Muslim claims of scientific accuracy in the Quran

[OnceConvinced]

In another thread:

Actually look through the Book(it's online I provide the link below lol) before you discredit it. I know the Title may throw you off, and you'll probably click the exit right then and there... but go through it.. check the table of contents and see whats most interesting...

http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/quran/qms.pdf

*~In reality what is in it could not have been known 1,400 years ago. So it proves God exists... and if you don't think so, well it lessens the chances that he doesn't... If you think one is vague go on to the next one, I assure you most of the verses are direct statements that meet up with what is now known.

Does this document prove that the Quran contains knowledge of the world that primitive man couldn't possibly have known? Does it prove that Allah is the one true God? Please justify your response.

[OnceConvinced]

That document is laughable. I had a brief look and couldn't believe some of the ludicrous claims it made. The arguments here are very similar to ones apologists use to justify the bible.

Day and night overlapping? That shows an ignorance when it comes to rotation of the earth and the circling around the sun. If the Quraan really wanted to show supernatural knowledge it should have talked about the Earth travelling around the sun. The whole spherical Earth is not that big a deal by the way. Just sit on a high point and look out and you can see it's spherical. It's quite possible men noticed that even way back then.

Allah controls the rain and the wind? Nope, there are perfectly scientific reasons for rain and wind and none of them have anything to do with any supernatural being. The stuff about the water cycle is dubious. It's not the wind that causes rain, it's about temperature and hot air rising. If the Quraan really wanted to show supernatural knowledge then it should have described the scientific processes of it in more detail and not said that Allah causes those things to happen. That is primitive ignorance the Quran is showing there.

Mountains are pegs? It seems the Quran is suggesting they are there to hold the world in place, not that they go deep underground. Allah did not firmly fix the mountains as the Quran indicated. Mountains are a result of shifting plates. If the Quran had talked about plate techtonics, then it would be showing us some pretty impressive science.

The barrier between waters? Very metaphorical, but nothing particularly amazing. You'd find out pretty quickly when you tried to drink it. Once again this is science, it's got nothing to do with Allah creating a barrier between them.

Man created from water? Seems like a logical presumption when you see how much liquid is in the human body. It's no different to the Christians saying that man comes from dust. The body goes back to dust, so why not?

Darkness in the depths of the ocean? That may be a good one. But still no proof of God's input into the Quran, especially when there is so much other scientific ignorance.

I notice the Quran can't remain consistant. One moment it says men are created from water, the next from congealed bloodm then mingled liquids, then dust. I notice that the document claims that sperm is referred to as "mingled liquids" in the original text. It seems that the people of the time worked out that the liquid that is released on orgasm was responsible for pregnancies, but did not see it as full of microscopic sperms. An obvious lack of knowledge about microscopic organisms. Changing the original words from "mingled liquids" to "sperm" is typical of original translations of religious texts where changes are made once evidence of it being wrong have been discovered. I'm actually surprised that the writer of this document would pull that one out, because that proves in this case that the Quran was wrong. "mingling liquids" are most definitely not a description of sperm.

It then goes on to talk about pairs again and about seeds. Seeds is a very innacurate word to use and once again shows ignorance. Seeds are not part of human reproduction. Eggs and sperms are.

It actually makes me wonder just how much of today's Quran has been changed as new scientific breakthroughs are made. It's very easy to change to original texts to suit when you come around to printing new versions. As I cannot know just what has been changed in the Quran and what hasn't, I really can't take any of these claims seriously.

Just about everything else there are just simple observations. (eg living things in pairs, life styles of ants, healing properties of honey, spider webs being delicate) Nothing really remarkable about those claims. If Allah had really wanted to prove himself he would have reveal a lot more detail about those things, things that couldn't possibly be observed back then or presumed back then. Maybe some talk about microscopic life or explanations on how sight and hearing works?

I notice that much like Christians will do, the writer of that document tries to take the original words and change the meaning of them. (eg. suggesting that eggshape is really Ostrich egg shape and when it comes to the moon as a light source the writer tries to make out that the verse in question is actually talking about reflecting light). If the word's meanings have to be changed, then why weren't they interpreted correctly in the first place? Surely Allah would have smote anyone dead who dared attempt to translate his word incorrectly? Why should we believe they are wrong now? Nope, I don't buy it. Muslims are doing exactly what the Christians are doing when it comes to try to justify their scriptures.

I also note that the writer of that document tends to put his own spin on the words. Taken at face value it is obvious the scriptures are wrong, but just like a Christian they will attempted to twist the literal words of the text into something else.

Some of the things being talked about in this document are exactly the same types of things mentioned in the Christian bible (eg the sun's movement, the firmament, the light sources). Both the Quran and the Bible are in agreement on these issues, it seems. So if one is wrong, then so is the other.

[Rathpig]

The "proof of God" through a "scientific" Koran remains one of the most ridiculous forms of apologia presented in the present day. This line of pseudo-reasoning requires the target to lack any form of education and merely accept superstitious misrepresentation as accurate.

Perhaps this is why Islam spreads to uneducated and impoverished nations then relies on force and uncontrolled birth-rates to maintain parity.

The level of ignorance in this presentation is laughable, but then anyone who accepts literal Abrahamism has already become a clear source of laughs.

But then again, they do try to justify the "splitting the moon in half" passage as "scientific" because obviously it all depends on just how gullible you are when you twist language into lies.

[byofrcs]

In another thread:

Actually look through the Book(it's online I provide the link below lol) before you discredit it. I know the Title may throw you off, and you'll probably click the exit right then and there... but go through it.. check the table of contents and see whats most interesting...

http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/quran/qms.pdf

*~In reality what is in it could not have been known 1,400 years ago. So it proves God exists... and if you don't think so, well it lessens the chances that he doesn't... If you think one is vague go on to the next one, I assure you most of the verses are direct statements that meet up with what is now known.

Does this document prove that the Quran contains knowledge of the world that primitive man couldn't possibly have known? Does it prove that Allah is the one true God? Please justify your response.

It's 48 pages long. It's by Dr. ZAKIR NAIK. This guy is one of the best which basically means that you must put a cloth over your keyboard before you start to read else you could end up snorting your beer/coffee/milk over the keyboard in laughter.

There is a usual pattern of dishonesty. It starts with the classic claim that no one can create the Quran. With this (on page 7) - the Challenge lies to create a sura.

It is easy countered. Like trying to copy Shakespeare or imitating an artist it just won't be right. Human works of art are hard to copy without looking contrived. This more confirms the Quran is of human origin than of God/Allah.

The problem is that few attempt this challenge because of self-censorship. You really do need to be a good native speaker or scholar of the archaic arabic used. Given that you probably would have friends and family in Muslim states and given the absolute hatred that is shown to anyone who questions Islam your friends will need to seek refuge else they will be killed.

It is my opinion that a suitable program using a genetic algorithm could be used to generate Sura once it had been trained using the existing sura as a template for what a sura looks like. Not saying it would be easy but it may allow scholars to disambiguate themselves and so contribute to the program without anyone saying that they created the sura because they could safely complain in public why it is wrong but that is in effect public feedback as to what needs tweaking to fix the program (hey hey metadata).

Skip to page 9
Claim 1 - the Big Bang - nothing new here. The Quran does not mention the CMBR and other stuff,

Claim 2 - Gaseous mass - again has anyone actually looked at the sky at night and see the clouds of stars ?. In our big cities with lots of light pollution it is hard but visit Northern Sweden and it's amazing.

Claim 3 - Spherical shape of the earth - this is where Dr. ZAKIR NAIK is a blatant liar because many people worked out the Earth was round before Islam.

Claim 4 - Light of the Moon is reflected - More crap from the 'Naik. Anaxagoras (500-428 BCE) a greek and in about 450 BC Anaxagoras was imprisoned for claiming that the Sun was not a god and that the Moon reflected the Sun's light.

Aristarchus of Samos, an early Greek astronomer (about 310 to 230 BC) worked out the Sun-moon-earth angles and certainly the Babylonians knew about eclipses at least a 1000 years before hand.

Claim 5 page 12 - The Sun Rotates. This is tenuous claim from the text. A good proof of the rotation is if they said something about Sun spots.

Claim 6 page 15 - Life cycle of the Sun. Tenuous correlation.

Claim 7 - presence of interstellar matter is claimed from this sura, “He Who created the heavens And the earth and all That is between.� [Al-Qur’aan 25:59]. Is that wishful thinking or what ?

Claim 8 - ........

and so on and so on. Every single claim they make is easily countered and can be shown to be tenuous at best. This is why I love Muslims when they do this because they make their religion look so stupid, like the YEC claims.

[Rathpig]

This is why I love Muslims when they do this because they make their religion look so stupid, like the YEC claims.

I don't understand the purpose in these ludicrous claims. This may be a good line of propaganda for the Sudan or Afghanistan, but it is merely humorous to present to an educated first-world audience.

Likewise YEC, the belief itself betrays one's ignorance.

[JoeyKnothead]

That document is as accurate about science as I am about religion.

Even if it were shown to be correct, I would still reject that faith because it is oppressive, even if only in practice, and has a stated claim of world conquest.

[Ms_Maryam]

Hello all,

In my opinion,

I don't pay too much mind to those places that try to derive a lot of science, equations, formula, all that good stuff... from the Quran. I'm not bashing or discouraging reading Dr. Naik's work; nor am I saying he is right or wrong. I haven't yet read his article. But before I do, I must say that:

The Quran was revealed, not as a Biology book but as a revealation to humans. I've seen people try to dig too deep into the Quran and try to find "hidden meanings," even try to derive formulas and calculations (i.e. the speed of light, etc.) from the Quran. When people go that far, they not only make a mockery of the religion and the Quran, but they are doing a disservice to themself. By doing this, I feel, you take away from the meaning of the Quran and it's purpose. Again, the Quran isn't a biology book.

In regards to science and the Quran, I think this is the main point that should be taken away: The Quran makes statements about scientific things (people in the middle of the desert, a thousand years ago, couldn't have known).. And as scientist are discovering new things all the time, the Quran doesn't contradict these discoveries at all. No contradiction...

That's my two cents

[Bag-Of-Hammers]

In another thread:

Actually look through the Book(it's online I provide the link below lol) before you discredit it. I know the Title may throw you off, and you'll probably click the exit right then and there... but go through it.. check the table of contents and see whats most interesting...

http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/quran/qms.pdf

*~In reality what is in it could not have been known 1,400 years ago. So it proves God exists... and if you don't think so, well it lessens the chances that he doesn't... If you think one is vague go on to the next one, I assure you most of the verses are direct statements that meet up with what is now known.

Does this document prove that the Quran contains knowledge of the world that primitive man couldn't possibly have known? Does it prove that Allah is the one true God? Please justify your response.

The Koran is no more credible than a gossip magazine. It is junk.

[TrueReligion]

In another thread:


The Koran is no more credible than a gossip magazine. It is junk.

What about Bible?:)

[Goat]

In another thread:


The Koran is no more credible than a gossip magazine. It is junk.

What about Bible?:)

Once convinced once thought it was.. but he no longer is convinced. Since his examination of the Bible lead him to be from convinced to 'once convinced' , what do you think?