Atheists: WOW proof this Book is from God. (religion, islam)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I found this interesting:

Yunus:…..What does science say about the shape of the Earth ?
Bob: Previously, Man thought that the Earth was flat, until Sir Frances Drake in 1607 finally proved it to be spherical. Today, the term Geoid is used to describe this spherical shape.

The Earth was long known to be spherical, but I think that Ferdinand Magellan and his crew would have found the above statement especially puzzling, since they circumnavigated the world in 1521, 86 years before the "flat earth" hypothesis was apparently "disproved" by Drake.

Fun fact time: the children's story version of Columbus' discovery of the New World says that before he left, Queen Isabella's advisors were all saying that his expedition was foolish, because he would sail off the edge of the world. In fact, they didn't think the world was flat, but the story is right in one regard: they did think the expedition was foolish.

It was an established fact at the time that the Earth was round; estimates of its diameter had even been made by various methods. To make his voyage to the Orient look feasible, Columbus had fudged his numbers: he had used an estimate of the Earth's diameter that was far too small, and had already been refuted. The Queen's advisors said that he and his crew would die on the expedition: they'd run out of food and fresh water long before they reached the Orient.

And the advisors were right. The only thing that saved Columbus' life was that he stumbled upon a continent that nobody in Europe knew was there.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

Sadly even the oceanography arguments falls apart. There is no berrier between fresh and salt water... they will happily mix together, in fact Osmosis demands that they do so.

Also, the Gulf Stream has nothing to do with the Nile river... The Nile empties into the Mediteranian sea. The Gulf Stream is allong the eastern coast of North America... They never meet.

wa:do

Ok then, it had the potential for an extremely short intellegent discussion.

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

People who ate pork were more likely to die from a disease later to be named "trichinosis" Sheesh . . .

I've also heard that people who fell off a cliff before Isacc Newton came along were just as likely to hit bottom as those born after he coined the term "gravity".

[Random]

In defence of the OP, he is obviously devout and sincere in his faith, and I do not believe every example of GOD and Science meeting on friendly terms deserves ridicule. I did not take much inspiration from the content of the OP conversation as posted, but nevertheless I applaud the sentiment and the bravery, given the hostile enivronment atheists have created in regard of religion in the Internet.

GOD as Great Scientist and Architect is no less plausible than GOD as...insert your own conception of GOD.

Aside from the usual rudeness of the likes of Jay, I think the rest of you, especially the Science "experts" RF seems to have in abundance (Painted Wolf aside..) are doing a fine job ripping OP to bits, when a simple "I don't think GOD and science coalesce as smoothly as that..." would suffice.

[painted wolf]

I think science and faith can exist side by side...

However if you use junk "science" you are only doing both science and faith a disservice.

If you say that ___ is the proof that science supports your religion and ____ happens to be bunk then that doesn't say much in your favor.

In any case the OP isn't about God and science getting along... its about Science proving a book about God is correct.

wa:do

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by Random

In defence of the OP, he is obviously devout and sincere in his faith, and I do not believe every example of GOD and Science meeting on friendly terms deserves ridicule. I did not take much inspiration from the content of the OP conversation as posted, but nevertheless I applaud the sentiment and the bravery, given the hostile enivronment atheists have created in regard of religion in the Internet.

GOD as Great Scientist and Architect is no less plausible than GOD as...insert your own conception of GOD.

Aside from the usual rudeness of the likes of Jay, I think the rest of you, especially the Science "experts" RF seems to have in abundance (Painted Wolf aside..) are doing a fine job ripping OP to bits, when a simple "I don't think GOD and science coalesce as smoothly as that..." would suffice.

I think you're missing the point Random. There's a difference between ripping something apart and having it fall apart when you hold it up to the light.

Exp: I did my best to find something of value in the OP, I had to sort through all the obvious misinformation and logical fallacies to find something that, as I've said, wasn't (from my uninformed perspective) immediately recognizable as propaganda.

Anyone who sees honest examination of his views (as opposed to blind acceptance) as a threat, obviously doesn't have much confidence in them himself.

Originally Posted by Random

GOD as Great Scientist and Architect is no less plausible than GOD as...insert your own conception of GOD.

I completely agree with this, just as I agree that the sky is blue. But, if someone told me the reason the sky is blue is because the Universe is a big blueberry, I would still disagree with them.

Originally Posted by Random

when a simple "I don't think GOD and science coalesce as smoothly as that..." would suffice.

Rejecting a claim without explaining your reasons is just as shallow as accepting one. If anything I think taking someone's claims and examining them point by point is an act of courtesy.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Random

In defence of the OP, he is obviously devout and sincere in his faith, and I do not believe every example of GOD and Science meeting on friendly terms deserves ridicule.

It's a tough line: on the one hand, the "science" in the linked article is garbage. It deliberately misleads in order to make its point, and I think that the level of respect given to it should be commensurate to that. On the other hand, as you point out, the OP did seem to be sincere in his post.

Originally Posted by Random

I did not take much inspiration from the content of the OP conversation as posted, but nevertheless I applaud the sentiment and the bravery, given the hostile enivronment atheists have created in regard of religion in the Internet.

I do think that the "GOD SUX LOL!!!1!"-type comments that one can see from time to time don't help to foster an environment of mutually beneficial discourse, but I don't think it's out of line to present reasoned (albeit dissenting) responses to a post, especially when it's put in a "debates" forum.

[Random]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

I do think that the "GOD SUX LOL!!!1!"-type comments that one can see from time to time don't help to foster an environment of mutually beneficial discourse, but I don't think it's out of line to present reasoned (albeit dissenting) responses to a post, especially when it's put in a "debates" forum.

Well said, good post. Furbals.

[~Amin~]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

(Note that John Wansbrough and some Western historians believe that the Qur'an was completed later than Uthman's time; theirs is a minority opinion.)?

Typical who cares what a minority western historians beleive,
if this is what convinces you that this informatio in right then you have no bases,
why dont you give examples of majority muslim scholars?

Originally Posted by YmirGF

Um... just where did I "get it wrong" Amin?

come on then Ymir since you know what your talking about what was burnt?
and why? show us as usaul you know evrythig.

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by ~Amin~