what scientific evidence from the Quran was not known to the peers of its time?
-
Salaam
So are there anyone else interrested in a debate
I am trying to work out what it is that you wish to debate. If it is that Quran is not a complete scientific book for everything. I must your superior logic here is way beyond us simpletons. I tried but I could not find this simpleformula force=mass X accelration (I am afraid it is the limit of my scientific knowldge) in the Quran therefore I must conclude you are right- soover billion people take a bow.
Any how simpleton like me thought that your point is that the Quran was complete jiggery pigery and you were going to prove this by showing that the scientific facts mentioned it are complete codswollop. So embryology was your starting point. So lets have it what is in the Quran that is completely and utterly wrong. Or perhaps I have it completely wrong and you simply could not find the answers to you biology homework from the Quran.
regards -
Salaam
So are there anyone else interrested in a debate
I am trying to work out what it is that you wish to debate. If it is that Quran is not a complete scientific book for everything. I must your superior logic here is way beyond us simpletons. I tried but I could not find this simpleformula force=mass X accelration (I am afraid it is the limit of my scientific knowldge) in the Quran therefore I must conclude you are right- soover billion people take a bow.
Any how simpleton like me thought that your point is that the Quran was complete jiggery pigery and you were going to prove this by showing that the scientific facts mentioned it are complete codswollop. So embryology was your starting point. So lets have it what is in the Quran that is completely and utterly wrong. Or perhaps I have it completely wrong and you simply could not find the answers to you biology homework from the Quran.
regardsWhy do you take so great offence, by this simple persuit of knowledge?.
Anyone else?
Peace
-
Hello Arnold and 'stillearning',
The verses (225, 4067, 753 that point to development of human in stages, from leech-like clot (meaning the clinging of embryo to umbilical cord) to birth to adulthood are basic concepts that man have known ?gazillion? years prior to Quranic injunctions for the simple reason that birth (dead, premature and grown), miscarriages/abortions, growth, old age and finally death, have remained the ultimate and norm of reality.
What the Quran mentions, in this case, is not wrong at all, rather generalized. But when those who insist that such simple phenomenon could have never been known, unfounded in other historical books and only revealed in Quran by a winged angel descended in secrecy to Muhammad who himself had no idea for which science has recently declared as truth, hence becoming Allah?s Words, is simply outrageous, incredible. I hope you understand my point. Also please do take note of Magi's and enquirer's well defined posts above.
Abortion and its history http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
Miscarriage http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage -
Peace,
Of course people observed miscarriages and so on, but i want to see a record where they put it in the same order as in the Quran, and in the same description. And the only good answers are from magi, enquirer's post i already refuted as it were not good arguments. He refered to the science known NOW, and the cutting edge science of NOW. A lot of things in the Quran could not have been known in Muhammed's time, so it is a wrong comparisons.
But go have fun with the links i gave.....
-
Peace all. I repeat,if the quran is a book containing 'irrefutable' science,and is 'guidance till the 'end of time',then WHERE are the verses on tv,test tube babies,internet,nuclear power,cloning,gentically modified food,automobiles,transistor radio,mobile phones,ipod,carbon dating,etc,etc....This is pretty conclusive,provable,obvious and irrefutable technology.....
ANYBODY please answer...
Or did god forget? -
Peace,
Of course people observed miscarriages and so on, but i want to see a record where they put it in the same order as in the Quran, and in the same description. And the only good answers are from magi, enquirer's post i already refuted as it were not good arguments. He refered to the science known NOW, and the cutting edge science of NOW. A lot of things in the Quran could not have been known in Muhammed's time, so it is a wrong comparisons.
But go have fun with the links i gave.....
You will find your answers in Magi's reply numbers 50 & 54 and the link she provided. My arguments are the same and confer with her viewpoints. Now let me see you refute enquirer's post above? His arguments are excellent because the Quran becomes deficient and lacking credibility for all times when it comes to sciences? Perhaps you are missing the point altogether and keep insisting upon presenting you with another book which carries the exact same order and description as stated in Quran. I'm afraid, your own arguments are incredible to begin with,
-
Uhm guys. This is totally off topic, but go here please http//www.farvardyn.com/shelagh.php thank you
Peace
-
Peace magi. This is also off-topic...I had pasta and mince-meat for breakfast... rotfl
No,only joking....can you give us a brief summary please,on some of your findings regarding masons,templar knights etc...? In other words the power elites who NOW play a big part in running the world....Start another thread if you wish...take it easy... )
peace all. ps;some of this history of power elites is very interesting and relevant... -
Peace all. I think it was Micheal foucault,the philosopher,who stated that science/knowledge does not always exist in a vacum,or is not always free from bias...In other words the 'establishments' scientific theories,religious theories,historical accounts,and propogation of 'public knowledge' are sometimes maintained or promoted just to consolidate the power of the elites/establishment/ and keep the status quo/keep the masses ignorant...This seems to me what certain parties are doing,just trying to make the quran/their wishes/their philosophies seem superior to other methodologies.....BUT we,THE PEOPLE,will not fall for this... bravo yay sun INCREASE THE PEACE... group
-
Peace all. And thank god for the internet,for all this easy access to information,so we can verify for ourselves... sun yay bravo welcome
-
Peace all. I think it was Micheal foucault,the philosopher,who stated that science/knowledge does not always exist in a vacum,or is not always free from bias...In other words the 'establishments' scientific theories,religious theories,historical accounts,and propogation of 'public knowledge' are sometimes maintained or promoted just to consolidate the power of the elites/establishment/ and keep the status quo/keep the masses ignorant...This seems to me what certain parties are doing,just trying to make the quran/their wishes/their philosophies seem superior to other methodologies.....BUT we,THE PEOPLE,will not fall for this... bravo yay sun INCREASE THE PEACE... group
Peace,
This is funny, as the Quran coincides with all main science that is know now, and all of these scientists don't believe in the Quran, so your comment would have worked if it were muslim scientists....so you THE PEOPLE, need to check first if a comment fits with the argument or not
-
Peace arnoldyasin. If you follow the argument,you will see that this means that SOME established science is embellished/mis-interpreted by the power elites, (be they muslim or not.) and these mis-interpretations are seized upon by people trying to justify the qurans correlation with science...
Also many people of 'islamic' background like to say that much modern science (algebra,medicine etc...) comes from the 'golden' period of islamic civilisation.....You think all those 'islamic' scientists were un-biased,and didint have a vested interest to promote the validity of the quran....?.
When you look at certain history,you can see that some of the mutazilites put reason above the quran,and stated if a verse contradicts reality it must be re-interpreted. (or even 'rejected'....Its just that 'traditional' history either 'obscures',or hides these important events...
You tell me,if the climate is such that a scientist would be ostracised,imprisoned or worse for discovering contradictions/opposition to science in the quran (such as during certain periods in history,when 'extremists' were in power.) do you think that a scientist would say 'hey abdul,i found this verse contradicting science' openly...? Yet what he said can be documented in history... Read tariq alis book 'clash' of fundamentalisms,and other oriental and 'islamic' history to see 'other' versions,maybe more complete than the 'edited','bleached' history we have from normal sources...
Also did you read phoenixs' post about the saudi government misquoting scientists,and mis-using their theories to justify the quran/their power base....That is exactly what foucault was talking about...
By the way,where is the mordern research from MUSLIM scientists Proving their claims ?(or are some muslims believing in this science blindly,just because it seemingly agrees,or can be interpreted to be in line with their book?.)
Im going to put a new thread in about why modern technology is not mentioned in the quran,because the question has gone TOTALLY un-answered in this thread...(even though its claimed to be a book relevant for all time,and supposedly contains scientific facts.)
Peace all. -
Peace,
Of course there is some truth in your statement, but 'main' stream science had to prove a lot of theories, till now they have not been refuted, and a lot of new theories that are still doubted and not accepted by the main stream, but do coincide with the Quran. A lot of scientists are or athiests or christains, and their findings prove a design and thus show there must be a Designer, so the atheists don't like this, but still share their findings even though it goes against their beliefs, the same holds for the Christians, even though their findings also shows a design, it also shows that the Bible's creation story is only a babylonian myth and the years between adam and jesus are not true , so also their findings go against their beliefs and shows their scripture cannot be the exact word of God. The persons who discovered the traces of the big-bang were athiests and knew this would disprove most atheistic claims, they knew it showed a beginning of space, and by thus a sign of creation. One of them even said "If you believe, you could see in this the face of God". So even it went against their own beliefs, they still shared their findings. This is only one example of the thousands i could mention where scientists shared findings that went against their beliefs. Of course not all of them do this. But a lot have done it. And those findings do coincide with the Quran....
So to say that all claims are only made to proof certain statements is certainly not true. As it doesn't serve no real cause or politics. And the Saudi's even promoted a flat earth 30 years ago, so your claim is again not completly true, as they followed the hadiths more. A lot of hadith goes against the Quran and show the ignorance of those times about science, still those hadiths are held as true. So why then did people uphold 'science' hadith that went against the science in the Quran, but using your claim only promoted science that coincided with the Quran? These contradict. If they were really scared of contradicting the Quran by your claim, then they would have treated the hadiths with the same attitude, because they didn't show their ignorance of scientific facts in those times.
Also that is why the claim that the Quran just copied known science of that time cannot be true, as all hadith show their ignorance of scientific truth's that contradict the Quran. If it were real common knowledge or avaible knowledge, then these contradictions and ignorance wouldn't have ended up in the hadith literature. We would have seen the same knowledge ending up in hadith, but we only see the opposite, which directly shows they didn't understood the facts mentioned in the Quran.
Peace
-
Peace arnoldyasin. You make some interesting points.
Some hadith do agree with the quran,especially those on embryology. Not all hadiths contradict the quran by any means...
Im not saying ALL scientists follow the government line,or have vested interests...
But the quran/habith/bible/scriptures/philosophies are DEFINATELY used by some people to hold on to their power and justify their theories/behaviours....And to give it more legitimacy,SOME of them INTERPRET the quran so that it agrees with science,or PICK the science that seemingly agrees with the quran. (or use some of the more 'vague',ambiguous verses.) Im not saying for one minute than there is NO scientific truth in the quran....
Do you think that if a mainstream islamic scholar in saudi stood up and said that the quran was wrong,(or the hadith) that he would be warmly welcomed for his research...?
And ARE there any western non-muslim scholars that think the quran is not scientifically correct? Because if there are, (and you and me know there are many.) then why dont you take note of their theories and explanations as to why the quran is not scientifically correct?
Or are you telling me that a MAJORITY of scientists believe the quran is 100% correct scientifically.....
Peace all. -
Peace,
Yes, we can see this behaviour with the Christain creationists who are trying to prove a young earth or that humankind only excists for 5000 years. As for non-muslim scientists who don't believe contain scientific facts, are not doing that based on it contradicting science, but that they just don't believe that a 1400 year old book can contain that. So they refuse to see a connection between the Quranic explanation and the scientific explanations. So there has not been a real scientists trying to disprove the connection, they just push it away and don't wanna look at it.
As for some hadith coinciding the Quran, the embryology in the Quran is really clear and obvious, so it doesn't surprise me people used the Quranic facts to make up these hadiths. But this argument doesn't hold as all the rest of more then 40 scientific facts in the Quran are not mentioned in the hadiths, or the hadiths even contain ignorant claims on natural phenoma that the Quran doesn't have. So we can clearly see they didn't understand the Quranic facts, and ignored them.
-
Peace arnoldyasin. So not ONE genuine (except mr maurice bucaille,who is now muslim? ) 'non-muslim' scientist has made a proper study on the science in the quran,and all the other non-muslim scientists just ignorantly refuse to believe a 1400 year old book can contain recent scientific theories...?
And even if they did a 'genuine' study,...which 'objective' translation/interpretation would they use, and take to study....? I can see people 'modifying' the interpretations to suit the 'accepted' science...
Dogma/blind faith is indeed a very misleading endeavour...(not referring to you personally arnoldyasin.. .)
peace all. ps;not all scientists believe in the 'big bang',ive seen this theory used to justify the 'truth' of the quran...If the big bang theory is finally disproved,what does this mean for the quran...? Will it be re-interpreted to something else as in the past,or will it be proved wrong...? -
Peace,
No there are a lot of scientists who were confronted with the Quranic verses and were startled by them. Some believed in the Quran, others still don't know what to do with them.
And yes, some verses are twisted to suit a certain meaning, but this is not done with all of the verses. I have checked old translations from before 1920 and they all translate it the same which coincides perfect with the scientific findings.As for the Big-Bang, you will always find some people who neglect something even if all the proof shows otherwise. This is not proof for a claim being false.
-
Salaam Magi
Why do you take so great offence, by this simple persuit of knowledge?.
Anyone else?
On the contrary. I was simply trying to establish what it is that you wish to pursue? If a discussion like this is to have any sensible meaning then clear bondries have to be defined. So I shall try again.
If your point is simply to illustrate that the Quran does not contain all the established scientific facts, the you are correct. There is not the slightest disagreement- THE END.
However if your point is that the Quran is fallible or contradictory because the possible scientific statements contained within are now proven to be incorrect. This is obviousouly a different issue and a serious discussion can take place around this. So if this is your point then surely you have to start dealing is facts and tell us what it is that in yout opinion is inaccurate in the Quran.
Salaam enquirer
And ARE there any western non-muslim scholars that think the quran is not scientifically correct? Because if there are, (and you and me know there are many.) then why dont you take note of their theories and explanations as to why the quran is not scientifically correct?
Or are you telling me that a MAJORITY of scientists believe the quran is 100% correct scientifically
.....You are no doubt correct in your assertion, but as I have previousouly stated so what. Anopinion is an opinion and NOT a fact. If you have facts to show why these scientists think the Quran is wrong then please share them and we can analyse them togather. Otherwise the discussion will just go around in circles (if it is not already doing so)
regards
-
peace
On the contrary. I was simply trying to establish what it is that you wish to pursue? If a discussion like this is to have any sensible meaning then clear bondries have to be defined.
I disagree, this is setting a goal for the debate from the beggining, and as such it is not truthseeking, but answerseeking within ones own comfortzone. Im pursuing knowledge, and truth, thats all. And it may take me where it may take me, even if its away from my comfort zone.
The question still stand. There is nothing in the Quran that wasnt known at its time. ZERO, nothing, null, nada, kein. And upper arabia being a central trade route shows that this knowledge is very likely to have passed here, as there was alot of different influences present. Then it was compiled, in the same way the Bible was, containing the knowledge of all sourrounding ideologies of the time, some invented and then some. And Arnold says that 100% is true, i disagree. Because of lot of that rely on fancyfull interpretation, and if thats the case. then bagha ghita is one long truth statement. But thats how it works isnt it, if you are allowed to fancyfully interpretate anything can become truth of the day. And if its written in a way that needs this kind of interpretration, whenever the actual truith changes (reality) beacause we learn something new verifyable, we just say our understanding was lacking "back then". If tahts the case, then its hardly a universal truth. So Arnold, what wasnt known at the time according to you?
Peace
-
Peace,
I made you a list in this thread. Go refute them one by one....Plus, you cannot explain, that if it was common knowledge in the time of Muhammed, how then the hadith contains zero scientific facts which are true, only the embryologic ones, which are direct copies form the koran and thus don't count. This is impossible if it were common knowledge among the traders.