Why Islam does not clash with modern science, or does it?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Abdelrahman
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:36 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Why Islam does not clash with modern science, or does it?

Post #1

Post by Abdelrahman »

Peace be unto all of you! Believers and Non-Believers alike!

As a Muslim, we put huge regard on scripture not clashing with modern science. We believe that if God created the scripture then it should not contain errors in it when referencing the natural world and what we've come to understand about it.

"Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction." - The Holy Quran (4:82)

Many Christian/Atheist debates exist out there, but I am saddened to see that no atheists debate Muslim scholars who read and write Arabic fluently. When debates are organized between people who don't understand arabic or science it goes no where.

Arabic is my mother tongue. I also speak English at home so I'd say im fluent in both. I am a science university graduate and I love the topic of religion and science.

In Islam, we don't have 'blind faith'. I am not allowed to believe something blindly, I must have reasons. Real reasons. That is why we believe God allowed the prophets to perform miracles - so as to give people a sign. And since we believe the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to be the last prophet, his sign and lasting miracle is the Qur'an. The Qur'an is meant to be a 'sign' to the end of time and I invite all members to reflect on its verses.

I am looking to debate someone on whether or not Islamic scriptural references to the natural world clash with modern scientific understanding!

Abdelrahman
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:36 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #51

Post by Abdelrahman »

No ... I keep repeating the same point that you can't seem to focus on (ie. the passages that you are quoting are too vague to lead to the conclusions you are making). If my comments in post 36 aren't specific enough with the two examples used there, then I'll give up and maybe someone else will chime in from a different angle.
[/quote]

I responded to you though, with evidence from the Cambridge Dictionary. I showed you exactly what the words mean!

Instead of again conveniently ignoring my response, why don't you reference some evidence for your proposed meanings? I responded in detail to your two points with evidence, which is how debating works. Why don't you prove that it is vague with some evidence?

Abdelrahman
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:36 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #52

Post by Abdelrahman »

Moderator Comment

The main principle of this forum is civility and respect. Please do not demean and patronize others.

Please review the Rules.



I apologize otseng! I just didn't think brunumb and DrNoGods were being serious. As they have broken rule 5 numerous times and rule 9, not citing any evidence for any of their claims and simply stating such evidence is 'vague' and 'gibberish' and not explaining themselves. I thought I'd make a point out of that. I did not report them although I know that to make claims without evidence is not allowed on this site!

I was honestly just trying to use humor to try exaggerate how important the point I'm making was! I take back my condescending tone and really didn't expect anyone to get offended. It was just good fun. Again, I apologize to everyone.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
[/quote]

Abdelrahman
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:36 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #53

Post by Abdelrahman »

Before I respond to your comments I would like to point out that I am brunumb, not Brunumb.
Sorry bud, obviously I didn't mean it. I capitalized your name out of respect. Please don't get upset over me!
It is one thing to know the meaning of words, but another to put them together to produce meaningful sentences that are clear, precise and unambiguous. Your God and his prophet do not seem to be aware of this when it comes to their attempt to describe the universe we live in. Nothing you elaborated on makes the passages in the Qur'an scientifically accurate .
Again, this is a debate website. Explain yourself. What wasn't scientifically accurate? What specifically?
Your references to iron do not say what you think they do. Earth formed from matter that contained iron along with all the other elements. Molten iron settled into the core along with the precious metals. Asteroids delivered the small amount of all those metals scattered throughout the crust.
I get what you mean now. And I wasn't correct to state that Earth did not contain Iron. You are right, deep inside the Earth's core out of reach Iron exists, that isn't the point being made in the Qur'an though. We would not have access to Iron if it wasn't for it being 'sent down' as meteorites. The verse does not say that the only iron on Earth is from meteorites, all it is saying is that God sent it down for us to use, otherwise we wouldn't have had access to Iron inside the core of the Earth. If he had not sent it down, we would not have Iron on the surface of the planet!
A desert numpty doesn't need to know about all living things to make a sweeping statement that all living things require water. When you think of all the really significant things that God could have revealed to his prophet, what he did apparently reveal, in truly ungodly vagueness, is quite trivial and pathetic.
Ok, if you're going to insult the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) then why did you report me for my condescending tone lol? If it's all fair play then play along! I'm not going to report you though for that comment... it's not new to Muslims.

I can give you many more detailed statements! If the water one is too trivial for you, all one needs to consider is the time line of when these statements were made and where. How about the mountain verse? The common origin of the universe? God says space is exapanding... how about any of these statements? Please stop breaking the rules and reference your claims with evidence!!

Abdelrahman
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:36 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #54

Post by Abdelrahman »

Before I respond to your comments I would like to point out that I am brunumb, not Brunumb.
Sorry bud, obviously I didn't mean it. I capitalized your name out of respect. Please don't get upset over that!
It is one thing to know the meaning of words, but another to put them together to produce meaningful sentences that are clear, precise and unambiguous. Your God and his prophet do not seem to be aware of this when it comes to their attempt to describe the universe we live in. Nothing you elaborated on makes the passages in the Qur'an scientifically accurate .
Again, this is a debate website. Explain yourself. What wasn't scientifically accurate? What specifically?
Your references to iron do not say what you think they do. Earth formed from matter that contained iron along with all the other elements. Molten iron settled into the core along with the precious metals. Asteroids delivered the small amount of all those metals scattered throughout the crust.
I get what you mean now. And I wasn't correct to state that Earth did not contain Iron. You are right, deep inside the Earth's core out of reach Iron exists, that isn't the point being made in the Qur'an though. We would not have access to Iron if it wasn't for it being 'sent down' as meteorites. The verse does not say that the only iron on Earth is from meteorites, all it is saying is that God sent it down for us to use, otherwise we wouldn't have had access to Iron inside the core of the Earth. If he had not sent it down, we would not have Iron on the surface of the planet!
A desert numpty doesn't need to know about all living things to make a sweeping statement that all living things require water. When you think of all the really significant things that God could have revealed to his prophet, what he did apparently reveal, in truly ungodly vagueness, is quite trivial and pathetic.
Ok, if you're going to insult the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) then why did you report me for my condescending tone lol? If it's all fair play then play along! I'm not going to report you though for that comment... it's not new to Muslims.

I can give you many more detailed statements! If the water one is too trivial for you, all one needs to consider is the time line of when these statements were made and where. How about the mountain verse? The common origin of the universe? God says space is exapanding... how about any of these statements? Please stop breaking the rules and reference your claims with evidence!![/quote]
No, it wasn't. And the universe shortly after the Big bang was not composed of gas and would have been nothing like a cloud, let alone smoke.
Check this out. Evidence:

Sciencemag (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/11 ... d-away-fog) says:
About 300,000 years after the big bang, the universe was like a smoke-filled chamber from which light could not escape. By the time the universe was a billion years old, the smoke—actually a gas of light-trapping hydrogen—had cleared almost entirely, allowing stars and galaxies to become visible.
So yes, as you can see, this light trapping hydrogen gas is described by them as smoke like. If you are not convinced the universe was once gas, here is some more evidence:

https://www.space.com/13570-big-bang-af ... l-gas.html

From the website:
Astronomers have found two clouds of gas that formed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang that created our universe, a new study reveals.

This discovery is the first time these gas clouds have been detected and adds more support to what is already the most widely accepted theory of how our universe came to be, astronomers said.
Either give us evidence to the contrary, or just accept that the universe was once a dense gas - described as a light trapping 'smoke' by some scientists. Completely agreeing with the Qur'anic description given 1400 years ago.
You avoided my question by giving me your condescending lesson in English. You failed to explain exactly how the Earth and the heavens were once joined and then separated. Here is the passage I asked you to explain:
"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" [Quran 21:30]
What do you mean? I answered your post! Go back through the thread, I explained exactly what is meant. I have answered all your questions.

Now how about you answer my question and detail to us why the sentences discussed are 'gibberish'... you're the one avoiding the questions and without evidence, your posts can't be taken seriously.

Abdelrahman
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:36 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #55

Post by Abdelrahman »

Maybe I should teach you on the English language and the meanings of words. I think that would greatly help you understand the English language.
According to this fellow it wouldn't do any good.
happy forever wrote:Arabic is the only complete straight language, any other language is 'Agam which means "not clear or accurate".

Quran is the words of Allah and His words are miraculous, that's why it is impossible for humans to translate it.
Would you like to try?
Impossible is an overstatement. I disagree with him. I believe you can accurately translate any language, but you will need a lot more English words to translate a smaller sentence in Arabic. That is not always the case either!

The point I was making, as illustrative as I was, was that the sentences I brought up do carry meaning! If you break a sentence up into its words, and define each one, you can form a coherent sentence.

brunumb considers the following sentence 'complete gibberish'. I was simply trying to show him that no, it very clearly says something very meaningful.
"And you see the mountains, thinking them rigid, while they will pass as the passing of clouds." - The Holy Qur'an [27:88]
My two cents on the matter is that English actually is unclear. Many words can mean multiple things, and many things can be described by more than one word. It relies heavily on both people wanting to understand one another, but if they do it does seem to happen. This means a dishonest debater can always spoil the debate and chalk up a win for himself simply by arguing definitions.

I'm not calling anyone dishonest.

I actually didn't read the whole discussion.

I don't know who started on definitionalism.
What do you mean? How can someone chalk up a win for themselves by arguing definitions? The very content we are debating, is accused of being 'too vague'.

See in the confusion with DrNoGods is to do with the word "pass". He states that pass can mean anything..pass a ball, vaporize into nothingness. And he is right...in English.. pass can mean many different things.

However, in Arabic, the word only means one thing. In my posts I've referenced dictionaries as evidence as you see, in Arabic, for each different way I can use the word 'pass' in english we have a seperate word in Arabic! Let me explain.

For 'pass a ball', like in sports, we have a certain word for pass. For 'passing a test' we have another completely different word in Arabic. And finally to pass something, i.e. to move pass something there is another word. All 3 words when translated into English translate into the word 'pass' which can be used so many different ways in English.

What I prove to DrNoGods is that in Arabic, the word used in the Qur'an, refers to the passing by of something or someone - literally moving past something. I reference the Cambridge Dictionary too! Not erosion, or disappearing or all the other definitions hes professing without evidence. I have given him references and evidence and all he has done is tell me what pass might mean completely missing the fact that in Arabic we have separate words for each purpose, and that the meaning is very clearly to move.

Since he is accusing it of being vague, I must debate definitions! He can chalk a win over for himself if he simply references his claims with evidence. He has not done so once in this entire thread. He has made an attempt at explaining how pass can mean many different things in English, but has completely ignored my evidence.

I've repetitively called him to debate me properly and to cite his evidence, but he only gives us his opinion. The one reference he has made was a wikiislam article which I completely destroy in 30 seconds. They blatantly lie about definitions and thank God I am a fluent Arabic speaker and have referenced my response to his reference with dictionaries.

Anyone can open the Cambridge Dictionary and look up these words. We live in the 21st century, people can't hide behind definitions anymore, you can all triple check my claims and debate me!

[/quote]

Abdelrahman
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:36 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #56

Post by Abdelrahman »

Diagoras wrote: [Replying to post 14 by Abdelrahman]
Now tell me. Can you write <...>
I ran your entire post from that point on through an online word frequency analysis and discovered the words 'god' and 'miracle' written exactly six times each (with 6 being as we know, the first 'perfect' number), and 'prophet'/'people' exactly four times (think of 4 compass directions, 4 phases of the moon, 4 seasons, etc, etc.) each.
Lol I'm sorry man what? Evidence? References? What online frequency word analysis gave you the word 'God' 6 times? 'God' the noun in Arabic 'إ�لَٰه' appears 147 times in the Qur'an. 'Allah' (Gods name) the proper noun appears 2699 times. 5 times as the addressing form 'Oh Allah' 'Allahuma'. So I don't even know where you are getting your numbers from.

And perfect number? Perfect numbers don't appear anywhere in Islam so what is the significance? See, 5 is different. 5 comes up repetitively in the religion in numerous places (5 pillars of Islam, 5 daily prayers) - 6 has no significance. The only numbers that are ever special to us are prime numbers as they are indivisible, and always leave '1'.
Plus 'counting'/'sentences' exactly three times each. Three being yet another number with mystical significance in many cultures.
What do you mean counting 3 times? And show me where the number 3 is significant in Islam. The only thing you can say is that it is a prime number and thus carries some significance. Nonetheless I don't know what you mean by this? What are you counting 3 times exactly? Plus the words you chose to count are somewhat related and not complete opposites.

Compare that to Angels/Devils and Paradise/Hell. The latter is much more significant a relationship. Prophet/Ppeople is a stretch and God/Miracle as well.
Although a long post by the standards of this message board, it's actually a fairly small piece of text, and yet it's still enough for me to 'find' some patterns. Why? because I'm looking for any patterns indiscriminately. I was sure I'd find something - I just didn't know what.
What piece of text? Maybe I'm missing something here. Side note, I'll try keep my posts shorter! Just too much to say :)
From one site which you may have drawn from to post some of these examples:
http://islam.ru/en/content/story/miracl ... holy-quran
Sea 32, Land 13

Sea + land = 32+13= 45

Sea = 32/45*100=71.11111111%

Land = 13/45*100 = 28.88888889%

Sea + land =100.00%
Why choose 'sea' and 'land'? Why not 'water' and 'earth', or 'sea' and 'earth'? Were plurals included? It wouldn't be too difficult to play around with some slight variations to the theme and come up with very different answers. The fact that you and others trumpet the one which most closely matches the 'ocean/earth' (could have used 'ocean', but didn't?) ratio simply demonstrates the kind of confirmation bias that religious apologists continually perpetuate.
These numbers are all over the web, and I have an e-book on the subject!

Why not 'earth' and 'sea' you ask? Because Earth used in the Qur'an refers to the entirety of Earth - including all its 'seas'. I can't ratio these two words as it wouldn't make sense to do so. 'water' and 'Earth', I already explained why not Earth, but water can mean anything. It can mean bottled water, it can mean mist in the air...the word for sea in Arabic 'بحر' actually means all natural bodies of water...oceans, rivers, lakes and seas. A quick google translate of the word can prove this! So it is referencing all water bodies on Earth and not mist/vapour or rain or anything like that.

We know that 71% of Earth is water, and 97% of that water is ocean water. The Qur'an isn't only talking about the oceans!

Again this ratio thing, is just very interesting to me. There are many patterns that emerge everyday and I'll be translating some of the new research into English for everyone!
And one further (important) point:

Before (e.g.) 'man' and 'woman' were counted, was there a theory to suggest that they would be equal? Did someone say, "I'm confident that we'll find this pair of words to be equally used, and that number should be (X)."? Did they theorise any other pairs and predict their specific number at all? How about 'meat' and 'fruit'? Or "bless" and 'curse"?

No, of course they didn't. They simply did what I did - cherry-picked the examples that stood out most clearly, and then fitted an interpretation to the results that 'confirmed' what they wanted to find. Any other 'missed pairings' could then be conveniently forgotten, much like a charlatan's 'cold reading' of someone to foretell their future.
Actually, the words that are related are referenced together in verses throughout the Qur'an. People found these patterns when they looked at verses that related the two concepts. For example,

The relation between Jesus (pbuh) and Adam (pbuh) is found here:
"For God the likeness of Jesus is as that of Adam whom He fashioned out of dust and said "Be" and he was" - The Holy Qur'an [3:59]
Here is another, for 'Satan' and 'Seeking refuge':
"If the Satan incite you to evil, seek refuge in God. He is all-hearing and all-knowing." - The Holy Qur'an [41:36]
And for falsehood (found 36 times), doubt (also 36) and losers (also 36), we have:
"Those who believe in falsehood and disbelieve in Allaah, these are the losers." - The Holy Qur'an [29:52]
As for opposites, well, they are exact opposites. We look for opposites because they are significant on their own. In fact, in the Qur'an God speaks about pairs all the time and He 'swears by' the opposites 'even and odd'. So we look for opposites all the time!
There is zero science to these 'amazing numbers', so they are best left as just harmless amusement.
Stay tuned for my posts on this research. Not only are words counted, so are letters. I don't know if you read my post on the letter counts earlier in this thread, but they are very magnificent. Combine all the above with the science and what you get is a holy book that hints at omnipotent authorship - compare that to other religious texts that contradict themselves, represent scientific beliefs posed by people of old and whose only solution seems to be not to take it literally. You cannot compare!

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Post #57

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 54 by Abdelrahman]

There is nothing particularly revelatory in the examples you have quoted so far. The milky Way looks like a cloud with lots of stars in it. Meteoric iron was used for thousands of years before the Iron Age began and it is not a big stretch for people to have discerned that it came from the sky. As DrNoGods has said, the Qur'an passages are vague enough to be consistent with primitive knowledge of the day while being somewhat consistent with later discoveries. When you add in the fact that we don't really know what the author was thinking or what his intentions were when he wrote the passages, there is no definitive correlation to what science has revealed to us. Confirmation bias surely plays a big part in the kind of selective interpretation that is needed to suggest otherwise. I wonder what science has to say about flying horses and the moon being split. Oh wait, those accounts are conveniently open to interpretation. As for the numbers, I'd be far more impressed if the Qur'an stated the actual percentages of land and water directly and maybe mentioned other continents like America, Australia and Antarctica.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #58

Post by Elijah John »

Abdelrahman wrote: Moderator Comment

The main principle of this forum is civility and respect. Please do not demean and patronize others.

Please review the Rules.



I apologize otseng! I just didn't think brunumb and DrNoGods were being serious. As they have broken rule 5 numerous times and rule 9, not citing any evidence for any of their claims and simply stating such evidence is 'vague' and 'gibberish' and not explaining themselves. I thought I'd make a point out of that. I did not report them although I know that to make claims without evidence is not allowed on this site!

I was honestly just trying to use humor to try exaggerate how important the point I'm making was! I take back my condescending tone and really didn't expect anyone to get offended. It was just good fun. Again, I apologize to everyone.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
[/quote]

Moderator Comment

It's permissible and good to apologize. But the subsequent explanation was not necessary, and in fact can be considered "challenging moderator action". In general when receiving a comment or warning from a moderator, it's best to just take it to heart and move on.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

mms20102
Scholar
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:45 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #59

Post by mms20102 »

[Replying to post 57 by brunumb]

Ok let's repeat.
"As DrNoGods has said, the Qur'an passages are vague enough to be consistent with primitive knowledge of the day while being somewhat consistent with later discoveries."
This claim is not correct because the texts experts said so "Qur’an, being a highly poetical text, celebrates high language in an unprecedented way and thus raises the Arab heritage to a new level of dignity."

Being unable to understand Arabic makes this claim is more invalid. You should start asking specialist to confirm your point. or use reference to prove your point instead of going into a circular argument.
I wonder what science has to say about flying horses and the moon being split. Oh wait, those accounts are conveniently open to interpretation. As for the numbers, I'd be far more impressed if the Qur'an stated the actual percentages of land and water directly and maybe mentioned other continents like America, Australia and Antarctica.
Please be more specific by supplying us with references to supply you with answers.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #60

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 51 by Abdelrahman]
Why don't you prove that it is vague with some evidence?


I don't want to waste any more time on this subject as it is just going in circles. I made my point in post 36 with two of your examples, and maintain that the quoted passages from the Qur'an are too vague to draw the conclusions you are making. There is no piece of "evidence" to be presented that a sentence is vague ... it is an interpretation of the words used, and that they do not clearly describe something.

I am not claiming, for example, that mountains don't exist. That would be easy to counter with evidence as anyone can go outside in the right area of the world and see mountains. Stating that a sentence is too vague to draw a conclusion that is being drawn is not something for which evidence can be presented, other than the sentence itself and the words used. I made my point in post 36. Saying that mountains "will pass" like clouds, even if that word does refer to movement, does not allow a claim that the writer was knowledgeable of tectonic plate movement, because no mechanism was provided for the movement. There is no reason to eliminate an interpretation such as ... Allah made the mountains move ... just like he "sent" rain down from the sky. The passage is not specific enough to conclude that the source of mountain movement has anything whatsoever to do with the movement of tectonic plates, or the earth that the mountains are attached to. This is what I mean by being too vague to allow your specific conclusions.

I can't offer up any more explanation than this.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply