Another Scientific Miracle of Quran

[Ramadhan]

It is not hard to speculate that animals or insects communicate with each other even 2000 years ago.

Were you already alive 2,000 years ago? evidence please (I'm sure as an atheist you are happy that anyone ask you for evidence)

Did people 2,000 years ago know that ants reall talk and not just "communicate" with each other?
I will be happy if you supply us with evidence.

Now, the Qur'an 1,400 years ago already told us that ants indeed TALK (as in emitting distinct sounds to communicate), and only few years ago researchers were astonished to find out that ants do indeed talk:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5672006.ece

Advances in audio technology have enabled scientists to discover that ants routinely talk to each other in their nests.
Most ants have a natural washboard and plectrum built into their abdomens that they can rub together to communicate using sound.
Using miniaturised microphones and speakers that can be inserted unobtrusively into nests, researchers established that the queens can issue instructions to their workers.
The astonished researchers, who managed to make the first recordings of queen ants “speaking”, also discovered that other insects can mimic the ants to make them slaves.

............
Research several decades ago had shown that ants were able to make alarm calls using sounds, but only now has it been shown that their vocabulary may be much bigger and that they can “talk” to each other.

 

[ThePhilosopher]

Were you already alive 2,000 years ago? evidence please (I'm sure as an atheist you are happy that anyone ask you for evidence)

Did people 2,000 years ago know that ants reall talk and not just "communicate" with each other?
I will be happy if you supply us with evidence.

Now, the Qur'an 1,400 years ago already told us that ants indeed TALK (as in emitting distinct sounds to communicate), and only few years ago researchers were astonished to find out that ants do indeed talk:

Read on Aristotle and it will be clear to you that people back then knew of communication between animals. Again, it is not something difficult to speculate.

"talking" is a form of communication and yes there are thousands of different species that can communicate with each other as I stated before. What would have been amazing was if the verse showed how they communicate, though I guess that is asking to much from an all power and all knowing deity. Ants cannot know the name of humans and humans cannot talk to ants, these are scientific inaccuracies. How do you explain them?

 

[CosmicPathos]

I see. I was not aware of his attitude or the way he posted in the past.

It is not hard to speculate that animals or insects communicate with each other even 2000 years ago. I mean, this verse was obviously directed towards the prophet Suleyman, if it was meant to be scientific, it could have certainly been alot more clearer. I guess our standards for accepting proof and evidence is different. Ants certainly do not know the names of people and humans cannot talk to Ants, but those scientific inaccuracies are of course left out.

what do you mean when you say humans cannot talk to ants? how do you define talking? verbal communication by articulation of words? If yes, then yes humans cannot expect an ant to give back a response by listening to his voice. But Sulayman (as) was able to hear the "talking" of ants. How and in what way he was able to do it, we do not know. But that is exactly what makes it miraculous. In future, it might be possible that we as humans might be able to scientifically decipher the language of ants which involves sound production by them.

Seems your requirements for evidence are very subpar.

 

[ThePhilosopher]

what do you mean when you say humans cannot talk to ants? how do you define talking? verbal communication by articulation of words? If yes, then yes humans cannot expect an ant to give back a response by listening to his voice. But Sulayman (as) was able to hear the "talking" of ants. How and in what way he was able to do it, we do not know. But that is exactly what makes it miraculous. In future, it might be possible that we as humans might be able to scientifically decipher the language of ants which involves sound production by them.

Seems your requirements for evidence are very subpar.

So the fact that Suleyman can hear animals is not surprising or questioned at all. The fact that an ant knew the name of a human being is not surprising or questioned at all but ants talking is taken as some miraculous scientific phenomenon due to the Quran mentioning it. I apologize if I see this as special pleading but it clearly is. Humans hears animals and ants knowing a human's name are scientific inaccuracies and if you can so easily dismiss them, the same can be done with what is being proposed here.

 

[Ramadhan]

So the fact that Suleyman can hear animals is not surprising or questioned at all.

This point of yours is utter desperation.
Allah gave ability to prophet Suleyman (pbuh) to communicate with animals. That's why it was a miracle, because no one would believe human can talk with animal.
Of course you don't believe that because you don't believe in Allah.
You might as well asking us "so the fact that Allah exist is not surprising or questioned at all" etc.

Further as evidence, only in recent years the scientists have developed technology to communicate with some animals. Had you lived 100 years ago as an atheist surely you wouldn't have believed also that human could talk with animals.
As of now, you don't think humans can talk with ants. What if 100 years from now humans will have developed technology to really talk with ants?

Read on Aristotle and it will be clear to you that people back then knew of communication between animals. Again, it is not something difficult to speculate

If you have the evidence, please bring to this forum. I'd like to read how Aristotle believed that ants talk to each other.
Just to give you an idea: there are plenty of anti-islam websites who, until a decade ago, published numerous articles on why Qur'an couldnt be right because scientific evidence at that time showed that ants did not actually talk, but they only used chemicals and vibrations to communicate with each other. Just google "solomon talked to ants".

It seems you are extending your knowledge (or lack thereof) to others that you have no knowledge of.

So please, bring evidence. After all, I am only following your rule of "evidence only, otherwise discarded".

humans cannot talk to ants, these are scientific inaccuracies. How do you explain them?

humans cannot talk to ants, yet.
500 years ago in medieval europe, if you claim that you can communicate instantly with another person on a different continent, people would have burned you at the stake.

Now let's say 50 years from now if you are still alive and scientists develop technology to talk with ants, will you then submit yourself to Allah, or will you have another excuse not to?

 

[CosmicPathos]

So the fact that Suleyman can hear animals is not surprising or questioned at all. The fact that an ant knew the name of a human being is not surprising or questioned at all but ants talking is taken as some miraculous scientific phenomenon due to the Quran mentioning it. I apologize if I see this as special pleading but it clearly is. Humans hears animals and ants knowing a human's name are scientific inaccuracies and if you can so easily dismiss them, the same can be done with what is being proposed here.

actually the fact that ants talk to each other is not obvious to humans. When birds talk to each other, its obvious to us. When dogs bark to each other, its obvious to us. But ants doing it is not. So one might actually think that ants do not talk. But Quran said that they do talk. Now modern science is showing that the ants do communicate with each other. Quran could have said that ants did not talk and modern science would have then proven Quran wrong. But no, it did not happen.

Actually, an individual cell in body talk to other cell too.; Through gap junctions. If it was mentioned in Quran, would you also say "ooh its obvious that cells talk to each ohter, whats so miraculous about it? " I suspect, based on your mental inclining, that you will say so and that will mean you, sir, are a baboon of ulterior kind.

 

[ThePhilosopher]

This point of yours is utter desperation.
Allah gave ability to prophet Suleyman (pbuh) to communicate with animals. That's why it was a miracle, because no one would believe human can talk with animal.
Of course you don't believe that because you don't believe in Allah.
You might as well asking us "so the fact that Allah exist is not surprising or questioned at all" etc.

Further as evidence, only in recent years the scientists have developed technology to communicate with some animals. Had you lived 100 years ago as an atheist surely you wouldn't have believed also that human could talk with animals.
As of now, you don't think humans can talk with ants. What if 100 years from now humans will have developed technology to really talk with ants?

Really? I would think that attributing a vague verse about ants talking to science is utter desperation but I guess that is just my opinion.

It seems you are missing the point. The verse in which you claim has scientific relevance also contains two scientific inaccuracies. If a neolithic age man claims in a scripture that the moon has craters caused by asteroids and the moon is made of cheese, this would be a scientific inaccuracy even though the moon does have craters and a man back then had no access to telescopes. You are merely picking and choosing what favors your cause and disregarding what does not. While ants talking to eachother is scientifically accurate, a man being able to talk to animals and ants being able to know the name of a man are scientifically inaccurate.

COMPOSITION

Description: An argument in which one assumes that a whole has a property solely because its various parts have that property. Composition is a type of Fallacy of Ambiguity.

What if 100 years from now Scientists are able to create humans? What if 100 years from now the source of the Universe is found and it is not god?

I can appeal to the unknown as well, it doesnt make my argument any more valid.

If you have the evidence, please bring to this forum. I'd like to read how Aristotle believed that ants talk to each other.
Just to give you an idea: there are plenty of anti-islam websites who, until a decade ago, published numerous articles on why Qur'an couldnt be right because scientific evidence at that time showed that ants did not actually talk, but they only used chemicals and vibrations to communicate with each other. Just google "solomon talked to ants".

It seems you are extending your knowledge (or lack thereof) to others that you have no knowledge of.

So please, bring evidence. After all, I am only following your rule of "evidence only, otherwise discarded".

I did not claim I had evidence of Aristotle claiming ants talk to each other. I claimed there was evidence that people were aware of communication between animals. So it is not a long shot to claim insects communicate with each other. It is a long shot to claim ants know the name of a person.

You are following this against my arguments but not yourselves for if you are to apply that right now then you should deny the existence of Allah for there is no evidence for a God.

Now let's say 50 years from now if you are still alive and scientists develop technology to talk with ants, will you then submit yourself to Allah, or will you have another excuse not to?

Now, let's say 50 years from now if you are still alive and scientists discover the source of a universe and it is not God-oriented, will you then leave Islam or will you have another excuse to believe in it?

Actually, an individual cell in body talk to other cell too.; Through gap junctions. If it was mentioned in Quran, would you also say "ooh its obvious that cells talk to each ohter, whats so miraculous about it? " I suspect, based on your mental inclining, that you will say so and that will mean you, sir, are a baboon of ulterior kind.

No, cells do not talk to each other in gap junctions, apparently you are not well oriented in science if you believe that cells "talk" to each other. Though I would except you to use some vague verse in the Quran to attempt to make a connection that is not present. The Quran is so scientifically "superior" and "perfect" yet none of the leading scientists in the world are Muslim or interpret it as scientific miracles. It seems this is only common amongst Muslims.

 

[CosmicPathos]

Really? I would think that attributing a vague verse about ants talking to science is utter desperation but I guess that is just my opinion.

It seems you are missing the point. The verse in which you claim has scientific relevance also contains two scientific inaccuracies. If a neolithic age man claims in a scripture that the moon has craters caused by asteroids and the moon is made of cheese, this would be a scientific inaccuracy even though the moon does have craters and a man back then had no access to telescopes. You are merely picking and choosing what favors your cause and disregarding what does not. While ants talking to eachother is scientifically accurate, a man being able to talk to animals and ants being able to know the name of a man are scientifically inaccurate.



What if 100 years from now Scientists are able to create humans? What if 100 years from now the source of the Universe is found and it is not god?

I can appeal to the unknown as well, it doesnt make my argument any more valid.



I did not claim I had evidence of Aristotle claiming ants talk to each other. I claimed there was evidence that people were aware of communication between animals. So it is not a long shot to claim insects communicate with each other. It is a long shot to claim ants know the name of a person.

You are following this against my arguments but not yourselves for if you are to apply that right now then you should deny the existence of Allah for there is no evidence for a God.



Now, let's say 50 years from now if you are still alive and scientists discover the source of a universe and it is not God-oriented, will you then leave Islam or will you have another excuse to believe in it?



No, cells do not talk to each other in gap junctions, apparently you are not well oriented in science if you believe that cells "talk" to each other. Though I would except you to use some vague verse in the Quran to attempt to make a connection that is not present. The Quran is so scientifically "superior" and "perfect" yet none of the leading scientists in the world are Muslim or interpret it as scientific miracles. It seems this is only common amongst Muslims.

you idiot, cells communicate (TALK) to each other through gap junctions. Cardiac myocytes are one such example. Sinus node sends its action potential via gap junctions into the atrial myocytes, and so on and so forth. There are many other examples in the human body. Seems your knowledge of modern biology and physiology is zilch, nada, zero.

 

[Ramadhan]

It seems you are missing the point. The verse in which you claim has scientific relevance also contains two scientific inaccuracies. If a neolithic age man claims in a scripture that the moon has craters caused by asteroids and the moon is made of cheese, this would be a scientific inaccuracy even though the moon does have craters and a man back then had no access to telescopes. You are merely picking and choosing what favors your cause and disregarding what does not. While ants talking to eachother is scientifically accurate, a man being able to talk to animals and ants being able to know the name of a man are scientifically inaccurate.

You are practically claiming that anything which cannot be proven by current science must be incorrect/not true.

Now, Let's test your belief and let's go back by 10 years.
10 years ago, no scientist had any evidence that ants actually talk, they only had evidence that ants communicate through chemicals and vibrations.
So using your theory, we would say that the qur'an was scientifically inaccurate for telling that ants do talk to each other.
But a few years ago scientists had evidence for the first time that ants do actually talk to each other.
Now let's go back to current time, and which is actually more accurate, the qur'an (unchanging) or the science 10 years ago?

This test proves that your belief/theory crumble like a house of sand full of termites.

As for your analogy about a neolithic man and the cheese moon, well, that is not what the qur'an says, is it? Why don't you give us the bible instead, that would have good comparison, no?

Lets focus on the qur'an.
The Qur'an is for all ages, for the past, present and future. There are things in the Qur'an that cannot yet be explained by current science and technology (such as talking ants 10 years ago), but for those can be tested by current proven science and technology, they have been accurate. Like in this case of ants talking.

I did not claim I had evidence of Aristotle claiming ants talk to each other. I claimed there was evidence that people were aware of communication between animals. So it is not a long shot to claim insects communicate with each other. It is a long shot to claim ants know the name of a person.

Well, thats conjecture, isnt it?
Ok, I will make things easier. Please give us evidence that Aristotle claiming ants communicate to each other.
You may claim that people were aware that animals communicate to each other, but can you give us evidence (anything, other scriptures, bronze tables, writings on the wall, etc) that show they believe insect communicate with each other.
If there was none, then explain why is that only Qur'an that has made that specific claim of ants talking?
Shouldnt it be risky for the creator of the qur'an to tell such story that could one day turn up scientifically inaccurate?
In fact, from your point of view, it seems the creator of the Qur'an made a habit of stating facts which were not known at that time but which later proven to be true. Do you not want to compare it with the facts contained in other scriptures?
Remember, in our special case, ants talking were not scientifically proven until few years ago!

So where's your evidence of people 2,000 years ago knew that insects talk with each other?

You are following this against my arguments but not yourselves for if you are to apply that right now then you should deny the existence of Allah for there is no evidence for a God.

I am only following your standard for material evidence for you!
Remember it was not me who asked for material evidence for the existence (or lack of) God.
Or do you want to use your standard of availability of material evidence in some of your particular argument but not in most of of your other arguments?

Fine by me, I am only exposing your hypocrisy and phoniness.

Now, let's say 50 years from now if you are still alive and scientists discover the source of a universe and it is not God-oriented, will you then leave Islam or will you have another excuse to believe in it?

Sure. I can give you my promise because I have 100% belief that our universe is created by God.
But it sounds like you avoid answering my question and will have another and another excuses.

 

[Lynx]

The possibility of coincidence should not be discounted here. 1400 years ago if they thought some animals (or even all animals) could talk and it turned out some of them DO talk, we cannot conclude, unless we are logically challenged, that the originators of these thoughts actually *knew* that these animals were able to talk.

 

[Ramadhan]

The possibility of coincidence should not be discounted here. 1400 years ago if they thought some animals (or even all animals) could talk and it turned out some of them DO talk, we cannot conclude, unless we are logically challenged, that the originators of these thoughts actually *knew* that these animals were able to talk.

Sure, possibility of coincidence that the creator of the Qur'an picked up a winner should not be discounted, but what seem to be discounted by non-muslims is that the qur'an is not just a book about talking ants. And anyway how did the originators actually knew that ants were able to talk?

When you take all unfailing aspects of the Qur'an (I am not going to list all here, as you are quite familiar with the qur'an and you can read in other threads about all kinds of literary, numerical, scientific miracles of qur'an, its 100% preservation, its content of timeless universal guidance for mankind, its inception of verses by verses in random order over 23 years with each verse responding to uniquely different situations with no facility for editing, its self-referencing and contradictions-free, the styles of recitation, etc), then the possibility of coincidence become infinitely small if it were just an ordinary book written by one fully illiterate man in a desert of arabia 1,400 years ago.

A comparison with other books claimed to have originated from God would be good, or with any other book in history for that matter.

 

[Hiroshi]

"Till, when they came to the valley of the ants, one of the ants said: 'O ants! enter Your dwellings, lest Sulaiman (prophet Solomon) and his hosts crush you, while they perceive not.' So He [Sulaiman (Solomon)] smiled, amused at her speech." (The Noble Quran; An-Naml: 18-19).

What is also miraculous is that ants know the names of the kings of Israel.

 

[Ramadhan]

What is also miraculous is that ants know the names of the kings of Israel.

Are you sure it is more miraculous than creation of Adam and Jesus (pbut)?

 

[Muhaba]

thank you for this awesome article. subhaan-Allah!. I rem,ember how an athiest used to present this verse to show that there were scientifice mistakes in the Quran. saying that ants didn't talk to each other but used smell etc to let others know of fear or attack etc.

 

[Ramadhan]

I rem,ember how an athiest used to present this verse to show that there were scientifice mistakes in the Quran. saying that ants didn't talk to each other but used smell etc to let others know of fear or attack etc.

That atheist must have been behind latest scientific discoveries
Atheists foolishly believe science as the truth, inexplicably oblivious to the fact that todays scientific truth will be proven incorrect by tomorrows science.

 

[جوري]

What is also miraculous is that ants know the names of the kings of Israel.

Solomon wasn't a king but a prophet!

all the best

 

[Dagless]

Really? I would think that attributing a vague verse about ants talking to science is utter desperation but I guess that is just my opinion.

It's not intended to be a science textbook, it just shows that it is the truth. In passing, the verse has revealed something which was not known at the time.

It seems you are missing the point. The verse in which you claim has scientific relevance also contains two scientific inaccuracies. If a neolithic age man claims in a scripture that the moon has craters caused by asteroids and the moon is made of cheese, this would be a scientific inaccuracy even though the moon does have craters and a man back then had no access to telescopes. You are merely picking and choosing what favors your cause and disregarding what does not. While ants talking to eachother is scientifically accurate, a man being able to talk to animals and ants being able to know the name of a man are scientifically inaccurate.

This makes no sense. How is the verse vague? Saying something talks seems quite accurate to me. What inaccuracies are you talking about? The moon being made of cheese is an impossibility since we have landed on the moon and know what it is made out of. Please could you tell me which part of the verse is impossible?
Talking to ants was a miracle, it doesn't say any man can talk to ants. That is the point of a miracle. It wouldn't be miraculous or out of the ordinary if everyone could do it.
The talking of ants is a normal occurrence. A Prophet talking to ants is a miracle. This is stated. Do you see the difference?

thank you for this awesome article. subhaan-Allah!. I rem,ember how an athiest used to present this verse to show that there were scientifice mistakes in the Quran. saying that ants didn't talk to each other but used smell etc to let others know of fear or attack etc.

This is exactly it. When the typical atheist is told something which seemingly contradicts science they argue it's wrong and against common sense. Then when they find the very same thing actually agrees with science they again argue it's wrong and it's obviously common sense (even though the discovery is surprising). Crazy.

Just to add; there are some relatively respectful atheists about, but I suppose this forum is a magnet for the extremists among them.

 

[ThePhilosopher]

You are practically claiming that anything which cannot be proven by current science must be incorrect/not true.

Now, Let's test your belief and let's go back by 10 years.
10 years ago, no scientist had any evidence that ants actually talk, they only had evidence that ants communicate through chemicals and vibrations.
So using your theory, we would say that the qur'an was scientifically inaccurate for telling that ants do talk to each other.
But a few years ago scientists had evidence for the first time that ants do actually talk to each other.
Now let's go back to current time, and which is actually more accurate, the qur'an (unchanging) or the science 10 years ago?

This test proves that your belief/theory crumble like a house of sand full of termites.

As for your analogy about a neolithic man and the cheese moon, well, that is not what the qur'an says, is it? Why don't you give us the bible instead, that would have good comparison, no?

Lets focus on the qur'an.
The Qur'an is for all ages, for the past, present and future. There are things in the Qur'an that cannot yet be explained by current science and technology (such as talking ants 10 years ago), but for those can be tested by current proven science and technology, they have been accurate. Like in this case of ants talking.

No, I am not claiming that anything without evidence is incorrect. I am claiming that anything without evidence has no grounds to be believed. It is a very simple concept, unless you believe in unicorns? Do you believe in unicorns? Don't tell me you don't because there is no evidence, after all anything without evidence does not have to be incorrect right!?

I claim that it was a coincidence and that the verse was actually a parable for the prophet Solomon. You and others attempting to manipulate it to fit modern science is what is laughable. What is even more baffling is that two scientific inaccuracies within it is disregarded, ahh dogmatic thinking at its best. Prove to me that humans can understand ants and that ants can comprehend the name of humans and I will admit to you that the verse is scientifically accurate.

Apparently you did not get my point with the moon. The point was that the moon being hit with asteroids and having craters is insignificant when coupled with "its made of cheese". Just like ants talking becomes insignificant when we consider a man understanding an ant and an ant somehow being able to know a humans name which are both scientific impossibilities.

I am only following your standard for material evidence for you!
Remember it was not me who asked for material evidence for the existence (or lack of) God.
Or do you want to use your standard of availability of material evidence in some of your particular argument but not in most of of your other arguments?

Fine by me, I am only exposing your hypocrisy and phoniness.

Lol. If you are not going to use the standard for yourself, then I don't see why it should apply to me. Then again, I knew rational and logical people would be limited on this forum.

Sure. I can give you my promise because I have 100% belief that our universe is created by God.
But it sounds like you avoid answering my question and will have another and another excuses.

Once you prove to me the existence of a God, then I will consider Quranic verses.
I apologize if I am not gullible enough to follow a 1400 year old ancient book because of vague scientific references. I guess I should also believe in the Egyptian Gods due to their pyramids and the Greek gods due to the antikythera mechanism. I mean all of these were things that did not belong in their time period and much more unique than your Quran.

 

[Ramadhan]

No, I am not claiming that anything without evidence is incorrect. I am claiming that anything without evidence has no grounds to be believed

And yet you spoke without evidence when you suggested that people 2,000 years ago knew that animals could communicate and thus Muhammad (SAW) must have known that ants could talk.
So which standard will you be using next to argue something? with evidence or without evidence?

It is a very simple concept, unless you believe in unicorns? Do you believe in unicorns? Don't tell me you don't because there is no evidence, after all anything without evidence does not have to be incorrect right!?

Whats up with atheists and unicorns and spaghetti monsters? Do you guys actually have that mental capacity of children?

I claim that it was a coincidence and that the verse was actually a parable for the prophet Solomon. You and others attempting to manipulate it to fit modern science is what is laughable

This is yet another evidence that you are definitely not ex devout, pious, knowledgeable muslim as you have claimed. Anyone from those with basic understanding of the Qur'an to the most trusted mufassir would be able to tell you that the story was actually not a parable.
Me and others attempting it to fit modern science?
Can you not read the qur'an verses themselves and see that the ants were told as talking to each other?

I see that you have no answer and became rather desperate.
Are you that atheist that WRITER met few years ago who told him that the Qur'an cannot possibly be the truth because ants do not talk?

What is even more baffling is that two scientific inaccuracies within it is disregarded, ahh dogmatic thinking at its best. Prove to me that humans can understand ants and that ants can comprehend the name of humans and I will admit to you that the verse is scientifically accurate.

As of now, humans cannot understands ants yet, and thats why it was mentioned in the Qur'an as a miracle given to the prophet Sulayman (pbuh), and as the talking ants were normal occurances. Unless you also want to dispute the split of the red sea, the creation of adam, the creation of jesus (pbut) which, by the way, especially mentioned in the qur'an as something special (miracles). As dagless wrote above:

Talking to ants was a miracle, it doesn't say any man can talk to ants. That is the point of a miracle. It wouldn't be miraculous or out of the ordinary if everyone could do it.
The talking of ants is a normal occurrence. A Prophet talking to ants is a miracle. This is stated. Do you see the difference?

Apparently you did not get my point with the moon. The point was that the moon being hit with asteroids and having craters is insignificant when coupled with "its made of cheese". Just like ants talking becomes insignificant when we consider a man understanding an ant and an ant somehow being able to know a humans name which are both scientific impossibilities.

you are full of conjectures.
You need to compare what is comparable and for real. Has there actually been a neolithic man who said that the moon is made of cheese?
Stop being so childish.

Lol. If you are not going to use the standard for yourself, then I don't see why it should apply to me. Then again, I knew rational and logical people would be limited on this forum.

I am only going by your rules. You didnt believe in God because there is no material evidence for God.
But it seems you only demand material evidence when it comes to the supernatural.

Once you prove to me the existence of a God, then I will consider Quranic verses.

This is yet another proof that you definitely were not an ex devout, pious, knowledgeable muslim as you have claimed. If you were, you would have already been consider Qur'anic verses.
Why do you feel the need to lie and hide behind a fake "ex-muslim" status? Do you think it will give you weight in your argument?
Did you not realize that you will get exposed pretty quickly in an Islamic forum?

I apologize if I am not gullible enough to follow a 1400 year old ancient book because of vague scientific references.

Huh?
Are you that dense?
who asked you to follow the Qur'an because of vague scientific references?
or is it as vague as those atheists who argue that Qur;an cannot be true because ants do not talk?

And yet you take science as your bible, oblivious to the fact that what was proven true by science in the past has been proven wrong by current science and what is true by currentr science will certainly be proven wrong by future science, as it has been in all the past history of mankind.

I guess I should also believe in the Egyptian Gods due to their pyramids and the Greek gods due to the antikythera mechanism. I mean all of these were things that did not belong in their time period and much more unique than your Quran.

Did the egyptians and the greek produce a book that were full of all kinds of literary, numerical, scientific miracles of qur'an, its 100% preservation, its content of timeless universal guidance for mankind, its inception of verses by verses in random order over 23 years with each verse responding to uniquely different situations with no facility for editing, its self-referencing and contradictions-free, the styles of recitation, etc?

If yes, let me know, and I will join you to worship the egyptianb and the greek gods.

 

[Perseveranze]

Why hasn't anyone addressed Leo's point? I mean, they easily come and insult him but offer no counter to his point which is a very significant one. Thousands of different species can communicate with each other. How does this prove anything at all?

Peace,

I remember reading anti-Islam articles that mocked the Quran because of the Solomon verse, don't see them laughing now. ;D