moegypt
Active Member
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..
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
False assumption, Moegypt. It isn't about ISLAM. It is about ridiculous arguments that make Muslims look silly and Islam as being anti-science..
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.
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.
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.
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
moegypt said:Till now all these are possible hypothesis.
Well, to the scientific community perhaps, and even to those not in his choir group....is actually meaningless.
mestemia said: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.
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.
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?
f0uad said: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.
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.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 said: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.
Are you talking about the members that pop-up here or the scholars?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.
Ok i think i misunderstood you.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.
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.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 said: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.