Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Scientific evidence in Islam? Age of the universe, the Big Bang and the Expansion.

Announcements Posted on
Complete this short survey for a chance to win an iPad mini! 22-09-2014
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    It doesn't say anything about "instantaneously", nor does it say anything about a woman coming from a man's ribs. You're taking the words of the Bible and trying to shove them into the Qur'an.
    This is a small question... why do you spell it Qur'an and not Quran? Is there a big difference?
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chickenonsteroids)
    This is a small question... why do you spell it Qur'an and not Quran? Is there a big difference?
    It's a part of a pretty conventional system of transliterating Arabic words into English, called DIN 31635.

    An apostrophe before a vowel represents the Arabic letter 'ayin. This is the letter used in the Arabic spelling of Qur'an.
    Using the letter a without the apostrophe would represent the Arabic letter alef, which would be incorrect in Arabic spelling.

    It's not really that big a deal though. It's just to differentiate it from a different but similar sounding Arabic letter (for which there is no distinction in the English alphabet), so you don't end up with too much confusion over multiple spellings of the same word. It's for the same reason that I spell Qur'an with a Q at the beginning, instead of a K or a C - to represent the letter Qaf (a more throaty sound) rather than the letter Kaf (a more clicky sound).
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    It doesn't say anything about "instantaneously", nor does it say anything about a woman coming from a man's ribs. You're taking the words of the Bible and trying to shove them into the Qur'an.
    There is a translation by Muhsin Khan of 30:20 saying this:

    "And among His Signs is this, that He created you (Adam) from dust, and then [Hawwa' (Eve) from Adam's rib, and then his offspring from the semen, and], - behold you are human beings scattered!"
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ayshizzle)
    There is a translation by Muhsin Khan of 30:20 saying this:

    "And among His Signs is this, that He created you (Adam) from dust, and then [Hawwa' (Eve) from Adam's rib, and then his offspring from the semen, and], - behold you are human beings scattered!"
    There is a reason why the part about the rib is in square brackets though. It's the translator's own addition.
    The name of Adam's wife doesn't appear in the Qur'an. If you read the Bible, it is "Eve". If you read Islamic Hadith, it is "Hawwa", and the translator has added this in. The idea of creation from a rib also doesn't appear in the Qur'an. It appears in the Bible, and the translator has referenced it.

    If you read most other translations, the bit in square brackets won't be there - because it isn't in the actual words of the Qur'an.
    Perhaps Muhsin Khan really believes that Adam's wife really was created from his rib. But he hasn't got this idea from any Islamic source. It originates with the Bible.

    It simply has to be accepted that in many of the Qur'anic accounts of events, certain details aren't provided. But some people aren't satisfied with this, and need to look to other sources (which are not endorsed by the Qur'an) to try to fill in those details. But the Qur'an itself warns against that kind of approach - that we have no basis or authority in trying to fill in details that the Qur'an didn't provide by itself. If we do that, it's nothing but conjecture.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    There is a reason why the part about the rib is in square brackets though. It's the translator's own addition.
    The name of Adam's wife doesn't appear in the Qur'an. If you read the Bible, it is "Eve". If you read Islamic Hadith, it is "Hawwa", and the translator has added this in. The idea of creation from a rib also doesn't appear in the Qur'an. It appears in the Bible, and the translator has referenced it.

    If you read most other translations, the bit in square brackets won't be there - because it isn't in the actual words of the Qur'an.

    Perhaps Muhsin Khan really believes that Adam's wife really was created from his rib. But he hasn't got this idea from any Islamic source. It originates with the Bible.
    Ah ok, I wasn't stating this as any fact btw, I just thought that the Indo Chinese person may have gotten the idea from that.

    Having a read of the other translations of this verse I can't see any references to the rib in the others. It looks like he's just invented half of that verse he "translated" himself
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ayshizzle)
    Ah ok, I wasn't stating this as any fact btw, I just thought that the Indo Chinese person may have gotten the idea from that.

    Having a read of the other translations of this verse I can't see any references to the rib in the others. It looks like he's just invented half of that verse he "translated" himself
    I got the idea from the principle that the bible and quran copy the same source and therefore have very similar stories about adam, moses, noah, cain ^ abel, the great flood, etc. It may be that most translations dont specifically state the 'rib' part, but it does state man was created from the clay of the ground, this isnt consistent with human evolutionery theory.
    interesting that we are all skirting around that point, or the fact that most of the quranic stories have origins from sumerian/babylonian religious scripture which predates the bible
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    I got the idea from the principle that the bible and quran copy the same source and therefore have very similar stories about adam, moses, noah, cain ^ abel, the great flood, etc. It may be that most translations dont specifically state the 'rib' part, but it does state man was created from the clay of the ground, this isnt consistent with human evolutionery theory.
    interesting that we are all skirting around that point, or the fact that most of the quranic stories have origins from sumerian/babylonian religious scripture which predates the bible
    Ah ok sorry, I thought you had gotten that idea from that translation

    There's very little in the Qur'an that wasn't described in some earlier texts, but I think most people are aware of that.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    .
    I did ask you ask/ quote you a while ago, however, you have had many quotes and replies so you probably missed mine. In any case, I was interjecting, while you and indo-chinese were arguing, posing that it is specifically, as far as I am aware, Human evolution that the majority of Muslims do not accept. In the Quran it quite obviously states Adam's creation and then (in Hadith and tafsir) that he lived for a long period of time, with his children who married and populated (I think day married night and vice versa - tell me if I'm wrong sorry). This is obviously inconsistent with Human evolution. If you are a quranist, you can probably get away with denouncing all hadith and tafsir, if you aren't then I seriously suggest that you look at some of them because a number of them are outrageous (including sahih or authentic hadith)!
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    I got the idea from the principle that the bible and quran copy the same source and therefore have very similar stories about adam, moses, noah, cain ^ abel, the great flood, etc. It may be that most translations dont specifically state the 'rib' part, but it does state man was created from the clay of the ground, this isnt consistent with human evolutionery theory.

    interesting that we are all skirting around that point,
    Already answered this point. What humans are physically made of is a separate issue from how they developed over time. "Evolution" refers to a process occurring over time. "Clay" refers to physical earthly materials. There's no reason why the two should be inconsistent. This is a point that you seem to be 'skirting around'.

    or the fact that most of the quranic stories have origins from sumerian/babylonian religious scripture which predates the bible
    If those Qur'anic stories are true, then you'd expect them to exist in other texts as well, wouldn't you? It hardly comes as a surprise that other people knew and wrote about it. Just like, if something significant happened today, if the story is true, many newspapers would talk about it. And many books written in the future would talk about it.

    I don't see why this should be any cause for concern to a Muslim. I'd happily admit that many Qur'anic stories are in other texts and scriptures. The Qur'an itself states this. You seem to think you're telling us something we didn't already know.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yomomalomo)
    I did ask you ask/ quote you a while ago, however, you have had many quotes and replies so you probably missed mine. In any case, I was interjecting, while you and indo-chinese were arguing, posing that it is specifically, as far as I am aware, Human evolution that the majority of Muslims do not accept.
    I agree that many Muslims reject human evolution, but I think that there is no need for them to do so, because the Qur'an doesn't tell them to. In fact if you ask many Muslims to tell you the story of the creation, they'll tell you something sounding a lot more like the Biblical account rather than the Qur'anic account.

    The details which supposedly conflict with evolution and other accepted scientific theories are found in the Bible, not in the Qur'an. The problem is that some Muslims feel the need to absorb details from the Bible where the Qur'an doesn't provide a particular piece of information - even though the Qur'an specifically warns against this type of thing.

    In the Quran it quite obviously states Adam's creation and then (in Hadith and tafsir) that he lived for a long period of time, with his children who married and populated (I think day married night and vice versa - tell me if I'm wrong sorry). This is obviously inconsistent with Human evolution.
    If you are a quranist, you can probably get away with denouncing all hadith and tafsir, if you aren't then I seriously suggest that you look at some of them because a number of them are outrageous (including sahih or authentic hadith)!
    I don't denounce all Hadith. Hadith is like a game of chinese whispers. You'll get some accurate information out of it, and some inaccurate information. With scholarly help, perhaps you can get mostly accurate information, but you can't put your full faith in every last detail. A Muslim must accept that no matter how "sahih" a Hadith is, it is very possible to get an inaccurate impression from it. Whereas the Qur'an is supposed to be the literal words of God, and therefore word-perfect.

    Though even the details you're providing from Hadith - sure, they might sound strange and unfamiliar. Though I'm not sure what makes you think they're inconsistent with human evolution, specifically. Perhaps humans originally evolved from something which populated much quicker than we do today, for example?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Already answered this point. What humans are physically made of is a separate issue from how they developed over time. There's no reason why the two should be inconsistent. This is a point that you seem to be 'skirting around'.
    .


    Again no, because the theory of evolution has various scientific prescedent to as well as genetic mapping to back it up, to a significant extent.

    What prescedent exists in scinence where a human can be made from clay?


    (Original post by tazarooni89)

    If those Qur'anic stories are true, then you'd expect them to exist in other texts as well, wouldn't you? It hardly comes as a surprise that other people knew and wrote about it. Just like, if something significant happened today, if the story is true, many newspapers would talk about it. And many books written in the future would talk about it.

    I don't see why this should be any cause for concern to a Muslim. I'd happily admit that many Qur'anic stories are in other texts and scriptures. The Qur'an itself states this. You seem to think you're telling us something we didn't already know.


    If you bleive the babylonian stories were true and thats why they are in the quran, why change the names of the characters, and in some cases sutble details of the story? Surely then you would be altering an already true story?
    If indeed fr example all the earths animals were actually once fit into a big boat, why change the name of the akkadian king, to Noah? And then pretend he was a muslim, when the other guy was a polyeithist (or whatever)

    And no, the Quran doesnt state it takes stories from Polyeithism, muslims forbid polyeithism do they not? And are told not to beleive any polyeithist scripture or idols because it is suppossed to be unislamic. PLease dont tell me you disagree with this now too.
    It seems odd that the quran would dismiss ancient religions then copy their religious stories as fact?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I agree that many Muslims reject human evolution, but I think that there is no need for them to do so, because the Qur'an doesn't tell them to. In fact if you ask many Muslims to tell you the story of the creation, they'll tell you something sounding a lot more like the Biblical account rather than the Qur'anic account.

    The details which supposedly conflict with evolution and other accepted scientific theories are found in the Bible, not in the Qur'an. The problem is that some Muslims feel the need to absorb details from the Bible where the Qur'an doesn't provide a particular piece of information - even though the Qur'an specifically warns against this type of thing.



    I don't denounce all Hadith. Hadith is like a game of chinese whispers. You'll get some accurate information out of it, and some inaccurate information. With scholarly help, perhaps you can get mostly accurate information, but you can't put your full faith in every last detail. A Muslim must accept that no matter how "sahih" a Hadith is, it is very possible to get an inaccurate impression from it. Whereas the Qur'an is supposed to be the literal words of God, and therefore word-perfect.

    Though even the details you're providing from Hadith - sure, they might sound strange and unfamiliar. Though I'm not sure what makes you think they're inconsistent with human evolution, specifically. Perhaps humans originally evolved from something which populated much quicker than we do today, for example?
    I don't think it is crazy that it only took 1000 years for Adam and Huwwa (eve) to create a human population, I think it is crazy that a man lived for 1000 years. Incest also doesn't seem to be part of our recent evolution either, unless you are suggesting that Adam and eve are some kind of prokaryote (still don't know of 1000year old ones). Again that makes no sense because bacteria don't have a minds to be tempted by a devil.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yomomalomo)
    Again that makes no sense because bacteria don't have a minds to be tempted by a devil.
    If they did that would be absolutely terrifying!
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    Again no, because the theory of evolution has various scientific prescedent to as well as genetic mapping to back it up, to a significant extent.

    What prescedent exists in scinence where a human can be made from clay?
    Again, skirting round the issue.
    Even if (for the sake of argument) I agreed with you that there is no scientific prescendent for humans being made of earthly clay - which part of the theory of evolution relies on the assumption that humans are made of something other than that?

    You're not demonstrating any conflict or inconsistency. Saying "I can prove X, and you can't prove Y" doesn't automatically mean X and Y are inconsistent.

    If you bleive the babylonian stories were true and thats why they are in the quran, why change the names of the characters, and in some cases stutble details of the story? Surely then you would be altering an already true story?
    If indeed all the earths animals were actually once fit into a big boat, why change the name of the akkadian king, to Noah? And then pretend he was a muslim, when the other guy was a polyeithist (or whatever)
    Easy. The Qur'an means to tell us that the story as a whole is true, but certain details as found in previous texts are not. The Qur'an itself states that it intends to confirm the truth of previous scriptures and filter out the falsehood from them as well. Previous stories are partially true and partially false (as you'd expect, having been transmitted as myths and legends for so long), and the Qur'an intends to confirm which parts are true and correct them on the parts that are false.

    (Also, it wasn't "all the earth's animals" aboard Noah's ship, according to Islam - nor was it the entire earth that was flooded. The region that Noah lived in was flooded, and he only saved the animals that he owned and looked after.)

    And no, the Quran doesnt state it takes stories from Polyeithism, muslims forbid polyeithism do they not? And are told not to beleive any polyeithist scripture or idols because it is suppossed to be unislamic. PLease dont tell me you disagree with this now too.
    It seems odd that the quran would dismiss ancient religions then copy their religious stories as fact?
    The Qur'an rejects the idea that there are many gods.
    It doesn't say that "If a polytheist ever says anything or tells you any story, it must be false". If a polytheist tells me a story about a flood and I believe most of his story, that doesn't make me a polytheist.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charzhino)
    Why would God have a throne.. it just reaffirms the idea that god was created by mans image of a powerful king/creator/ruler sitting high in the heavens looking down.
    It may be a throne to our minds but humans cannot really comprehend God in any way
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    ..
    I would stop the side argument (with indo) of humans being made by/from clay, because it is a side argument and rather meaningless, but also because, as far as I'm aware, clay doesn't contain carbon (or the clay minerals I know of). Carbon is required for life, therefore no carbon = no life as we know it on this earth. Now it is possible that your God could have used something which isn't actually clay, mixed clay with chalk in some funky way or used a special type of clay, but this is pure speculation, which returns us to the point that this side-argument is pointless.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Again, skirting round the issue.
    Even if (for the sake of argument) I agreed with you that there is no scientific prescendent for humans being made of earthly clay - which part of the theory of evolution relies on the assumption that humans are made of something other than that?

    You're not demonstrating any conflict or inconsistency. Saying "I can prove X, and you can't prove Y" doesn't automatically mean X and Y are inconsistent.
    .
    You are now demonstrating the famed tsr muslim pedantry - funny becuase i was going to mention you are the first muslim on tsr to discuss this topic that isnt a complete moron. But youve switched to type.
    Ill put it like this for you -Evolution procludes the idea that a human can be created from clay ( and there is no scientific prescendent for this, coincidentally) - it states humans evolved ONLY from a chain of other species, whcih the quran is contradicting.


    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Easy. The Qur'an intends to tell us that the story as a whole is true, but certain details as found in previous texts are not. The Qur'an itself states that it intends to confirm the truth of previous scriptures and filter out the falsehood from them as well.

    The Qur'an rejects the idea that there are many gods.
    It doesn't say that "If a polytheist ever says anything or tells you any story, it must be false". If a polytheist tells me a story about a flood and I believe most of his story, that doesn't make me a polytheist.
    Sounds convienient, slate another religion but nick their ideas and pretend that you understand them better, passing them off as your own. Surely if the sumerians were the basis of the quran, their religion is superior to islam, becuase they thought if everything before mohammed and the muslims?
    Still doesnt explain why the quran makes no mention of sumerian and babylonain scripture (despite copying all their religious stories) but does mention the jewsih and christian books.

    If i tell you the story of mohammed you know was incorrect , his real name was Dave and he was a professional horse groomer, why wouldnt you accept that more modern take on an old story, using your same logic?
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    So many things to refute, such little time.

    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    The earliest copy of the quran that has ever been verified by a historian was found no sooner than 160 years after mohammeds death, no other copies existence has been verified before that.
    My days I should be revising.

    No it doesn't. You're just going by what John Ghilchrist, some African lawyer said, which was "100 years" not 160.

    There's many evidences of earlier manuscripts here - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/ and http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...ss/ms2165.html

    And lets not forget the Kufic Quranic writing on the Dome once Jerueselum had been conquered -


    The most important of these is 240m of Qur'anic inscriptions in Kufic script from the founding of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem (692 AD).[25] Inscriptions on rock Hijaaze and early Kufic script may date as early as 646 AD. The debate between the scholars has moved from one over the date origin of the script to one over state of development of the Kufic script in the early manuscripts and in datable 7th Century inscriptions.

    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    The only view that it was written 20 or so years after mohammed is from sunni hadith, which states Uthman picked one of the many versions of the quran that had been written and destroyed all others to 'avoid conflicting islamic teachings'.
    This is hilarious. Your using hadith to say "many Qur'ans existed", but you want to reject the hadith that talks about the Uthman scripture?


    There are good number of other Qur'ans [such as the ones at St. Petersburg, Istanbul, two in Cairo (al-Hussein mosque and Dār al-Kutub) and Samarqand] having at times turned up in different parts of the Islamic world, almost all purporting to show the traces of the blood of the third caliph ʿUthmān upon certain pages, and thus the genuine ʿUthmānic Qur'an, the imām, which he was reading at the time of his death.


    The above are all believed to be Uthmanic Scripture.

    All this is prettry irrelevant though, when you look at the evidences of the preservation of the Qur'an, there's a consensus both by east and western scholarship that the Qur'an we have today is the same Qur'an that came out of the words of the prophet Muhammad(pbuh).

    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    however there is evidence that supports the former theory - ie when the Al-Fustat mosque dated built in the 7-8th century in Egypt was discovered it was shown Qibla set within was not facing mecca, but instead faced opposite direction, to the North East,contradicting what the quran says about direction to face Mecca for Qibla . Same applied to Wasit Mosque in Iraq also built in the 7- 8th century, not facing mecca. Showing then that early mosques still were used by muslims to pray towards Jerusalem as was the tradition- till a later quran specified qibla should be facing Mecca. So clearly this must have been later than the 9th century
    Lmao, how desperate are you. Bent on the bullcrap that the likes of Crone and Cook bring out, only discrediting themselves.

    So this is the story -


    Small, defiant, and largely discredited group of Orientalists have argued that the early mosques were not oriented toward Makkah, but somewhere in northern Arabia or even Jerusalem.

    This has been debunked so many times, even by Non-Muslim Academics themselves.

    For example;


    The first mosque to be built in Egypt was built facing winter sunrise, and it was this direction which remained the most popular throughout the medieval period amongst the religious authorities. Likewise some of the earliest mosques in Iraq were built facing winter sunset. Only recently has it become known that astronomical alignments were used for the Qiblah, so that some modern historians (sic!) have mistakenly inferred from the orientations of the early mosques in Egypt and Iraq that they were not built to face the Kaaba at all, but rather to face some other sacred site. Now, however, we even know why such astronomical alignments were used.[8] -- D. A. King, "The Sacred Direction In Islam: A Study Of Interaction Of Religion & Science In The Middle Ages", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1985, Vol. 10, p. 319.

    Note, Crone and Cook came around 1977, nand the refutation was made in 1985. It's detailed here - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/His...ock/qibla.html



    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    Any explanation for the above Persey?

    You gotta come up with more intellectually stimulating stuff. Also, when you make a claim, actually back it up with proof. I don't have time to google the crap you randomly picked up from Anti-Islam sites.


    (Original post by Ayshizzle)
    I'm not sure if you think being illiterate makes you dumb but I can assure you it doesn't...

    You can't think of anyone else whose works are rather famous, that was also illiterate?

    Sweet dreams
    I'll repeat, since it sounds like you scimmed -


    "How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature?"


    So i'd like to ask you. Where did Muhammad(pbuh) do the following before he became a Prophet(pbuh);

    - Read arabic
    - Write, or write a book
    - Recite poetry.

    In fact, it is narrated that Alqama bin Abd al-Manaf confirmed the uniqueness of the Qur'anic revelation when he addressed their leaders, the Quraysh:


    Oh Quraish, a new calamity has befallen you. Mohammed was a young man the most liked among you, most truthful in speech, and most trustworthy, until, when you saw gray hairs on his temple, and he brought you his message, you said that he was a sorcerer, but he is not, for we seen such people and their spitting and their knots; you said, a diviner, but we have seen such people and their behavior, and we have heard their rhymes; you said a soothsayer, but he is not a soothsayer, for we have heard their rhymes; and you said a poet, but he is not a poet, for we have heard all kinds of poetry; you said he was possessed, but he is not for we have seen the possessed, and he shows no signs of their gasping and whispering and delirium. Oh men of Quraish, look to your affairs, for by Allah a serious thing has befallen you.



    So the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), who has never spoken poetry before prophethood, was illiterate, all of a sudden, comes out blazing with Poetic (inaccurate, since it can't even be classified as Poetry) arabic - and because the Quresh had no answer, they begin to call him a soothsayer or a magician or Satan.

    Now, feel free to show me someone else in history, who was an illiterate, that produced a masterpiece work of literature that was able to challenge the contempories of their time, and I'm not talking about just 1 shakespeare here, I'm talking about thousands. I mean, did Micheal Jordan suddenly one day become good at Basketball and ended up becoming the best of the sport? :rolleyes:

    Because that's what the Qur'an is, a literary masterpiece in the Arabic Language, something which even Arabist Islamaphobes will admit -


    Though, to be sure, the question of the literary merit is one not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of Arabic language; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep-toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammad did.[9]


    As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, having neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming the inimitability not only of its contents but also of its style..... and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose in which all the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.[10] - H A R Gibb, Arabic Literature - An Introduction,


    Anyways, to each their own (in belief). But I'm just saying, your justification of what you believe to be a natural occurance seems very weak against the evidences. Most scholars will not even go down there, because they can't (atleast from a logical perspective) explain how Muhammad(pbuh) could've authored the Qur'an.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yomomalomo)
    I don't think it is crazy that it only took 1000 years for Adam and Huwwa (eve) to create a human population, I think it is crazy that a man lived for 1000 years. Incest also doesn't seem to be part of our recent evolution either, unless you are suggesting that Adam and eve are some kind of prokaryote (still don't know of 1000year old ones). Again that makes no sense because bacteria don't have a minds to be tempted by a devil.
    Well look, the point I'm making is that these non-Qur'anic details are potentially unclear, and unreliable. It could be that Adam had a much longer lifespan than us for whatever reason, or it could be that the Hadith which says so has got this detail wrong. A Muslim is free to accept either, Islam doesn't confine him to only one of those two choices.

    What do you mean by "Incest also doesn't seem to be part of our recent evolution either"? What's unscientific about that?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yomomalomo)
    I would stop the side argument (with indo) of humans being made by/from clay, because it is a side argument and rather meaningless, but also because, as far as I'm aware, clay doesn't contain carbon (or the clay minerals I know of). Carbon is required for life, therefore no carbon = no life as we know it on this earth. Now it is possible that your God could have used something which isn't actually clay, mixed clay with chalk in some funky way or used a special type of clay, but this is pure speculation, which returns us to the point that this side-argument is pointless.

    Another loose avenue explored by bucaille type islamist researchers. If the princple was carbon was the instigator of life, why werent all creatures created from clay too? Illogical. equally , you could stick various alternatives in your statemnt above in place of carbon - water for example?
    We have already established the reason why the quran refers to clay on the ground is not of any scintific principle, it is because it copies the creation story of the EE which says much the same thing, a thousand years earlier.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 22, 2012
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.