Quran is free of errors

[gnostic]

the point being the statement that we were made FROM clay cannot be 100% disproved, the statement that we are made OF clay, can easily be disproved.

Actually it has been proven that we were not made from clay, 100%, because there are no evidences whatsoever that we have been created.

For tens (and hundreds) of millions of years LIFE continue to live, reproduce and die, just as humans later have done so for thousands and tens of thousand of years.

We were born, not created out of clay. If you believe in the Abrahamic god, and if you believe in their scriptures, then life didn't exist prior to 6000 years (or 12,000 years ago), and suddenly there were animals and humans. There's no proof of this. Animals and humans have existed longer than that, and the fossil and skeletal remains are evidence that there were life before the Abrahamic creation myths.

So the 1st part of your statement is untrue and the other part is true.

Actually proving that we are not made out of clay, prove that we were not created out of clay in the so-called beginning. Only someone taking the creation of human out of clay, literally, showed they have no understanding of science or the nature of human body and clay, and how they are incompatible with each other.

 

[Faded]

I think the argument is contradictory in a theologic sense.
If matter cannot be created, then how could this world have been created in the first place? Obviously theists will tell you that God CAN create matter.

Some theists probably would. I dont believe that this is the case, but thats not relevant to the discussion

If god used clay, transformed it somehow into some "base" materials and then reingeneered those into our building blocks then the statement "humans are made of clay" is senseless. Nobody could ever veryify that. You could just as well have written "humans are made of electrons and protons".

I agree, I could of - and it would be true, humans are made of protons and electrons (and neutrons), however its not what we are made OF that's under discussion, its what we were made FROM...

Going back to the house analogy - if I smash up a house, right down into its individual bricks and wood, then used this material to build a new house it is fair to say the house is made of bricks and wood, but it is also fair to say that the house was made out of my old house. - At least, I think so anyway

What i am getting at is that a sentence only makes sense if it contains a claim that is reasonably verifiable.

Taken literally this is incorrect - but I understand what you meant.

All other claims are just postulations. And i would think better of God than to use silly postulations that require such "interpretations" in order to not be thought of as the obvious error they otherwise would be

That depends on god's intentions - who's to say he didnt dumb it down for the people of the time to be able to understand it?

However it is a postulation - that is the point I am making. It can neither be proved nor disproved 100% and thus cannot be conclusively used as an error in the koran.

I think there are provable errors in the Koran (although i'll admit I havent read it or looked for any)
I believe the same as you - that it is a story about god scooping up a handful of clay and making it into a man like a potter makes a vase and thus did not happen, but intellectual honesty forces me to admit that it is POSSIBLE, even if it is a thousand times more unlikely then being struck by lightning twice while winning the lottery

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE YmirGF]Hiya Faded,

I hear what you are saying. There is little doubt that Fatty is a classic case study. I do agree many of his/her/its comments are hilarious and can't really be taken seriously.(End quote)

Response: Post 835 of page 84 proves to the contrary.

(Quote YmirGF)
However, as many are want to say, hindsight is 20/20. The point is, looking back on the history of a discussion is not quite the same dynamic as being a part of the discussion. Looking back, we can see patterns that were not obvious at the time whereas now those patterns are simply expected.

That subtle different has all the intellectual integrity of claiming that we are also made from alcohol. So what is the point in saying so? Wouldn't you expect a being as purportedly wise and all-knowing as a god to supply just a bit better explanation?

Yes, but it is a ridiculous argument that cannot be verified to any reasonable degree. My guess is that the Islamic notion is born from the stories of Christ as a child where he allegedly formed birds out of clay and breathed life into them. A scientifically primitive savage in the 7th century would put one and one together and there you have it. Instant creation -- god willing -- of course.(End quote)

Response: When you diclaim the logic of creation and accept evolution despite the fact that you've never witnessed evolution yourself and the simple fact that everything you own was "Created", you only make a laugh at yourself, not the other way around.

(Quote YmirGF)
And therefore the claim remains spurious as it cannot be tested.(End quote)

Response: This is coming from a person who has been presented the challenge of the qur'an on several occasions and has yet to prove it wrong or make an attempt. It is becoming painfully obvious why.

 

[Faded]

Actually it has been proven that we were not made from clay, 100%, because there are no evidences whatsoever that we have been created.

Unfortunately lack of evidence of one thing is not proof of the other. To use a quote: Lack of proof god does not exist is not proof he exists

For tens (and hundreds) of millions of years LIFE continue to live, reproduce and die, just as humans later have done so for thousands and tens of thousand of years.

We were born, not created out of clay. If you believe in the Abrahamic god, and if you believe in their scriptures, then life didn't exist prior to 6000 years (or 12,000 years ago), and suddenly there were animals and humans. There's no proof of this. Animals and humans have existed longer than that, and the fossil and skeletal remains are evidence that there were life before the Abrahamic creation myths.

I agree, but the date is not under discussion - if the koran says "man was created out of clay 12,000 years ago" then it is indisputably in error - I am merely looking at the statement "man was made out of clay"

Actually proving that we are not made out of clay, prove that we were not created out of clay in the beginning.

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Quite aside from the atom manipulation i've mentioned previously, things change - using an example from evolution, it is supposed that we evolved from organisms without bones - since our precursors had no bones, does not mean that we cannot.

 

[Faded]

As loathe as I am to make enemies on both sides of a debate, but intellectual honesty and all:

Response: When you diclaim the logic of creation and accept evolution despite the fact that you've never witnessed evolution yourself and the simple fact that everything you own was "Created", you only make a laugh at yourself, not the other way around.

You've seen evolution at work yourself, Fatihah - ever eaten a banana? They used to be straighter and red or green. The more traditional yellow, curved banana was cultivated by man over many generations of specialised breeding.
This is, in essence, what evolution is all about.

edit: added link to support my claim, though i still cant post links... please replace the - with a .

bananasweb-com/bananas/History+of+Bananas

also as a side note, carrots used to be purple like a beet

 

[darkendless]

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Quite aside from the atom manipulation i've mentioned previously, things change - using an example from evolution, it is supposed that we evolved from organisms without bones - since our precursors had no bones, does not mean that we cannot.

Atoms retain integrity of their parent molecule. What i've given up trying to say in this thread is that if we were made of clay, our bone structures would be weak due to elements and atoms retaining the integirty of their parent molecules which, in this case, is clay.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Some theists probably would. I dont believe that this is the case, but thats not relevant to the discussion

I think it is since it is a base assumption you made.
If matter couldnt be created out of nothing by god then it would be as eternal as he suposedly is. This however contradicts most teachings of theism.

I agree, I could of - and it would be true, humans are made of protons and electrons (and neutrons), however its not what we are made OF that's under discussion, its what we were made FROM...

Going back to the house analogy - if I smash up a house, right down into its individual bricks and wood, then used this material to build a new house it is fair to say the house is made of bricks and wood, but it is also fair to say that the house was made out of my old house. - At least, I think so anyway

Now i am somewhat confused... you say its not the "of" thats important but the "from", however your analogy contains "of" ...

That depends on god's intentions - who's to say he didnt dumb it down for the people of the time to be able to understand it?

However it is a postulation - that is the point I am making. It can neither be proved nor disproved 100% and thus cannot be conclusively used as an error in the koran.

I do not think that such discussions get us anywhere. All the ifs and perhaps and could bes do not fit into a belief that supposedly has come with clear signs and explains itself for even the most normal person. What good is a claim that cant be prooven or disprooven?
If one were to point out the impossibility of disprooving something everytime a claim was made then in the end almost all claims would end up being possibly true and therefore not discardable. I think that is one of the most basic reasons why proof is required and not disproove.
I could just as well claim that an invisible mermaid orbits around the earth just looking to have children with me. That could impossibly be disprooven. Yet nobody would spend a second thinking seriously about the claim.

I think there are provable errors in the Koran (although i'll admit I havent read it or looked for any)
I believe the same as you - that it is a story about god scooping up a handful of clay and making it into a man like a potter makes a vase and thus did not happen, but intellectual honesty forces me to admit that it is POSSIBLE, even if it is a thousand times more unlikely then being struck by lightning twice while winning the lottery

Of course it could be possible. I do not deny that. Everything could be possible. I do agree with you here. But that is not a realistic practical or scientific approach that yields results. If you take such an approach then consequently you would have to state that almost nothing is outside the scope of possibilities. Such a thing however would also destroy any religion or distinct belief which explicitly claims that it is true and others are wrong.

So in the end nobody is really consistent using this approach. There are always borders where he suddenly stops and dismisses other things

 

[gnostic]

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Quite aside from the atom manipulation i've mentioned previously, things change - using an example from evolution, it is supposed that we evolved from organisms without bones - since our precursors had no bones, does not mean that we cannot.

Something inorganic don't simply become organic.

If you break down clay until you get just individual clay molecules. When you break it down further, it's no longer clay into their separate group of atoms, but that doesn't mean these will recombine atoms into living cells, because that's virtually impossible.

If you think they do, then you are no better than the Muslims here, as ignorant as biology they are. The human cells, or for that matter every single living cells, are far too complex, for just atoms to recreated to different cells.

The 3 main ingredients (atoms) to make up the human body are oxygen, hydrogen and carbon, and carbon formed the basis of life. We may have silicon, iron and aluminum in our body too, but there is just one simple fact you should know - they are too damn small to make anything resembling clay. If our body were made out of clay, then our body should have more.

The idiocy of Muslim logic is that we have some of same elements as clay. Well, BIG f@#@ing deal.

• We also have the same elements as wood, then if we were using same silly Muslim logic, are we then made out of wood, aren't we?
• Are we made out steel (iron and carbon)?
• We have many of the same elements as the sun, are we then made out of star?

Sure, thing can change. But only idiot will think that by breaking down clay that it is possible to make something living that has no life to begin with.

I agree, but the date is not under discussion - if the koran says "man was created out of clay 12,000 years ago" then it is indisputably in error - I am merely looking at the statement "man was made out of clay"

Date may not be under discussion, but it damn well relevant. Life existed long before the supposed creation, and it is being going on for aeon. Life evolve, not created. There's absolutely no proof that life was created.

Unfortunately lack of evidence of one thing is not proof of the other. To use a quote: Lack of proof god does not exist is not proof he exists

I wasn't talking about the existence of god. I am talking about "creation" of life. There is no proof that life was simply "created". PERIOD.

Even the Qur'an, also say the same things as the bible, and it say life (and I'm referring to animals and humans) was created in one day. And it repeated stated in the Qur'an that humans were made out of clay, literally.

If you think that's possible, then find me evidences that humans were made out of clay. If you can't do that, then you are simply basing on pure faith, and I have no time for just faith.

If you believe that living cells can be created out of clay, then prove it. Don't give me crap that clay has some elements that are found in human body, because everything, organic or inorganic, has atoms. The sun is full of atoms, too. Saying that clay has elements, doesn't prove anything, except that Muslims and Christians believe in fairytale.

 

[Faded]

Atoms retain integrity of their parent molecule. What i've given up trying to say in this thread is that if we were made of clay, our bone structures would be weak due to elements and atoms retaining the integirty of their parent molecules which, in this case, is clay.

Hmm... this is an interesting point, and something I have not come across. Do you have any links or citations?
I'm more than willing to admit to the possibility of being wrong, but I would like to read up on it myself as its not something i've come across in my (basic) research into fission and fusion

I think it is since it is a base assumption you made.
If matter couldnt be created out of nothing by god then it would be as eternal as he suposedly is. This however contradicts most teachings of theism.

I understand the "in the beginning there was nothing, then god said" bit, but thats not what i'm defending. I dont believe god can create matter any more than I can, but even if he could, who'se to say he didnt make us out of clay because it takes more effort/energy/whatever to create matter than to reshape it?

Now i am somewhat confused... you say its not the "of" thats important but the "from", however your analogy contains "of" ...

actually my analogy contains "out of", but your right in that 'from' would have been less confusing

What good is a claim that cant be prooven or disprooven?

That's where belief comes in

If one were to point out the impossibility of disprooving something everytime a claim was made then in the end almost all claims would end up being possibly true and therefore not discardable. I think that is one of the most basic reasons why proof is required and not disproove.

And I agree - but is thread isnt asking for proof the koran is true - its asking for proof of errors.

I could just as well claim that an invisible mermaid orbits around the earth just looking to have children with me. That could impossibly be disprooven. Yet nobody would spend a second thinking seriously about the claim.

There is an invisible mermaid looking to have children with you. I've met her, her name is Zazhella :yes:

But seriously, if you truely believed that against all evidence to the contrary and I wanted to help you change that belief, that puts the burden on me to provide evidence to change your mind.
By the same token, if wether I was attempting to convert someone to (or away from) islam (or any belief), it would still be up to me to change their mind via evidence.

Of course it could be possible. I do not deny that. Everything could be possible. I do agree with you here. But that is not a realistic practical or scientific approach that yields results. If you take such an approach then consequently you would have to state that almost nothing is outside the scope of possibilities.

Not quite everything, but I see your point

Such a thing however would also destroy any religion or distinct belief which explicitly claims that it is true and others are wrong.

This is where belief comes in - the ability to choose for oneself your perception of what is true beyond what is proveable.
Also, one of the wonderful mysteries of psychology is how easily people can believe mutually exclusive things.

So in the end nobody is really consistent using this approach. There are always borders where he suddenly stops and dismisses other things

Yep, I agree

 

[Faded]

Something inorganic don't simply become organic.

Agreed. I'm not claiming otherwise.

If you break down clay until you get just individual clay molecules. When you break it down further, it's no longer clay into their separate group of atoms, but that doesn't mean these will recombine atoms into living cells, because that's virtually impossible.

The point i'm making is expressed in one word in that paragraph - "virtually"

If you think they do, then you are no better than the Muslims here, as ignorant as biology they are. The human cells, or for that matter every single living cells, are far too complex, for just atoms to recreated to different cells.

I'm really confused as to why you say this.. quite aside from why you think that it would be beyond the power of god (Supposing he exists), i'm willing to accept that in a few thousand years, theres a reasonable possibility that human technology will allow even us to do this.

The 3 main ingredients (atoms) to make up the human body are oxygen, hydrogen and carbon, and carbon formed the basis of life. We may have silicon, iron and aluminum in our body too, but there is just one simple fact you should know - they are too damn small to make anything resembling clay. If our body were made out of clay, then our body should have more.

If you read my previous posts you'll understand why the amount of clay material involved doesnt matter

The idiocy of Muslim logic is that we have some of same elements as clay. Well, BIG f@#@ing deal.

Your confusing my argument with Fatihah's.

Sure, thing can change. But only idiot will think that by breaking down clay that it is possible to make something living that has no life to begin with.

This has me really confused... I thought you were atheist?
Traditional atheist logic follows that if you duplicated the exact cells, made of the exact atoms in exactly the same configuration at exactly the same point in time, you'd have an exact living duplicate.
Its usually the theist side that says you need the extra, non corporeal component (i.e. a soul) to make it live

Date may not be under discussion, but it damn well relevant. Life existed long before the supposed creation, and it is being going on for aeon. Life evolve, not created. There's absolutely no proof that life was created.

Actually, the theory of evolution doesnt cover the origin of life - just how it changes. There is no proof life was created though. No proof it wasn't either.

I wasn't talking about the existence of god. I am talking about "creation" of life. There is no proof that life was simply "created". PERIOD.

I didnt say you were talking about the existance of god - you misunderstood my reason for putting the quote in, I was using it to support the statement: "Lack of evidence of one thing is not proof of the other" and to show it works both ways.

Even the Qur'an, also say the same things as the bible, and it say life (and I'm referring to animals and humans) was created in one day. And it repeated stated in the Qur'an that humans were made out of clay, literally.

Yes, it says humans were made out of clay. It doesnt say how. See my previous statements on atomic fusion and fission. (which could be wrong - just waiting on darkendless to come back to me with that link)

If you think that's possible, then find me evidences that humans were made out of clay. If you can't do that, then you are simply basing on pure faith, and I have no time for just faith.

Hardly basing it on faith when I dont believe it - i'm also not saying that mankind was made from clay - i'm just saying you can't prove conclusively we werent originally.

If you believe that living cells can be created out of clay, then prove it. Don't give me crap that clay has some elements that are found in human body, because everything, organic or inorganic, has atoms. The sun is full of atoms, too. Saying that clay has elements, doesn't prove anything,

you're confusing me with Fatihah here.

except that Muslims and Christians believe in fairytale.

this is your opinion only (and mine, funnily enough, but it is only an opinion)

 

[gnostic]

Actually, the theory of evolution doesnt cover the origin of life - just how it changes. There is no proof life was created though. No proof it wasn't either.

I didn't say that the evolution is origin of life. I said life evolve, not created.

The "supposed creation" I am referring to, is the religious view, not evolutionary view. I should have been clearer with my statement:

Date may not be under discussion, but it damn well relevant. Life existed long before the [religion's] supposed creation, and it is being going on for aeon. Life evolve, not created. There's absolutely no proof that life was created.

This has me really confused... I thought you were atheist?

I'm not an atheist. I am also not a theist. The closest term you could describe me is "agnostic".

Traditional atheist logic follows that if you duplicated the exact cells, made of the exact atoms in exactly the same configuration at exactly the same point in time, you'd have an exact living duplicate.

Yes, it says humans were made out of clay. It doesnt say how. See my previous statements on atomic fusion and fission. (which could be wrong - just waiting on darkendless to come back to me with that link)

Atomic fusion and fission are different to the duplication of cells or degradation of cells.

I think you are using the wrong words (referring to fusion and fission).

In the simplest term, fission is breaking down of heavy elements into different and smaller elements.

While fusion is formation of elements into a different, heavier element. An example of fusion is the sun. The majority of elements is hydrogen. Simply, it caused two hydrogen atoms to be fused into a helium atom. And helium is the 2nd biggest elements in the sun.

But under normal circumstance, there's no fusion or fission.

Something can be broken down, or bond together. For example, you can break down water into hydrogen and oxygen atom, but it doesn't change hydrogen or oxygen into something else.

Similarly, hydrogen cells used in car, by mixing oxygen with hydrogen, to create energy (electricity), and water is produced from the exhaust pipe, instead of carbon-based smoke from fossil fuel. Again the hydrogen and oxygen don't actually change into different elements.

 

[YmirGF]

Agreed - infact by the same token one could claim we were made from fish flavoured bonbons - or any material - the point being the statement that we were made FROM clay cannot be 100% disproved, the statement that we are made OF clay, can easily be disproved.

I understand. What I don't quite get is how some are so imbecilic that they cling to that as a reason to believe in the thing that cannot be disproved. It's like my quiet insistence that I have a dozen Satanic Hampsters sitting at my feet. No one can prove, at this moment, that the claim is untrue... even if their senses are too dull to perceive them. My enduring point is that it is a rather vacuous position to take from the onset and opens the claimant to well deserved ridicule.

For the record I agree with this as being the most probable occourance by far, but if you wish to prove error in something, you have to be able to say "this is what happened" not "this is 99.999% likely what happened"
I'm not claiming we were made of clay - nor do I believe it. I'm just saying it IS possible, however unlikely.
To borrow a quote "God is in the numbers" - even if that number is 0.001.

Well, I don't believe there is very much in this life that IS certain, but I also don't believe that that leaves the door open for abject stupidity to be considered along side genuine genius either. Suffice to say that, in my view, anything is possible though there is much that is improbable.

Surprisingly, no. At least not the regard of manipulating atoms. Humans can disassemble atoms even at our current technology level. We also know from evidence that combining protons, neutrons and electons is possible. (Fission that occours on a daily basis in stars) It not such a surprise that, should god exist, he can do that and more?
IF god exists and IF he had the will to make humans - those are the big IFs.

I do understand, but the problem is that there is no need to insert a god concept into the equation other than to assuage the ego of frail human animals to make them feel superior to their distant cousins in the animal kingdom.

 

[YmirGF]

Post 835 of page 84 proves to the contrary.

Actually, Fatty. That is not proof per se, it is merely a groundless supposition.

When you diclaim the logic of creation and accept evolution despite the fact that you've never witnessed evolution yourself and the simple fact that everything you own was "Created", you only make a laugh at yourself, not the other way around.

Perhaps, but theoretically it is only delusional sorts such as yourself that are laughing. One does have to consider the source, my friend.

This is coming from a person who has been presented the challenge of the qur'an on several occasions and has yet to prove it wrong or make an attempt. It is becoming painfully obvious why.

It is becoming more obvious as I consider it, Fatihah. You see, I am quickly coming to the conclusion that it isn't even a serious challenge. You are on record as saying that the challenge does not have to be given in Ancient Arabic however I have read from several authentic Islamic sources that any response MUST be in Ancient Arabic. IF it is true that one must speak in a near dead tongue, then the challenge is no longer practical or realistic. That being the case why would Muslims feel compelled to continue to issue such a meaningless challenge? The idea being is that in virtually all realistic challenges there is always a possibility that one CAN succeed. Issuing guidelines that preclude anyone ever fulfilling the requirements isn't a challenge -- it is a safe bet. This is an Inconvenient truth for Muslims, of that much, I am sure.

 

[gnostic]

You can grab handful clay, and break it down, and it will still be clay. The more you break the clay down, it would still be clay, until you can break it down no further - to its smallest clay particles. The smallest particle of clay is it molecule.

The most common form of clay is made out of silicate mineral (SiO4), found in most temperate regions. The other main type of clay is iron and aluminum hydroxide (FeAlOH) and this molecule is found mostly in tropic and subtropic regions.

If you tried to break down the clay molecule further than this, then the clay particles are no longer considered to be clay. This don't happen naturally unless there is a chemical reaction to cause breakdown or decay of the particle/molecule.

You can break down clay right up to its molecular level, and it will still be considered to be clay. If clay break down to the atomic level, where silicate (as an example) just become silicon atoms and oxygen atoms, then it is no longer considered to be clay.

Scientifically, it is not possible to turn clay into living matter, because all the living matters, like cells, is far more complex than ordinary clay. If we were originally created from clay, then there should be clay residues in our DNA, but there isn't. Just because there are silicon, iron and aluminum in our body, doesn't mean that it came from clay originally.

Hence, there's no proof in Islam (or the Qur'an) that Allah created human out of clay. Until they can provide proof in our DNA of a single clay residue, then the Qur'an is in error. And if the Qur'an is in error, then Allah is nothing more than ignorant author of supposedly perfect scripture.

 

[Faded]

I understand. What I don't quite get is how some are so imbecilic that they cling to that as a reason to believe in the thing that cannot be disproved. It's like my quiet insistence that I have a dozen Satanic Hampsters sitting at my feet. No one can prove, at this moment, that the claim is untrue... even if their senses are too dull to perceive them. My enduring point is that it is a rather vacuous position to take from the onset and opens the claimant to well deserved ridicule.

I agree, but how ridiculous (or not) the faith is - that is not the issue, the issue is "Can the koran be proven to be in error" and in this point only, I say it is not possible to unequivically prove "yes"

I do understand, but the problem is that there is no need to insert a god concept into the equation other than to assuage the ego of frail human animals to make them feel superior to their distant cousins in the animal kingdom.

Ego (in the sense you mean it here) may not be the reason for the idea of god to be- aside from the obvious possibility (that he exists), i've always been drawn towards the theory put forward by Julian Jaynes' in his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind - but I dont want to take this thread too off topic, if you like, i'd be happy to discuss it in another though.

You can break down clay right up to its molecular level, and it will still be considered to be clay. If clay break down to the atomic level, where silicate (as an example) just become silicon atoms and oxygen atoms, then it is no longer considered to be clay.

Agreed, but if you take a handful of clay, break it down into silicon and oxygen atoms, break the silicon down into hydrogen, then combine it back with two hydrogen combined to oxygen, is it not fair to say you made water from clay? (you'd probably have a fair amount of wasted hydrogen, but thats not the point)

Scientifically, it is not possible to turn clay into living matter, because all the living matters, like cells, is far more complex than ordinary clay. If we were originally created from clay, then there should be clay residues in our DNA, but there isn't.

Im not sure why you think that clay should have residues in our dna if we were created in the manner above, but regards the complexity - a more complex recombination makes it more difficult, it doesnt make it impossible.

Just because there are silicon, iron and aluminum in our body, doesn't mean that it came from clay originally.

This is not something I have ever claimed

Hence, there's no proof in Islam (or the Qur'an) that Allah created human out of clay. Until they can provide proof in our DNA of a single clay residue, then the Qur'an is in error. And if the Qur'an is in error, then Allah is nothing more than ignorant author of supposedly perfect scripture.

:no: Again, i'm not sure why you think that clay would be in our DNA if we were made from clay using the method I have described?
Also this is the point I was making about proof - just because you cannot prove the koran is true, does not mean it is untrue - you need to actually prove it.
By the same token just because you cannot prove it is untrue, does not mean that it is true.
There may well be provable errors in the koran - I havent read it to check but this one claim is currently unprovable either for or against..

 

[gnostic]

Agreed, but if you take a handful of clay, break it down into silicon and oxygen atoms, break the silicon down into hydrogen, then combine it back with two hydrogen combined to oxygen, is it not fair to say you made water from clay? (you'd probably have a fair amount of wasted hydrogen, but thats not the point)

Im not sure why you think that clay should have residues in our dna if we were created in the manner above, but regards the complexity - a more complex recombination makes it more difficult, it doesnt make it impossible.

So if I gave you oxygen and hydrogen atoms, and even carbon atoms, for you to construct, do you think you could even possibly make living matter out of it? A living cell?

The best you could probably do is make water, or with the combination of 3 different elements, sugar, starch, or something similar from carbohydrate, but I am very doubtful that you could make living cells out of the elements that are available.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE YmirGF]Actually, Fatty. That is not proof per se, it is merely a groundless supposition.(End quote)

Response: Post 835. Of page 84 proves to the contrary.

(Quote: YmirGF)
Perhaps, but theoretically it is only delusional sorts such as yourself that are laughing. One does have to consider the source, my friend.

It is becoming more obvious as I consider it, Fatihah. You see, I am quickly coming to the conclusion that it isn't even a serious challenge. You are on record as saying that the challenge does not have to be given in Ancient Arabic however I have read from several authentic Islamic sources that any response MUST be in Ancient Arabic. IF it is true that one must speak in a near dead tongue, then the challenge is no longer practical or realistic. That being the case why would Muslims feel compelled to continue to issue such a meaningless challenge? The idea being is that in virtually all realistic challenges there is always a possibility that one CAN succeed. Issuing guidelines that preclude anyone ever fulfilling the requirements isn't a challenge -- it is a safe bet. This is an Inconvenient truth for Muslims, of that much, I am sure.(End quote)

Response: And once again, the challege goes unanswered. I do have to marvel at your attempts to dodge the challenge over, and over, and over again and try to make it seem as if your reasons for doing so are lagit despite how painfully obvious it is to see that you know you can't answer the challenge and now you're forced to come up with excuse after excuse for not doing so, in an effort to make yourself look good. Though it's a sad attempt nonetheless, it is still something to marvel at. Even more so than that, we're going to sit back and watch how you'll take your own time and energy to put words together to respond to this post, but not the slightest bit of time and energy to put words together to produce a chapter like the qur'an. The exact same thing your doing to answer this post you can be doing to answer the challenge. Amazing. Yet not a single word is produced to answer the challenge. LoL! Yeah it is very clear who the delusional one is and where the truth lies. 1400+ years and counting. Allahu Akbar

 

[kai]

Fatihah

you do realise that if someone doesn't consider the Quran to be miraculous or special in any way---- this post of mine is comparable.






http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/82775-challenge-quran-10.html

 

[Faded]

So if I gave you oxygen and hydrogen atoms, and even carbon atoms, for you to construct, do you think you could even possibly make living matter out of it? A living cell?

The best you could probably do is make water, or with the combination of 3 different elements, sugar, starch, or something similar from carbohydrate, but I am very doubtful that you could make living cells out of the elements that are available.

Could I do it? of course not.
But the laws of physics do not preclude such a thing from being possible.


Also -Fatihah -I know its been said before, but just to reiterate, if you want to quote something used [ ] instead of ( ) and dont forget the / in [/quote] please

 

[darkendless]

Could I do it? of course not.
But the laws of physics do not preclude such a thing from being possible.

That depends on how intellectually dishonest you want to be.

If you want to be, then of course the whole Quran is true and everything is possible. It was discussed that to even get the atoms by themselves, Allah himself would have to supply the energy. Now thats taking a leap of faith.