Political Crossfire Forums

[Showboat]

People weren't less inteligent in the past. Knowledge takes time to accumulate thats all.

Abortions date back to ancient times, there is nothing surprising about knowledge of embryos. In fact Aristotle studied them. http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~bwall1/Seminar/Lectures/LectureNotes/HistoryEmbryology_files/frame.htm

You say hundreds of things are there but we've only been shown about 5. And the stuff that is wrong, such as comets, seems to still be being ignored.

[seawinde]

nice post , i am really happy to see muslims in here

[Saracen]

seawinde wrote: nice post , i am really happy to see muslims in here

Salaam. Happy to see another Muslim join us. Stick around.. :)

Showboat wrote: And the stuff that is wrong, such as comets, seems to still be being ignored.

It likens comets to something that is being "fired". That should tell you something.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
Yep. The idea here is that scientific phenomena related in the Koran was not discovered or known at that time. Also, consider that it was passed down to an illiterate man, the Prophet (pbuh). How could he have known such stuff at that time? Certainly some All-Knowing Being could have given him that information. Think about it...

Okay. Do you have anything other than a book to back up your claims about his life? There are many people who would say Jesus was the messiah, as he said so himself. It's in the frickin bible. But that does not make it true.

Likewise, just because it's in the Koran, does not make it true.


And you are not giving the ingenuity of humanity enough credit. All of those things you listed could easily have been found out with some scientific observation, especially since around that time, the Middle-East was a pretty intelligent area.

Hell, if an ancient Greek can find the circumference of the earth using nothing but building shadows, then it's not hard to believe someone could figure out that if oceans = salty and rivers = fresh, then the area between them = a mix.




EDIT: I read a couple points above... Quote:
"Have We not made the Earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs?"


****. You mention plate tectonics, but it's exactly that that proves this wrong. A MOUNTAIN is nothing more than a mass of the earth that crashed into another mass of earth and bent upwards. A mountain is not a "peg", since the mountains are part of the same mass that the earth is.

Quote: "Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke..."

1) The Big Bang is not extremely well supported to make the claim that it is scientifically proven to be true.

2) Are you saying that heaven is a corpreal place we could reach, say, with space travel? If you aren't, then your point is moot, since it says that Heaven and all the matter in the universe were part of a "smoke" (which is wrong, it was most likely not a smoke) then heaven would be with all the matter in the universe.

[logic-rules]

i am sure you folks have read or heard about this book, The Bible, The Quran, and Science, by Maurice Bucaille. I found a link that has some of the books excerpts.

http://www.islam-guide.com/bqs/

it is pretty good at explaining things

[Saracen]

logic-rules wrote: i am sure you folks have read or heard about this book, The Bible, The Quran, and Science, by Maurice Bucaille. I found a link that has some of the books excerpts.

http://www.islam-guide.com/bqs/

it is pretty good at explaining things

Thanks for the link, logic-rules. :)

Demonic Spoon wrote: Okay. Do you have anything other than a book to back up your claims about his life? There are many people who would say Jesus was the messiah, as he said so himself. It's in the frickin bible. But that does not make it true.

The Koran does not have the tale of the Life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). You can of course check out this link right here, which is quite an objective source on the life of the Prophet, but it draws from purely historical sources. The Koran does not include the life story of the Prophet.

Demonic Spoon wrote: Likewise, just because it's in the Koran, does not make it true.

But when you can back it up with some material evidence, you can consider it if you don't want to take it as true.

Demonic Spoon wrote: And you are not giving the ingenuity of humanity enough credit. All of those things you listed could easily have been found out with some scientific observation, especially since around that time, the Middle-East was a pretty intelligent area.

Not really. The Prophet (pbuh) did not live at a time where free thought and intellectual thinking pervaded. In fact, during the time of the Prophet (pbuh), the Arabs were probably some of the most barbaric of peoples ever to walk on this planet: Arab tribes used to fight against each other over silly vendettas and issues like family feuds and the such; they had no time for scientific endeavors, and the society was unfavorable for such thinking. Islam's rise promoted that thinking with the descension of these verses as Revelation.

Demonic Spoon wrote: Hell, if an ancient Greek can find the circumference of the earth using nothing but building shadows, then it's not hard to believe someone could figure out that if oceans = salty and rivers = fresh, then the area between them = a mix.

That's a good point, but however, the area between them is not a mix. It talks about a barrier that "does not transgress". If you can take a look at this picture right here:

Source wrote:

Figure 13: The Mediterranean sea water as it enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics, because of the barrier that distinguishes between them. Temperatures are in degrees Celsius (C°). (Marine Geology, Kuenen, p. 43, with a slight enhancement.)

Notice the barrier of separation between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. Obviously, the Atlantic Ocean has lower salinity than the Mediterranean Sea. The sea spoken about in this verse:

God wrote: He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress. (Quran, 55:19-20)

There is a hint of scientific truth in this one in that the waters of the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean rarely meet due to the barrier between them, and this can be explained by an equilibrium condition across the barrier, due to osmotic pressure in that the solutions can not diffuse further, no matter how many waves there are and whatnot.

Demonic Spoon wrote: You mention plate tectonics, but it's exactly that that proves this wrong. A MOUNTAIN is nothing more than a mass of the earth that crashed into another mass of earth and bent upwards. A mountain is not a "peg", since the mountains are part of the same mass that the earth is.

That's an excellent point, but I don't think that the verse is talking about all mountains. It speaks of probably most mountains, in which most of them have this sort of root under the earth that allows them to resist movement of plates sliding past each other horizontally... but I think that this depends on the type of stress and tension.

Demonic Spoon wrote: 1) The Big Bang is not extremely well supported to make the claim that it is scientifically proven to be true.

But scientifically, it is the most plausible explanation, is it not?

Demonic Spoon wrote: 2) Are you saying that heaven is a corpreal place we could reach, say, with space travel? If you aren't, then your point is moot, since it says that Heaven and all the matter in the universe were part of a "smoke" (which is wrong, it was most likely not a smoke) then heaven would be with all the matter in the universe.

Actually, no, that's not what I'm saying. It is obvious that people are reaching these heights. It wasn't "smoke", but it speaks of them as a single entity, which spread out, and thus this could refer to the single entity that gave rise to the Big Bang. Remember: all matter is made up of the same fundamental particles, and this is probably what it's referring to.

Good debate so far. Keep em coming.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:

The Koran does not have the tale of the Life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). You can of course check out this link right here, which is quite an objective source on the life of the Prophet, but it draws from purely historical sources. The Koran does not include the life story of the Prophet.


True

Quote:


Not really. The Prophet (pbuh) did not live at a time where free thought and intellectual thinking pervaded. In fact, during the time of the Prophet (pbuh), the Arabs were probably some of the most barbaric of peoples ever to walk on this planet: Arab tribes used to fight against each other over silly vendettas and issues like family feuds and the such; they had no time for scientific endeavors, and the society was unfavorable for such thinking. Islam's rise promoted that thinking with the descension of these verses as Revelation.


You don't think it's possible that such simple discoveries like this were possible?



Quote:
That's a good point, but however, the area between them is not a mix. It talks about a barrier that "does not transgress". If you can take a look at this picture right here:

Look at the picture again. MOST of the water doesn't move, but quite a bit of it does.

Quote:
That's an excellent point, but I don't think that the verse is talking about all mountains. It speaks of probably most mountains, in which most of them have this sort of root under the earth that allows them to resist movement of plates sliding past each other horizontally... but I think that this depends on the type of stress and tension

Erm..no...mountains are created in the way I just described. Mountains are not seperate from the plates.



Quote:
But scientifically, it is the most plausible explanation, is it not

It is the most workable explanation we have, yes, but it's just utterly stupid to assume that it's correct. Hell, it's probably wrong. If it is right, then the chances of it happening in the way we think of it is very, very small.



Quote:

Actually, no, that's not what I'm saying. It is obvious that people are reaching these heights. It wasn't "smoke", but it speaks of them as a single entity, which spread out, and thus this could refer to the single entity that gave rise to the Big Bang. Remember: all matter is made up of the same fundamental particles, and this is probably what it's referring to.

So your saying that somehow the "heaven" particles were somehow separated from the others, and then disappeared and manifested themselves in this whole other universe/dimension/whatever?

[Saracen]

Demonic Spoon wrote: You don't think it's possible that such simple discoveries like this were possible?

Not really. The Arab tribes lived in desert and fought on desert. These discoveries are not all simple.

Demonic Spoon wrote: Look at the picture again. MOST of the water doesn't move, but quite a bit of it does.

That's what I meant.

Demonic Spoon wrote: Erm..no...mountains are created in the way I just described. Mountains are not seperate from the plates.

It talks mainly about the mountains in the diagram, but I think I can give you this one until I find something credible.

Demonic Spoon wrote: It is the most workable explanation we have, yes, but it's just utterly stupid to assume that it's correct. Hell, it's probably wrong. If it is right, then the chances of it happening in the way we think of it is very, very small.

Of course. Scientific theory is not correct and is never proven true. I'm still considering that.

However, I think that these verses were meant to provoke scientific thought more than anything. I'll give you an example:

God wrote: Yusuf Ali
[2:26] God disdains not to use the similitude of things, lowest as well as highest. Those who believe know that it is truth from their Lord; but those who reject Faith say: "What means God by this similitude?" By it He causes many to stray, and many He leads into the right path; but He causes not to stray, except those who forsake (the path),-

Shakir
[2:26]Surely Allah is not ashamed to set forth any parable-- (that of) a gnat or any thing above that; then as for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord, and as for those who disbelieve, they say: What is it that Allah means by this parable: He causes many to err by it and many He leads aright by it! but He does not cause to err by it (any) except the transgressors,

Pickthall
Lo! Allah disdaineth not to coin the similitude even of a gnat. Those who believe know that it is the truth from their Lord; but those who disbelieve say: What doth Allah wish (to teach) by such a similitude ? He misleadeth many thereby, and He guideth many thereby; and He misleadeth thereby only miscreants;

Note the use of the word "gnat". It was unknown that there were such things at the time, and the verse in Arabic:

God wrote: إِنَّ اللَّهَ لاَ يَسْتَحْيِي أَن يَضْرِبَ مَثَلاً مَّا بَعُوضَةً فَمَا فَوْقَهَا فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ فَيَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ وَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ فَيَقُولُونَ مَاذَا أَرَادَ اللَّهُ بِهَـذَا مَثَلاً يُضِلُّ بِهِ كَثِيراً وَيَهْدِي بِهِ كَثِيراً وَمَا يُضِلُّ بِهِ إِلاَّ الْفَاسِقِينَ

Mahdi Puya wrote: Through metaphorical expressions, in the form of parables, the Quran stimulates the human mind and heart. A healthy mind grasps the truth, whereas a perverted mind adds more threads to its web of doubts. The one and same expression produces two opposite effects. The right response is the acceptance of the guidance, the reaction of the muttaqin, and the wrong response is the "going astray", the reaction of the fasiqin.

So, it seems that through scientific metaphors, the Koran provokes thought in what was unknown at the time. But I'm still going to have to wait for one of our more informed Muslims on this matter, Glorfindel, to help me out.

Demonic Spoon wrote: So your saying that somehow the "heaven" particles were somehow separated from the others, and then disappeared and manifested themselves in this whole other universe/dimension/whatever?

That's a good question, but I don't think that Heaven is in another dimension or universe.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:

Not really. The Arab tribes lived in desert and fought on desert. These discoveries are not all simple.


Yes, they really are. Only very simple observations would be required.

Quote:
Of course. Scientific theory is not correct and is never proven true. I'm still considering that.

However, I think that these verses were meant to provoke scientific thought more than anything. I'll give you an example:

...Why would they promote scientific thought? These verses were written for people more than a thousand years ago, who knew nothing of the Big Bang?

And you CANNOT teach science with religion. You're saying that the Koran is saying that "The Big Bang happened because God said it did". That is not a scientific answer. If it was TRULY to promote scientific thought, then there would be an explanation other than "Goddidit"


Quote:
Note the use of the word "gnat". It was unknown that there were such things at the time, and the verse in Arabic:

I heavily doubt that. Once again, why would God use the word "gnat" if the people wouldn't understand what it ment?

Quote:
So, it seems that through scientific metaphors, the Koran provokes thought in what was unknown at the time. But I'm still going to have to wait for one of our more informed Muslims on this matter, Glorfindel, to help me out.

"scientific metaphors"?

Science is absolute. Metaphors are abstract. A scientific metaphor is an oxymoron.

Quote:
That's a good question, but I don't think that Heaven is in another dimension or universe

So basically that whole passage is meaningless, since it does not make sense scientifically to tie that to the Big Bang, unless we can send a shuttle to Heaven or something.

[Saracen]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Yes, they really are. Only very simple observations would be required.

Even the ones about the seas and the embryo?

Demonic Spoon wrote: ...Why would they promote scientific thought? These verses were written for people more than a thousand years ago, who knew nothing of the Big Bang?

The Theory of Creation in Islam is quite different from the Genesis Theory of Creation. Now, as for scientific thought, it is said in a Hadith by the Prophet (pbuh) that striving for knowledge is a form of worship and even Jihad. The Koran does well to promote that kind of thinking.

Demonic Spoon wrote: And you CANNOT teach science with religion. You're saying that the Koran is saying that "The Big Bang happened because God said it did". That is not a scientific answer. If it was TRULY to promote scientific thought, then there would be an explanation other than "Goddidit"

While you make a good point, remember that science and religion are somewhat correlated: science without religion is blind, but religion without science is lame... unless, you think otherwise?

Demonic Spoon wrote: I heavily doubt that. Once again, why would God use the word "gnat" if the people wouldn't understand what it ment?

Through explanation of the verse by the Prophet (pbuh). I'm sure Glorfindel can help me out with this one.

Demonic Spoon wrote: "scientific metaphors"?

Science is absolute. Metaphors are abstract. A scientific metaphor is an oxymoron.

Good point, but I meant that it provokes scientific thought through metaphors.

Demonic Spoon wrote: So basically that whole passage is meaningless, since it does not make sense scientifically to tie that to the Big Bang, unless we can send a shuttle to Heaven or something.

Well, there's a long way to go.

[Demonic Spoon]

[quote]Even the ones about the seas and the embryo?
[/quotes]

Yes. They are slightly more difficult, but perfectly doable.

Quote:
The Theory of Creation in Islam is quite different from the Genesis Theory of Creation. Now, as for scientific thought, it is said in a Hadith by the Prophet (pbuh) that striving for knowledge is a form of worship and even Jihad. The Koran does well to promote that kind of thinking.

Wrong. If the Koran promoted scientific thinking, then true muslims would go atheist. Blindly believing that an invisible guy in the sky created the universe and is perfect is about as unscientific as it gets.

Quote:
While you make a good point, remember that science and religion are somewhat correlated: science without religion is blind, but religion without science is lame... unless, you think otherwise?

Uhh, science without religion is far from blind. Science without religion relies entirely on FACTS and EVIDENCE-that is not blind. BLIND is believing something without any reason whatsoever.

[Saracen]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Yes. They are slightly more difficult, but perfectly doable.

Ok, what about the observation that some mountains are peg-like? The source I presented cited some other sources in the website.

Demonic Spoon wrote: Wrong. If the Koran promoted scientific thinking, then true muslims would go atheist. Blindly believing that an invisible guy in the sky created the universe and is perfect is about as unscientific as it gets.

But the thing is, DS, the scientific thought was promoted by God. It's like "Here's the phenomenon. Now discover it."

I'll get back to you with more. I promise.

Demonic Spoon wrote: Uhh, science without religion is far from blind. Science without religion relies entirely on FACTS and EVIDENCE-that is not blind. BLIND is believing something without any reason whatsoever.

But what about purpose? Isn't one of the purposes of science to reach the Ultimate Explanation (i.e. answer the "why", not the "how")?

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
Ok, what about the observation that some mountains are peg-like? The source I presented cited some other sources in the website.

What source? Mountains may SEEM peg like, but they are not in actuality.

Quote:
But the thing is, DS, the scientific thought was promoted by God. It's like "Here's the phenomenon. Now discover it."

I'll get back to you with more. I promise.

It encourages discovery of some things, but gives a rediculous, unscientific answer for others. Not compatable. If God was encouraging people to be scientific, then he would encourage them not to believe, since basing your life off something which has no evidence whatsoever is unscientific.

Quote: But what about purpose? Isn't one of the purposes of science to reach the Ultimate Explanation (i.e. answer the "why", not the "how")?

We have answered the "WhY" with many things. There will NEVER, EVER be an "ultimate explanation". For every discovery humanity makes, two new questions arise. There will ALWAYS be stuff we don't know.

[snow]

Demonic Spoon wrote:

It encourages discovery of some things, but gives a rediculous, unscientific answer for others. Not compatable. If God was encouraging people to be scientific, then he would encourage them not to believe, since basing your life off something which has no evidence whatsoever is unscientific.


There is evidence, you just don't believe it.

[Demonic Spoon]

Uhhuh, okay then. Show me this evidence.

[snow]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Uhhuh, okay then. Show me this evidence.

It's your journey, not mine.

[Demonic Spoon]

That's hilarious. You speak about "evidence" and yet you refuse to show it. Sounds like you're just making a petty attempt at justifying it.

[snow]

Demonic Spoon wrote: That's hilarious. You speak about "evidence" and yet you refuse to show it. Sounds like you're just making a petty attempt at justifying it.

No, it's just that we live in an age of google. There is an abundance of what believers deem "evidence" for their respective religions. If you are interested in weighing this evidence, you can do that on your own. I really don't have the time or concern for you to go point-for-point on the case for Christianity.

[Saracen]

Demonic Spoon wrote: What source? Mountains may SEEM peg like, but they are not in actuality.

Judging by their shape and the sturdiness of most mountains, they can resist the relative movement of these tectonic plates.

Demonic Spoon wrote: It encourages discovery of some things, but gives a rediculous, unscientific answer for others. Not compatable. If God was encouraging people to be scientific, then he would encourage them not to believe, since basing your life off something which has no evidence whatsoever is unscientific.

Well, through discovery, you might find God.

snow wrote: No, it's just that we live in an age of google. There is an abundance of what believers deem "evidence" for their respective religions. If you are interested in weighing this evidence, you can do that on your own. I really don't have the time or concern for you to go point-for-point on the case for Christianity.

Good point.

Demonic Spoon wrote: We have answered the "WhY" with many things. There will NEVER, EVER be an "ultimate explanation". For every discovery humanity makes, two new questions arise. There will ALWAYS be stuff we don't know.

You're right, but in the long run, it will be possible.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
You're right, but in the long run, it will be possible.


...in the long run we will have explained anything and everything anyone could possibly think of? That's impossible. New stuff is ALWAYS happening.

Quote:

Judging by their shape and the sturdiness of most mountains, they can resist the relative movement of these tectonic plates.

Ya don't seem to understand...Mountains are PARTS of the plates that crashed together. The only other type is when the plates split apart, and the magma that comes up from the mantle piles up and forms one...



Quote:
Well, through discovery, you might find God.

Really? Why is it that the greatest scientific minds currently are atheists? There was a statistic I saw awhile ago-i'd have to dig it up-that people considered to be the greatest scientists there are are ALSO overwhelmingly athiest.

Quote:
Good point.

Wrong. Evidence is evidence. If one person believes it and another does not, then there is not ENOUGH evidence. Indisputable evidence does not exist for a god...