How is this verse interpreted?

[IsamBitar]

15:26: "And We did certainly create man out of clay from an altered black mud."

Pottery clay (salsal) is made out of Silica and Alumina which combine to form Aluminium silicate, also known as Kaolinite.
Our bodies are made out of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

How could the Quranic verse fit reality here? Or is it metaphorical?

Thanks.

[Ramadhan]

Science 24 October 2003:
Vol. 302 no. 5645 pp. 618-622
DOI: 10.1126/science.1089904

• Report

Experimental Models of Primitive Cellular Compartments: Encapsulation, Growth, and Division

• Martin M. Hanczyc*,
• Shelly M. Fujikawa* and
• Jack W. Szostak†

Abstract

The clay montmorillonite is known to catalyze the polymerization of RNA from activated ribonucleotides. Here we report that montmorillonite accelerates the spontaneous conversion of fatty acid micelles into vesicles. Clay particles often become encapsulated in these vesicles, thus providing a pathway for the prebiotic encapsulation of catalytically active surfaces within membrane vesicles. In addition, RNA adsorbed to clay can be encapsulated within vesicles. Once formed, such vesicles can grow by incorporating fatty acid supplied as micelles and can divide without dilution of their contents by extrusion through small pores. These processes mediate vesicle replication through cycles of growth and division. The formation, growth, and division of the earliest cells may have occurred in response to similar interactions with mineral particles and inputs of material and energy.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5645/618.full

[Ramadhan]

Clay's matchmaking could have sparked life

• 19:00 23 October 2003 by Philip Cohen

Two of the crucial components for the origin of life - genetic material and cell membranes - could have been introduced to one another bya lump of clay, new experiments have shown.

The study of montmorillonite clay, by Martin Hanczyc, Shelly Fujikawa and Jack Szostak at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, revealed it can sharply accelerate the formation of membranous fluid-filled sacs.

These vesicles also grow and undergo a simple form of division, giving them the properties of primitive cells. Previous work has shown that the same simple mineral can help assemble the genetic material RNA from simpler chemicals. "Interestingly, the clay also gets internalised in the vesicles," says Leslie Orgel, an origin of life expert at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in San Diego, California. "So this work is quite nice in that it finds a connection between the mechanism that creates RNA and encloses it in a membrane."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4307

[IsamBitar]

So the Quran didn't actually mean to say humans were created FROM clay, but their creation was assisted using clay. Right?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Ramadhan]

So the Quran didn't actually mean to say humans were created FROM clay, but their creation was assisted using clay. Right?

I am not a scientist and I am not a mufassir, of which you have to have great qualification in both to make a good tafseer of that ayat.

But I have already shown you the refutation of your claim that human couldn't have come out from clay by citing the latest scientific discoveries, something that you seem to have professed as your religion.

[Iconodule]

Pottery clay (salsal) is made out of Silica and Alumina which combine to form Aluminium silicate, also known as Kaolinite.
Our bodies are made out of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

How could the Quranic verse fit reality here? Or is it metaphorical?

Thanks.

It seems to me the verse is talking about one of the most profound moments in creation, and you want to see where it all fits on a periodic table. I think that is completely missing the point. For someone really to understand creation he must understand the real meaning of things. You will not understand the real meaning of things by putting them under a microscope or breaking them down to chemical components. All things come from God and move toward God but the materialist mindset is blind to this and so will only reach superficial understanding which is ultimately misleading.

[Predator]

What is the right interpretation of the below verse ?

To those who reject Our signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of heaven, nor will they enter the garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle: Such is Our reward for those in sin. ” [Quran 7:40]

Very strangely a similar thing is said in the bible by Jesus(PBUH)

For it is easier for a camel to go through the needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.When his disciples heard [it,] they were exceedingly amazed,saying, Who then can be saved? {19:26} But Jesus beheld [them,] and said unto them, With men this is impossible but with God all things are possible” (Luke, 18:25).

[IsamBitar]

But I have already shown you the refutation of your claim

I haven't claimed anything. I just asked for the verse interpretation. Please don't put words into my mouth. The papers you've provided show montmorillonite clay to be a catalyst, not an actual component. My question was clear: how is that verse interpreted? Please answer accordingly or forward the question to someone who could, thanks.

[Ramadhan]

I haven't claimed anything. I just asked for the verse interpretation. Please don't put words into my mouth. The papers you've provided show montmorillonite clay to be a catalyst, not an actual component. My question was clear: how is that verse interpreted? Please answer accordingly or forward the question to someone who could, thanks.

This is what you said:

Pottery clay (salsal) is made out of Silica and Alumina which combine to form Aluminium silicate, also known as Kaolinite.
Our bodies are made out of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

How could the Quranic verse fit reality here? Or is it metaphorical?

I didn't put any words in your mouth.
From your post above, it is clear that you thought the Qur'an verse says human is composed of aluminium silicate. Otherwise you would have not tried to question whether it is metaphorical and according to you it is against your knowledge that human could have come out clay.

Those science articles I have shown you are pretty clear in their arguments that the first genetic materials arose out of clay.

[IsamBitar]

Those science articles I have shown you are pretty clear in their arguments that the first genetic materials arose out of clay.

I quote the article above:

The clay montmorillonite is known to catalyze the polymerization of RNA from activated ribonucleotides.

From the articles also:

The study of montmorillonite clay...revealed it can sharply accelerate the formation of membranous fluid-filled sacs.

Previous work has shown that the same simple mineral can help assemble the genetic material RNA from simpler chemicals.

Again, catalyst behaviour.

My second question, which you refrained from answering, was:

So the Quran didn't actually mean to say humans were created FROM clay, but their creation was assisted using clay. Right?

Citing those two scientific reports cause another question on my mind to arise. These researches are within the science of abiogenesis. Without a theory of abiogenesis, those research results would make no sense (there would be nothing to catalyse and evolve). Does Islam support abiogenesis, then?

[Abz2000]

i believe the word clay is used to refer to the description of modelling from earth,
since it does in other verses use words like tin, sualsual, ard, and turab,
these have diverse meanings - yet are used to describe the creation of man.

The similitude of Jesus before God is that of Adam; he created him from dust (turab) , then said to him: 'be': and he was.
Quran 3:59

yet we know that Jesus (pbuh) was born of woman.

clay argil dust mud earth etc. - so it doesn't necessarily mean a certain type of clay - but mud or soil,
i've lived in Bangladesh and i've seen them make baked mud bricks out of pond and river soil.
if you consider carefully - you will find that every component used to compose man comes from the ground - including water plants, cattle, milk, fruit and flying fowl.

this is not a contradiction.

there was also a site i came across recently which stated that there was a contradiction in the Quran since it said that :

Verily We created man of potter's clay of black mud altered,
And the jinn did We create aforetime of essential fire.
S. 15:26-27 Pickthall; cf. 55:15; 7:12; 38:76

and then:

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them,
and we made EVERY living thing of water? Will they not then believe?
S. 21:30 Pickthall

they believed this to be a contradiction since fire and water are not the same thing, and many people have tried to explain it away by saying that spirits and satan etc were other other worldly so it doesn't count as from earth etc,
however, due to recent scientific findings - we have found that clean smokeless fire is from water.




even the magnetic ELF frequency of the electricity running through our brain matches that of the Earth's electromagnetic field.
it's called schumann resonance.

so we can say that the debunkers and explainers may be limited in knowledge - but Almighty God's wisdom is Infinite.

And God knows best.

[Ramadhan]

I quote the article above:
The clay montmorillonite is known to catalyze the polymerization of RNA from activated ribonucleotides.
From the articles also:
The study of montmorillonite clay...revealed it can sharply accelerate the formation of membranous fluid-filled sacs.
Previous work has shown that the same simple mineral can help assemble the genetic material RNA from simpler chemicals.
Again, catalyst behaviour.

Yes, the clay work catalyst, and do you know how catalysts would work?
They require the raw material to be in contact with the catalyst in a mold.

My second question, which you refrained from answering, was:

I am refraining to answer because I am not a qualified mufassir. But it does seem to me that clay was used as a mould in the verse. B ut don't ask me if it's correct, my arabic is very very limited.

iting those two scientific reports cause another question on my mind to arise. These researches are within the science of abiogenesis. Without a theory of abiogenesis, those research results would make no sense (there would be nothing to catalyse and evolve). Does Islam support abiogenesis, then?

Islam does not support abiogenesis as purported by atheists.
However, muslims believe that Allah SWT created everything out of nothing.
Atheists believe that everything just popped out randomly out of nothingness.

Also, those researches are not within the science of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is just a term invented by atheists in order to say "we don't know what happened"
Those researches only explained the synthesis of rna materials.

[Ramadhan]

so we can say that the debunkers and explainers may be limited in knowledge - but Almighty God's wisdom is Infinite.

Exactly.

Science has always changed, and will always change in the future, and human knowledge will always revise.

What makes todays atheists think that science is able to explain everything? Even with the most advanced science, they always find something new that make old science obsolete.
EXample: the discovery by CERN that neutrons travel faster than light turn physical sciences upside down.

[IsamBitar]

Islam does not support abiogenesis as purported by atheists.

Atheists have nothing to do with this. Scientists do, including those who are religious.

Atheists believe that everything just popped out randomly out of nothingness.

What some atheists believe is irrelevant. But in science, nobody says that anything popped out randomly out of anything.

Also, those researches are not within the science of abiogenesis.

Actually, Dr Jack Szostak (mentioned above) is a pioneer in abiogenesis. In fact, the Nobel Laureate proposed AND CONFIRMED the world's most plausible abiogenesis model. You may look that up if you want.

Abiogenesis is just a term invented by atheists in order to say "we don't know what happened"

No. Abiogenesis is a science. It is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose.


So, now, my third question which pops to mind is: why would you cite researches that were made in a field you wholly deny?


My original question remains unanswered. If you can't answer it, I would love if you could direct someone who has the ability to.


I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just looking for compelling answers. Thanks.

[Abz2000]

it's nice to see you're searching for answers and i hope you are sincere, the Quran tells us that the ones who fear God are the ones endued with understanding.

back to topic;
ive already explained to you that the Quran doesn't mention aluminium silicate,
it uses other terms similar to clay too,

since it does in other verses use words like tin, sualsual, ard, and turab,

soil mud clay earth dust etc.

surely you wouldn't get a banana and say its the same thing as eating soil,
or compare the constitution of the banana and then say it couldn't have come from soil because its different,or that a cat couldn't have come from soil since soil doesn't think or have life
one comes from another but they're not the same.

i've also explained to you how ive seen red bricks baked from pond mud,
the same mud from where human and fish food grows.

here's a group of three verses describing the process in distinct stages which may make it easier to understand;

The One Who has made the earth a bed for you and kept operative roads for you in it and

sent down water from the sky;

so with it We produced different pairs of vegetation.

Eat, and graze your cattle; indeed in this are signs for people of intellect.

From it We have created you,
and to it We shall return you,
and from it We shall extract you again.

Quran 20;53-55

it is clearly describing the earth - from which all living things come,

now creating the first being would be different from those born of woman,
and we are told that he was fashioned and God breathed of His spirit into him thereby giving him life;

When thy Lord said to the angels,
'I am creating a mortal of a clay.
When I have shaped him, and breathed My spirit in him, fall you down, bowing before him!' Then the angels bowed themselves all together, save Iblis; he waxed proud, and was one of the unbelievers. Said He, 'Iblis, what prevented thee to bow thyself before that I created with My own hands? Hast thou waxed proud, or art thou of the lofty ones?'
S. 38:71-75

nowhere does it mention aluminium silicate,
there are many qualities in soil which can be used as clay and food

[Iconodule]

God could make man out of wood or water if he had wanted to. Don't poke at it with a magnifying glass; just remember where you come from, and where you will return, and humble yourself.

[IsamBitar]

Sorry for my late reply; been having internet problems.

it is clearly describing the earth - from which all living things come,

So are you trying to say that the verse is not literal? I mean, that it only describes an origin (that we are all earthlings) rather than describe a chemical composition?

[Abz2000]

i do not have the knowledge to confirm that - and we are learning new things every day so i won't second guess Almighty God
what i am saying is that the Quran alternatively uses "dust" "mud" "clay"
and also uses dust to refer to the creation of Jusus (pbuh) who was conceived in the womb.
so to me - it looks like it is describing the composition AND the description of moulding.

when the Quran says "sualsaalin KA alfakkhar", Quran 55:13
it is saying clay LIKE UNTO pottery

خَلَقَ الْإِنسَانَ مِن صَلْصَالٍ كَالْفَخَّارِ


خَلَقَ - KHALAQ - CREATED
الْإِنسَانَ - AL-INSAN:
AL- (SOMETIMES COMES BEFORE A NOUN) / THE
INSAN - MAN
مِن - MIN - FROM
صَلْصَالٍ - SUALSUAAL - CLAY/ARGIL/ARGILLACEOUS EARTH
كَالْفَخَّارِ - KALFAKKHAR:
KA - LIKE UNTO/LIKE/AS/AS THOUGH/AS IF
AL- (SOMETIMES COMES BEFORE A NOUN) / THE
FAKKHAR - POTTERY/EARTHENWARE/CROCKERY

it definitely looks like it is describing the appearance of fashioning - and not aluminium silicate,
especially since the words mud and dust are alternatively used - but God knows best.
i've already explained to you that clay used for baking doesn't always mean aluminium silicate.
i will again repeat that i have seen perfect red building bricks baked out of pond water.
and fish eat of the herbage that grows from that pond soil.
and we in turn eat that fish - and sometimes the herbs too.

and secondly - the description you were given of pottery is very stretched and narrowed down to achieve kaolinite:

Kaolinite is a clay mineral, part of the group of industrial minerals, with the chemical composition Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄. It is a layered silicate mineral, with one tetrahedral sheet linked through oxygenatoms to oneoctahedral sheet of alumina octahedra. Rocks that are rich in kaolinite are known as kaolin or china clay.

Aluminium silicate (or aluminum silicate) has the chemical formula (AlO)₂SiO₃. It has a density of 2.8 to 2.9 g/cm³, a vitreous lustre, a refractive index of 1.56, a Mohs hardness of 4.5-7.5 (depending upon structure), and can have orthorhombic crystallography. It is insoluble and used as a refractory in glassmaking.

China clay is kaolinised feldspar - they are highly valued for their whiteness, hence their use in bone china.
Pure kaolin is necessary for the manufacture of porcelain and other fine china;

impure varieties are used in making pottery, stoneware, and bricks; as filler for pigments; and in the manufacture of paper.

China clays have poor plasticity so they are often used in conjunction with additives - usually ball clay and bentonite.
As a general rule china clays are quicker to cast than sedimentary clays.

i'm sure you would agree that to narrow down and stretch the word fakkhar (pottery) to uniquely mean kaolinite - takes a little stretch of the imagination.
peace

[Ramadhan]

So are you trying to say that the verse is not literal? I mean, that it only describes an origin (that we are all earthlings) rather than describe a chemical composition?

Why do you keep insisting the verse describing chemical composition?
Even in simple translation it does not suggest that the verse says about chemical composition of human.

You can go and ask the scholars at www.islamqa.com and ask about interpretation of the verse.

[IsamBitar]

Why do you keep insisting the verse describing chemical composition?

Well Muslims have always taken the Quran as a science book therefore what came first to my mind is that the verse is talking about the actual composition. But if you say otherwise, then OK.

Thanks abz2000 that's pretty informative.

[Ramadhan]

Well Muslims have always taken the Quran as a science book therefore what came first to my mind is that the verse is talking about the actual composition. But if you say otherwise, then OK.

Not sure where you get the idea that muslims have taken Qur'an as a science book. I haven't heard any muslim said that, and I am sure I know many many many many more muslims than you do.
And not sure where you get the idea that the verse say anything about composition when it clearly doesn't.

[IsamBitar]

Not sure where you get the idea that muslims have taken Qur'an as a science book.

Well, to be honest. I've seen that many Muslims use the Quran as a reference of science, as many Muslims base their rejection of, for example, evolution, abiogenesis, and many aspects of cosmology and quantum physics, on what they think the Quran goes against.

Also the newest Islamic trend of "the Quran predicts scientific fact X, therefore the Quran is the word of God," which cuts bothways, really. Because if you're going to use the Quran to describe such accurate scientific facts AND infer its authenticity from that, then you're putting the Quran under scientific probation where EVERYTHING in it should be an accurate scientific presentation which would leave little room for metaphors. In which context, verses like the one above would sound weak.

I don't think the Quran should be treated as a science book. I think its place is in philosophy, where metaphors are allowed and where verses like the one above would be poetic rather than wrong.

[Abz2000]

i trust you agree that there is no contradiction in the verse regarding the likeness of pottery, or the fact that all living things are are an extract from the composition of soil - including vegetation.
but the justification for people to use the Quran as evidence of a scientific miracle is also not a contradiction,
since the Quran is not just a book of science but a complete standard for a way of life - which also includes scientific facts just recently discovered.
for instance:

ARE, THEN, those who disbelieve not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity,which We then parted asunder?
– and [that] We made out of water / liquid every living thing?Will they not, then, believe?
AL QURAN 21:30

“AND IT IS We who have built the universe with our power;and indeed, it is We who are steadily expanding it.”
AL QURAN 51:47

these verses are clearly pointing to a scientific observation which we are coming around to in the last century, namely that the universe is expanding.
some have even tried to explain the phenomenon of the outward moving objects with the theory of a big bang, since the law of motion (conservation of momentum) suggests that they would continue to expand and have always done so since a given point in time.
but for an illiterate man in a desert 1400 years ago to come to this conclusion without quite an imagination - or an all knowing force instructing him - is a little far-fetched.
so yes, you can use proven science as a standard for evaluating the authenticity of it - but it's main aim doesn't seem to just be as a text book on science - but a moral code.

and the fact that we are discovering them now is also a part of that miracle:
"We SHALL show them Our signs in the Horizons and within themselves,
until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth.
Is it not sufficient that your Lord is a witness over all things?
Quran, 41:53

it's quite intriguing that it tells us that we will find out some of these signs IN FUTURE, and not something the Prophet (pbuh) is trying to prove as reality in his time.

these videos may help in understanding the concept:



i have put some of my observations here:
http://abz2000.com/power.aspx

[IsamBitar]

ARE, THEN, those who disbelieve not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity,which We then parted asunder?

This is exactly what I mean. If you're going to use this as a prediction of the discovery of the Big Bang, then it has to COMPLETELY describe it with ultimate accuracy. Which this verse fails to do. Here's why: in the Big Bang theory, there was never a separation of the "heavens" and earth. In fact, the earth was formed over nine billion years after the Big Bang. Therefore, this verse is not accurate enough to be used as a reference to the Big Bang, and therefore is not a scientific miracle. I could elaborate on this point in further detail if you wanted to. My point is, the Quran should be used in its place: the religion and philosophy shelf in a home library, nowhere near science books.

[Abz2000]

i don't use it to as a prediction of the discovery of the big bang THEORY - and i have no reason to believe that it is a prediction of a big bang THEORY,
i said that people have observed it to be the case that the universe is indeed expanding (this is proven).
some have used the bing bang theory to rationalise this observation - since if it is expanding - as described in the Quran, then it must be constant, and in order for it to be constant, it must have been one unit at some point of time. the big bang theory does NOT explain the causative factors of how something which is stationary suddenly decides to disintegrate and spread out without any external factor - and why that external factor decided to affect it.
the Quran does.

the Quran does not go into detail as it clearly says they were all one entity and that God caused them to part (that is a reliable explanation since it shows an external force with the ability to decide, has caused it to change it's course, matter cannot do this spontaneously without laws - and for there to be laws - there must be a LawMaker ),

the "heavens" in Islam does not mean paradise as it does in the current bible translations - it means what is not on earth -
that includes the sky, universe, the stars, the planets, the suns, galaxies etc.
so the earth would fall into the equation of being a part of that mass before it was separated,
and the most obvious reason i can think of for mentioning earth is because it is revealed to the people of Earth, regardless of how long afterwards scientists theorize earth may have formed - it was a part of that mass.

all that i have written here is summarized in that one verse, and indeed we can write more.
if the Quran stopped to explain every single aspect of the separation of initial mass - i'm sure entire libraries could be filled, but that isn't the purpose of the Quran, it touches on subjects and opens the way for observation and study. and leaves the one who studies and reflects wondering how it is possible that someone could have just written something so profound and unfathomable 1400 years ago.

And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will be reminded?
Quran 54:17

it doesn't say "we have revealed a voluminous encyclopedia that stretches to the moon which you'll never finish reading in your lifetime so you may as well believe".

190. Verily, in the creation of the heavens and the earth,
and in the alternation of night and day,
- there are indeed Signs for those who posses understanding,-
191. Those who celebrate the praises of Almighty God,
standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides,
and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth,
"Our Lord! not for nothing have You created this!
Glory to You!
Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire.

these types of verses also inspired muslims to entertain a thirst for knowledge and study in all fields rather than just shun them as "irreligious", since the Quran instructed them to reflect.
islam is a "way of life", not a "religion" which is "separate from state".

your comment is like saying: my boss said a new employee would come. why didn't he say what shoes the employee would be wearing and whether the employee likes eating sandwiches at break time, or whether the employee was married etc - you could write an essay on it and it would be irrelevant.

and regarding your jibe on "science", i'm not sure what your understanding of the word "science" is, as to me it means an unbiased study of observations, which includes the possibility of an intelligent creator,
to todays "secular" government approved "scientists", science seems to mean anything that can be used to pretend God doesn't exist - even if our findings exclude fundamental facts relevant to the topic - or our funding goes out the window.
findings and fundings don't have that same relationship in Islam

science is not a separate compartment in Islam, all truth is from one source and is part of life, and if a finding is truth, then it is a part of Islam.
it is not like the kafir method of separating everything and every topic into totally different compartments where one can contradict the other without any raised eyebrows (since it is after all "a separate department").

and we believe the orbits, the essential interaction of the sun, moon earth etc to be a part of intelligent design. not randomness.

The Revelation of the Book is from Allah the Exalted in Power, Full of Wisdom.
We created not the heavens and the earth and all between them but for just ends, and for a Term Appointed:
But those who reject Faith turn away from that whereof they are warned.
Quran 46:2-3

[IsamBitar]

I noticed you seem to have a problem with the word theory.
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. Therefore, a theory is the highest rank a scientific statement could get. Don't underestimate theories. You use them in your everyday life when you use your computer, car, TV, phone, etc.

the Quran does.

Ehh, nope. Quantum theory does, WITH EVIDENCE. The Quran just says stuff without providing any testable or verifiable evidence. You're using the Quran to prove/support/explain science, that's just stupid.

so the earth would fall into the equation of being a part of that mass before it was separated

There was no earth at the time of the "separation." There was no separation to begin with. The Big Bang is an EXPANSION, not an explosion. The Quranic so-called description of the Big Bang is utterly false. If you knew the least thing about cosmology, you'd know that.

but that isn't the purpose of the Quran

Exactly. So, stop using it as a science book.

which includes the possibility of an intelligent creator,

Only if such intelligent creator is the only viable explanation to whatever phenomena is being studied. If all the evidence pointed towards God, scientists would have no choice but to assume his existence. But why is it that 99% of scientists do not put God in the equation? Simple: because it's not needed.

and if a finding is truth, then it is a part of Islam.

Then why is it that most Muslims reject evolution and threaten Muslims who preach evolution with death threats?

part of intelligent design. not randomness.

Is that why the earth faces constant threat from nearby asteroids all the time?
Is that why most of the other planets' orbits are unstable and could change path any time?
Is that why our Milkyway is on a collision course with Andromeda?

Science could explain all these orbits naturally, without the need to invoke an external supernatural designer. This in itself makes such power redundant in explaining those orbits. Sorry, mate.

[Abz2000]

i now see you have no intention of looking at facts - but your aim is to "debunk".
the fact is - that i used "THEORY" in capitals - due to the fact that it is a THEORY, and the Quran doesn't allow us to use it to prove theories - we can make observations and correlating statements, and how sensible theories MAY be possible - but to use a theory as proof would be conjecture.
i also explained the concept of theory here:

some have used the bing bang theory to rationalise this observation - since if it is expanding - as described in the Quran, then it must be constant, and in order for it to be constant, it must have been one unit at some point of time.

then i went on to explain the flaws in the reasoning of the atheists who use it - i do NOT DISREGARD the big bang THEORY as an impossibility - nor as a fact.

i also explained to you why earth is mentioned - regardless of whether it was formed or not - it was a part of that mass - just like the physical composition of human beings are part of earth:

so the earth would fall into the equation of being a part of that mass before it was separated,
and the most obvious reason i can think of for mentioning earth is because it is revealed to the people of Earth, regardless of how long afterwards scientists theorize earth may have formed - it was a part of that mass.

Exactly. So, stop using it as a science book.

who said i'm using it as a science book - i made it clear to you that the Quran makes scientific statements which were NOT observable phenomena until the last century.
it is not a science book - but it justifies real science - talking about SINCERITY.

If all the evidence pointed towards God, scientists would have no choice but to assume his existence.

many do - but many (especially establishment ones) are in total DENIAL of facts STARING THEM IN THE FACE - ...............especially for the past 3 decades...........

evolution is a joke of a theory which can be amply refuted - my fingers would ache from typing,
let's be more simple:
if i called your mom a monkey on the street - i'm sure your dad would threaten me with violence.
or if i saw you on the street and randomly said: your grandpa's an ape - i'm sure you wouldn't be too happy (despite your grandpa being your "forefather").
or if i called you a product of bestiality with apes - i'm sure you would be at least offended - some might go further.

we Muslims feel the same - Adam was our father - Hawa was our mother.

and if i called obama an orangutan - i'm sure you'd call me racist - and some would even get violent
- yet you guys say that black people are the closest to apes - and expect them not to be offended!

so the cognitive dissonance lies with you - i am at peace with opposing it :) - you are not ...................

Is that why the earth faces constant threat from nearby asteroids all the time?

there is nothing random about driving on a motorway and seeing others go past or a narrow road where they come straight at you - the cars have drivers.
you could call them all near misses if you like - but that's you................

Is that why most of the other planets' orbits are unstable and could change path any time?

oh - so you believe in orbits? or do you now admit that it is a fact that you can't deny?
the orbits shred to pieces the atheist interpretation of the big bang theory - as the law of conservation of momentum states that they will CONTINUE to be CONSTANT unless an external force acts upon it.

so if they come outwards from one mass - they will continue to go outwards - not start doing acrobatics in the air and one giving fire and light, one reflection - and one with water and soil and life forms and trees and planes and beings that fly to other planets (/moon).

i'm sur that if you stood up in front of an international audience with a handful of dust in your grip - and tried to claim that there was a probability that when you threw the dust - it would split up and pieces would start orbiting each other for a few billion years, one giving ESSENTIAL light to another - and one would randomly start growing water and species and those species would made shuttles fly off to other particles of dust - and come back without randomness........


they'd laugh you off the podium with guffaws and the presenter would probably apologise to the audience - the probability of it happening is ZERO - unless there was someone with special effects software making it happen on a screen. or an intelligent being giving laws to each thing.


so how is it that these "scientists" think were so dumb as to believe their jokes - and they even insult us by calling us products of bestiality with apes?

God has given the believer more sense and dignity.

[Abz2000]

• Umm Salama said:

His [the Mahdi's] aim is to establish a moral system from which all superstitious faiths have been eliminated. In the same way that students enter Islam, so unbelievers will come to believe.^[20]

When the Mahdi appears,
God will cause such power of vision and hearing to be manifested in believers
that the Mahdi will call to the whole world from where he is,
with no postman involved,
and they will hear and even see him.^[21]

I heard the Messenger of God say: "The Mahdi is of my lineage and family […]".

these events are not random - and the meccan leaders would laugh whenever the Prophet (pbuh) made statements which they could not make sense of - yet he would continue to say them.
i'm sure you can make sense of them now?
who's laugh is more mature?

random selection would mean random events, and random events can only give rise to predictions based on trends - the above narration is not a prediction based on trends - as there was nothing to base it on other than the possibility of knowledge of the unseen revealed to him - it is PROPHECY
- true science would see these events and ask questions, try to make sense of them - or at least acknowledge possibilities - yet is seems that the conflict between findings and fundings - gives way to fundings.

scroll to 6 minutes:

[Dagless]

This is exactly what I mean. If you're going to use this as a prediction of the discovery of the Big Bang, then it has to COMPLETELY describe it with ultimate accuracy. Which this verse fails to do. Here's why: in the Big Bang theory, there was never a separation of the "heavens" and earth. In fact, the earth was formed over nine billion years after the Big Bang. Therefore, this verse is not accurate enough to be used as a reference to the Big Bang, and therefore is not a scientific miracle. I could elaborate on this point in further detail if you wanted to. My point is, the Quran should be used in its place: the religion and philosophy shelf in a home library, nowhere near science books.

Before spending time chasing straw men, you should read a commentary of the Qur'an so you understand what the words mean and the context they are used in. From what you've written above it's clear you haven't done this.

Nobody here is using the Qur'an as a science textbook. It does, however, mention scientific concepts in passing. It does this time and time again without being against proven science (unlike many other religious books in which there are clear contradictions with science facts).

In your initial question about the mud you are trying to compare composition, but if you don't know the initial composition of the "altered black mud" how can you hope to compare it?

[IsamBitar]

i now see you have no intention of looking at facts - but your aim is to "debunk".

You're wrong. I'm looking for answers, but I want proper answers. Answers to satisfy me, not things that are just not enough.

many do - but many (especially establishment ones) are in total DENIAL of facts STARING THEM IN THE FACE - ...............especially for the past 3 decades...........

Right, so you're trying to say that scientists of this level are stupid enough to just deny something supposedly as important as that just because they feel like it? Such respect for the ones who invented the very forum you're using.. No. Scientists who see God as true they acknowledge it. Look at Kenneth R. Miller for an example. Same goes for people like Francisco Ayala. But even those people, they believe in God as a higher entity but they never EVER say that science points towards that god or that all evidence points towards it. This is your own unverified claim. And no, scientists are not in a worldwide global conspiracy to kick god out of people's lives. That's just your imagination.

yet you guys say that black people are the closest to apes

Where do you get your science from?! Nobody ever says that. Have you ever actually read a book about evolution? Do you even know what it talks about? Go to Facebook and go to /libraryofevolution you'll find plenty of information you seem to lack. Refute that if you can.

you could call them all near misses if you like

• A Chinese record states that 10,000 people were killed in Shanxi Province in 1490 by a hail of "falling stones."
• Kamil Crater, discovered from Google Earth image review in Egypt, 45 meters in diameter, 10 meters deep is thought to have been formed less than 3,500 years ago in a then-unpopulated region of Western Egypt.
• On October 7, 2008, a meteroid labeled 2008 TC3 was tracked for 20 hours as it approached Earth and as it fell through the atmosphere and impacted in Sudan.
• On November 21, 2009, a fireball was sighted in South Africa by police and traffic cameras. The probable meteor may have landed in a remote area on the Botswana border, and likely made little impact.
• On September 15, 2007, a chondritic meteor crashed near the village of Carancas in southeastern Peru near Lake Titicaca, leaving a water-filled hole and spewing gases across the surrounding area. Many residents became ill, apparently from the noxious gases shortly after the impact.
• The most significant recorded impact in recent times was the Tunguska event, which occurred in Siberia, Russia, in 1908. This incident involved an explosion that was probably caused by the airburst of an asteroid or comet 5 to 10 km (3.1 to 6.2 mi) above the Earth's surface, felling an estimated 80 million trees over 2,150 km² (830 sq mi).

I don't call those near-missed. I call them near-fatal hits. And those are just very few of many. I could go on forever with the list.

as the law of conservation of momentum states that they will CONTINUE to be CONSTANT unless an external force acts upon it.

Ah, no. This argument is a whole load of crap.
In Quantum Physics, conservation laws are not 100% true all the time. They are merely usual statistical outcomes. Things are constantly popping in and out of existence. It is the fact that the popping in and out generally cancel out. That causes conservation of matter-energy to generally apply. If the conservation laws of matter-energy are open to change it is entirely possible that angular momentum might do strange things without the need for God's hand as an explanation.
The most likely explanation however is one should be known to anyone who seriously studies Astro-physics, I doubt you do. Random (Brownian) motion given time leads to united spin orbits.The mechanics of this is well known and is a major part of the cause of planets spinning and planets orbiting stars in like directions.

i'm sur that if you stood up in front of an international audience with a handful of dust in your grip

This is the fattest Straw Man I have ever seen in my life. It's not even worth replying to.

[IsamBitar]

In your initial question about the mud you are trying to compare composition, but if you don't know the initial composition of the "altered black mud" how can you hope to compare it?

So what you're basically saying is that this mud which the Quran talks about is not the same as what we observe today? Like some kind of magical mud? OK then that answers my question.. Thanks.

[Dagless]

So what you're basically saying is that this mud which the Quran talks about is not the same as what we observe today? Like some kind of magical mud? OK then that answers my question.. Thanks.

I'm saying I don't know what type of mud it was. Since even the mud on earth has a different composition depending on location; your quest to find out the exact components of the mud used was obviously leading nowhere. Maybe you can write it down to ask God later?