Congratulating An Atheist

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Refute what he says if it is so laughable.

 

[Fishman]

All of the people Truthseeker has talked about lived in the highly advanced civilisations of the ancient world. Muhammad lived in a Desert in the dark ages, when large amounts of this knowledge was lost.

And how was Muhammad supposed to get access to Japanese or Hindu texts anyway?

 

[Fishman]

so...??

point is

mr. Naik thumps Quran and calls it the only true Word of God


so i say.... " what abt others?"

that is all

peace

My point is that an illiterate Arab living in the dark ages could not have known these things, proving that the Quran is the Word of Allah.

Who claims that he was not illiterate? His enemies. Now who's more trustwothy? Someone who loves Muhammad (pbuh) and would never want to ascribe a false word to him, like Buhkari or Muslim, or someone who thinks Muhammad is a lunatic or a liar and wants to find a way to prove him false?

 

[root]

truthseeker666 - <<<Dr. Zaghlool El-Naggar is a Fellow of the Islamic Academy of Sciences. Member of the Geological Society of London, the Geological Society of Egypt and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Fellow of the Institute of Petroleum, London>>

what does a petroleum scientist talk abt quantum mechanics and big bang theory..???

will i believe if an architect starts describing Anatomy ???

this is laughable.

I tend to agree, and here is why:

The Geologist - Scientists are now certain that the universe came to being by a big bang

The Cosmologist - P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44).

In 1948, George Gamow modified Lemaitre's hypothesis into the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe. In this theory, Gamow proposed that the universe was created in a gigantic explosion, whereby the various elements observed today were produced within the first few minutes after the Big Bang, as the extremely high temperature and density of the universe would fuse subatomic particles into the chemical elements.

Why is a Geologist citing an hypothosis from 1948. Let's see what a modern day cosmolgist states:

"There is also the widespread mistaken belief that, according to Hubble's law, the Big Bang began at one certain point in space. For example: At one point, an explosion happened, and from that an explosion cloud travelled into empty space, like an explosion on earth, and the matter in it thins out into greater areas of space more and more. No, Hubble's law only says that matter was more dense everywhere at an earlier time, and that it thins out over time because everything flows away from each other." In a footnote, he added: "In popular science presentations, often early phases of the universe are mentioned as 'at the time when the universe was as big as an apple' or 'as a pea'. What is meant there is in general the epoch in which not the whole, but only the part of the universe which is observable today had these sizes." (pp. 46, 47; FAQ author's translation, all emphasizes in original)

Finally let us quickly go over the MISCONCEPTIONS of BBT (Big Bang Theory)

• The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
• BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
• The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.

It's all too much to bear. I just don't see how you can proclaim that This:

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? [021.030]

actually means this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#kippenhahn

 

[Fishman]

I tend to agree

What is your occupation? Whatever it is, I'm sure that you have talked about something outside of your area of study? So have I. Just because this Egyptian scientist is talking about something outisde his field of study, that does not make him wrong.

 

[------]

i have respect for all religions

Doesn't look like it.

and with due respect, how can you say that muhammed could not have known those facts?

What facts?

how can you be SO sure that he was illiterate?

'cos we can mate. Its a matter of truth not lies.

only through documented history right?

Yep.

and who documented it?
his followers right ?

Right....BUT it was very accurately recorded.

eace:

 

[Fishman]

and who documented it?
his followers right ?

Lots of things we know about historical figures are documented by their followers.

And their were a lot of made-up prophecies in the early Muslim community, which Muhammad didn't actually make. If Bukhari and Muslim just made things up to glorify Muhammad (pbuh) then why didn't they say that these prophecies were real?

 

[Fishman]

?

not clear what you mean...

If you reject that Muhammad was illiterate because it was recorded by his followers, then you also reject many things that we know about other historical figures.

What I mean by 'made up prophecies' is Vaticium ex eventu prophecies.