1.5 million words. I said only "أ" contains more than 300 pages.
HereticMonkey
Actually, I would like a source, as it sounds like you're guessing (BTW: English stands at roughly 450K, if you believe Webster's...

Danke!
HM
Bikerman
Well most sources would agree that English has a vocab of 250,000 - 300,000 words, when you exclude obsolete words (but I'm prepared to believe it is more).
I have no figures for Arabic, the nearest I can find is Spanish which has about half the words of English. I don't believe that Arabic has 1.5 million words and until I see some evidence of that I will remain sceptical.
Even if it does, however, that does not mean that the extra words cannot be translated into English. It is quite possible to translate one word in one language into two or more words in another. The only problem comes when the words rely on concepts that do not exist in the other language and while there may well be some such concepts I don't believe there would be so many that a decent translation of the Quran would be rendered impossible.
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
Yet another Bikerman fact-check that depends more on semantics than actual facts. The key word is "accessible". I'm not arguing that the vast majority of iron in the planet is "native" (even though a lot of astrophysicists would argue that point, as our sun); what I'm saying is that most of the iron that we have access to is from outer space. After all, the deepest mine we have is less than a half-mile deep; we haven't scratched the surface. As we have yet to really access the iron that lays in the crust, we need to depend on surface mines, of which a number are based around craters.

However, it is hardly a major prediction; it would have been obvious to anyone thinking about. It's more interesting to see the degree to which you are willing to debunk it than to actually argue it as a prediction...
Obvious to anyone thinking about it eh? Well I've thought about it, and sought the advice of friends/colleagues on the matter; so let's see.
Firstly all iron (and everything else) is ultimately from outer space. When the planet condensed there was a period of intense bombardment from asteroids/comets/meteors which ultimately resulted in the Earth we see today. I am assuming, however, that this is a given and we are talking about iron that fell later from meteorites, after the Earth/Moon system was formed.

Most of the surface iron (ie iron that we can get at) is in the form of iron ores, not meteoritic metallic iron. This is the iron that is, and has been, mined.
As I previously said, very primative cultures did not have the technology to extract iron from ore and would have relied on chance finds of meteoritic iron, but the amounts were tiny, and the technology to extract iron from ore was soon developed (well before Roman times).

The various iron ores (hematite being the major one) are a result of precipitation from the sea. Iron was brought up to the surface from the volcanic eruptions going on all around in the early period of Earth's history (roughly 3-4.5 billion years ago). When life arose, photosynthesis produced oxygen, which allowed the formation of iron oxide. This process formed an estimated 600 trillion tons of iron oxide (2.5 billion years ago roughly). This iron oxide disolved into the sea and the seas 'rusted'. Eventually the iron oxide was precipitated out into sediment, which later formed into minerals/ores. This is the iron we see today and that is being, has been, and will be mined for use by man.

(This is not a semantic quibble - when I say 'usable' or 'available' I mean iron that we can, are, and have extracted. I'm not talking about 'deep' iron or 'core' iron).

The depths of the current mines is not really an issue since even the shallowest of them are mining iron ores, not metallic iron.
The article you provided from wiki makes this very clear:
wiki wrote:
Pure iron is virtually unknown on the surface of the Earth except as Fe-Ni alloys from meteorites and very rare forms of deep mantle xenoliths. Therefore, all sources of iron used by human industry exploit iron oxide minerals, the primary form which is used in industry being hematite.

I don't know of a single mine that is extracting meteoritic iron, whether near a crater or not.
For that matter I don't know which mines you mean when you say
Quote:
we need to depend on surface mines, of which a number are based around craters.
There were attempts to set-up mines around craters - the most notable being Canyon-Diablo, but the result was the finding that most of the mass had been vapourised on impact and there were no commercial quantities of iron to mine.
Bikerman
Still waiting for an answer on this. Have I indeed got my facts wrong? If so I want to know, as it is not my intent to mislead.
(A simple "I got that wrong" would suffice - I'm not looking for blood here).
supernova1987a
Well, big bang must be true as most scientist agree today and quran must be revealing the same fact.
but every religion is wrong today. islam started after muhammad, he was predicted in bhavishya purana (which also means future history), one of the major 'hindu' texts, and scientists date this book back to atleast 2500 years ago. but 'some 'hindu' is also a new name, this religion is actually named the 'sanatana dharma' or the eternal religion. in no hindu text is written the name 'hindu' but always says 'eternal religion'. [muslims started calling the people living around sindhu river as sindhu and later hindu]
similarly, christianity was predicted as well. Not to forget, the degradation of the 'eternal religion' was also predicted in numerous texts, so they got the name 'hindu'.
so every religion is wrong even if they contain some truth. so lets not pluck the eye out because there is a cataract in your eye, lets remove the cataract instead. lets try to find the truth and accept the truth. there is no need to fight.
Bikerman
supernova1987a wrote:
Well, big bang must be true as most scientist agree today and quran must be revealing the same fact.
but every religion is wrong today. islam started after muhammad, he was predicted in bhavishya purana (which also means future history), one of the major 'hindu' texts, and scientists date this book back to atleast 2500 years ago. but 'some 'hindu' is also a new name, this religion is actually named the 'sanatana dharma' or the eternal religion. in no hindu text is written the name 'hindu' but always says 'eternal religion'. [muslims started calling the people living around sindhu river as sindhu and later hindu]
similarly, christianity was predicted as well. Not to forget, the degradation of the 'eternal religion' was also predicted in numerous texts, so they got the name 'hindu'.
so every religion is wrong even if they contain some truth. so lets not pluck the eye out because there is a cataract in your eye, lets remove the cataract instead. lets try to find the truth and accept the truth. there is no need to fight.
NO - the Big Bang is not necessarily true. If we come up with a better theory then so be it. At the moment there is no better theory, so we work with the best available. Let's be clear - religion has NOTHING useful to say on the matter. There are various religious creation myths which are interesting - some are actually aesthetically pleasing. None of them, however, should be taken with anything more than a huge pinch of salt. They are myths, not fact. The Quran, like the bible, has nothing useful to say about creation, abiogenesis or evolution. In fact both 'books' contain a great deal of nonsense.
supernova1987a
if there had been no such religious texts, whatever nonsense written in them, the world would have destroyed much earlier or be ruled by animalistic humans or a tyrannical ruler (i also accept the fact that the same texts have been the cause of mass killings and wars).

(but i tell u again, its the people who are making mistakes not the religious texts. For example, Jesus and Buddha were in fact messengers of peace.)
liljp617
supernova1987a wrote:
if there had been no such religious texts, whatever nonsense written in them, the world would have destroyed much earlier or be ruled by animalistic humans or a tyrannical ruler (i also accept the fact that the same texts have been the cause of mass killings and wars).

(but i tell u again, its the people who are making mistakes not the religious texts. For example, Jesus and Buddha were in fact messengers of peace.)


Please provide something that gives such an outrageous statement any credibility.
Xanatos
supernova1987a wrote:
if there had been no such religious texts, whatever nonsense written in them, the world would have destroyed much earlier or be ruled by animalistic humans or a tyrannical ruler (i also accept the fact that the same texts have been the cause of mass killings and wars).

(but i tell u again, its the people who are making mistakes not the religious texts. For example, Jesus and Buddha were in fact messengers of peace.)


Why do people always associate morality with religion? If people only act kind because they fear damnation then what kind of people are we? Morality and religion are two completely separate things.
The-Nisk
Scientific predictions in a book that tells us that god created the universe?

Oh wait let me guess a reply to that: "science does not disprove god", right?
it does.
deanhills
Xanatos wrote:
Why do people always associate morality with religion? If people only act kind because they fear damnation then what kind of people are we? Morality and religion are two completely separate things.


Good point Xanatos. Morality is not exclusive to people who are religious. But then again, not all people who are religious practice morality because they are in fear of damnation. Perhaps it makes them happy to be moral. Usually has a good feeling attached to it when we act morally, doesn't it, most people aspire to it? Thinking about it a little further in fact, if you would practice morality in fear of being damned only, would it still be an act of morality or an act of obedience or fearfulness, maybe it is not morality any longer?
Indi
deanhills wrote:
But then again, not all people who are religious practice morality because they are in fear of damnation. Perhaps it makes them happy to be moral.

In which case, their moral behaviour has no relation to religion at all, just as Xanatos implied.
deanhills
Indi wrote:
deanhills wrote:
But then again, not all people who are religious practice morality because they are in fear of damnation. Perhaps it makes them happy to be moral.

In which case, their moral behaviour has no relation to religion at all, just as Xanatos implied.


Exactly!
Indi
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
deanhills wrote:
But then again, not all people who are religious practice morality because they are in fear of damnation. Perhaps it makes them happy to be moral.

In which case, their moral behaviour has no relation to religion at all, just as Xanatos implied.


Exactly!

Exactly? ^_^; But doesn't that effectively take religion completely out of the discussion of morality? As in, religion is about as relevant to a person's morality as their preference in fruit juice?

That seems like a radical claim. It means everyone who claims they are good because of their religion is either only being good because of fear of punishment... or a liar. It means everyone who claims that religion has a place in modern society because of its role in morality is full of crap. In fact, it takes the last thing that liberal religious people claim is good about religion... and destroys it completely. Because without its role in moral guidance... what is religion good for?
xalophus
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Before I start, I would like to say that I believe that the Quran, the Bible, and the Tankah are all the word of the one and same God that Muslims, Christians, and Jews believe. I myself am Muslim, and want to share some things about the Quran which confirm scientific beliefs, which gives me a greater faith in my God, who is also the Christians' God, and the Jews' God...the One True God.

I'm sure that many of these were also mentioned in the Bible and the Tankah, but since the Quran (the Final Testament) came centuries after the Old Testament (Tankah) and the New Testament (the Bible), God may have decided to share more information with us.

The other Holy Books (from the word of God); the Bible and the Tankah, also confirm modern scientific beliefs. But since the Quran came centuries later than either of those, the theories are stronger and more pronounced in the Quran.

Quran "confirms scientific beliefs" ?
As in, it provides the proof ? of the scientific "beliefs" that you mention ?
I see nothing more than vague verses that people translate as they see fit.

A primary school science textbook contains scientific facts in more detail and with greater accuracy than this. And, unlike these religious books, it doesn't rely on a student's inscrutable interpretation to actually make some sense (or to even be relevant). It also doesn't get numerous other facts wrong (which we haven't yet talked about in this thread, we only talked about the ones you thought proved your point).
I'm surprised god did such a poor job at documentation.
But then again, god's knownledge about everything seems to be much at the same level as that of humans that lived a couple thousand year ago (and not necessarily the brightest ones either) - spooky !

I'm appalled at the attempts to pass these off as scientific facts - in the twenty first century, nonetheless.

Bikerman has done a good quick job of pointing out the mistakes in your "logic", but for a more comprehensive rebuttal, read this.
deanhills
Indi wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
deanhills wrote:
But then again, not all people who are religious practice morality because they are in fear of damnation. Perhaps it makes them happy to be moral.

In which case, their moral behaviour has no relation to religion at all, just as Xanatos implied.


Exactly!

Exactly? ^_^; But doesn't that effectively take religion completely out of the discussion of morality? As in, religion is about as relevant to a person's morality as their preference in fruit juice?

That seems like a radical claim. It means everyone who claims they are good because of their religion is either only being good because of fear of punishment... or a liar. It means everyone who claims that religion has a place in modern society because of its role in morality is full of crap. In fact, it takes the last thing that liberal religious people claim is good about religion... and destroys it completely. Because without its role in moral guidance... what is religion good for?


Is morality a prerequisite for religion? Is morality only about being good? Can religion only be possible for do-good moral people, in other words, if you are religious are you necessarily moral? How about satanists? What I tried to say is that religious people do not have the sole proprietorship on moral and good, all people can be moral. Some religious people may not be moral. Some people who are not religious may be moral, or immoral. Morality cannot be defined by any religions or creed. It is something separate.
Indi
deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:
Exactly? ^_^; But doesn't that effectively take religion completely out of the discussion of morality? As in, religion is about as relevant to a person's morality as their preference in fruit juice?

That seems like a radical claim. It means everyone who claims they are good because of their religion is either only being good because of fear of punishment... or a liar. It means everyone who claims that religion has a place in modern society because of its role in morality is full of crap. In fact, it takes the last thing that liberal religious people claim is good about religion... and destroys it completely. Because without its role in moral guidance... what is religion good for?


Is morality a prerequisite for religion? Is morality only about being good? Can religion only be possible for do-good moral people, in other words, if you are religious are you necessarily moral? How about satanists? What I tried to say is that religious people do not have the sole proprietorship on moral and good, all people can be moral. Some religious people may not be moral. Some people who are not religious may be moral, or immoral. Morality cannot be defined by any religions or creed. It is something separate.

Well you answered the first question, but completely ignored the second. ^_^;

Perhaps this warrants its own thread.... provided here.
iceprincess
Please get your scientific facts before quoting all of you don't mock a book that is beyond your understanding the earths core has not been discovered or dug into the deepest a human gas reached is 12 km so how do u or I know what's inside . Moreover the earth was all molten before the crust formed , there were 1000s of meteorites falling on the molten earth which have brought down the iron . Get your facts right before commenting on a book beyond all your or my understanding
Bikerman
iceprincess wrote:
Please get your scientific facts before quoting all of you don't mock a book that is beyond your understanding the earths core has not been discovered or dug into the deepest a human gas reached is 12 km so how do u or I know what's inside . Moreover the earth was all molten before the crust formed , there were 1000s of meteorites falling on the molten earth which have brought down the iron . Get your facts right before commenting on a book beyond your or my understanding
The quran is not 'beyond my understanding', and my science is pretty good.
We know what is in the core through analysis of earthquake data and the manner in which it is transmitted/reflected through the earth. Nobody has ever visited the sun either, yet we know pretty well what it is made of.
Of course the earth was molten. What happens to heavy substances in solution? They sink to the 'bottom' and become the 'core'. Basic physics 101. I think YOU need to do some basic science before demonstrating your ignorance in public.
r3k0j5973
Uran First neither side can really prove they are right. Well here's something for you guys to think about. People (a large amount of people) knew the world was round a fairly long time ago. Maps of the world showing the coastline of antartica (and by coastline I don't mean glacial ice I mean what's under the ice the actual continent) have been found. I have a theory about all of these religious texts. From bible to koran or quran or whatever and a lot of other ones. It ties into the multiple sites found around the world we have yet to explain. Angels were people on an ancient seafaring race which lent their beleif/knowledge to other cultures until their ultimate demise.


Okay more importantly god didn't tell anyone anything. Think about it god creates man knowing how it's all going to happen. What would be the point. Why did god have to see Adam was lonley he knew adam was going to lonley 45 trillion years ago if god being all powerful/all knowing is true so you thing god would have made eve and adam at the same time. Oh and why get mad about them doing stuff you knew they were going to do.

I have come to the relization I'm to tired to try and type this right now. But so I'll try later lol sorry.
Oh your all right and wrong. Yeah I just fell asleep without posting this maybe I shouldn't well at least its comedic.
busman
Bikerman wrote:
iceprincess wrote:
Please get your scientific facts before quoting all of you don't mock a book that is beyond your understanding the earths core has not been discovered or dug into the deepest a human gas reached is 12 km so how do u or I know what's inside . Moreover the earth was all molten before the crust formed , there were 1000s of meteorites falling on the molten earth which have brought down the iron . Get your facts right before commenting on a book beyond your or my understanding
The quran is not 'beyond my understanding', and my science is pretty good.
We know what is in the core through analysis of earthquake data and the manner in which it is transmitted/reflected through the earth. Nobody has ever visited the sun either, yet we know pretty well what it is made of.
Of course the earth was molten. What happens to heavy substances in solution? They sink to the 'bottom' and become the 'core'. Basic physics 101. I think YOU need to do some basic science before demonstrating your ignorance in public.


Damn dude... Brutal. @Bikerman, much love guy for your valid and although sometimes semantical posts; very true and scientific aproach to things, but maybe-just maybe you might be one cent more approachable to the average poster to promote interest and desire to learn. I used to do this same thing all the time as a history buff and I slowly figured out the most effective approach (sadly enough) was the emotional approach. Make one interested and humbled on a matter they find interesting, they will seek more Smile
busman
You've done it to me before lol
Bikerman
busman wrote:
Damn dude... Brutal. @Bikerman, much love guy for your valid and although sometimes semantical posts; very true and scientific aproach to things, but maybe-just maybe you might be one cent more approachable to the average poster to promote interest and desire to learn. I used to do this same thing all the time as a history buff and I slowly figured out the most effective approach (sadly enough) was the emotional approach. Make one interested and humbled on a matter they find interesting, they will seek more Smile
I think you will find that where I believe the poster is amenable to reason then I adopt a 'gentler' approach and am perfectly willing to spend time explaining a concept in detail. In this case what we have is a scientific ignoramous trying to appear as if they had some sort of scientific expertise, or at least competence, and subverting science to support their superstition. I have very little patience with such con-merchants and I don't believe they generally merit much time and effort, above that needed to show their basic ignorance.
busman
Ya... You have a valid point. I guess my approach is that of let them cry and scream like a baby going to sleep and when they calm themselves enough for words then talk to them ya know? And if you really think about it aren't the hard headed in more need than the rest of us? You could shoot me a link and I'll check it out however long I see fit, whereas an stubborn person might need that little bit of serenity to feel unscared to challenge their tightly held beliefs. I have a few myself and @indi challenged one, and while though slightly angry I still read his response with enthusiasm and passion and tried to argue intelligently (albeit slightly abrasivly) against it, where as (my personal belief*) although a stubborn person may be in need of a tongue lashing every once in a while with a subject as sensitive as religion I believe* it might be counter productive ya know?; just becuase of that said fear.
Con-merchant... Good word though.
nassersamad
hey buddy i think you don't know anything about science and religions you have found whatever you have written before it was taken from goggle and other search engines so i advice you think very precisely that how did these scientists come to know all these things. how did the idea of finding these secrets come to there mind so basically the whole science was taken from nature and who is the creator and master of this nature and universe. who is the creator of human being in fact he is one and only (Allah) and what ever have been discovered until now it was taken from holy book of Allah scientist read them and then they able to discovered it. do u know that computers were developed and invented in 1613 three hundred and ninety nine years ago.but computers were mentioned in Quran one thousand and four hundred years ago. and we believe that there are 4 divine books. but 3 of them were edited and tempered by some hypocrites but since Quran was Revealed to our beloved prophet Muhammad (PBUH) nobody could able to edit or tempered it do u know why? because Quran was coded by numbers
every verse was coded by Allah if anyone attempt to temper it the whole meaning of verse will be changed.
Bikerman
nassersamad wrote:
hey buddy i think you don't know anything about science and religions you have found whatever you have written before it was taken from goggle and other search engines.
Wrong. I don't need search engines for this.
Quote:
so i advice you think very precisely that how did these scientists come to know all these things. how did the idea of finding these secrets come to there mind so basically the whole science was taken from nature

Err...they come to know by experiment and observation.
Quote:
and who is the creator and master of this nature and universe. who is the creator of human being in fact he is one and only (Allah)
No. YOU believe that. I don't. It is absolutely certain that Allah did NOT create humans - we can trace our evolution right back to well before homo-sapiens-sapiens.#
Quote:
and what ever have been discovered until now it was taken from holy book of Allah scientist read them and then they able to discovered it.

Bullshit.
Quote:
do u know that computers were developed and invented in 1613 three hundred and ninety nine years ago.but computers were mentioned in Quran one thousand and four hundred years ago.

No - I KNOW that they were NOT invented in 1613 and I KNOW that they are not mentioned in the Quran.
Quote:
and we believe that there are 4 divine books. but 3 of them were edited and tempered by some hypocrites but since Quran was Revealed to our beloved prophet Muhammad (PBUH) nobody could able to edit or tempered it do u know why? because Quran was coded by numbers
every verse was coded by Allah if anyone attempt to temper it the whole meaning of verse will be changed.
LOL...yeah yeah...tell it to someone who doesn't know the REAL history - they might believe it.
tingkagol
Quote:
...Quran was coded by numbers.

lightfairy
Bikerman you said you don't need search engines to look for your answers well where did you get them from huh internet, text books etc.? Or did it magically float in your head lol.
Also of course scientists did experiments to find what they were looking for. But everything they used is from nature such as the equipments they used !!!!!!!!
So basically scientists did use nature to find their answers
Bikerman
lightfairy wrote:
Bikerman you said you don't need search engines to look for your answers well where did you get them from huh internet, text books etc.? Or did it magically float in your head lol.

Difficult to say where the original knowledge came from since these are things I've known for a long time and there are many overlapping sources for the basic knowledge.
Quote:
Also of course scientists did experiments to find what they were looking for. But everything they used is from nature such as the equipments they used !!!!!!!!
So basically scientists did use nature to find their answers
Well, that depends what you mean by 'nature'. If you mean 'things that occur without the intervention of mankind', or some such definition then clearly one does not tend to find many 'naturally occuring' particle accelerators, galvanometers, gas chromatographs, radio-telescopes - and any of a multitude of other devices which scientists use routinely.
If, on the other hand, you take 'nature' to mean simply 'available in this universe', then yes, of course scientists use 'natural' equipment. The problem is that this definition is essentially meaningless, since it would apply to everything, exclude nothing and, therefore, be completely redundant.
Related topics
Masterbation follow on from por|nography
who is mohammad? the prophete of islam
All you need to know about Religion Islam....
A resonable comparison between Christianity and Islam
why do christians make prophet jesus as a god?
The RISE of Islam!!
I have seen the GOD!
Outrageous: Denmark re-publish Mohammud cartoons
World ending in 2012
Is there a heven and a hell???
Islam & Terrorism
why does the bible and the quran contain contradictions
Forgive Mumbai attackers
What is the usefulness of religion?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.