[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Why do you feel the need to twist the words?
As I've already said, the Qur'an describes a material that humans are made of (note, not the only material). It doesn't say "lo, there was a pile of clay on the floor and with it I made my first human directly". It says humans are created by God, given life/consciousness by God, and made of a material which the Qur'an calls "clay".

You're trying to make the Qur'an say something that it doesn't say. You're trying to force the Qur'an to say that humans were made in the same way that pottery is made. .

I havent twisted anything- the quran states the first man was moulded from clay and breathed life into, which is what i posted above. So i ask again, what part of evolution theiry does that follow?

(Original post by tazarooni89)
But you do award highest marks to the person who gets all the answers right. You don't assume he copied from someone else just because they both have similar answers.

In any case, even if he gets 100% by plagiarism - what he writes is still true. It is still sensible to believe it.
.

No, he gets 0% by plagiarism, and his motives and morality are then questioned, not celebrated.

(Original post by tazarooni89)


With regards to your question about who witnessed the creation - God witnessed it. And since he has sent down many scriptures before the Qur'an, it is found in many scriptures before the Qur'an - though not preserved to the precise detail.
Information about the universe's creation existed long before the Qur'an did - originating with God, and embellished upon by man.

You are contradicting yourself - you say accurate creation information existed long before the quran (enuma elish)- again i ask you, who witnessed and wrote about creation, and why did they refer to polyeists deities ?

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Person1001)
It could be interpreted as 'moulded' out of clay in the same way pottery is made. It could be interpreted as humans being created as an end product of what was initially clay. It could be interpreted as humans being made from whatever clay is made from. Etc....

I don't think it should be looked at too deeply.

Why not
Why is it that you are so confident of the exact meaning of the verses regarding homosexuality and drinking alchohol, but wooly on this?

[Person1001]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
Why not
Why is it that you are so confident of the exact meaning of the verses regarding homosexuality and drinking alchohol, but wooly on this?

I think you'd have to be dishonest with yourself if you said that the verses on law and prohibitions weren't explicit and unequivocal and for obvious reasons. Whereas with the 'clay' verse, it's clear the author didn't intend to give a scientific description of the origins of humans - I (personally) believe it was intended to show humans that they were made of something that is much less significant.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
I havent twisted anything- the quran states the first man was moulded from clay and breathed life into, which is what i posted above. So i ask again, what part of evolution theiry does that follow?

No, not breathed life into, but breathed soul/spirit/sentience into - As God does with every single human at conception, not just Adam.
Again, not that he just picked up a lump of clay off the floor and turned it into a human. Humans are made of this particular material. While they are in their development phases, they initially start off as something small and structureless, but are later given shape and structure. Again, as God does with every single human, not just Adam.

This doesn't conflict with any evolutionary theory, as it describes a phase that any evolutionist would accept - the development of each human before birth.

Like I said, you're trying to add more to the meaning of the words than is already there. When I read those words, I get a very different impression of creation from the one you're trying to put in my mouth.

No, he gets 0% by plagiarism, and his motives and morality are then questioned, not celebrated.

First point: We don't assume he plagiarised to begin with. Similar but correct answers aren't a cause of suspicion.
Second point: Fact of the matter is, his script contains the truth.

You are contradicting yourself - you say accurate creation information existed long before the quran (enuma elish)- again i ask you, who witnessed and wrote about creation, and why did they refer to polyeists deities ?

I reply again: God witnessed and sent scripture regarding the creation. Humans embellished upon this account, including extra details that God didn't put there to begin with.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Again, not that he just picked up a lump of clay off the floor and turned it into a human. Humans are made of this particular material. While they are in their development phases, they initially start off as something small and structureless, but are later given shape and structure. Again, as God does with every single human, not just Adam.Like I said, you're trying to add more to the meaning of the words than is already there. When I read those words, I get a very different impression of creation from the one you're trying to put in my mouth .

WHo is putting their own words on behalf of scripture now None of what you wrote above is in the quran.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

This doesn't conflict with any evolutionary theory, as it describes a phase that any evolutionist would accept - the development of each human before birth. .

Rubbish. man from clay =/= evolution. read the theory again

.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

First point: We don't assume he plagiarised to begin with. Similar but correct answers aren't a cause of suspicion.
Second point: Fact of the matter is, his script contains the truth.
.

So it wasnt the truth when it was first written, but became the truth after it was copied, with afew names changed, in the quran? How is that the 'fact of the matter' ? Evidence, source?

(Original post by tazarooni89)

I reply again: God witnessed and sent scripture regarding the creation. Humans embellished upon this account, including extra details that God didn't put there to begin with.

Including the Enuma Elish written in approx 1400 bc? why did it refer to polyeithist dieties in that case (and always has as far as historical record goes), surely 'your truth' would have been made know to man back then? Why was it left as it was for 2000 more years ?

How do you know the quran hasnt been embellished by humans in the same way?

[sexbo]

(Original post by King-Panther)
No, gravity is a law, hence the law of gravity. Evolution is a theory, ha!

This is the biggest misconception about evolution. In the scientific world "Theory" does not mean "An idea pulled out of one's arse after a couple games of beer pong". A law is a set of rules based on lengthy observation of a certain phenomena. A theory is the explanation of those observations and rules. So the reason why there is a "law of gravity" and not a "theory of gravity" is because when Newton studied gravity all he came up with is the rules governing it. When asked for an explanation for why gravity followed these rules he merely said "god did it" It was not until the theory of relativity that an explanation was given. So ironically a theory is actually more comprehensive than a simple law in that it actually explains the phenomena. There needs to be a campaign for people to realise the difference between theory, law and hypothesis.

[zedeneye1]

(Original post by King-Panther)
O.k, but thats not the point, the force of gravity is a law.

are you from pakistan?

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
atheists are craaazy they fink dat summit just came into existence jus like that. well if so why doesnt dis always happen like now and yesterday. how can the universe be 14,000,000,000 years old rather than infinite, it must have had somethin to start it all off its logic

And using a being that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, ominscient, omnipresent etc to explain how the earth was created is more logical?

This isn't dragonballz...

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
yeah we know the universe is this old becoz of dese tings but it doesnt tell us why our universe decided all by itself to become this amount of years ago, does it?

Doubt any1 noz dez tings, u get me babes? But Sam ting can b sed bout god yh. Lots ov qestons bout life but dat dosnt meen u can tak da ez way out n jus say god did evryting

If u get ill becus u liv in a **** hol, is it becus god did it or is it becus u liv in a **** hol?
Is it becus god tinks ur bad or is it becus u don liv in a cleen place?

My bad for taking the piss lol. Just wanted to see if I can type weird out of curiosity haha

[Gofre]

(Original post by King-Panther)
No, gravity is a law, hence the law of gravity, its mechanics are theoretical

http://physics.about.com/od/classica.../a/gravity.htm

We're going in circles again, you should really try and kick this habit KP. I agree that gravity is a law. I'm saying that it is also a theory, the two are not mutually exclusive and neither has any impact on gravity's status as the other.

[Facticity]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
As far as I know, there aren't any scientific inaccuracies in the Quran. Thats why I am asking for research in this area, not a copy and paste article from a HTML website.

"As far as I know" <--- There is your problem. If you went through your life only taking for granted what you knew, then, well, you'd pretty much know nothing. The internet is a source of information as wide as it is populated. A simple google search will reveal everything you want. If everytime you get to a website which disproves a miracle or whatever in the Qur'an, you simply write it off as "anti-islamic" then you're just a slave to your own bias, circular nonsense. Go on youtube, go on google. There are plenty of articles, videos, advanced level debates, even pHD holders who put up all kinds of arguments and scientific facts, the nature of which you are looking for. The place to NOT ask for it however, is this thread as it is off topic and no one is going to paste or try to argue a ridiculously trivial point which everyone has access to. So, there you go.

In fact, there have been many, many threads in the Religion section of TSR about miracles and science of the Qur'an with arguments from both sides. A quick flick of the search function will get you there.

Also, what kind of a website isn't a HTML website? All websites have HTML script. If you seem to be implying you don't want an online source as its obviously "hate/anti-islam" then I don't think you should be in the debate forum. I really hate it when people refuse to accept things from the internet on such bases. The internet isn't all 9gag, there are quality, and detailed and FACTUAL sources out there. /rant-about-something-that-should-be-common-sense.

The information is there, take it as it is or leave it, as I doubt anyone will try to explain why a fact is a fact, when it is obviously a fact.

[Person1001]

(Original post by Gofre)
We're going in circles again, you should really try and kick this habit KP. I agree that gravity is a law. I'm saying that it is also a theory, the two are not mutually exclusive and neither has any impact on gravity's status as the other.

Perhaps you could put definitions for both in the definitional thread

[ash92:)]

(Original post by Mouldy_Underwear)
It's true that there are many scientific inaccuracies in the Qur'an such as as no evolution. There is also stuff such as it saying that living things are made from water but it also says that they are made from clay and nothing too. The earth being spherical is another one but the knowledge of that was already well established in the region at that time, so much so that the circumference of the Earth was calculated to a high accuracy.

However something that is particularly interesting is the Islamic account of the creation story. According to Islam the Universe and the Earth were created in six days. Whilst many people would say that it would be silly to literally believe it took six days, from what I've gathered it may have actually have been six days. This is because, in Einsteins theory of relativity, there are factors which can affect the flow of time. One of the factors is mass, and it is mentioned in the Qur'an that God's Throne is much much more massive than the universe, and if that is so than the flow of time is much slower there. Therefore six days in God's Throne may well be 13.7 billion years. Since the universe was created in six days, the time taken for the creation of the solar system and the earth is believed to be 2 days. That is 2/6 or 1/3 of the 13.7 billion years. This gives a value of 4.57 billion years and the earth is believed to be 4.54 billion years, if you take into account the uncertainties than you can get 4.57 billion.

This coupled with other things that the Qur'an says about the universe such as it all coming from one point and that is continues to expand seem to give the religion a lot of support especially since it this knowledge wasn't known at the time. I haven't gone through a great amount of research to find this information so some of it may be incorrect, if I made a mistake please point that out. Anyway what are your thoughts on this?

I haven't read into this topic for a long time. But very briefly:

>the Quran says that living things are made from water. Any biologist can't deny this as living things are cells or made up of cells which are filled with cytosol - the vast majority of which is water.

>the thing about the creation theory, I can't remember specific details but I recall that there is an Arabic word in the Quran that has been losely translated as days but rather means any period of time, not days specifically.

>any theory on creationism is just that - a theory. Nobody can vouch for it being 100% true. Interesting to see what you've come up with though!

>the Quran doesn't describe the earth as a perfect sphere, but rather more like an ostrich egg - suggesting unequal dimensions.

>I don't understand why evolution and religious creationism are treated so separately - surely one can believe in both having their valid points.

Maurice Bucaille has written some books on this topic that you may find useful. Google will provide links

[DontJudge]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
Leaving aside the ascription of consious choice to the universe, your book doesn't give you a reliable answer either. It makes a completly uninformed and unsupported guess. On top of that, it is a long way from the simple postulation of an uncaused cause, labelled as 'God,' to the idea that the Koran is anything more than a jumble of misremembered myths, psuedoscience, and self-serving declarations from a possibly disturbed man.

The question is bro, how do you know it's 'unreliable' inneh, you can't prove to me thaqt God doesn't exist you get me fam?

How is it 'misremembered' when the Quran and Hadiths were written at the time?
And how is it psuedoscience, the Quran states the earth is spherical, is it not spherical? The Quran talks about the water cycle, does the water cycle not exist?

Why would a disturbed man, say to give charity, and not be racist and be kind towards others? Do you not think he would have told next manz to be workshipping HIM not GOD?

Kasmeh brooo you don't make sense inneh, allow that fam.

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by ash92:))
I haven't read into this topic for a long time. But very briefly:

>the Quran says that living things are made from water. Any biologist can't deny this as living things are cells or made up of cells which are filled with cytosol - the vast majority of which is water.

Decomposing bodies liquefy, it's not beyond belief that people saw this and thought the body was made up of water.

>any theory on creationism is just that - a theory. Nobody can vouch for it being 100% true. Interesting to see what you've come up with though!

Creationism is not a theory, it has no supporting evidence.

>the Quran doesn't describe the earth as a perfect sphere, but rather more like an ostrich egg - suggesting unequal dimensions.

There is thought that the verse has been twisted to say this. "And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance" is one of several translations of a verse mentioning the Earth's shape. This to me suggests a flat Earth, and the verses that supposedly mention the egg are actually referring to the way the ostrich spreads the ground out to lay its egg. Even if it did say the Earth was ostrich egg shaped, the Earth is not shaped like an ostrich egg.

>I don't understand why evolution and religious creationism are treated so separately - surely one can believe in both having their valid points.

Maurice Bucaille has written some books on this topic that you may find useful. Google will provide links

Because creationism says all species were created as they are now, evolution states that they reached their current form over a large space of time and in many stages. Unless it's a form of creationism that allows the creation of single celled organisms that then go on to evolve.

(Original post by DontJudge)
The question is bro, how do you know it's 'unreliable' inneh, you can't prove to me thaqt God doesn't exist you get me fam?

How is it 'misremembered' when the Quran and Hadiths were written at the time?
And how is it psuedoscience, the Quran states the earth is spherical, is it not spherical? The Quran talks about the water cycle, does the water cycle not exist?

Why would a disturbed man, say to give charity, and not be racist and be kind towards others? Do you not think he would have told next manz to be workshipping HIM not GOD?

Kasmeh brooo you don't make sense inneh, allow that fam.

Read above.

[DontJudge]

(Original post by PandyAndy)
Creationism is not a theory, it has no supporting evidence.

There is thought that the verse has been twisted to say this. "And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance" is one of several translations of a verse mentioning the Earth's shape. This to me suggests a flat Earth, and the verses that supposedly mention the egg are actually referring to the way the ostrich spreads the ground out to lay its egg. Even if it did say the Earth was ostrich egg shaped, the Earth is not shaped like an ostrich egg.

Because creationism says all species were created as they are now, evolution states that they reached their current form over a large space of time and in many stages.

Read above.

Lol how the hell does that insinuate that the world was flat, you is crazeh!
All it says is that it was 'spread out', so when you're standing in one place, does it not 'seem' spread out?

How do you explain this.

And He (i.e., Allah) it is Who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon. They float, each in a falak (The Noble Quran, 21:33). bn Abbas says: A falaka like that of a spinning wheel.

[yomomalomo]

No, sorry tarzooni, you do not seem to understand speciation very well. We did not, as humans, come from a single pair of two ancestor apes whose children multiplied solely amongst themselves. That is why it is wrong. our ancestors moved in groups much like we do today. Being disconnected environmentally from their relatives, e.g. if a group of 30 cross a river while another prefer to stay on the other side, then the group will begin to diverge, genetically from the others (if they stay on the other side). On the other side of the river is an environment with different selective pressures, because of this, the apes evolve to cope with them. Again, as the groups are split any differences that occur amongst them will stay separate rather than mix, because there is no mating between them.

When a child is born with a successful genetic mutation, when it grows up it will mate with an ape-humanoid of different parents. Its successful mutation will be present in some of their children, these children will survive and continue to procreate, again not amongst themselves, passing their successful genetic material onwards.

Now you may ask why the child with the successful mutation not mate with its sister who is born one year later, for example. First of all, it is not much more likely that its sister will have the same successful genetic mutation, however, it is very likely that she will have the same rest of his genes. This means she will have the same genetic flaws, or things which are not so successful. Because of this, if they interbreed, their offspring will have a much greater chance of having bad phenotypes, because their will be a lack of variant dominant genes to mask the recessive ones. This makes it less likely the offspring will survive - the animals die out. However, if the child(A) with the successful gene mutation mates with the child of different parents (B), then there is nearly the same, but maybe slightly slightly less chance that their offspring will have the successful genetic mutation that A has. Instead, there is an increased chance of their being any successful mutation that occurred in B occurring in the offspring and there is also a massively decreased chance that any of the recessive genes in A) will be shown in the offspring.

Basically, incest reduces net chance for successful mutations to occur in offspring, while increasing with chance of recessive genes showing themselves. It is an evolutionary fail and that is why so many plants and animals have adapted so as to reduce the chance of it ever happening. Just look at most plants and you will see that the anther is very far from the same plants ovary so as not to self-fertilise. Some plants go further, like apple trees, having female and male versions of themselves so as not to reuse the same genetic material. In animals it is only more prominent as there have been studies showing that the body odour of close relatives is incredibly off puting to animals, while the odour of unrelated animals is alluring. This is actually based in the rhinocephalon or nose-brain which is an extremely archaic part of the brain - one of the first parts. It is such an unsuccessful thing to do that it is actually hard-wired in mine and your brains, along with numerous other animals, to not do it.

That is why it is highly unlikely that there were two people or proto-humans that were made or evolved to that point and then purely by themselves populated the whole world.

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by DontJudge)
Lol how the hell does that insinuate that the world was flat, you is crazeh!
All it says is that it was 'spread out', so when you're standing in one place, does it not 'seem' spread out?

How do you explain this.

And He (i.e., Allah) it is Who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon. They float, each in a falak (The Noble Quran, 21:33). bn Abbas says: A falaka like that of a spinning wheel.

How the hell does it imply that it's an oblate spheroid? When you spread something out, you tend to flatten it.

[yomomalomo]

(Original post by Person1001)
If I say that I created a cupboard out of wood - I don't expect to be corrected because I left out all the other materials that might have gone into it.

I don't think see how from reading the verse that the author is intending to give a scientific description of the creation of humans. I do believe (personally) that the author is telling the reader how out of something considered insignificant He has created something much more special.

You can think and see it as what you like, that is completely up to you. I would agree with you that it is better to see it in metaphorical terms or ways rather than take anything literally. That is what I am getting at though (in this thread, because that is what it is about), it is a piece of literature that some find amazing, others not. It isn't something that is a scientific piece of evidence and it shouldn't be promoted as such, because when it is, it is quickly and easily shot down. The implicit meanings themselves are seemingly far more important than the explicit and it no doubt holds relevance for anyone at any time anywhere. I do not disbelieve Islam because it falls short when its passages are scrutinized scientifically, I disbelieve it because I think that for however great it is, it is the work of a man. I find that it has logical,philosophical and moral short-comings and that even the aesthetics of its philosophy is not as great as that of other religions or men, many of which do not claim divine knowledge.

[DontJudge]

(Original post by PandyAndy)
How the hell does it imply that it's an oblate spheroid? When you spread something out, you tend to flatten it.

Aight man,

When you orbit sumfin, it's usually a sphere inneh, so what else do you fink that quote means, you just ignored it you rarsclaat.

Wtf is oblate spheroid, you mean circle?

Plus with your quote alone, there's many interpretations towards it, which can change the meaning.
And and, why would it say that it's shaped like an ostrich eggs, then? So nobviously your quote is meaning 'spread' in the more metophorical way.

[IWantSomeMushu]

What would be really cool is if cosmologists were to troll the people who believe this by announcing that the Big Bang is wrong, and then seeing how they react to it