Some Scientist's comments on the Quran.

[Protected_Diamond]

:sl:

This is the Book (the Qur'ân), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqûn [the pious and righteous persons who fear Allâh much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allâh much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)]. 2:2

Scientists' Comments On The Qur'an

Extracts from the video This is the Truth by Sheikh Abdul-Majeed A. al-Zindani, Director, Project of Scientific Miracles in the Qur'an and Hadith, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...cientists.html

:w:

[Skillganon]

assalamu alaikum

Thank's sis . Guy's check this out

[wilberhum]

As I remember, Keith L. Moore & E. Marshall Johnson were paid by the Saudi government to find scientific colorations with the Quran. I don’t know about the rest of the men listed.

I always see people showing that known scientific facts can be found in the Quran.

My questions are:
Has anyone ever used the Quran to find a new scientific fact?
Or is it a case that you need to know the answer before you can find a reference?

[Umar001]

As I remember, Keith L. Moore & E. Marshall Johnson were paid by the Saudi government to find scientific colorations with the Quran.

Jus wondering if theres a source for that bro please.

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

[wilberhum]

Hay IsaAbdullah, did you read the article?
Quote Keith L. Moore "For the past three years, I have worked with the Embryology Committee of King cAbdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, helping them to interpret the many statements in the Qur'an and Sunnah referring to human reproduction and prenatal development.”

No “Search Button” on your computer?

This is not the only time I have read about Moore.

By the way, got any answers to my questions?

[root]

And why did he not convert to Islam?

[Umar001]

Hay IsaAbdullah, did you read the article?
Quote Keith L. Moore "For the past three years, I have worked with the Embryology Committee of King cAbdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, helping them to interpret the many statements in the Qur'an and Sunnah referring to human reproduction and prenatal development.”

No “Search Button” on your computer?

This is not the only time I have read about Moore.

By the way, got any answers to my questions?

I sure darn havent,im not much of a learned person on islamic science as such, but i think isaw some people in here talkin with regards to muslim knowing knowledge before it became wide spread.

Cant help you much in that section.

[afriend]

My questions are:
Has anyone ever used the Quran to find a new scientific fact?
Or is it a case that you need to know the answer before you can find a reference?

Well, a few 100 years ago, many of the facts would have been 'new' :p

[root]

Well, a few 100 years ago, many of the facts would have been 'new'

This is the con. If yiou think about it:

Science makes a discovery, then the Koran and the thousands of hadiths are systematically scanned for any relavence. Depending upon the interpretation, some text may be seen as supporting the discovery and hey presto. A scientific miracle is claimed or advanced scientific knowledged was already known.

Problem is it works for the bible, Nostra Darmus and a whole host of other religions.........

Fact still remains it was not known 100 years ago.

[Umar001]

Problem is it works for the bible

Does it?

[iLL_LeaT]

There are problems with tying to prove anything. You need to always question who funded the research, and if the research concludes to something the sponsor would benefit from, one should always be skeptical. A researcher may also unknowingly conduct bias test to prove what he or she thinks is true. So it is very hard to “prove” anything.

I think the best way to prove something like this would be if a non-Muslim scientist sought out to research the science of the Qur’an and in turn converted to Islam.

Or if a Muslim scientist sought out to research the science of the Qur’an and in turn defected away from Islam.

I have yet to find such a research article. But I have read both sides of the argument, “it the science of the Qur’an factual?” Both are very convincing.

Let’s just say the science is wrong or could have already been known. I don’t think that should detour anyone from Islam.

The book of Genesis offers a simple explanation of how the became to be. This story has been proven wrong by modern science. However, do you think God could have possibly explained such a complicated thing to a simple minded person? Even if he tried, there is no way anyone could possibly comprehend even a little of how the world came into existents, in that time era anyway (possibly even now). If God himself told him how the world came to be, when trying to record how it all happened, it would probably come out something like the book of Genesis.

Muhammad may have too lacked the capability to comprehend such things. That does not make him any less of a prophet.

And this is only assuming that the Qur’an’s sciences are wrong.

If it is wrong, it shouldn’t shake anyone’s faith.

[Hussein radi]

how come i never heard of "scientist and mirracles of the bible"?

[Looking4Peace]

The bible and science completely clashes, this is why many christians eventually go athiest and why muslims do not have this problem, one can belive in everything the Quran says and still be scientific for the most part..

[Protected_Diamond]

:sl:

----

May Allah s.w.a help them to see the truth insha' Allah!

:w:

[Hussein radi]

I mean thier are so many mirracles of the Quran that they are showing them on movies. Its impossible for any creature to pass time, only god can. But scientist all over the world always fined mirracles about the quran in, science, math, future and more. surprisingly some people still say (Its not convincing). However, i have never seen any scientist fined anything wrong with the quran and i promise you i will never experience such a thing. Obviously, "IF" the quran was written by men thier would of been so many mistakes. Humans make mistakes and the human mind is limited to somethings. For example, prophet Muhammed (PBUH) said that in the future people would be able to here thier own voices. My main point is and its all my opinion, its impossible for any one to write the quran. Becuase if the Quran was written or added by men ideas(NOT!) , then i can asure you people would of found many mistakes. God said it him self that he will protect the Quran from man ideas.

Why is it that the three top religions in the world are from God. Allah(SAW) is perfect! MEN ARE NOT.

[iLL_LeaT]

scientist all over the world always fined mirracles about the quran in, science, math, future and more.

Can you list one scientist who has supported the Quran’s science as not only remarkable, but also 100% true?

If so, tell me.

Note: For it to be non-bias, he/she should not be Islamic or anti-Islamic. Nor should the research be funded by an Islamic or anti-Islamic organization.

I have read many articles from both sides.

People who are Islamic or are funded by Islamic organizations tend to say that the Quran is 100% right, and that there was no way in hell that Mohammed could have know such things.

People who are anti-Islamic seem to arguer that Mohammed very well could have know about the sciences in the Quran. Moreover, say that most claims are, in fact, not 100% right.

The question is, since we are not scientists, who do we believe?

Most would just pick the one that supports what they personally believe. However, one’s beliefs could be wrong.

What is needed, is a scientist who does not care one way or the other to come up with some kind of analysis of the Quran. Unfortunately, everyone seems to have an opinion about Islam, making every attempt to do that tainted with the possibility of them trying to prove what they personally believe to be true.

[Hussein radi]

The issue is this, everytimes a prophet of god teachings is corrupted god sends down another prophet. Now clearly the bible is corrupted and it is Obviously to suggest that god will send down another prophet to guid men kind with Allah(SW) teachings. And it is the same teaching that Allah(SAW) has send downed over and over ever since it started with Abraheem(PBUH).

Now is islam corrupted? no

will it ever be corrupted? Never. God said it wont and so far it hasnt

Is islam the final message? yes.

so isn't it obvious to conclude that islam is the true message of god.

What is it that makes Prophet Muhammed(SAW) so different from all the other prophets?

[Hussein radi]

Also god him self challenged anyone to write a book that is better then the Quran. Has anyone beated Allah(SAW) challenge NO!. Allah(SAW) is all knowing, i mean he created knowledge.

[Hussein radi]

look at all these evidence. Why are they not convincing?

Video
http://www.harunyahya.com/download/d...d.php?id=19959

Websites
http://www.geocities.com/islamicmiracles/index.htm

http://www.-----------------------/

http://www.muhammedhasenoglu.com/miracles_quran.htm

[root]

I found a far greater number of scientific comments in support of The Church Of The Flying Sphagetti Monster:

"As a scientist, I'd like to say that the currently accepted scientific theory is evolution. But, some competing ideas have been proposed, such as ID and FSMism, and discussion to include one should include the other, as these ideas are equally valid."
-- Mark Zurbuchen, Ph.D.

"As a medical practitioner and scientist, I wholeheartedly believe that every theory and hypothesis needs full consideration and explanation with formal ratification by peer review. We have a duty to inform our schools and presumably pasta should form a staple part of our educational diet."
-- Dr. A. Macintyre (UK)

"Letting the religious right teach ID in schools is like letting the Marines teach poetry in advanced combat training. As a scientist, I see these the relevancy between the two sets to be equal. If Kansas is going to mess up like this, the least it can do is not be hypocritical and allow equal time for other alternative "theories" like FSMism, which is by far the tastier choice."
-- J. Simon, PhD

"One of the hardest things to do as a scientist is to put my personal beliefs aside when discussing matters of science. So as a professional, I have to say that both forms of Intelligent Design - ID and ID-FSM are equally valid and if intelligent design is taught in schools, equal time should be given to the FSM theory and the non-FSM theory. But, speaking personally now, it seems to me the FSM theory is MUCH more plausable than the non-FSM ID theory, because it is the only one of the two that takes into account all the discrepancies between ID and measureable objective reality."
-- Professor Douglas Shaw, Ph.D

More scientific endorsements can be found here:
http://www.venganza.org/endorsements.htm

So, how many scientists today endorse Islam?

[iLL_LeaT]

I personally don’t see how scientists supporting the fact that Intelligent Design is a possibility, could either hurt or support Islam.

I have heard this quote before.

"As a scientist, I'd like to say that the currently accepted scientific theory is evolution. But, some competing ideas have been proposed, such as ID and FSMism, and discussion to include one should include the other, as these ideas are equally valid."
-- Mark Zurbuchen, Ph.D.

I really like it. It shows that even some scientists see various sciences as only a theory.

“I'd like to say that the currently accepted scientific theory is evolution.” the key words are “currently accepted.”

A lot of people (mostly atheists) use science to support there faith. However, science changes, it’s always changing. To base faith on what is currently believed to be true, seem a little ridicules to me. Since it is always changing, some day the “currently accepted scientific theory” will be completely different.

To get back on point, could you tell me how Intelligent Design either hurts or supports Islam?

Thank you and Peace

[root]

I personally don’t see how scientists supporting the fact that Intelligent Design is a possibility, could either hurt or support Islam.

It would probably support Islam and all faiths, however science is very clear that the scientific data does not support ID's position.

I have heard this quote before.

"As a scientist, I'd like to say that the currently accepted scientific theory is evolution. But, some competing ideas have been proposed, such as ID and FSMism, and discussion to include one should include the other, as these ideas are equally valid."
-- Mark Zurbuchen, Ph.D.

I really like it. It shows that even some scientists see various sciences as only a theory.

Perhaps you are best advised to absorb the information you are feeding your brain before responding, and then thinking clearly about what your response is? Perhaps you should go see the alternative ID theory before you make anymore posts.

http://www.venganza.org/

“I'd like to say that the currently accepted scientific theory is evolution.” the key words are “currently accepted.”

Yes and this applies equally to the currently accepted scientific theory of general relativity.

A lot of people (mostly atheists) use science to support there faith.

If I have faith, which God(s) do I follow as an atheist?

However, science changes, it’s always changing. To base faith on what is currently believed to be true, seem a little ridicules to me. Since it is always changing, some day the “currently accepted scientific theory” will be completely different.

Well, you display a remarkable lack of scientific understanding that I am very much surprised you are Agnostic.

Thank you and Peace

[iLL_LeaT]

It would probably support Islam and all faiths, however science is very clear that the scientific data does not support ID's position.

You just posted quotes from scientists supporting that alternative theories should be taught. So I’m confused on your point.

Moreover, show me that it is “clear that the scientific data does not support ID's position.”

Your statement is ridiculous. For science to NOT support Intelligent Design, there should be evidence that contradicts ID’s claim. I would like to see these contradictions.

For someone that knows so much about science, you are sure making some dumb claims.

Perhaps you are best advised to absorb the information you are feeding your brain before responding, and then thinking clearly about what your response is? Perhaps you should go see the alternative ID theory before you make anymore posts.

http://www.venganza.org/

Obviously you seem to think I’m supporting the Intelligent Design claims. Frankly, most seem of these theories, well, sound stupid.

However, I’m guessing that you are a STRONG evolutionary believer, and that is why you were so offended by my last post.

All of this claiming science changes, must have made you made. If science does change, then the theory of evolution could then change. In turn, making what you believe to be 100% fact, less factual. “…the currently accepted scientific theory is evolution.” Currently accepted!

Sorry I offended you.

Yes and this applies equally to the currently accepted scientific theory of general relativity.

Are you arguing with me on this point?

It doesn’t sound like it

If I have faith, which God(s) do I follow as an atheist?

Faith is a strong belief in something without proof or evidence.

An atheist believes there is no God, with no proof or evidence. That is faith.

This is an English forum, right?

Well, you display a remarkable lack of scientific understanding that I am very much surprised you are Agnostic.

Ha, ridiculous

[Sabi]

Shalom iLL_Leat!,

Nice to see that you are still here. Only 5 more posts for you to go and you become a full member. Keep it up!

With regards to the topic of this thread, I have to say that it is misleading to set out to find, from any text, support for a brand-new scientific idea. With regards to the Qur'an this is tafseer, and it might lead to the abrogation of a traditional tafseer of a verse by nothing more than majority consent. I personally do think that the verse in the Quran about the moonrock being split when the hour drew closer refers to the bringing back of specimens from the moon in the 1960's, but this is a personal meaning I take from the book, not one I try to compel others to believe. IF there are any miraculous scientific statements in the Quran, then they have to be a matter of personal belief, not dogma. But then perhaps all tafseer should be in this way?

[root]

You just posted quotes from scientists supporting that alternative theories should be taught. So I’m confused on your point.

Not quite. I posted the hundreds of scientists who feel that if ID is to be taught then it's many theories must also be taught. So if you accept we should teach our children ID is science then we must teach them about the Flying Spagehtti Monster:

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

At the end of every biological evoltion class we MUST insist that the Flying spagehtti Monster is a viable alternative to evolution.

Moreover, show me that it is “clear that the scientific data does not support ID's position.”

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Your statement is ridiculous. For science to NOT support Intelligent Design, there should be evidence that contradicts ID’s claim. I would like to see these contradictions.

Scientists are of the majority consensus that the available data does not support ID. If you want to change that I suggest you start contacting the scientists the world over and propose why they are wrong and why they have misinterpreted the data. (Good Luck).

For someone that knows so much about science, you are sure making some dumb claims.

No more dumb than the echoes of claims that the earth was not flat many moons ago. I bet that claim had them all on the floor luaghing, man one day landing on the moon was also quite a dumb claim only 300 years ago was it not.

Obviously you seem to think I’m supporting the Intelligent Design claims. Frankly, most seem of these theories, well, sound stupid.

I agree, (how stupid is genesis)!. It's a good job we have the Flying Spahgetti Monster as a viable ID alternative to evoltion. :giggling:

All of this claiming science changes, must have made you made. If science does change, then the theory of evolution could then change. In turn, making what you believe to be 100% fact, less factual. “…the currently accepted scientific theory is evolution.” Currently accepted!

This is probably an error in your thinking that you are trying to impose onto me and why I beleive you are slightly ignorant to science. Firstly, science does not offer 100% fact nor does it offer absolute proof. These types of claims are only found in religion or maths. Theories are falsifiable and thus subject to change as more data is obtained and as scientific discovery is further expanded. Our understanding of evolution will be refined and changed in the future every bit as much as the theory of relativity is. Does this mean then we don't accept the forces of gravity because it's theory is subject to change!

Sorry I offended you.

Thankyou, however you did not offend me and my respect for you has just increased tenfold.

Faith is a strong belief in something without proof or evidence.

Yes I suppose your right. How much faith do you suppose it takes to beleive that the sun will rise the next day for I could never really give you proof that it will?

An atheist believes there is no God, with no proof or evidence. That is faith.

Yeah, how absurd is that. To think I don't beleive in little green men that are camera shy living on the moon. Afterall, I have no proof they don't exist. Perhaps I should have more faith that they do exist. Perhaps I should prey to them and that way they will listen to me, I might get lucky and obtain an e-mail adddress for them. Would that constitute a miracle do you think.

[iLL_LeaT]

Scientists are of the majority consensus that the available data does not support ID. If you want to change that I suggest you start contacting the scientists the world over and propose why they are wrong and why they have misinterpreted the data. (Good Luck).

True, Scientists themselves are in consensus that the available data does not support ID as scientific. However, nor does the available data contradict ID’s claims.

Moreover, it is impossible, as of now, to test for anything outside of what is now considered “reality.” So, as of now, it would be impossible to prove or disprove any possibility that the world could have been created by some intelligent entity not of our reality.

Various ID claims are based off of the theory of evolution. So how could what is currently know about evolution possibly disprove there claims. And even if it somehow did, new claims, just as plausible (not like the Flying Spaghetti Monster) would come into play.

I’m starting to think we are just misunderstanding each other, and we are actually arguing the same way.

This is probably an error in your thinking that you are trying to impose onto me and why I beleive you are slightly ignorant to science. Firstly, science does not offer 100% fact nor does it offer absolute proof. These types of claims are only found in religion or maths. Theories are falsifiable and thus subject to change as more data is obtained and as scientific discovery is further expanded. Our understanding of evolution will be refined and changed in the future every bit as much as the theory of relativity is. Does this mean then we don't accept the forces of gravity because it's theory is subject to change!

I find this statement funny. You say that I have an “error” in my thinking, and then you go on to say what I said.

My whole point is that science is not factual. As better tools to test arise, new theories also arise. Even though the idea of evolution seems to fit the model of life itself (by this, I mean everything seems to start out simple, not just organisms, and get more complicated and detailed through trial and error), there is no way to know what the future has in store for us. Even the theory of evolution could be “proven” wrong someday.

I want to get something straight. I also think the theory of evolution, as of now, best describe how we came to be, and I personally can’t phantom how it could be any different. However, I also believe that someday a better theory may come along, so I don’t claim evolution IS how we came to be.

[Umar001]

Problem is it works for the bible

Does it?

Have I missed the proof for this or has it not been given yet?

[root]

IsaAbdullah
Quote:
Originally Posted by IsaAbdullah
Quote:
Originally Posted by root
Problem is it works for the bible

Does it?


Have I missed the proof for this or has it not been given yet?

What do you mean?

[Umar001]

I dont know if it was jus a general comment but it was stated that the same sort of stuff talked about in the quran can also be used for the bible or something of t hat nature, I wasnt aware of that, was jus wonderin if ya had examples at hand

[ACC]

The bible and science completely clashes, this is why many christians eventually go athiest and why muslims do not have this problem, one can belive in everything the Quran says and still be scientific for the most part..

Many people would say the same about the quran. The truth is that people can interpret a verse the way they want to.

I have seen many sites that show how the quran is rubbish, but I am not allowed to post those sites here. Are they biased, probably, but no more biased than the sites claiming that the quran is scientifically correct.

Also, the fact that muslims do not leave islam has little to do with the religion and more to do with the governments of those countries in my opinion. I have no doubt that if iran, etc were to have secular governments and people did not fear becoming apostates, there would be a much larger defection than you would like.

Of course, what I believe to be a legitimate source you would not and vice versa.
In the end it is faith.

[searchingsoul]

Many people would say the same about the quran. The truth is that people can interpret a verse the way they want to.

I have seen many sites that show how the quran is rubbish, but I am not allowed to post those sites here. Are they biased, probably, but no more biased than the sites claiming that the quran is scientifically correct.

Also, the fact that muslims do not leave islam has little to do with the religion and more to do with the governments of those countries in my opinion. I have no doubt that if iran, etc were to have secular governments and people did not fear becoming apostates, there would be a much larger defection than you would like.

Of course, what I believe to be a legitimate source you would not and vice versa.
In the end it is faith.

You make some valid points.

[Umar001]

Many people would say the same about the quran. The truth is that people can interpret a verse the way they want to.

Jus wondering, because every can interpret something in one way or another but dont u rathre think its about deriving to the most likely meaning?

when someone puts forward a proposition for a meaning of words used.

Wouldnt it jus be logical to see how each person got that understanding and then it would prolly narrow it down alot.

For example:

A person once told me when the Bible says Jesus said 'Our Father who art in heaven hallowed by Thy Name'

he told me 'this was jesus saying my name, when he said THY NAME he meant Jesus Christ'

but if we look at it we can see that thy means your and soon

so if one claims one thing and another claims another then shouldnt we asses each claim?

Instaed of jus saying, everyone has their own interpretation so lets leave it.

[j4763]

As I remember, Keith L. Moore & E. Marshall

My questions are:
Has anyone ever used the Quran to find a new scientific fact?
Or is it a case that you need to know the answer before you can find a reference?

Has this been answered yet? And a example given?

[ACC]

Jus wondering, because every can interpret something in one way or another but dont u rathre think its about deriving to the most likely meaning?

when someone puts forward a proposition for a meaning of words used.

Wouldnt it jus be logical to see how each person got that understanding and then it would prolly narrow it down alot.

For example:

A person once told me when the Bible says Jesus said 'Our Father who art in heaven hallowed by Thy Name'

he told me 'this was jesus saying my name, when he said THY NAME he meant Jesus Christ'

but if we look at it we can see that thy means your and soon

so if one claims one thing and another claims another then shouldnt we asses each claim?

Instaed of jus saying, everyone has their own interpretation so lets leave it.

I agree, it is about deriving the most likely meaning. The issue, as I stated earlier, is the deriving. People derive meanings differently. What is truth to you may be a lie to me and vice versa. What you said still goes with what I originally said.

As I said earlier, there are countless sites purporting to show how false and full of contradictions the Bible and Quran are. Just do a search and you can see many sites claiming that the Quran is a joke and riddled with errors, along with many verses and other evidence to back-up their claim. You can do the same search for the Bible as well and find similiar sites. You, me and pretty much the majority of people will find credible that which we want to find credible.

[wilberhum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilberhum
As I remember, Keith L. Moore & E. Marshall

My questions are:
Has anyone ever used the Quran to find a new scientific fact?
Or is it a case that you need to know the answer before you can find a reference?


Has this been answered yet? And a example given?

Of course not. Any answer will not answer. It will be "That's already been answered" Or something like that.

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

And why did he not convert to Islam?

The same reason why many of the arabs at the time of the Prophet (SAW) didnt convert: Arrogance.

[root]

The same reason why many of the arabs at the time of the Prophet (SAW) didnt convert: Arrogance.

Of course that is just an assumtion, it could be equally that he did not beleive in Islam.

Originally Posted by IsaAbdullah
Quote:
Originally Posted by root
Problem is it works for the bible

Does it?


Have I missed the proof for this or has it not been given yet?

Sure:

Vast number of stars in the Universe

God said to Abraham 'Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.' And He said to him, 'So shall your descendants be.'(NKJ, Gen 15:5)". And through the prophet Jeremiah, 'As the host of heaven (stars) cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant (Jeremiah 33:22, NKJ). And finally, in the New Testament "Therefore from one man, ...were born as many as the stars of the sky in multitude-- innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore. (Hebrews 11:12, NKJ)"

Before the invention of the telescope in 1608, scientists throughout history, including the famous astronomer Ptolemy (150 AD), taught that the total number of stars in the heavens was under 3000. On a clear night the naked eye can only count about 1000 stars. However, because of telescopes such as the Hubble, we now know there are countless billions upon billions of stars in the universe - just as God had revealed to us several thousand years ago through the Bible.

such claims Sound firmiliar?

[Umar001]

Hmm I dont think Im understood lol

peace