Universe one unit»Big Bang»Big cranch»Re-Big Bang" in Quran

[moegypt]

False assumption, Moegypt. It isn't about ISLAM. It is about ridiculous arguments that make Muslims look silly and Islam as being anti-science..

Yes I agree with you..

 

[moegypt]

Dr. Moore no longer takes any questions about the Qur'an or his experience at the famous conference he took part in, as has avoided such things for many years. My guess is that he probably wishes that he had never attended that conference.

Dr. Alison was also a conference attendee and converted to Islam, so there is certainly no bias in his accounts.

Maurice Bucaille is the father of the whole rosy notion of scientific miracles in the Qur'an. Bucaille never converted to Islam, which considering the glowing gift he gave his Saudi benefactors is truly impressive. I guess Bucaille wasn't as easily impressed as Dr. Alison was, then again, when you author the concept you tend to have a front row seat.


So, no, in short, these fellows don't count and are to be dismissed as they have been by their colleagues.

This is what Dr.Moore said in confrence in Cairo:

"It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur'Ãn about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from Allah, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of Allah."

 

[moegypt]

Its not about what it will confirm, its about what it says now. Basically saying that the Big Crush is in the Quran and will be proved by science, hence proving the Quran right, is just as valid as saying the Big Freeze is not in the Quran and will be proved by science, hence proving the Quran wrong. Thats faith, not science. Science isnt there to validate or invalidate religion, its about something much more fundamental then that. Curiosity and a desire to understand the universe. Its not there to tell anyone what to believe, let alone determine which religion is correct.

I agree

 

[moegypt]

Being atheist has nothing to do with "being against you". It has to do what science say about the big bang cosmology (and how the universe could possibly end) and about your claim that Qur'an state any one of the scientific theory or hypothesis.

None of your claims, in any way fit in with current cosmological models.

Second, the only accepted cosmological model in science is that of the Big Bang. The others like - the Big Freeze, Big Crunch, Big Rip and Big Bounce - are all other untested hypothesis, or theoretical astrophysics.

I hoped that I don't have to go into detail what "theoretical" science or "theoretical" physics or "theoretical" astrophysics, etc.

In summary, basically any "theoretical" scientific field, are based more on mathematical models or mathematical solution, which has no evidences to support it, other than the mathematical sides.

An example of theoretical physics, would be like M-Theory (which is subset or subfield of Super String Theory. How do we test for 11th dimension alternative reality; we can't because it is totally untestable. It can only be proven by mathematical proof or through mathematical model, and it is impossible to test or find physical evidences to support M-Theory. To me, it is still hypothetical (untested hypothesis).

Anyway, the current data and evidences actually support the Big Freeze, because there are no evidences to other end-of-the-universe cosmologies, like the Big Rip, Big Crunch or Big Bounce. The reason why current evidences and data supporting the Big Freeze, is because we see no evidences to show stop expanding or the universe contracting.

Getting back to the point. There are many theist or religious scientists who accept the Big Bang, while the other cosmologies are currently in the limbo.

Till now all these are possible hypothesis.

 

[moegypt]

21:30 Too vague, it could mean anything. And as far as I know, the sky and the earth have never been joined, and they have never been apart, the sky is actually nothing. As for the cosmos, well the earth did not exist when the big bang occurred, many other solar systems and galaxies existed before the existence of the planet earth and way before the first appearance of life other than bacterial.

51:47 contradicts the previous point, which stated that heaven and earth were initially as one but they were separated, no mention of construction.

21:104 the dau of judgement.. doesn't necessarily link to the big crunch

21:30 Heavens not sky..Earht was formed as a result of the Big Bang and the molecular clouds..
51:47 is about expanding universe only.
21:104 I mean look at the example mentioned not to "The Day of Judgement"

 

[gnostic]

Till now all these are possible hypothesis.

Only the Big Bang (BB) cosmology, scientists have the most evidences to support it. The thing is that the BIg Bang is working backward.

The other cosmologies (end-of-the-universe cosmologies, Big Freeze (BF), Big Crunch (BC), Big Rip (BR) & Big Bounce (BBo) (the last one also being known as cyclical model)) worked every differently than the Big Bang. These cosmologies are predictions of what could happen in the future, based on the current evidences we have now (and in the past), but it is impossible to predict the future without more evidences, so scientists are playing guessing games. To date, none of these 4 end-of-the-universe cosmologies are accepted unanimously by the scientific community, because we don't have enough evidences either one of these.

Of those 4 end-of-the-universe models, the current evidences actually showed that the universe is still expanding, hence the most likely model...so far that is...is the Big Freeze scenario. More scientists are supporting the Big Freeze than the other models, including this Big Bounce that you were suggesting at the OP.

The Big Bounce or the cyclical model, is actually combination of models, starting with the Big Bang, Big Crunch, followed by Big Bang again. So expansion, collapse, expansion, etc, though is one possibility, but there are no evidences to support this.

What I am saying that predictions about the universe are mainly speculations. No scientists could say they are 100% certain to any of these predictions.

Just because some of these scientists may support the Big Bounce scenario, doesn't mean it is true, and that you think the Qur'an support this cosmology, is actually meaningless.

 

[McBell]

...is actually meaningless.

Well, to the scientific community perhaps, and even to those not in his choir group.
But it certainly is not meaningless to him...

 

[gnostic]

Well, to the scientific community perhaps, and even to those not in his choir group.
But it certainly is not meaningless to him...

I have a lot of issues with some Muslims who accept scientific miracles in the Qur'an. They are just as bad as the Christian creationists.

Both groups, like to twist the passages from their respective scriptures to suit modern science....Or they twist modern scientific theories to fit into faith in the Qur'anic "science".

There is no science in the Qur'an, just as there are no science in the Bible. They are just cherry-picking verses, taking passages out-of-context, and sometimes, outright dishonesty and misinformation about science.

 

[F0uad]

I have a lot of issues with some Muslims who accept scientific miracles in the Qur'an. They are just as bad as the Christian creationists.

Both groups, like to twist the passages from their respective scriptures to suit modern science....Or they twist modern scientific theories to fit into faith in the Qur'anic "science".

There is no science in the Qur'an, just as there are no science in the Bible. They are just cherry-picking verses, taking passages out-of-context, and sometimes, outright dishonesty and misinformation about science.

There is no need to generalize there have been some academical work regarding these subjects so to say that there aren't any scientific theories that were unknown in the time is simply ignorance.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is no need to generalize there have been some academical work regarding these subjects so to say that there aren't any scientific theories that were unknown in the time is simply ignorance.

Dude, you can't read text in a confirmation bias way. Otherwise you can find anything in it.

 

[F0uad]

Dude, you can't read text in a confirmation bias way. Otherwise you can find anything in it.

Everyone has a bias it just depend on how much of that bias you use.
I don't see what your reply has to do with anything that i said but i am used to it so thanks for your reply i guess?

 

[Desert Snake]

Everyone has a bias it just depend on how much of that bias you use.
I don't see what your reply has to do with anything that i said but i am used to it so thanks for your reply i guess?

It's just a cautionary comment on how to read text, it's my opinion only.

 

[gnostic]

There is no need to generalize there have been some academical work regarding these subjects so to say that there aren't any scientific theories that were unknown in the time is simply ignorance.

I am not argue about the texts themselves (i.e. scriptures). I'm arguing against SOME Muslims' interpretations of their scriptures, especially when they believe or think they believe that are some scientific miracles in a verse or two.

Like the Christian creationists, these Muslims take a verse or two, and twist it out-of-context, so that their Qur'an somehow fit in with current modern scientific knowledge.

I have come across many claims about scientific miracles, but I see no such "scientific" merit in what they claim.

You should learn to distinguish between what the Qur'an say, and what some Muslims interpret to be (in what they believe to be scientific).

HUGE DIFFERENCE! There's a huge difference between what I am saying and what you think I am saying!

 

[F0uad]

I am not argue about the texts themselves (i.e. scriptures). I'm arguing against SOME Muslims' interpretations of their scriptures, especially when they believe or think they believe that are some scientific miracles in a verse or two.

Like the Christian creationists, these Muslims take a verse or two, and twist it out-of-context, so that their Qur'an somehow fit in with current modern scientific knowledge.

I have come across many claims about scientific miracles, but I see no such "scientific" merit in what they claim.

You should learn to distinguish between what the Qur'an say, and what some Muslims interpret to be (in what they believe to be scientific).

HUGE DIFFERENCE! There's a huge difference between what I am saying and what you think I am saying!

This doesn't neglect what i have said earlier. I don't know any serious and sincere Muslim scholar that twists verses or context's to make there point.
As i said there is academical work regarding these subjects to claim that there aren't any "Scientific theories" while you lack knowledge regarding it is just ignorance.
Its like me saying that Evolution is false without even going into the subject or reading scholars and work regarding it.

 

[gnostic]

This doesn't neglect what i have said earlier. I don't know any serious and sincere Muslim scholar that twists verses or context's to make there point.

Who said anything about Muslim scholars?

I don't know of any scholars, here @ RF. I didn't mention scholars; you did.

Are you one?

It is not about who are scholars and who are not. It is about those Muslims have taken the Qur'anic verses out-of-context, in order to fit modern scientific theories with the Qur'an.

You have been here long to know that some Muslims do try to link science with the Qur'an. Others don't do this.

That's what I am talking about. Not about Islamic scholars saying this or that, but any Muslim, whether they be scholars or not.

No Muslim scientists in the last 400 or 500 years have made any scientific discovery. But in the 8-9 years, I have come across some Muslims making claims that the Qur'an can take credits for discoveries of the last 100 years, because of some verses that are open to interpretation. That's what I have problem, some Muslim interpretations, not with the scripture. And it is these claims or interpretations are what I find to be false, or worse, dishonest.

 

[F0uad]

Who said anything about Muslim scholars?

I don't know of any scholars, here @ RF. I didn't mention scholars; you did.

Are you one?

It is not about who are scholars and who are not. It is about those Muslims have taken the Qur'anic verses out-of-context, in order to fit modern scientific theories with the Qur'an.

Are you talking about the members that pop-up here or the scholars?

You have been here long to know that some Muslims do try to link science with the Qur'an. Others don't do this.

That's what I am talking about. Not about Islamic scholars saying this or that, but any Muslim, whether they be scholars or not.

Ok i think i misunderstood you.

No Muslim scientists in the last 400 or 500 years have made any scientific discovery. But in the 8-9 years, I have come across some Muslims making claims that the Qur'an can take credits for discoveries of the last 100 years, because of some verses that are open to interpretation. That's what I have problem, some Muslim interpretations, not with the scripture. And it is these claims or interpretations are what I find to be false, or worse, dishonest.

Your first statement is false however there are fewer Muslim scientist then there were i can agree on that notion. Its because much work has done regarding the Quran so its easier for one to make such claim or theory also science 100 years ago was not the same as it is now nor where there many ''Muslim" speakers educated into the subject living in the West.

Most of the arguments that i heard had to do with that the science was unknown in the period of revelation and therefore its a scientific "miracle" that a illiterate Arab who lived in a desert among uneducated people knew such things.

 

[gnostic]

Most of the arguments that i heard had to do with that the science was unknown in the period of revelation and therefore its a scientific "miracle" that a illiterate Arab who lived in a desert among uneducated people knew such things.

F0uad:

Science is about comprehensively explaining a natural phenomena, through observation, through evidences and testings.

The Qur'an doesn't do that. The verses that Muslims claimed it to be scientific miracles, are often vague and open to any sort of interpretation. It provides no explanation to the verses, therefore is not at all scientific.

 

[F0uad]

F0uad:

Science is about comprehensively explaining a natural phenomena, through observation, through evidences and testings.

The Qur'an doesn't do that. The verses that Muslims claimed it to be scientific miracles, are often vague and open to any sort of interpretation. It provides no explanation to the verses, therefore is not at all scientific.

Again this is your take on it without reading the work of academics.