Did anybody read 'Scientific Miracles in the Quran' by Harun Yahya

[Muhaba]

http://fs.fmanager.net/files/flashpages/index.php?bookid=870

How did you find it?

 

[Ali_008]

I haven't read the book, but I've seen the documentary. I found it very accurate, but the last time I saw it was maybe 2-3 years ago. It was really convincing.

 

[Muhaba]

I haven't read it all either but I think it has some good arguments. I liked the part about vision and hearing (Page 93) http://fs.fmanager.net/files/flashpages/index.php?bookid=870.

 

[observer]

I haven't read it all either but I think it has some good arguments. I liked the part about vision and hearing (Page 93) http://fs.fmanager.net/files/flashpages/index.php?bookid=870.

The problem with his argument about the eye is that evolution doesn't say that it formed by chance - that one day there just happened to be an eye where there was none before in nature.

Evolution says that the eye developed - probably starting with simple cells which could detect light and darkness and evolved from there.

He starts from a number of false premises elsewhere, too. Look at page 21 - he says that in the 7th century people believed the earth was flat. Well, that's just not true. The Greeks had already measured the circumference of the Earth with amazing accuracy about 1000 years before the Quran. Very few cultures in the 7th century believed in a flat Earth.

 

[greenhill]

Yes I have read several books in that vein starting with the books by Dr Maurice Bucaille and hosts of others when I was really into learning about proofs in the Quran.

I think there is also a book by Harun Yahya about the "Perished Nations" too. He has written a few.

Peace :shade:

 

[Muhaba]

The problem with his argument about the eye is that evolution doesn't say that it formed by chance - that one day there just happened to be an eye where there was none before in nature.

Evolution says that the eye developed - probably starting with simple cells which could detect light and darkness and evolved from there.

You are reading the statement with closed eyes which is why you can not understand it. The book states that what the eye does is take an image of what you're looking at and this image is very sharp and clear as well as 3d. If an intelligent creation like mankind, after so much struggle and technological advancement, can't create equipment which reproduces an image of similar qualities, how can you assume that nonliving matter could by itself create that equipment (the eye) or develop into that equipment all by itself without external guidance???

He starts from a number of false premises elsewhere, too. Look at page 21 - he says that in the 7th century people believed the earth was flat. Well, that's just not true. The Greeks had already measured the circumference of the Earth with amazing accuracy about 1000 years before the Quran. Very few cultures in the 7th century believed in a flat Earth.

It doesn't matter what a few people believed. But what the belief of the majority is regarding some topic. In the past the common people believed that the earth was flat. During medieval times, even the church believed that the earth was flat, as stated on http://www.ask.com/question/what-shape-did-the-medieval-catholic-church-believe-the-earth-to-be :

The medieval church believed that the earth was flat. The flat earth model is an opinion that the earth's shape is a flat plane. Most ancient cultures had conceptions of a flat earth, including Greece until the classical period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD), the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period and China until the 17th century.​

And on http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-a-flat-earth/2011/10/10/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html it is written:

During the early Middle Ages, it is true that many Europeans succumbed to rumor and started believing that they lived on a flat Earth.
​

In the same article it is written:

But Islamic countries knew better and preserved the Greek learning. By the late Middle Ages, Europe had caught up and in some cases surpassed the knowledge of ancient Greece and medieval Islam.
​

Of course, it's not true that Islamic countries got their knowledge from Greek learning but rather from the Quran which encourages discovery and learning. God tells us in the Quran many times to look at His Signs.

 

[observer]

You are reading the statement with closed eyes which is why you can not understand it. The book states that what the eye does is take an image of what you're looking at and this image is very sharp and clear as well as 3d. If an intelligent creation like mankind, after so much struggle and technological advancement, can't create equipment which reproduces an image of similar qualities, how can you assume that nonliving matter could by itself create that equipment (the eye) or develop into that equipment all by itself without external guidance???

But we've been developing TV for about 150 years, the eye has developed over hundreds of millions of years - why should we expect TV to be so good yet? And in, say, another hundred years when TV produces a better image than the eye then what do we say? That evolution is true? Seems a strange argument to me.

It doesn't matter what a few people believed. But what the belief of the majority is regarding some topic. In the past the common people believed that the earth was flat. During medieval times, even the church believed that the earth was flat, as stated on http://www.ask.com/question/what-shape-did-the-medieval-catholic-church-believe-the-earth-to-be :
The medieval church believed that the earth was flat. The flat earth model is an opinion that the earth's shape is a flat plane. Most ancient cultures had conceptions of a flat earth, including Greece until the classical period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD), the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period and China until the 17th century.
And on http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-a-flat-earth/2011/10/10/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html it is written:
During the early Middle Ages, it is true that many Europeans succumbed to rumor and started believing that they lived on a flat Earth.
In the same article it is written:
But Islamic countries knew better and preserved the Greek learning. By the late Middle Ages, Europe had caught up and in some cases surpassed the knowledge of ancient Greece and medieval Islam.
Of course, it's not true that Islamic countries got their knowledge from Greek learning but rather from the Quran which encourages discovery and learning. God tells us in the Quran many times to look at His Signs.

This is not true. It's a common myth that people used to believe the Earth was flat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

It has become common to think that people in the past believed that the Earth was flat but it's just not true. The myth that the Catholic church believed in a flat Earth was pushed by protestants (and atheists) to discredit it.

No-one with even the slightest education in the west has believed in a flat Earth since about 300 BC.

Islamic scientists did a lot of things for the world - promoting a round Earth to dark age Europeans was not one of them.

 

[Muhaba]

But we've been developing TV for about 150 years, the eye has developed over hundreds of millions of years - why should we expect TV to be so good yet? And in, say, another hundred years when TV produces a better image than the eye then what do we say? That evolution is true? Seems a strange argument to me.

Why can't you understand? Are you too blind to see?

This is not true. It's a common myth that people used to believe the Earth was flat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

It has become common to think that people in the past believed that the Earth was flat but it's just not true. The myth that the Catholic church believed in a flat Earth was pushed by protestants (and atheists) to discredit it.

No-one with even the slightest education in the west has believed in a flat Earth since about 300 BC.

Islamic scientists did a lot of things for the world - promoting a round Earth to dark age Europeans was not one of them.

Should I believe Wikipedia (and those trying to change history) or all those people and books (credible history books and well-educated history teachers) that taught otherwise? Maybe you should quote a different encyclopedia than Wikipedia. Wikipedia is hardly credible. All sort of people can edit it. Give me some credible references.

Finally, if a book has information that was found in history books such as Washington Irving's and others and that was being taught in schools and colleges for decades, we can't really blame the book to be containing information that has now been assumed incorrect, can we? We can't blame the book to contain false premises.

You should read the book with an open mind and weigh what's being said. If you are in no way going to change your belief about God no matter what is being said, then there is no point in reading or discussing, because your mind will be closed and nothing will enter it. You will not see, hear, or understand anything.

 

[greenhill]

Mmmmm,

Not sure if Harun Yahya made any reference to the earth being round or flat.. I think he was talking about other scientific findings.

Peace :shade:

 

[observer]

Should I believe Wikipedia (and those trying to change history) or all those people and books (credible history books and well-educated history teachers) that taught otherwise? Maybe you should quote a different encyclopedia than Wikipedia. Wikipedia is hardly credible. All sort of people can edit it. Give me some credible references.

The quote you post from Ask.com was taken from Wikipedia. You yourself are quoting from it.

But here are some other places where you can read about the flat Earth myth:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-j-rossano/starting-a-war-with-a-fla_b_707471.html
[URL="http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/historicalmyths/a/histmyths7.htm"]http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/historicalmyths/a/histmyths7.htm
[URL="http://www.livescience.com/16468-christopher-columbus-myths-flat-earth-discovered-americas.html"]http://www.livescience.com/16468-christopher-columbus-myths-flat-earth-discovered-americas.html
[URL="http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm"]http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm
[URL="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inventing-Flat-Earth-Columbus-Historians/dp/027595904X"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inventing-Flat-Earth-Columbus-Historians/dp/027595904X







[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

 

[observer]

Finally, if a book has information that was found in history books such as Washington Irving's and others and that was being taught in schools and colleges for decades, we can't really blame the book to be containing information that has now been assumed incorrect, can we? We can't blame the book to contain false premises.

Well, that may be - but he's still wrong.

Why can't you understand? Are you too blind to see?

All I see is the argument that says - this (the eye in this case) is very complicated. We can't make something like the eye. God must have done it. That, in any language, is not a logical argument.

There are many arguments for god that cannot be refuted (this doesn't, of course, make them true) but the fact that we don't fully understand something doesn't mean that god must have done it.

As for making a TV better than the eye, well, that just seems like a non-starter of an argument. As soon as we make something which is "better" than the eye, does that prove the Quran wrong? According to your logic, it would, whereas I would say that it wouldn't

 

[Muhaba]

no of course it wouldn't prove the Quran wrong. because you still wouldn't have proved that the eye came into being by itself without any influence from an ALL-WISE BEING. TV or camera or any human production is still a human production. you'd need a TV to come into being by itself from nothing to show that evolution is possible. you can't use a human production to prove that evolution is possible. I don't see how you can say to someone, 'well, see, here we have a tv that shows an image just like the human eye - sharp and clear and 3d, etc - so that proves that the eye evolved by itself and God didn't make it.'

the problem with most atheists, you included, is that they have a closed mind. No matter what argument you give them, they just won't see. Discussions usually end up going in circles.
This is because they have closed their eyes to a basic truth, the first and foremost proof that atheism is wrong - and that is the answer to "Where did the first particle come from?" You see, even if everything did evolve (and supposing that God did place in matter the ability to evolve) you'd still have to first have the matter before it could evolve. for that you'd need to answer the question 'where did it come from?' Atheists refuse the answer to that question. And that is where they close their eyes, ears, and hearts. After that, no matter how clear the argument is, they just can't get it. Their minds are closed.

To open your mind, you'd need to accept the basic truth. yo'd need to accept that, 'yes, the first matter, particle, atom, whatever, had to come from somewhere. It was created by God.'

Once you accept that, your eyes will open up to everything else, and you'll see the truth in every argument. Until then, your mind is just closed and nothing can be done about it. End of discussion.

 

[observer]

they have closed their eyes to a basic truth, the first and foremost proof that atheism is wrong - and that is the answer to "Where did the first particle come from?"

To open your mind, you'd need to accept the basic truth. yo'd need to accept that, 'yes, the first matter, particle, atom, whatever, had to come from somewhere. It was created by God.'

But I, and most atheists, would say "I don't know" when asked where the first particle came from. It could indeed have been from god, it's not impossible. But we don't know. I believe there is no god, but that might be wrong. What you call a basic truth is far from basic. There are many other possibilities other than having an "uncaused first cause" - we just don't know.

I'm not sure what could be more open than that really - and that's how we should be: we don't know so we should consider every possibility.

But regardless of open or closed minds, what the guy is writing in his book is deeply flawed and that should be clear whether you are a muslim or not.

 

[جوري]

what the guy is writing in his book is deeply flawed

I haven't read this book but I have read much by your person, I think you're one of those who shouldn't gauge the topic of 'flawed' or science and especially not both together. It is a topic well over your head that I feel anyone who does minor research and writes about it would still trump you!

best,

 

[Muhaba]

But I, and most atheists, would say "I don't know" when asked where the first particle came from. It could indeed have been from god, it's not impossible. But we don't know. I believe there is no god, but that might be wrong. What you call a basic truth is far from basic. There are many other possibilities other than having an "uncaused first cause" - we just don't know.

I'm not sure what could be more open than that really - and that's how we should be: we don't know so we should consider every possibility.

But regardless of open or closed minds, what the guy is writing in his book is deeply flawed and that should be clear whether you are a muslim or not.

The book is simply beyond your understanding. Maybe you want to try http://www.islam-guide.com instead.

 

[observer]

The book is simply beyond your understanding. Maybe you want to try http://www.islam-guide.com instead.

I was given that book several years back by a student of mine - it contains the same problems.

I think there are many good reasons to believe in god, but scientific "miracles" in the quran does not seem to me to be one of them.

 

[Independent]

I agree with Rana Dajani, the Jordanian molecular biologist who states: “The Koran is not a science textbook. It provides people with guidelines as to how they should live their lives.”

The attempt to find scientific proofs in the Quran have led this author, Harun Yahya, into many errors, some of which are serious:

1. He has fabricated and misquoted genuine scientists to support his theories.
2. By ‘reinterpretatng’ the Quran to try and turn it into a science book, he is getting perilously close to rewriting it.

For example:

1. On p.31 Yahya talks about mountains as ‘pegs’ that hold the Earth in place and reduce earthquakes. He shows a diagram from Andrae Cailleux’s Anatomy of the Earth together with this text:

Figure 8: Schematic section. The mountains, like pegs, have deep roots embedded in the ground. (Anatomy of the Earth, Cailleux, p. 220.)

BUT this is not what Cailleux himself wrote. The actual text was completely different and contradicts Yahya’s views:

‘Profiles of the earth’s crust (grey) and mantle (red) across the continents and oceans (vertical scale greatly exaggerated). Under every high area or mountain range the lighter crust projects downwards into the heavier mantle, thus preserving isostatic equilibirium.’

Cailleux clearly does not say that mountains are like pegs holding the earth in place. Mountains are a consequence of earth movements, they don’t reduce them. The mountains float on the tectonic plates along with everything else. The plate is thinner or thicker in order to preserve isostasis, but it is in no way ‘fixed’ or ‘pegged’ or the plates could not move.

This cannot be an accident, Yahya has deliberately changed the caption text and misrepresented the views of a legitimate scientist. At the same time he has turned the poetry of the Quran into bad geology.

2.
In a number of places Yahya makes very considerable leaps in interpretation. On p.21 does “He wraps the night up in the day, and the day up in the night” really ‘hint’ (his word) that the Earth is round? Yahya is stretching interpretation to breaking point.

In other places he is retranslating the Quran to make it sound vaguely scientific, at the expense of the beauty of its verse. On p.14 he quotes from the Quran thus: ‘And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, it is We who are steadily expanding it.’ He says this fits with modern cosmological views relating to Big Bang and the continuing expansion of the universe.

HOWEVER this verse was never previously translated with the word ‘expanding’ until the Big Bang theory became popular. The substitution of this new translation is intended to create a superficial match with modern cosmology.

Therefore I agree with those Muslims who regard the Quran as a work of theology and morality, not a science book.

 

[جوري]

I agree with Rana Dajani, the Jordanian molecular biologist who states: “The Koran is not a science textbook. It provides people with guidelines as to how they should live their lives.”

You've no knowledge of the Quran nor of science the best you can muster in this case are refutations from the net having read none of the books and only snippets that agree with your ignorance on all subjects!
In fact if you did another search your search would yield this for instance:

Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have underlying roots. [1] These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg (see figures 7, 8, and 9).

​

Figure 7: Mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground. (Earth, Press and Siever, p. 413.)

​

​

Figure 9: Another illustration shows how the mountains are peg-like in shape, due to their deep roots. (Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, p. 158.)

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0006406.html
​

[SIZE=-1]Thickness is important, illustrated by icebergs. Ice floats in sea water because it has a lower density (rho[SUB]ice[/SUB]=920 kg.m[SUP]-3[/SUP], rho[SUB]seawater[/SUB]=1025 kg.m[SUP]-3[/SUP]). Using Newton's Second Law, F = m * g (recall that with m = volume x density) and Archimedes principle, we get: vol[SUB]ice[/SUB] . rho[SUB]ice[/SUB] . g = vol[SUB]displaced water[/SUB] . rho[SUB]water[/SUB] . g. So, rho[SUB]ice[/SUB]/rho[SUB]water[/SUB]=vol[SUB]displaced water[/SUB]/vol[SUB]ice[/SUB]. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Thus the ratio of displaced water/ice volume equals 0.9 meaning that 90% of an iceberg is below sealevel, whereas only 10% is above sea level. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Thus, density and thickness contrast between granite and gabbro (continent vs. ocean floor) both promote relatively high continents and relatively low ocean floor. Density, therefore, is a first order property that explains Earth's characteristic bimodal elevation distribution. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Layered Earth[/SIZE]

In fact all the evidence there needs to be is that there are those things that look like pegs beneath mountains, everything else is irrelevant. Most people without research and especially back then when they thought the world was flat had no idea what lay beneath mountains pegs or otherwise!


Science is every changing and self correcting it isn't a stable whereas the second verse of the second chapter already tells us, there is no error therein:
2:2 to top

Sahih International
This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -

thus people will only go as deep as their knowledge takes them but never fully grasp as scientests who have full knowledge of the Quran and Arabic (especially) and whatever they spend a lifetime reflecting upon as that which holds the deepest meanings in the fewest words is always the most expressive:
35:28----------- Only those fear Allah , from among His servants, who have knowledge {Alolamaa in Arabic literally those men of science}. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Forgiving.
​

In other places he is retranslating the Quran to make it sound vaguely scientific, at the expense of the beauty of its verse. On p.14 he quotes from the Quran thus: ‘And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, it is We who are steadily expanding it.’ He says this fits with modern cosmological views relating to Big Bang and the continuing expansion of the universe.

sure you appreciate the 'beauty of the verse' in fact the verse does say:

وَالسَّمَاء بَنَيْنَاهَا بِأَيْدٍ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ
​

Waalssamaa banaynaha biaydin wainna lamoosiAAoona


what is your interpretation of ''inna lamosiaoona'? go ahead dazzle me with your knowledge of Arabic, the Quran and science.
​

​

lastly, even though the Quran is meant as a book of guidance, indeed its miracles never cease القرآن الكريم لا تنقضي عجائبه

which is part of its transcendence and relevance to every generation- everything you write or attempt to explain in your clownish way will come up short, because you've not mustered at least one craft save the craft of BS and google to attempt to take on three or four or five crafts one shot!

If you want credibility on any topic try going to the source and not to answering islam you impostor, even your attempts to save your atheist pal are so insincere so enfeebled!

best,

 

[Independent]

^^I can't tell if there is a reasonable objection hidden among your usual abuse but so far as i can see, you are missing the point throughout.

With regards to the science quotes/diagrams about mountains - you seem to be quoting from other authors, not Caiileux, so I don't know why this is relevant. It is Caileux that Yahya is misquoting, I don't know about the others. Cailleux's book is not available online to check (unless you pay) - however someone has posted a photo of it here with the text as i have quoted:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102771134/Cailleux-Anatomy-of-the-Earth

Also, you seem to be misunderstanding what's exactly is wrong with Yahya's book. The problem is not so much whether mountains may look like a peg, which is just an impressionistic description, but whether they also act functionally like a peg - ie that they fix the earth/tectonic plate to something solid and unmoving deeper down. In fact they don't attach to anything deeper, they float on magma as part of the tectonic plate, which is thicker in mountainous areas to maintain isostasis but still not fixed or pegged down. Mountains have no role in reducing earth tremors (in fact they are more likely to be associated with earthquake zones because they form along lines of opposing plates).

what is your interpretation of ''inna lamosiaoona'?

I have no opinion about this translation and my view is besides the point anyway. What matters is the history of Yahya's translation and the way in which it differs from previous generations. It's very difficult to believe this is just by chance that the word 'expansion' starts to be used only when the expanding theory of the universe becomes widely accepted. In this way, he is making the Quran dependent on the latest science.

 

[جوري]

^^I can't tell if there is a reasonable objection hidden among your usual abuse but so far as i can see, you are missing the point throughout.

I haven't seen a 'reasonable refutation' that merits an objection!

With regards to the science quotes/diagrams about mountains - you seem to be quoting from other authors, not Caiileux, so I don't know why this is relevant. It is Caileux that Yahya is misquoting, I don't know about the others. Cailleux's book is not available online to check (unless you pay) - however someone has posted a photo of it here with the text as i have quoted:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102771134/Cailleux-Anatomy-of-the-Earth

The point is if you search for a particular answer you're sure to find it. None of it is based on reason or understanding rather eliciting a particular point of view from a search engine.. what does that make you, I wouldn't even qualify that as pseudo intellect!

Also, you seem to be misunderstanding what's exactly is wrong with Yahya's book.

How am I misunderstanding when I have said in so many words I haven't read the book, and neither have you, nor have you read the book on geology or even the Quran in the original tongue nor have you any understanding of Arabic. Which makes this entire dialogue moot. Not sure why you insist on partaking on every thread is it to display your ability to cut and paste and at times frankly plagiarize?

I have no opinion about this translation and my view is besides the point anyway.

If you have no opinion then why make such statements as:

In other places he is retranslating the Quran to make it sound vaguely scientific, at the expense of the beauty of its verse.

and:

HOWEVER this verse was never previously translated with the word ‘expanding’ until the Big Bang theory became popular

If you're going to make such statements then be ready to defend them- I am still waiting for your understanding of:

وَالسَّمَاء بَنَيْنَاهَا بِأَيْدٍ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ

best,