Eve ? Who is that girl ?

[Jafar]

salaam Jaafar

720 But the devil whispered to them, to reveal to them what was not apparent to them of their bodies; and he said ?Your Lord did not prohibit you from this tree except that you would become angels, or you would be immortal.?
20120 But the devil whispered to him, he said ?O Adam, shall I lead you to the tree of immortality and a kingdom which will not waste away??

we can deduce from these verses that Adam was not immortal before eating from the tree.
it is difficult to deduce that that paradise was the trie Jenna.

another funny question How Adam knew that he was not immortal ?
the claim "we will all die" is a "theory" that is not refutable and even not falsiabale (as student of Allah would say). It is an empirical Theory. To proove it is false, we should find a guy who live eternity. It is impossible, even if a such guy came since we would have to wait eternity to make the proof.

So adam knew that he will die probably because he was not the only human there. He could compare himself to others and "deduce", like others, that he will die.

720 addressed plural subject (huma) so indeed Adam was not 'alone'.

Adam and his friends knew before hand that they're not immortal, perhaps by observing that some of their own kind died.

So you're right that he was not the only human.

The question now comes to

• Why the Devil want to to reveal to THEM what was not apparent to THEM of THEIR "SAWA'AT"?

now let look at this
20117 So We said ?O Adam, this is an enemy to you and your mate. So do not let him take you out from the paradise, else you will have hardship.?
20118 ?You will have in it that you will not go hungry nor go naked?
20119 ?And you will have in it that you will not go thirsty nor suffer from heat.?

so adam, before "eating from tree", was already eating and then "evacuating". Is there toilets in Jenna ?
20117 to 20119 show that Adam was totally bilogical before "eating from tree".

Correct..

i have to say that i am not agree with this part
in the litteral sense, 20118 seems to indicate that adam was wearing clothes.

20118 is strange,
And I do not agree with you, NOT NAKED/OPENED (TA'RA) doesn't translate to "Wearing Clothes".
It can also mean "He'll not feel being NAKED/OPENED".

Evidence from modern human living today
Is this "Children of Adam" below being "Naked" / "Opened"?
It depends on one perspective and most importantly his own perspective.

http//farm4.static.flickr.com/3302/3229894266_f526c3c8a5_m.jpg

To me he's naked, but he himself doesn't feel naked / opened.

This evidence above is the one which puzzled me, what's the intention of this guy wearing merely a PENIS GOURD?
The Penis Gourd doesn't serve other purposes other than covering his own Penis.
(As can be seen the scrotum can still be clearly visible).

He's covering his own penis thus he feels he's not naked.
So it seems the (initial) motive for man on wearing something on his body was to conceal his own penis.
The dude above is living in tropical area, wearing 'clothes' (other than penis gourd) is not 'comfortable' for him, since the climate there is hot and humid.

The habits of wearing 'clothes' also give other disadvantage of the additional hassle for cleaning it. (Laundry).
The man above clearly doesn't suffer from such disadvantage.

20121 So they both ate from it, and their bodies/sawaa't became apparent to them, and they began to place leaves on themselves from the paradise. Adam had disobeyed his Lord, and had gone astray.

is saw'aat means "genital parts" ? saw'at is plural of sou'e who mean bad thing (used many times in quran).
531 So God sent forth a raven to scratch the land and show him how to deal with the body (SAW'ATI) of his brother. He said ?Woe to me! Am I not even able to be like this raven and deal with the body of my brother?? So he became of those who regretted.

Correct.. saw'aat can mean "shame", "bad" and also "evil".

from 5-31, SAW'ATI seems to indicate the entire body. And it is logical to think that the body of the killed brother was wearing clothes. So Saw'ati don't mean a naked body neither genital parts.

It depends on the context, Saw'aat can also mean "Shame", "Bad" and also "Evil".

how then to understand the leaves allegory ?

To me the leaves means Adam cover his "Shame" with leaves..
See the above photo which shows exactly just that.
That specific "Bani Adam" has invented something to cover his "Shame", he invented a "Covering for his Shame" from a gourd. (which can also be considered as 'leaves&#039.

The Covering
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koteka

The Raw Material
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gourd

Salam / Peace

[Student_of_Allah]

Shalom Aleikhem Hoppean,

Let me apologise for taking my sweet time to come back to this site and respond to your post. I hope you and others here are doing fine and leaving a peaceful life.

SoA,

While you make excellent points about consistency, and you have many valid points. I would like to bring some criticisms against "the scientific method", which you may not have considered.

Let's see. Always happy to learn more. ;D

Now it would seem that you are in favour of this "scientific method" as highlighted above. Therefore, I ask Was this method itself determined to be true by a "falsifiable hypothesis which you then test and gather evidence"; that is to say, a "falsifiable evidence based methodology"? If you understand the nature of my question, then I believe you will see that if one were to answer "yes", it would be obvious that, by its very nature, it may be true or it may not be true. It might well be true today and false tomorrow, since it is conceivably falsifiable. In that case, it cannot be accepted as an epistemological standard. However, if the answer is "no" then it is not falsifiable and therefore contradicts its very premise.

THE EVIDENCE OF REALITY my friend!! That is the short answer to the thought provoking things you have mentioned above. Don't worry, I will elaborate. The scientific "method" is in fact validated by something external. That external validating thing is reality. You asked

Was this method itself determined to be true by a "falsifiable hypothesis which you then test and gather evidence"

My response OF COURSE. The method wasn't something that we got from some old book and all scientists got together to bear witness and testify. It wasn't revealed to ignorant dessert dwellers "in private" when no one else could verify. This method isn't promoted on the grounds that the alternative is to burn for an eternity in a lake of fire. We stumbled upon this method through the process of gathering data and understanding reality. Throughout the ages, we have tried out many different methods of approaching the truth and only this method stood the test of time. The method where we gather evidence and try to avoid fallacies and theorize concepts that are testable in nature.

The slap that a reality check will give you once you realize the hypocrisy in trying to make science sound like something that doesn't work and is something one may casually disregard is the falsifiable experiment that you are looking for. You can also better understand why this method is so much revered by not indulging in hypocrisy and therefore disregard the assumptions of the scientific method and just jump from the roof of a skyscraper!! Obviously, you won't do that, for I am sure that someone with your intelligence already probably KNOWS that science works and is testable and is probably defending the opponents of the scientific method for some some kind of emotional bias towards religion ( not sure though).

However, if we are honest we can realize that this "scientific method" (in reality, empiricist/positivist method) is not propagated as a "possibly true" epistemology that may be false. Rather, it is promoted as an axiomatic epistemological truth, and thus is fundamentally contradictory to its very epistemological claims.

Well, for all practical purpose, it makes sense why we live life as though the scientific method is an axiomatic epistemological truth. Nobody is arguing here that we can't be one day proven wrong or that we are 100% certain about anything, let alone everything. The point is, even you kneel before the power of the method. Everyone does. Did you not assume the following before posting the reply to me

• The universe exists
• You and I exist
• The laws of nature exists
• The laws of nature will remain unchanging thereby making the technology involved ( our computers, internet, network infrastructure, electricity,etc) useful and predictable enough for us to hold the conversation.

For the sake of a deep philosophical dialogue, both of us have to be agree that it is not possible to prove that anything exists at all. However, that is not how we live our lives. Otherwise, I'd like to see you stand in the way of a moving train and deny the evidence of reality and talk about how the proponents of the scientific methodology are misleading people into thinking that this method is better than it is. Don't get me wrong here, I agree with what you said. However, that doesn't resolve ANYTHING. Especially in the context of the dialogue between me and "noshirk". No matter what, it is never wise or honest to pick and choose verses and phrases from anywhere to portray something as scientific especially when you aren't willing to put the entire work to the test. That on itself demonstrates your awareness about the inherent dishonesty involved in your methodology. We know it as Confirmation Bias.

Actually, both are based on axioms, as it stands "science" is based on a self-contradictory axiom. It cannot prove its own epistemological method to be based on the very epistemology it claims.

It may be that the people ridiculing and laughing do not understand their own presuppositions, axioms, or their lack of a coherent epistemology.

The bottom line is that Science WORKS!! Science provides us with utilitarian models through its unbiased methodology that doesn't start with the conclusion like religion does. I do understand the limitations of the methods I apply and the assumptions I make. However, it is preposterous in the highest order that you are making it sound like the scientific method is something somehow comparable to the theistic methods based on virtually every fallacy in the book, if not worse. The scientific method WORKS!!! There lies the difference that for some reason you can not see. This method is feeding the global population as we speak. This method is what gave us our modern medicine. It is the method that sent man to the moon. It is the method that provided us with the lifeblood of modern civilization. The food that you eat, the water that you use, the transportation, the medicine, the architecture, technology,etc. all owes their modern state of existence to the superiority of this method over any other method concocted by the minds of men throughout human history.

I can promise you that when we do find the cure for the next disease or send man to Mars, it will not be based on religious faith-based methodology. Just like always, the scientific method will triumph in reality and you will witness its glory and be reaping the benefits of the conveniences it provides while simultaneously wondering why people laugh at religious methods.

It is always fun to see how hopelessly people can depend on the fruits of a methodology they can dismiss so easily at the same time.

Peace
---------------------- Student of Allah

[Ex-"Quranist"]

Salaam All.

359 The example of Issa with God is similar to that of Adam; He created him from dust, then He said to him ?Be? and he was.

When Allah make comparisons, he is not joking. He respect the form . In this case , there is 25 occurrences for adam and Issa.

Knowing that Eve is never mentionned in quran, it seems logical to deduce from that comparison that Adam had a mother and not a human father (perhaps a beautiful angel in human body 19-17 to 19-19).

Mother of Adam was probably an insan (why not a neandertalian ?) and of course, not a bani adam.

What exactly has begun with adam ?
Humanity ?
Conscience ?
Language ?
Religion ?

admitting that adam was "injected" in a existing kind of human people has the merit to avoid the problem of incest in adam family. Sons of adam have probably married normally with women from that people.

According to science, whatever have done ancient form of humans, it seems that all actual humans in this earth have a common ancestor around at most 150 000 years ago.

This lead to the question of
from wich kind of paradise Adam was expulsed ?

from (7-20 ; 20-120), we know that "chaytan" promised eternity to adam.

from
20116 And We said to the angels ?ASJID to Adam.? They all SAJADOU except for Satan, he refused.
20117 So We said ?O Adam, this is an enemy to you and your Zawj. So do not let him take you out from the Jenna, else you will have hardship.?
20118 ?You will have in it that you will not go hungry nor need clothes.?
20119 ?And you will have in it that you will not go thirsty nor suffer from heat.?

is that a paradise on the sky or a paradisiacal garden on earth ?

And who is zawj in 20117 (zawj mean litteraly couple)
is it wife of Adam or adam jinn, his spiritual dual ?
if we read 20116, seems that the zawj of Adam was there when Allah spoke to angels.

Peace

Adam = early mankind. The word itself means "man". Jesus is made like "Adam" ie. like a normal human being and not of virgin/magical birth. So there is no "father" of "Adam". It's allegorical.

[Student_of_Allah]

Shalom Aleikhem noshirk,

I have a scientific backround (with diplomas) and i know very well the discourse you are holding.
it doens't impress me. It is what we can call science philosophy and not science. it leads to discussions with no end.

I haven't said a single word to impress you in any way shape or form. I was merely pointing out the inherent lack of consistency and honesty in your methodology that you engineered to fool the non-thinking masses that your subject(Qur'anic contents) is scientific in nature. On top of that, I am not the one talking about having degrees in anything here, I am only making my points and they should stand or fall on their own merits.

I wasn't talking about any philosophy here. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy involved in something that is universally recognized as Confirmation Bias. Not saying that I started something that results in discussions with no end but, I don't see why discussions with no ends has to be bad. Actually, in the scientific arena, the reason people are working is because so many things are unknown and the more we solve, the more seems to be there to be resolved. That didn't retard our progress, did it? hmm

we are here in free-minds.org. Quite all articles leads with quran and tryng to understand message of God.
in this forum, there is an all category talking about science. You can ask if you want administrators to remove this "illegal" category according to your beliefs thats spirituality and science are totally separated.

There are those who do not pretend and realize that their beliefs aren't facts and acts as such. A lot of them not only enjoys science, they are working to further our understanding of the universe as we speak. Therefore, I can not claim a monopoly over science simply because there exists theists who might try to dishonestly lend credibility to their theistic beliefs by indulging in fallacious reasoning and try to blend science with their theistic beliefs wherever convenient. Of course they ignore the rest of the scripture where its not scientific.

I never said I want the SCIENCE section to be removed. It is a discussion forum, so you can always expect people to respond negatively to your posts if they disagree or find something objectionable in your post. Just because I found your reasoning flawed doesn't mean I assume that all free-minders are the same. Not to mention that nobody cares if I want there to be a science section here ( which I want ) or not!!

we are here in a thread talking about eve. You are talking abot scientific methodology.

OH REALLY???? Well then YOU the real noshirk should talk to this fake noshirk who posted this from your account earlier in the discussion

i find always funny the way unbelievers think (or believers in the wisdom of the great nothing).

it would be very funny to study how beliefs on unbelievers changed over the time. Of course, when such things occurs in their beliefs, they call it "their science" even if the greastest scientists are believers.

the fact is that quran is not book divided in physics chapters, mathematics chapters, biologie chapters..
Quran is a book of wisdom and not a scientific book.

the simple fact that we are able today to make conciliation between actual scientific findings and a book "written" in the seventh century is a kind of great miracle if we compare with all "other" books.

is there another book like this ?
may earthdom help us to find such a book ! so many have been written!
What a convincing refutation it would be !

Not only YOU brought up science and started bragging about how there are "miraculous" scientific things in your book, you even went around challenging people to get other books that can do it. Of course all that lasted until I called you on your BS methodology by which you determined that your book has scientific miracles in it!!

Really dear student of Allah, if someone is at the wrong place, it is not me.

Oh, no, it just can not be you. Why would it be you when you are only picking and choosing parts of an old book to match with modern science and then going around challenging everyone to produce similar "miracle"??? It can not be you, can it be?

it would be very funny to discuss about "scientifc" methodology and how scientist philosophers are the fist ones to avoid apply them.
for example, proof that a theory should be falsibiable has not yet be done. it is only a good practice.

http//www.airdragon.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Full-Retard.jpg

That is the same as saying, "no one ever proved how life is preferable to death, so lets make fun of the concept of health and well being." The reason we want claims to be falsifiable is because without that there is no difference between a true claim and a false one. Example

• You claim that you can become invisible given that nobody is observing in any way shape or form ( including testing).

The truth becomes irrelevant here given that even if you were saying the truth, we will never be able to know it. So anyone can claim this and if we accept ONE such claims, we will have to accept ALL such claims for the sake of intellectual honesty (which is another concept some people struggles with). Soon we will have to accept all claims that provides no means of testing them for their truth. You may also try this example

• You claim that you can fly when no one is observing you or testing you and I can't.
• I claim that I can fly when no one is observing me or testing me and you can't.

What now???? It is self evident from these basic examples how incredibly ludicrous your attempt at mocking the requirement to falsify things in science is. In the above example, the following are possible solutions

• You are speaking the truth and therefore I am either lying or mistaken.
• I am speaking the truth and therefore you are lying or mistaken.
• Both of us are either lying or mistaken.

How would you know the difference??? By having faith and waiting for the fuzzy feeling to change your life? This is something very basic and guess what, even you know the truth of it. Otherwise, are you willing to bow down to my invisible pet unicorn that will burn you for eternity if you don't? This invisible pet unicorn is beyond our universe and therefore can not be tested. Go ahead, and either worship it or be hypocritical and moan about "science demanding falsifiability of claims" while you aren't willing to bow down to my pet unicorn without testing my claim.

no matter however. Sorry if i am making heresy towards great Priest Karl Popper. A guy who, of course, discovered nothing in science but just played with words and definitions and came as a prophet to teach scientists how to do.
Fortunately, all major discoveries have been done before philosophers have built their church in the middle of science.

Not that this is something about winning or losing, but every time I see someone resorting to irrelevant things to attack me and trying to make my position seem bad by mentioning other people who they think are "bad", I kinda feel victorious. For it bears witness that the opponent must have run out of any reasonable thing to say. That is why they are resorting to such things instead of addressing the points I made.

to contradict me about what i say about eve, you have just to "pick parts" you want in Quran or science.
You would be then really be welcomed in this thread as a contributor with "falsication" proofs

Somewhere in there you lost your focus. I didn't start my responses talking about Eve. I addressed the things you said indicating that Quran contains scientific miracles. You can go back to page 1 of this thread and verify it yourself. I even explained myself that I was talking about the science part. So I don't even know why you are now indulging in the logical fallacy of straw-manning my position.

if you want to speak about philosophy, falsification and other subjects, please open another thread.
i will then pray Allah to guide there the chimp and earthdom. they also seems not interested by Eve subject.

I am sorry for upsetting you. However, I had no option. Sometimes its too difficult to not call someone on their BS. Even if Islam is truth, even if Qur'an is from God, you still have no excuse to pick and choose parts of it that in your opinion matches with modern day science and post it in the SCIENCE section of a discussion forum and not expect at least one soul to be honest and speak out against the hypocrisy!! That is not a nice thing to do if you care about knowing what is "actually" true. Although I am assuming here that you do care about that.

PEACE
----------------- Student of Allah

[BobaFett]

Peace SoA

I don't think your point is valid..

While I agree with a lot of what you say, there are parts of the Koran which are falsifiable, I don't see why we should not apply the scientific method to those particular parts?

For example I can watch superman and accept he has supernatural powers, yet at the same time be critical of his ability to turn back time by reversing the rotation of the Earth because of our understanding of reality.

Sure he can stop a speeding train or bullet or leap the tallest buildings, if he is strong/fast enough, but changing the rotation of the earth will never reverse time.

While I agree we should not try to show that the Koran is the work of God because it contains "scientific miracles" I don't see why we cannot apply the scientific method to applicable parts to see if there is a flaw in it?

I mean, if the Koran says that mountains act as stabilising pegs yet geologists can demonstrate that mountains in fact destabilise the earth then there is a good indication the Koran is not the word of God.

If the Koran says all living creatures are made from water and biologists find a living being that isn't, again this is a good indication that it is not the word of God.. no?

[Student_of_Allah]

Shalom Aleikhem BobaFett,

I don't think your point is valid..

While I agree with a lot of what you say, there are parts of the Koran which are falsifiable, I don't see why we should not apply the scientific method to those particular parts?

I partly agree with you. However, please try to realize that when we wish to "scientifically" analyse this issue, we must remove all bias. It depends on the reader which part of the Qur'an the reader thinks is a claim about the world that can be tested. Let me give you a quick example. Let's say that Qur'an or any other religious book claims that God fashions out of matter what is developing in the womb of a pregnant woman. I'd pick that as a claim and test it and demonstrate that we can account for the processes involved in the making of the baby and therefore the claim is BS! Now, the theist/believer might say that they interpret that as a metaphor, not as a factual claim. By doing that, every wrong claim can be explained away. That is not how a scientific investigation works.

On top of that , there are other big problems such as

0. Identification of the ACTUAL texts. There are versions of the Qur'an and we have to first identify the ACTUAL one. We can't even begin before we do that. If you haven't already, then I will suggest that you read the article on version of Qur'an from the main site (free-minds.org).

• From the translations and their diversity we already know that the choice of words can make the verses a bit plastic. Plastic meaning that the meaning is contingent on the stretch of imagination of the translator. Same is true for the general reader of the Arabic text. Who gets to interpret or translate? Why?

I believe that this one problem of agreeing on one interpretation is enough to end your scientific analysis before it begins. If you can not get people to agree on a fixed meaning, then there is no point in trying to determine if it matches with science or not.

• If we do agree on the meaning of the words and interpretations, will we also agree that the meanings are to be kept unchanging? If not, then we can't analyse it scientifically. If something can mean "yes" "no" and "may be", there is no rational justification for being happy about it matching with what science says the answer should be. That is because of the fact that if science changes the positive answer to negative tomorrow due to a recent discovery, the believers will still claim that "that is one possible meaning". If science finds new evidence that makes us uncertain, the believers will still say "that is one possible meaning". So, it really isn't that falsifiable after all.

For example I can watch superman and accept he has supernatural powers, yet at the same time be critical of his ability to turn back time by reversing the rotation of the Earth because of our understanding of reality.

I agree with you 100%. However, you are misrepresenting the case I was arguing against. If the author of this thread would have been like "let us try to match known scientific facts with parts of the Qur'an for fun", I'd be quiet about it. The author of this thread did not do that. The author of the thread made claims of "MIRACLES" and challenged others to bring over another book! I am pretty sure you can tell the difference between doing something like that and just working out the scientific sanity of science fiction stories. When we debate superman, we do not make bold claims of miracles and claims about what is factually and actually true. Which is exactly what the originator of this thread is doing. I hope that you see through this.

While I agree we should not try to show that the Koran is the work of God because it contains "scientific miracles" I don't see why we cannot apply the scientific method to applicable parts to see if there is a flaw in it?

And I have raise some issues in whatever I have written to you previously. I am willing to discuss it further. On the face of it it seems like a sound idea. However, trying to be honest and objective ruins the fun.

I mean, if the Koran says that mountains act as stabilising pegs yet geologists can demonstrate that mountains in fact destabilise the earth then there is a good indication the Koran is not the word of God.

1679 Have they not looked at the birds held in the atmosphere of the sky? No one holds them up except God. In that are signs for a people who believe.

Science

Lift = Weight
http//web.mit.edu/16.00/www/aec/images/GIFS/bird.gif

We know that the lift generated by the wings of the bird = 0.5 * density of the fluid medium(air)speed squaredsurface area of the wing* the lift coefficient of the wing. As long as the value of the products of all that remains constant, the bird will not fall as the downward pull of gravity (weight) will be balanced by the upward pull created by the lift producing wings. Clearly, Qur'an fails there while trying to impress an illiterate audience about how God holds them up.

Before you respond or react. Please try to understand that I am not trying to disprove Qur'an. I am merely giving you an example of how trying to make the Qur'an sound scientific can backfire. I can not take a Qur'anic verse about mountains being pegs seriously while simultaneously ignore the verse about the flight of a bird. There is a reason why these religious claims about scriptures and science doesn't end up in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals.

P.S. The claim about the mountains and pegs is laughable, I just didn't bother to refute it when I could simply show you how I can pick and choose other parts of the book which makes claims about the REAL world and science that we may falsify.

If the Koran says all living creatures are made from water and biologists find a living being that isn't, again this is a good indication that it is not the word of God.. no?

Before I begin saying anything, let me congratulate you on accepting evolution and common descent. I also congratulate the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who unknowingly advances this argument without understanding the implications. Yes, when science talks about life originating in water, it doesn't mean that a God was pulling them out of a bucket full of water. See the following as an example

http//www.origin-of-mitochondria.net/wp-content/uploads/normal_tree_of_life.jpg

For Science to be in agreement with whatever scripture, the scripture must propose a common descent. Just like you see in that tree. Without the tree, we aren't talking about the same thing. In the scientific proposal, we are descendants of creatures of the ocean (LITERALLY). Are you suggesting that the Qur'an is saying the same thing and therefore advancing the theory of evolution as we understand it? If not, then you don't have a case. If you don't agree, then that makes the hypocrisy of your method worse than the method of the original thread starter. That is because your method of establishing facts becomes something like this

Fact Science says that Lift = 0.5 density of the fluid medium(air)speed squaredsurface area of the wing the lift coefficient of the wing
My book says Lift has something to do with air/wing
Therefore My book is scientifically accurate as it mention that word.

That takes a special level of cognitive dissonance. Now, just to play that same game again

3048 God Who sends the winds, so they raise clouds, and He spreads them in the sky as He wishes, then He turns them into joined pieces, then you see the rain drops come forth from their midst. Then when He makes them fall on whoever He wills of His servants, they rejoice!

4228 And He is the One who sends down the rain after they had despaired, and spreads His mercy. He is the Supporter, the Praiseworthy.

Science

http//www.enchantedlearning.com/wgifs/Watercycle.GIF

Once again, science shows you that your God hypothesis is redundant. Its like me saying that things fall down because there are pink unicorns pushing them down. Whatever Newton discovered would show that my pink unicorn hypothesis is frankly laughable. In the same way, what we know about water cycles and weather systems makes such verses about a God wishing rain upon anyone laughable.

While we are at it, want to know a fun fact? The Greeks apparently had something to say about life and water. Here is a quote (please read about Anaximander here and here)

610-546 BCE Greek philosopher, astronomer and biologist Anaximander argues that all lifeforms evolved from fish in the seas and underwent modification once it established itself on land. Anaximander also believed in an early concept of abiogenesis which stated that primitive life on earth formed from mist.

570-480 BCE The Greek philosopher and student of Anaximander Xenophanes developed Anaximander's theories further. Xenophanes was one of the first people in history to observe the fossil record and he concluded that most of the world was covered by water in the past by observing the fossil record.

Please feel free to go through the creation myths of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Mesopotamians. Here is a link. It turns out that WATER turns out to be a very common thing in the ancient creation myths when it comes to finding some source of origin.

I am already talking about beliefs held by people thousands of years before Muhammad was even born. A neutral reader of an ancient book can not make extraordinary leaps without appropriate justifications. When we can very easily explain away that he might have been inspired by earlier ancient myths or even made things up, why would we say that he was talking about what we now know to be true. For that to be true, we must necessarily have his statements detailing things out for us so that we can check them against science and know if he is talking about what we know to be true or if he simply made things up. An honest study does not allow you to read into it and make him say things he never said.

Peace
-------------- Student of Allah

[huruf]

P.S. The claim about the mountains and pegs is laughable, I just didn't bother to refute it when I could simply show you how I can pick and choose other parts of the book which makes claims about the REAL world and science that we may falsify.

What you say is laughable. Other than with accurate XXth centuries scientific vocabulary, I can't think of a better way to describe isostasy in the case of mountains than this. Or are you pretneding that the Qur'an should be using english or german or latin words of present scientific jargon to say things to people in general?

This is ridiculous.

Salaam

[Student_of_Allah]

Shalom Aleikhem huruf,

What you say is laughable. Other than with accurate XXth centuries scientific vocabulary, I can't think of a better way to describe isostasy in the case of mountains than this. Or are you pretneding that the Qur'an should be using english or german or latin words of present scientific jargon to say things to people in general?

This is ridiculous.

Salaam

No.

Please post your claim as a separate thread. Once you post your claim, I will see if it is the same claim and therefore present my refutation accordingly.

Peace
-------------- Student of Allah

[hicham9]

359 The example of Issa with God is similar to that of Adam; He created him from dust, then He said to him Be and he was.

When Allah make comparisons, he is not joking. He respect the form . In this case , there is 25 occurrences for adam and Issa.

Knowing that Eve is never mentionned in quran, it seems logical to deduce from that comparison that Adam had a mother and not a human father (perhaps a beautiful angel in human body 19-17 to 19-19).

.... is that a paradise on the sky or a paradisiacal garden on earth ?

This theory was proposed by Dr. Abd a-Sabour Shahin ( ), in his book 'My Father Adam' ( &#1605.

[huruf]

Shalom Aleikhem huruf,

No.

Please post your claim as a separate thread. Once you post your claim, I will see if it is the same claim and therefore present my refutation accordingly.

Peace
-------------- Student of Allah

I do not claim anything I just say that what the Qur'an says on that count is far from laughable. But of course any one can laugh at whatever he or she wants.

Salaam

[runninglikezebras]

1679 Have they not looked at the birds held in the atmosphere of the sky? No one holds them up except God. In that are signs for a people who believe.

Science

We know that the lift generated by the wings of the bird = 0.5 * density of the fluid medium(air)speed squaredsurface area of the wing* the lift coefficient of the wing. As long as the value of the products of all that remains constant, the bird will not fall as the downward pull of gravity (weight) will be balanced by the upward pull created by the lift producing wings. Clearly, Qur'an fails there while trying to impress an illiterate audience about how God holds them up.

Before you respond or react. Please try to understand that I am not trying to disprove Qur'an. I am merely giving you an example of how trying to make the Qur'an sound scientific can backfire. I can not take a Qur'anic verse about mountains being pegs seriously while simultaneously ignore the verse about the flight of a bird. There is a reason why these religious claims about scriptures and science doesn't end up in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals.

First of all I agree with the statement that we can't apply Quran as a scientific textbook. But Student of Allah, you are making a very unfair argument here. I even think you are aware of what you are doing, if not this may be enlightening to you. The verse you quoted here does not literally tell us God holds up birds in the air with some mystical force. That is the most extremely literal interpretation of that verse I have ever heard and I doubt very much you yourself are even convinced it should be taken that literally. You are deliberately ignoring the metaphorical interpretation in which this verse relates to Gods creation of this universe resulting in the atmosphere of this planet and Newtonian laws of physics as a product of that intelligent evolutionary design. Without atmosphere and Newtonian physics that bird would be unable to create lift, it wouldn't even be able to breathe or produce the kinetic energy to do so. All of those are according to Quran results of Gods evolutionary design of this universe. Maybe you were doing this to drive home your point of view, but there are less cheap ways to do so. Don't you agree? I could expand this criticism towards your narrative easily to your other examples but I think this one already illustrates it sufficiently.

Quran is not a scientific textbook, though it contains many clear signs relating to scientific understanding that are often remarkable in their compatibility with modern scientific understanding.

[Man_of_Faith]

I suppose even a human who wrote a book called Quran over thousand years ago realized the wings of the bird is propelling them and keeping them into the air. People were not stupid.

The phenomenon which makes them able to remain in the air could be what "is that it is" refers back to. law of physics and that "is that it is" stands for and thus the Quran does not make humilation of itself. People may not have understood why the birds are kept in the air except that the wings are their tool to accomplish this, but the lesson is the wonders of nature.

Same is that the skies (everything away from Earth) that are kept away without pillars because the people were again not stupid and understood the effect of the law of gravity and that things would come down unless something kept them up and again we have "is that it is" who keeps things like they are instead of letting everything fall and crash back on the ground and "is that that it is" assures no pillars accomplish this and invites for the beholder to contemplate existence. A modern man may want to extend his contemplation on how the laws of nature are in existence such as gravity and who made everything revolve and cause gravity fields instead and why it seems illogical that it all begun this process out of nothing without guidance from a trigger entity that had an aim with it.

The pillars similitude does not impress people today but then they should remember it was written over thousand years ago and was intended primarily for them and the allegories still work for us to raise our thougts, but we may need to extend our philosophies.

All allegories are inviting to contemplate why all natural laws are in existence and reflect back to "is that that it is" and then ask yourself of it was not for it then how is everything in existence? Did it create itself?

Now you can instead reflect upon the phenomenon that the planets and other bodies revolve around their star instead of just crashing back to it. Even if science explains it is the revolving mechanism that does it you can always ask yourself how it all got into place so that it could begin its rotation. And why does gravity exist without just saying the objects generate gravity but why?

Be of one in is that that it is

[Zulf]

First of all I agree with the statement that we can't apply Quran as a scientific textbook. But Student of Allah, you are making a very unfair argument here. I even think you are aware of what you are doing, if not this may be enlightening to you. The verse you quoted here does not literally tell us God holds up birds in the air with some mystical force. That is the most extremely literal interpretation of that verse I have ever heard and I doubt very much you yourself are even convinced it should be taken that literally. You are deliberately ignoring the metaphorical interpretation in which this verse relates to Gods creation of this universe resulting in the atmosphere of this planet and Newtonian laws of physics as a product of that intelligent evolutionary design. Without atmosphere and Newtonian physics that bird would be unable to create lift, it wouldn't even be able to breathe or produce the kinetic energy to do so. All of those are according to Quran results of Gods evolutionary design of this universe. Maybe you were doing this to drive home your point of view, but there are less cheap ways to do so. Don't you agree? I could expand this criticism towards your narrative easily to your other examples but I think this one already illustrates it sufficiently.

Quran is not a scientific textbook, though it contains many clear signs relating to scientific understanding that are often remarkable in their compatibility with modern scientific understanding.

Yes, indeed it seems like a very literal interpretation, yet still a kind of interpretation that many atheist-scientists would hold.

In any case, an atheist would find it silly to involve a god who holds up birds in the sky or who spreads clouds and makes rain fall, when the physical mechanisms are quite well known (in terms of the known physical world). It seems unnecessary to involve a god when things already seem to work on their own, as per the natural laws.
The point is however that this view, held by the science conscious atheist, presumes a "religious god". By this I mean that the atheist refutes the involvement of a god as God is described by the usual religions... i.e. some super natural creature with human like qualities. Obviously there is no need for a Man in the Sky if things already work thanks the the natural laws. The atheist is adopting the image of God found in the Religions and then rejects this image (rightly so I have to say). But this is, in my mind, a case of false dilemma. Either we have a God as per Religion, or we don't have God at all. This is black and white scenario is quite limited. This leads to the mindset which dictates that since we understand many natural laws and related phenomena, then there is no need for God. It is assumed God is a separate being, imagined to run things like a master of puppets pulling the strings from outside the natural world and outside the normal network of cause and effect.

Some people then compromise and see world where God put the natural laws in action and then remains God who can interfere in the business of the world. This is just a scientific smelling version of the Religious version of the world. It still assumes and views God as a separate Guy in the Sky. The theist would naturally reject this as well, finding such a scenario unnecessary.

I believe that at the core of the human problems, is the image of God. Obviously, our image of God determines what we think of God, e.g. to what extent God is necessary or not in our world. We come to a conclusion, but it all depends of our image of God. It is assumed, in the general typical discussions among people, that if God exists, then God would be like the Religions describe "him" (whether openly or not). Naturally, we would normally not see the need for a pink unicorn in the sky, unless of course you're indoctrinated and entrained in a Religion.

So, whatever science finds out (as long as it is true) is part of reality (as we perceive it) and nothing real can contradict God and God cannot contradict reality, in this case what science finds (if it is true). If birds fly thanks to a mix of drag, lift, weight, surface areas, whatever etc, then this is how God holds them up. If clouds move due to sun energy, currents of air, temperature, densities etc, then again, this is how God moves the clouds. Why would we look for some Guy in the Sky who orders clouds around or has gazillions of hands to hold bird up? That would be madness. Why not let existence/creation/nature be the evidence/proof/sign that God is. "Since I am, therefor I know God is, by definition". Why not relax and simply say that "oh, so this is the mechanism behind this natural phenomenon... ok, so this is how God "does" it". Let everything be the proof of that God exists, and stop trying to paint the face of God.

Also, our view of reality is just one model, or one way of seeing it. Just because we know about lift, wings, weight, gravity and air, doesn't mean that 'God doesn't do it'. We assume a lot about what "to do" means when it comes to God.

I'm not sure I'm getting my point across. I just think that we assume too much about what God is and how God let's things happen. We also often think backwards when trying to prove or disprove God.

And in any case, it is futile to try to convince people about the existence of God. Whose God anyway are we talking about? Also some things are not possible to describe with the words we have today, especially in scientific terms... but even this claim, in the sentence I just wrote, is useless to make... cannot be proven or falsified.

Peace folks.

[Man_of_Faith]

I still remember brother Ahmad Bilal's suggestion of 'skyman'. rotfl

Be of one in God