Eve ? Who is that girl ?
-
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.
I am sorry. I was not aware that you were using the word science to mean both "falsifiable evidence based methodology of discerning fact from fiction" and "unfalsifiable faith based methodology of rationalizing a belief".......2. You are wrong again about science. Science is a methodology, it isn't for or against atheism or religion. And please don't make it sound like I asked you to leave science out of it because you aren't an atheist. I explained well why you shouldn't bring science into the picture. The scientific method demands that you come up with falsifiable hypothesis which you then test and gather evidence. It does not rely on fuzzy feelings and faith. The scientific method will not allow you to make special pleading or argument from ignorance or argument from authority fallacies.
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.
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.
Religion is faith based and science is the opposite of that
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.
Genesis is ridiculed for it's absurdities. More so because of the creationist believers who promotes such fables as truth. If you are publicly promoting an idea/teaching that runs contrary to all reason and evidence, why do you think people won't laugh at it?
It may be that the people ridiculing and laughing do not understand their own presuppositions, axioms, or their lack of a coherent epistemology.
-
shalom aleika student of allah
thank you for your advices about how i should use my quran.
in turn, if you permit, il will give you mines.there is two kind of sciences. Matter science (physics, astronomy, biology ...) and spiritual science (main subject of quran).
Both are from God. Both are called ayats in quran.when we study quran, there are scholars with beards and turban who says
"get away from here, this field is for us the believers oulemas of religion , you havent to think here"when i try to understand science (of matter) who comes from my God, there is scholars white whithes blouses who says
"get away from here, this field is for us the atheist oulemas of science, you havent to think here"my advice for you, student of allah, is not to believe All kinds of scholars and even who have white blouses.
All major discoveries in the matter science have been made by believers. Atheits found quite nothing. All is bluff and atheits propaganda.
Gallile, copernics and son on were believers who fightedbeliefs of stupid religious scholars.hypocrisie of atheits, thieves of science of matter in the same way as imams and priests stole religious science, is such that in each book they write to expose what believers found, they begin bu exposing genesis as ridiculous belief.
But , in fact, they just ridiculize what beards and turbans scientits says.When i come and try to say something like "who is eve ?, i haven't such a girl in my quran"
Both earthdom and student of Allah comes and says
"get away from here..., and so on..."my response is clear
as a believer, scientific ayats are from my god as are quranic ayats. I can mix them as i want to try understand the two sciences. Matter ayats are the only ayats i can mix with quranic ayats without committing shirk since they are also from my god.
It is the only shirk allowed for me.so dear student of Allah, as i will not follow your advices, i can understand that you will not follow mines.
Peace
You don't stand a chance against him! But at least you had a go!
-
I am going to be blunt Much of the talk about science thsi and that looks to me like mental masturbation.
It is not a question of putting science into Qur'an or out of it. It is a question that if the qur'an says something that we do not understand and speculate we are not closing the questi?n bur rather leaving it open for whatever time we can look at it with the further knowledge of fats added in our life or in the life of generations and make head and tails of what it says.
there is nothing wrong with speculating, it is what an honest person does when he or she acknowledges that she does not know enough to say about the matter something of which she is sure. Ptolemy was completely wrong with astronomy on some counts, important counts, but nobody speculated on the wrong counts because they were taken as proven things. same with eugenesic and frenology and so many false sciences along the way. We, quranic speculators are nto deluded by "sure" science into asserting something we are not sure of, but it is not acceptable either that other speculators come to teach us lessons of what science should be.
Recently I saw that the Qur'an calls mountains "pegs" "awtad", well to say that that matches to the dot the phenomenon denominated Isostasy in geology is not speculating, unless one pretends that the Qur'an be a proliferation of unknown terms to people during many generations. The thing is that the picture of a mountain out of the ground level an into de ground level matches what a peg does. ?Is that science? No that is plain knowledge of what mountains are inside and out of the ground.
So the Qur'an is truthful with whatever words of ways of expression it uses, it is truthful, if it says something is this or like this or that, then it states the truth. It may happen, it does happen that with lack of knowledge people may not know what it wants to say, but that is the people's problem, not the Qur'an's problem.
So speculating with the Qur'an to pursue knowledge is quite legitimate, and speculate is what scientists do to get new knowledge, or what they at a given time consider knowledge or certain knowledge.Only scientists call their speculations with names and they also keep those names or get new ones when they consider their speculations proven. The Qur'an does not do that and calls things by the words that are already coined at the time, because it is not doing science for us, but simply speaking about facts, and calls them as they may be best described with the existent vocabulary.
Salaam
Salaam .
-
I am going to be blunt Much of the talk about science thsi and that looks to me like mental masturbation.
It is not a question of putting science into Qur'an or out of it. It is a question that if the qur'an says something that we do not understand and speculate we are not closing the questi?n bur rather leaving it open for whatever time we can look at it with the further knowledge of fats added in our life or in the life of generations and make head and tails of what it says.
there is nothing wrong with speculating, it is what an honest person does when he or she acknowledges that she does not know enough to say about the matter something of which she is sure. Ptolemy was completely wrong with astronomy on some counts, important counts, but nobody speculated on the wrong counts because they were taken as proven things. same with eugenesic and frenology and so many false sciences along the way. We, quranic speculators are nto deluded by "sure" science into asserting something we are not sure of, but it is not acceptable either that other speculators come to teach us lessons of what science should be.
Recently I saw that the Qur'an calls mountains "pegs" "awtad", well to say that that matches to the dot the phenomenon denominated Isostasy in geology is not speculating, unless one pretends that the Qur'an be a proliferation of unknown terms to people during many generations. The thing is that the picture of a mountain out of the ground level an into de ground level matches what a peg does. ?Is that science? No that is plain knowledge of what mountains are inside and out of the ground.
So the Qur'an is truthful with whatever words of ways of expression it uses, it is truthful, if it says something is this or like this or that, then it states the truth. It may happen, it does happen that with lack of knowledge people may not know what it wants to say, but that is the people's problem, not the Qur'an's problem.
So speculating with the Qur'an to pursue knowledge is quite legitimate, and speculate is what scientists do to get new knowledge, or what they at a given time consider knowledge or certain knowledge.Only scientists call their speculations with names and they also keep those names or get new ones when they consider their speculations proven. The Qur'an does not do that and calls things by the words that are already coined at the time, because it is not doing science for us, but simply speaking about facts, and calls them as they may be best described with the existent vocabulary.
Salaam
Salaam .
there is nothing wrong with speculating, it is what an honest person does when he or she acknowledges that she does not know enough to say about the matter something of which she is sure
Ha ha ha ha . . . I laughed really hard at the sheer stupidity and the absurdity of this sentence. It is the rather the opposite of what "honesty" is about. If you do not know something, you learn more about it, acknowledge you do not know and acknowledge that you are only "speculating" if you do "speculate" at all. And if you do not know something . . . you can NEVER be "sure" about it and therein lies the absurdity of the above sentence.
same with eugenesic
I think you meant "eugenics" and that really is not a false science as such - like Homeopathy.
Also
frenology
Phrenology.
We, quranic speculators are nto deluded by "sure" science into asserting something we are not sure of, but it is not acceptable either that other speculators come to teach us lessons of what science should be.
Science based on the "scientific method" is not speculation!
Recently I saw that the Qur'an calls mountains "pegs" "awtad", well to say that that matches to the dot the phenomenon denominated Isostasy in geology is not speculating
Yes it is. Speculate "To form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence."
As you have no evidence what Quran means when it says mountains are pegs - then what you are doing above is speculating.
The thing is that the picture of a mountain out of the ground level an into de ground level matches what a peg does. ?Is that science? No that is plain knowledge of what mountains are inside and out of the ground.
A peg hold something firm . . . and science says mountains do not hold earth firm.
So the Qur'an is truthful with whatever words of ways of expression it uses, it is truthful, if it says something is this or like this or that, then it states the truth. It may happen, it does happen that with lack of knowledge people may not know what it wants to say, but that is the people's problem, not the Qur'an's problem.
Argument from authority.
So speculating with the Qur'an to pursue knowledge is quite legitimate, and speculate is what scientists do to get new knowledge
Scientists do speculate - however this speculation is not really knowledge . . . as all speculation have to conform to the scientific method - that is " be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning".
What you are saying is - Quran is correct and everything has to conform to it - if it does then it is right else . . . it is wrong. So your standard of measurement is different.
Only scientists call their speculations with names and they also keep those names or get new ones when they consider their speculations proven.
You are confusing issues . . .
The Qur'an does not do that and calls things by the words that are already coined at the time, because it is not doing science for us, but simply speaking about facts, and calls them as they may be best described with the existent vocabulary.
Here is the extent of "creative re-interpretation" . . . if the words used by Quran have enough flexibility in their established meanings that one can re-interpret something then that is fine . . . if not and you "invent" new meanings then that is "lying".
-
-
Thanks, Chimp, I always welcome good laugh. You are so comic.
I did not read it all. But just the few first lines of your message made my day.
Keep it up, boy.
Salaam
Sure . . . but the only problem for you is stunts like this are well recognized admission of "defeat". You couldn't answer back . . . hence the attempt at humour.
See - I got you . . .
Well . . . it ain't the first time and you're not the 1st person either. Your brethren fall the same way.
-
You vs. them - ain't that a classic?
God speed
-
salaam Student Of Allah
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.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.we are here in a thread talking about eve. You are talking abot scientific methodology.
Capacity of science "philosophers" to get out the subject and preach their creed is incredible.Really dear student of Allah, if someone is at the wrong place, it is not me.
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.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.Shalom Aleikhem,
I think it will serve you better if you stick to the idea that Qur'an is your book for guidance/wisdom whatever and not try and bring science into the picture. Qur'an is religious text which makes numerous claims that are not falsifiable along with claims of various supernatural things. So it is better to avoid science unless you are willing to be honest and not pick and choose parts of the document one is allowed to apply the scientific method for validation.
Peace
---------------- Student of Allahto 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" proofsif 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.Peace.
-
Peace noshirk,
Do not bother about such opposition. Science can be easily integrated into spirituality as it all roots to God.
God bless you
-
I have a scientific backround (with diplomas) and i know very well the discourse you are holding.
I do not think you do.
it doens't impress me. It is what we can call science philosophy and not science. it leads to discussions with no end.
I don't agree with him at all. But his discourse - of what I have read - does impress me. Probably, because you are too afraid to admit . . . his scientific knowledge is more than yours. Hence the line above - when you said you have science background - I think that was for effect.
You have to give reason WHY you are dismissing him and the merit is in the argument - it is such dismissals that are not impressive. Anyone can do those. The merit is in taking his arguments and refuting them.
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.
What an ignorant baloney. He was great philosopher of science . . . and the "scientific method" is corner stone of modern empirical science. See this is why your earlier claim about having "science" background sounded so false. No person with genuine "science background" would write that.
i will then pray Allah to guide there the chimp and earthdom. they also seems not interested by Eve subject.
You people are quite nasty! On one hand you rant about "tension" and the cause it! Look . . .
If after 578 posts just on this forum - you have not even learnt that discussion have habit of going in all sort of different direction...
-
-
Peace.
-
If there is a thread and the thread is joined by the chimp, the thread always turns into circus with chimpanzees.
-
salaam Allah
let's forget a little the lost "advanced truth seeker" earthdom who seeks in what he call lies, let's forgot the doctoring and great teacher who claim to be just a student of Allah, and let's forgot the power of the arguments of the chimp.
The fact is that there is absolutely no EVE in Quran.
197 ?O Zachariah, We give you glad tidings of a son whose name is Yahia. We have not given that name before to anyone.?
In arabic, Eve is called HAWAA and derivate from same root that Yahia. (a root that mean alive).
19-7 can also be undersood that that root was never used before Yahia and then, cannot be used for Eve (it is more obvious in arabic version of 19-7).Second remark is about the forbidden tree.
is it a real tree or an allegoric tree ?in 14-24 to 14-26, good words are opposed to bad words in a tree allegory.
in these verses
3762 Is that a better destination, or the tree of Zaqqoum/Bitterness?
4443 Surely, the tree of Zaqqoum/Bitterness,
5652 ?Will eat from the tree of Zaqqom/Bitterness,?description of fruits of this tree is like this
3764 It is a tree that grows in the midst of Hell.
3765 Its shoots are like the devils? heads.and we know that devils produce only lies about Allah. That is their only mission.
The forbidden tree is then probably the tree of lies. The tree from wich eat the so called scholars.
Then, it is possible to undestand the "fault" of adam and his "zawj" (associated jinn or imagination) as a trial to become ? rabb (a scholar who teachs his own teachnings) in the middle of the "humanoids" people he was sent to.
20121 So they both ate from it, and their saw'aat/bodies became apparent to them, and they began to place leaves on themselves from the Jenna/paradise. Adam had disobeyed his Lord, and had gone astray.
there also an allegoric understanding here. Leaves can be understood as "thelogical arguments" badly used. It is what "scholars" do nowadays and in all the history. They use true teaching to justify their bad teachnings.
726 O Children of Adam, We have sent down for you garments to alleviate your saw'aat/bodies, and feathers; and the garment of righteousness is the best. That is from the signs of God, perhaps they will remember.
this shows the "allegoric" meaning of "saw'aat" and the garment of righteousness.
my conclusion is then that adam was not probably the first human but the first human who received "deen"and spirituel teachings from the true Rabb.
Adam preached in the middle of his people. He committed the "shirk" fault by mixing own teachings with teachings of his rabb. He was punished and the people with him for that.i have then absolutely no problem to believe in Australopithecus and all derivates until the neandertalians as pre-adamic forms of humans.
Adam is just the beginning of deenThere is so much to say about this subject. Science leads us to update some olds beliefs and, by miracle, it is still allowed by quran.
I am affraid however that it is not possible in this forum because of some "intruders" and pollutors.
The level 0 of believer science is to consider universe as a "work" of God.
Every time a believer wish to go up to higher stages, intruders and pollutors call him to level 0.
There is no way to visit higher floors with such people in the elevator.4153 We will show them Our signs in the horizons, and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is witness over all things?
All science is from GOD.
All science is teachings from GOD.
All science have a spiritual aim. Only the siritual aim to teach that God is truth. Science of Matter don't exists for herself as a gadget for reason.
This is level 0 i wish some believers definitively surpass.Peace
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
This is a science thread, amirite? hmm Then this is a place to discuss scientific theory.
We are talking about the wife/mate of Adam (Peace upon ALL Prophets and Messengers), commonly known as Eve? It is true that Eve is not mentioned in AQ by name--maybe her name is unimportant to the Deen.
Does anybody believe that the Eve being discussed is the MRCA?
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
This is a science thread, amirite? hmm Then this is a place to discuss scientific theory.
We are talking about the wife/mate of Adam (Peace upon ALL Prophets and Messengers), commonly known as Eve? It is true that Eve is not mentioned in AQ by name--maybe her name is unimportant to the Deen.
Does anybody believe that the Eve being discussed is the MRCA?
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
Thank you abdul hadi to recenter debate
if there is one mitochondrial eve then it would mean probably that Adam had only one wife he choose in the population of that "eva".
here http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language
it is spoken about the probability that there is one mutation and only one that make articulated language appears. it would be around 100 000 years ago. Same conclusion seems to have been reached based on theory of lowering the larynx mutation.it would not be the only "mutation" that spreaded into an entire population.
There also is a scientific enigma about why "intermediary" species between apes and humans disappeared. If they were more "evoluted" than apes, then ...to resume, something "very exceptionnal" seem to have happened 100 000 (200 000) years ago.
the birth of our specie.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically-modern_humansso probably, adam lived 100 000 to 200 000 years ago.
it seems that all that happened around ethiopia, not far from yemen. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omo_remainsPeace
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
It also makes sense that the story/hadith about the rib is not in AQ. It seems likely that Adam (Peace upon ALL Prophets and all Messengers) was the first of Homo sapiens and that his mate was a pre-existing species/subspecies. If Eve came from Adam, this would not be possible--she would be H. sapiens just like Adam.
233 states that Adam informed the angels of the names/nature of things...this indicates that he can talk/communicate.
http//www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/science/gains-in-dna-are-speeding-research-into-human-origins.html?_r=0
Mitochondrial DNA is also used to discover things about more modern ancestry.
http//www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37821/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi