[PandyAndy]

[QUOTE=DontJudge;37097967]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.

"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."

'They float' refers to the Sun and Moon from the previous sentence. You can see the Sun and the moon appear to move across the sky, much like a spinning-wheel shape. This is nothing that was not observable, and does not refer to the Earth being spherical.

Wtf is oblate spheroid, you mean circle?

It is a sphere that has an equatorial diameter that is larger than its polar diameter, e.g the Earth

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.

That's the problem, it's so vague it can be interpreted to however you want it.

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by 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

[Riz10]

(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?

There Are No Scientific Errors In The Quran Like That Of The Torah & Bible Of Which Many Aspects Have Been Altered And Written By Historians, Philosphers Etc. You Seem To Talk A Lot About Theories E.g Einstein- These Are "Theories" Whereas The Quran Is Book Of Facts. French Surgeon, Dr Maurice Bucaille -"According to Bucaille, there are monumental errors of science in the Bible and not a single error in the Qur'an. Bucaille's belief is that the Qur'an's descriptions of natural phenomena make it compatible with modern science. Bucaille concludes that the Qur'an is the reliable word of God.
Bucaille argues that the Old Testament has been distorted because of numerous translations and corrections as it was transmitted orally. He highlights, in his words, “numerous disagreements and repetitions”, in the Old Testament and the Gospels"....& You Say That The Quran Says The Earth Was Created In Six Days- No, That Is Just The English Transalation, The Arabic Word Is "Ayam" Which Means Long Periods...You've Obviously Been Listening To Much Of What You've Been Told, And I'm Pretty Sure You Have'nt Read The Quran!

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by Riz10)
There Are No Scientific Errors In The Quran Like That Of The Torah & Bible Of Which Many Aspects Have Been Altered And Written By Historians, Philosphers Etc. You Seem To Talk A Lot About Theories E.g Einstein- These Are "Theories" Whereas The Quran Is Book Of Facts. French Surgeon, Dr Maurice Bucaille -"According to Bucaille, there are monumental errors of science in the Bible and not a single error in the Qur'an. Bucaille's belief is that the Qur'an's descriptions of natural phenomena make it compatible with modern science. Bucaille concludes that the Qur'an is the reliable word of God.
Bucaille argues that the Old Testament has been distorted because of numerous translations and corrections as it was transmitted orally. He highlights, in his words, “numerous disagreements and repetitions”, in the Old Testament and the Gospels"....& You Say That The Quran Says The Earth Was Created In Six Days- No, That Is Just The English Transalation, The Arabic Word Is "Ayam" Which Means Long Periods...You've Obviously Been Listening To Much Of What You've Been Told, And I'm Pretty Sure You Have'nt Read The Quran!

Yes there are.

Bucaille was the personal physician of the Saudi royal family. He even has his own 'movement', Bucaillism. As far as I'm aware he never converted to Islam, which shows how strong his own beliefs were about this topic.

[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by DontJudge)

How is it 'misremembered' when the Quran and Hadiths were written at the time?

Qur'an, maybe, Hadith, no.

(Original post by PandyAndy)

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 think it means the earth is flat, I think it's conveying the earth is a wide expanse.

(Original post by Riz10)
According to Bucaille,

Bucaille was paid a lot by the Saudi lot to write his book. As was Keith Moore, if you're going to mention him next.

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by Ayshizzle)
Qur'an, maybe, Hadith, no.



I don't think it means the earth is flat, I think it's conveying the earth is a wide expanse.



Bucaille was paid a lot by the Saudi lot to write his book. As was Keith Moore, if you're going to mention him next.

You're probably right, I was more trying to put across the point that each verse can be interpreted to suit one's own agenda .

Yea, Moore and Bucaille were almost definitely on the Saudi payroll. Moore's book was essentially the same as his 'Western' one, but had Islamic additions after his work there.

[Person1001]

(Original post by yomomalomo)
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.

The verse isn't metaphorical though, rather it can be interpreted in multiple ways.
Regarding the bold, I think it's important to note that the Quran's truthfulness relies on the truthfulness of its claims - occasionally it may go to mention something we deem to be a scientific description but they are always in the context of a moral message. The descriptions however can't be false (in the sense that it must be interpreted in some sense to be true) - with that some such verses seen scientifically are evidentially ambiguous much like the 'clay verse'. Some people (like Keith Moore) believe that certain descriptions are scientifically accurate and whilst they do have a loci of possible interpretation - its enough that a scientifically accurate one could fall in. We both know the verses he is referring to and I don't want to go into a debate about that in particular but I don't find such a position to take as outrageous though many may disagree.
Like you said, I do think the 'moral' meanings of the story are more important - looking in context of the time, the prophet wasn't using 'scientific facts' to prove the truthfulness of his claims, rather it was the recitation itself that stood out against all other poems that compelled people that this initially illiterate person may be onto something.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(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.

You're taking the piss out of uneducated gangster wannabe 'got 2 protek da umma innit bruv' muslims, right? This can't be for real.

[xXxiKillxXx]

(Original post by Facticity)
"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.

Lol wasted all your time typing that. I meant it was a BASIC HTML site, one that anyone could create in under 2 minutres.. All I''m asking is for a link, since you cannot provide that, keep it moving.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
'got 2 protek da umma innit bruv'

I must admit... that took me a while to understand

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
Lol wasted all your time typing that. I meant it was a BASIC HTML site, one that anyone could create in under 2 minutres.. All I''m asking is for a link, since you cannot provide that, keep it moving.

I gave you a link yesterday... you seem to have completely ignored it

What he's saying is right,you do seem like the type of person that'd just write off sites that criticise Islam because you simply don't like it. Then continue to say that the Quran is perfect.

Go and look for the information yourself if you aren't going to take any of the links that people offer you. Your search for truth is confined to your own bias. It's pathetic.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by DontJudge)
wat fuk u talkin bout bruv. i come from a ghetto area...wtf wudnt it be for reall....weirdoo..this is how i is.

ma parents both earn benfits, and i liv in council estate

and why is talkin like dis uneducated?!!? how horrifc..it's just adapting to the subcultural norms over here..idiote.

thought so

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by DontJudge)
But I would like to clear your stereotype about people who choose to use slang as being uneducated. You're very closed minded to think that bruv.

isn't it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGp4DvFEgh8

[DontJudge]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
isn't it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGp4DvFEgh8

Lol, i seen dat, proper sick trust!

But bruv u shudn't par me just cos of da way i articulate ma self, ya get meh?

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
WHo is putting their own words on behalf of scripture now None of what you wrote above is in the quran.

Firstly - yes it is. The development of humans from conception until birth is all over the place in the Qur'an.

But that's besides the point anyway. It is an example of how the words of the Qur'an can be understood in such a way as to not contradict the theory of evolution - thus nullifying anybody's insistence that the Qur'an does contradict evolution.

As I've said already, they're two separate issues. Evolution is about changes occuring within a population, and the Qur'an talks about the development of the individual.

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

When did I say that man from clay = evolution?

1] The Qur'an affirms the theory of evolution
2] The Qur'an foes not contradict the theory of evolution

Do you understand the difference between these two points? Do you know which one is the point that I am making? Because at the moment it seems not.

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?

There are various potential explanations for this, depending on exactly which narrative you're talking about. For example:

A narrative may have originally been revealed by God, and therefore been true originally. Man distorted the narrative over time, so that later on it contained some truth and some falsehood. The Qur'an then restores it to complete truth rather than semi-truth.

Or a narrative may have been originally written by man based on true events. So they'd be true in general, but wouldn't be error free.

How is that the 'fact of the matter' ? Evidence, source?

The "fact of the matter" is that you do not prove the Qur'an was copied, just by showing that similar narratives have appeared previously - which discredits your continuous claiming of "copying", as though it were fact.
The "fact of the matter" is also that it isn't of any importance where the narratives came from anyway. The important point is whether they're true or false.

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 ?

The Enuma Elish sounds nothing like the Qur'anic account of creation. Someone could have just made it up, for all I know. Or perhaps it was once true, and got distorted over time, as with other narratives. There are many possibilities. You certaintly don't worry a Muslim by showing him the Enuma Elish.

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

It most likely hasn't - firstly because you can compare today's Qur'an with ancient Qur'an's not long after Muhammad's time and note the lack of differences. And secondly because historically speaking, it was very common for people to memorise the entire thing, or at least long passages of it. Making changes to the Qur'an aren't likely to have gone unnoticed and unchallenged, when Muslims have always been so particular about its preservation.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by 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.

You're talking about something different from me. I'm not talking about one successful genetic mutation. It takes more than one mutation for a non-human population to evolve at become humans. It takes many. And every single one of those mutations has to be carried down to the same individual. But not just to one individual, but many. And assuming that any particular set of mutations is rare enough to not occur twice independently, it necessarily implies that all individual with this set of mutations can trace their lineage back to whichever individuals first underwent any one of those mutations.


The other point is that, although incest is unfavourable for survival of offspring, it is not so unfavourable so as to cause extinction. The force of mortality due to incest is significantly less than the force of birth.

Suppose we make the assumption that each generation is only twice as large as the previous generation, i.e. that each "couple" produces four children who survive long enough to reproduce themselves. Considering the population we're talking about, this is a very conservative estimate (it's not as though early man was a conscientous family planner who used contraception carefully).
This results in an exponential increase on population. There are so many births that the deaths due to incest have little effect in cutting down the population. And mutations are also given more opportunity to occur as well.

Yes, incest might not be good for population increase, but it's not the kind of thing that is going to completely prevent it and wipe out an entire species. As I said, you can already observe it in other animals. No matter how much a brother and sister rabbit dislike each others odours, they're still perfectly capable of producing a litter. And two members of that litter are prefectly capable of producing another litter. And then members of those litters can also mate with members of a different litter as well, diluting each gene pool as they go along.
A few from each generation might die, but that's no big deal in the grand scheme of things.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Firstly - yes it is. The development of humans from conception until birth is all over the place in the Qur'an. .

We werent talking about conception and birth, stop trying to re-direct topics to avoid the point - we are talking about the account of the evolution of human species - the quran says nothing of what you just wrote about that subject, So you are putting words into quranic scripture now. Is that we are all suppossed to do now?

(Original post by tazarooni89)

As I've said already, they're two separate issues. Evolution is about changes occuring within a population, and the Qur'an talks about the development of the individual.



When did I say that man from clay = evolution?

1] The Qur'an affirms the theory of evolution
2] The Qur'an foes not contradict the theory of evolution

Do you understand the difference between these two points? Do you know which one is the point that I am making? Because at the moment it seems not. .

On the subject of human beings arrival on earth as a species - the Quran states they were moulded from clay. Thats is contradictory to the scientific evolutionery theory of the human species. Ive repeated that 3 times and still you refuse to accept that fact, instead trying to ignore and re-direct.

(Original post by tazarooni89)


There are various potential explanations for this, depending on exactly which narrative you're talking about. For example:

A narrative may have originally been revealed by God, and therefore been true originally. Man distorted the narrative over time, so that later on it contained some truth and some falsehood. The Qur'an then restores it to complete truth rather than semi-truth.

Or a narrative may have been originally written by man based on true events. So they'd be true in general, but wouldn't be error free .

But even so, the narrative would have had to be written by a man who witness the events you claim actually happend, the story of creation - who wrote it, thats what i asked you.

How would 'a man' be able to write about the first human being created form the earth and clay, if he hadnt witnessed it?

(Original post by tazarooni89)


The "fact of the matter" is that you do not prove the Qur'an was copied, just by showing that similar narratives have appeared previously - which discredits your continuous claiming of "copying", as though it were fact.
The "fact of the matter" is also that it isn't of any importance where the narratives came from anyway. The important point is whether they're true or false. .

Of course it is important where those narratives came from, it appears they came from an ancient religion that islam today denounces as incorrect, that in itself is hypocritical. Additionally, it raises the question of why the quran proclaims itslef to be the unparalled truth, and yet it appears to be re-hashes of earlier unislamic religons scripture - and claims to have scientific knowledge - which is either wrong, or was again plagiarised form earlier civlisations, like the greks and babylonians. So If by, example, the quran is saying that the Babylonians ("pagans") were largely right about so much 1 thousand years before mohammed was born, perhaps they were right about the things mohammed disagreed with too?

(Original post by tazarooni89)

It most likely hasn't - firstly because you can compare today's Qur'an with ancient Qur'an's not long after Muhammad's time and note the lack of differences. And secondly because historically speaking, it was very common for people to memorise the entire thing, or at least long passages of it. Making changes to the Qur'an aren't likely to have gone unnoticed and unchallenged, when Muslims have always been so particular about its preservation.

According to Islams own record, the first versions of the quran were multiple and contradictory, and appraently ' all but one version was destroyed' That may explain why you read a similar version to the earliest recorded quran of the 9th century. It doesnt show that the quran wasnt altered or tampered with, the opposite in fact.
Would you also like to explain why even verses in the quran you have today were abrogated (officially altered) at some point in time ?

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
We werent talking about conception and birth, stop trying to re-direct topics to avoid the point - we are talking about the account of the evolution of human species - the quran says nothing of what you just wrote about that subject, So you are putting words into quranic scripture now. Is that we are all suppossed to do now?

I know we weren't talking about conception and birth. But you chose verses talking about man being given its shape. So I'm pointing out that those verses are talking about the process between conception and birth.

There is no account of the evolution of the human species in the Qur'an. Nothing to either confirm or contradict the scientifically accepted account.

On the subject of human beings arrival on earth as a species - the Quran states they were moulded from clay. Thats is contradictory to the scientific evolutionery theory of the human species. Ive repeated that 3 times and still you refuse to accept that fact, instead trying to ignore and re-direct.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying the part in bold is wrong.

But even so, the narrative would have had to be written by a man who witness the events you claim actually happend, the story of creation - who wrote it, thats what i asked you.

How would 'a man' be able to write about the first human being created form the earth and clay, if he hadnt witnessed it?

Why would a man have to witness the creation in order to write about it?
Why can't God witness the creation, communicate it to man, and then man writes about what he has just heard?

Of course it is important where those narratives came from, it appears they came from an ancient releigion that islam today denounces as incorrect, that in itself is hypocritical.

Islam doesn't denouce any religion as entirely incorrect.

Additionally, it raises the question of why the quran proclaims itslef to be the unparalled truth, and yet it appears to be re-hashes of earlier unislamic religons scripture.

It doesn't claim to be "unparalleled truth". It claims that God has revealed similar truths in the past - though they haven't been perfectly preserved.

If by, example, the quran is saying that the Babylonians were largely right about so much 1 thousand years before mohammed was born, perhaps they were right about the things mohammed disagreed with too?

The Qur'an is saying that the Babylonians (and previous societies in general) were right about some things, and wrong about others. It tells you what they were right about, and what they were wrong about.
Nobody can be wrong about everything.

According to Islams own record, the first version of the quran was multiple and contradictory, and appraently ' all but one version was destroyed' That may explain why you read a similar version to the fearliest recorded quran of the 9th century. It doesnt show that the quran wasnt altered or tampered with, the opposite in fact.

The incorrect versions were destroyed. And to a person who understands Arabic, it is obvious which the incorrect versions are. If you found two english books with exactly the same words, but one with lots of spelling mistakes, you'd know which one the correct version was.

Some copies of the Qur'an had incorrect diacritial marks leading to incorrect pronunciation, so they were destroyed. There were no "contradictory" versions.

Would you also like to explain why even verses in the quran you have today were abrogated (officially altered) at some point in time ?

Firstly, abrogation doesn't mean "official alteration". Verses of the Qur'an have never been altered. Abrogation means that one verse is revealed, and then a different verse gets revealed later on, telling you that the old one doesn't apply.

Secondly, abrogation doesn't even happen in the Qur'an. Some Muslims believe it does. But then they simply don't know their Qur'an well enough. There is no verse in the Qur'an which tells you that a different one is now void.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
I know we weren't talking about conception and birth. But you chose verses talking about man being given its shape. So I'm pointing out that those verses are talking about the process between conception and birth.


There is no account of the evolution of the human species in the Qur'an. Nothing to either confirm or contradict the scientifically accepted account.

.

No, i chose the verse that gave the qurans opinion of how the first human being came to exist on earth - ie islamic view of the creation of the human species. You are making yourself look foolish now denying that. That is the islamic equivalent of the scientific evoutionery theory of man - and you can see one contradicts the other.

You brought up embyology etc as an irrelvant progression, to try and leave the topic of discussion

So for the forth time - the quran states all humans oringated from a man called adam, moulded from clay - either you accept that or beleive it to be untrue

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Islam doesn't denouce any religion as entirely incorrect.
.

Islam states judaism and christianity are corrupted versions of its precursors. And that all other religions are simply 'pagan' and untrue.

But it copies 'pagan' scripture to make up its holy book. Hypocracy?

(Original post by tazarooni89)

The Qur'an is saying that the Babylonians (and previous societies in general) were right about some things, and wrong about others. It tells you what they were right about, and what they were wrong about.

.

without proof or reasoning as to what was right or wrong, or why.

Sounds far -fetched, the more likely explanatio is the authors of the quran needed to fill a few hundred pages, so used stories and sciences they had heard of from the past, but changed some of the names.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

The incorrect versions were destroyed. And to a person who understands Arabic, it is obvious which the incorrect versions are. If you found two english books with exactly the same words, but one with lots of spelling mistakes, you'd know which one the correct version was.


Some copies of the Qur'an had incorrect diacritial marks leading to incorrect pronunciation, so they were destroyed. There were no "contradictory" versions.

.

Incorrect, even according to Islamic record, there were early versions of the quran that were signficantly different to others, in terms of extra ayas, and missing ones. And contradicting directions to face in prayer, things that are and arnt permissable etc. So not soley down to dialectual differences at all.
And who is judging all of a sudden which were correct and whcih were not, they were all written by people that had lived with mohammed were they not. Since when do humans have the power to decide what is suitable gospel and scripture?

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Firstly, abrogation doesn't mean "official alteration". Verses of the Qur'an have never been altered. Abrogation means that one verse is revealed, and then a different verse gets revealed later on, telling you that the old one doesn't apply.

Secondly, abrogation doesn't even happen in the Qur'an. Some Muslims believe it does. But then they simply don't know their Qur'an well enough. There is no verse in the Qur'an which tells you that a different one is now void.

muslims beleive over 250 verses of the quran have been abrogated (altered and or substituted) - the actual amount is often debated, as with everything in islam.

but we know from various evidential scripture that ayas have been changed and substitued, this could have only be done by human authors. Muslims accpet this fact ( by what logic i dont really understand) so its not something you can deny.

[Facticity]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
Lol wasted all your time typing that. I meant it was a BASIC HTML site, one that anyone could create in under 2 minutres.. All I''m asking is for a link, since you cannot provide that, keep it moving.

Not really, everything I said is still applicable. Your answer is exactly what I addressed in that post. You're wasting your time asking for something which I said is really easy to find. No one is going to bother looking for it for you. This is a debate forum, if you're primary argument and motive for your viewpoint is "no one has given me a source which isn't a basic HTML site" then I don't think you have much of an argument at all nor any reason for anyone to take your point seriously. As I said, you're primary problem is "As far as I know" <-- this is clearly failing you. You clearly didn't take in a word I said. I'll keep moving don't worry, you don't have to tell me twice not to argue with someone who seems ignorant of the basics.

[Mughal!]

(Original post by DontJudge)
Lol, i seen dat, proper sick trust!

But bruv u shudn't par me just cos of da way i articulate ma self, ya get meh?

So not cool, good use of english please G.