Some Scientist's comments on the Quran.

[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