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!

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Post #81

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 79 by mms20102]
"god made from water all living things" = " God made all living things to live using water"
That's not even close. You have to wonder why such a simple statement as "God made water necessary for all living things" was written in such a way as to say that God made all living things from water. Of course, primitive and ignorant people in the past may easily have come to that false conclusion.
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.

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

Post #82

Post by mms20102 »

[Replying to post 80 by DrNoGods]
And from the hint I can imagine what was created but I may or may not be correct. Saying that the earth and the heavens were joined together as one could mean many things. Are they not joined together right now in that the earth, and the other planets, are all orbiting a common star and constitute a system (a solar system)?
No because the word was referring to one entity "Singularity".


[quot]Or if the "heavens" means anything that is not the earth then whether the earth and the heavens are separated now depends on how far out you go before gravity no longer plays a practical role in holding things together.

Or maybe gravity is out of the picture and the passage refers to physical connections, in which case how far back in time do you go to make sense of this story? The universe is some 13.7 billion years old while earth is only 4.6 billion years old. So if this "joined together"entity is supposed to represent an initial "thing" analogous to the Big Bang singularity, and there is 9.1 billion years of time between the thing that was "joined together", and when the earth formed and was separated from this joined together thing, it doesn't make any sense. The initial joined together thing was long gone (by some 9.1 billion years) before the earth even came into existence. There is no way to equate this "joined together" comment from the Qur'an with the Big Bang hypothesis, no matter how many word games are played.[/quote]

You are destroying your logic entirely. Let's see what Wikipedia said about the Big Bang "The prediction is that just before a period of very high density, there was a singularity". Now let's examine the process of creation that's mentioned in the verse compared to current theories.

1- All the skies and Earth were joined together = "Singularity".
2- All the skies and Earth were separated due to inner pressure = "Inflation and baryogenesis".
3- Water was the reason for every living thing = "The start of life on Earth".

Is there anything that's not clear about those three points ?.
It has everything to do with language. You've just equated "god made from water all living things", with "god made all living things to live using water." These are completely different phrases. One says that the living things were made of water, while the other says they need water to live. They are in no way equivalent statements.
Another English lesson here you go.

Made of vs Made from
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/gramma ... -made-with
Made from
We often use made from when we talk about how something is manufactured:

Plastic is made from oil.

The earliest canoes were made from tree trunks.

Made of
We use made of when we talk about the basic material or qualities of something. It has a meaning similar to ‘composed of’:

She wore a beautiful necklace made of silver.

A:
What’s this table made of?

B:
It’s oak, American white oak.

A:
It’s lovely.
So you ignored the first sentence here is another example to tickle your mind
" From heat I made swords " does it mean heat is a primal material ?. Not only you refuse to put a logical argument but also you also insist on the same thing over and over.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Post #83

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 82 by mms20102]
1- All the skies and Earth were joined together = "Singularity".
There was no Earth. There was no sky. To suggest that they were joined together as a singularity is absurd when neither existed or were even remotely related to what existed at that time.

Also, living things are not made from water, nor are they made of water. They may contain water and water may be necessary for their survival, but that is not the same thing. The author of the passages really had no idea about the reality of the universe or life on Earth.
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.

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 #84

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 82 by mms20102]
You are destroying your logic entirely.


I don't think so. You clearly have no idea what the word "singularity" means in the context of the Big Bang. You are equating it, evidently, to a "single thing", when it means absolutely nothing of the sort. The singularity being referred to in the Big Bang is a mathematical singularity because the equations lead to an infinite mass in an infinitely small space which isn't physically reasonable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(mathematics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

This is the kind of singularity General Relativity leads to and that I referred to, and it has nothing to do with things being joined together into a single entity as you obviously misinterpreted it to mean based on your comments.
Is there anything that's not clear about those three points ?.


Yes ... your complete misunderstanding of what the word singularity means (as shown by #1 on your list). For #3 on the list, water being the reason for every living thing does not mean every living thing is MADE of water as in the Qur'an passage. I'm not sure why you are trying to save that one ... it clearly is wrong.
Another English lesson here you go.


Sarcastic remarks don't help your argument, and neither do the examples of "made of." The Qur'an passage clearly says that all living things are made of water, not that they need water to live, but you keep claiming that these are equivalent. They aren't.
Not only you refuse to put a logical argument but also you also insist on the same thing over and over.


I have to repeat the same thing over and over because you keep insisting on erroneous interpretations of the Qur'an passages you are trying (and failing so far) to defend. In this case you also do not understand what the word singularity means in context of the Big Bang hypothesis, which you have demonstrated very clearly. Nothing you have presented, so far, supports the initial claim that the passage in question somehow shows knowledge of an origin-of-the-universe hypothesis like the Big Bang.
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

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

Post #85

Post by Abdelrahman »

Yes. How does an illiterate man do that? That question just opens up the debate into who really wrote the Qur'an. Not as obvious as it seems.

https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/ ... the-quran/
Ahh evidence. Makes me ecstatic I tell ya. I sense a change of tone, now the statements are admitted to be ‘out of place’ but from a different source, effectively changing your stance. From your source:
Perhaps the most significant, and worth leading with here, is that there is mounting evidence that the Qur’an, or at least the bulk of it, predates Muhammad.
And interestingly they admit:
It is also packed with agricultural and geographical references which are out of place in the arid Arabian Peninsula, and written in a dialect of Arabic which even early Muslim scholars agreed was not the dialect of Muhammad’s tribe in Mecca.
First off, I’d like to applaud the author who unlike yourself, agrees the agricultural and geographical references are out of place. Hurahh... At least they got one thing right but alright I guess you want to ignore that part and focus on the “mounting evidence�.

Said “mounting evidence� from dailymail states:
It is believed that the Birmingham Koran was produced between 568AD and 645AD, while the dates usually given for Muhammad are between 570AD and 632AD.
Although this is a separate topic entirely, please go look up the error margins associated with carbon dating. 2 years you must be kidding me. Here's a refresher:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating (scroll down to error margin)

All your evidence has done is admit that the references in the Qur’an are out of place and only supported our points being made here.

Side note: I have an extensive book on the compilation and preservation and source of the written Qur’an and would just love it if you debated me on that topic. Oooh I’m getting goosebumps just thinking about it :).
We don't know what the author was thinking or actually intended.
I answered this. We are told in the very verse itself what is intended by such references. Go back read what I said and address it or you know, just ignore it.
Earth did not exist until about 9.3 billion years after the Big Bang.
I repost my evidence again:

https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe

I agree with you that Earth formed at that date, you’re missing the point. Think back to moments after the Big Bang….not after the sun and planets and stars have formed…before…way before… before ANY star or planet existed. EVERYTHING was a hot dense cloud from which all the stars and planets have formed.

I posted evidence to my claim in previous posts as well as this one, but hey, how important is evidence right?
There was no Earth. There was no sky. To suggest that they were joined together as a singularity is absurd when neither existed or were even remotely related to what existed at that time.
Yes! They didn’t exist at the time, only a hot dense gas existed FROM which the heavens and earth came into existence – exactly as stated in the Qur’an. Just because I loooovvveee me some evidence, here’s some peanut butter:

FROM https://www.space.com/13570-big-bang-af ... l-gas.html, again..
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.
Super cool!! Why don’t you ever address my evidence like in the very previous post (72)?

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

Post #86

Post by Abdelrahman »

For DrNoGods:
Exactly ... so the reader is free to describe it as they see fit..
You’ve misunderstood him brother. The characteristics of the ‘unit’ aren’t defined in the sense that we aren’t told what it is made of, or how they are one unit. But the verse very clearly says that everything was once connected.

Since I love evidence, we have the following translations:
Dr. Ghali – “integrated (mass)�
MUHSIN KHAN – “joined together as one united piece�
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL – “ joined entity�
YUSUF ALI – “joined together (as one unit of creation)�
BUL ALA MAUDUDI(WITH TAFSIR) – “one solid mass�
PICKTHALL – “were of one piece�
MUFTI TAQI USMANI – “were closed�
ABDUL HALEEM – “joined together�
DR. MUSTAFA KHATTAB, THE CLEAR QURAN – “˹once˺ one mass�
7/8 translations translate the word as joined together in one piece or mass. Only one says ‘closed’ so we can safely discard it. If you’re still not convinced, here's what our most famous scholars have said:
Ibn Katheer (died in the 13th century) says:"الجميع متصلا بعضه ببعض"– translated: "Everything is connected together"

Al-Moyasor says: "كانتا ملتصقتين لا �اصل بينهما" – translated:
"They were joined, with no separation"

Al Tabary (died in the 9th century) says:
بل كانتا ملتصقتين" – translated: "they were stuck together"

And the most famous Al-Qortoby (died 12th century) quotes Ibn Abbas (Muhammad’s (pbuh) cousin), Al-Hassan, Ataa and Al-Dahhak: "قال ابن عباس والحسن وعطاء والضحاك وقتادة : يعني أنها كانت شيئا واحدا ملتزقتين ��صل الله بينهما" – translated: Ibn Abbas, Al-Hassan, Ataa, Al-Dahhak, and Qatada said: "It means that they were one thing bound, so God separated them"
But hey, it can mean anything right? How about you reference your claim with evidence.
I'm not arguing the meaning of the word "pass." You described earlier that it means "move."
I'm quoting you now:
“I could interpret it to mean they will simply disappear (as clouds often do when barometric pressure rises). How do you know the statement does not refer to the mountains vanishing for some reason, like clouds?�
“Without any mention of the mechanism by which "passing" occurs (whatever that word means in this context), you cannot make a claim that it refers to mountain formation or movement�
I’m glad you’ve finally agreed that it means ‘move’. Now we can move on,
‘But a generic statement... Erosion is movement, and can be lateral. But you discard that interpretation even though it falls within the general meaning of the word "pass" as you translate the Arabic. You want it to mean translational movement as happens with crustal plates.’
It may fall within the general meaning for ‘pass’ in English since you use pass for darn about everything, but in Arabic erosion due to movement has a specific word, and here’s the Cambridge dictionary again to back up my claim:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ic/erosion - giving: تَآك�ل

What you seem to keep failing to understand is that in Arabic we have specific words for specific meanings. One word does not fit all as in English with ‘pass’. The verse is very clearly describing movement as in actual movement of the entire mountain, not the pebbles that fall off or erosion.

The mountain itself is moving. And since the verse is saying ‘you think its fixed’, and comparing said movement to the movement of the clouds we can clearly see the intended meaning.
Again, my whole point in this discussion is not about dictionary definitions of words...They are too subjective and generic to make those claims.
The dictionary definitions are vital if you are to understand the intended meaning that you keep claiming is vague. Dictionaries are how you study the meaning of words and you have not referenced any to back any of your claims. So long you keep referencing nothing, you make no valid point whatsoever.
If the passage had some additional comment relating the movement of mountains to the movement of the earth's surface then you may possibly have an argument.
The verse does do this, it relates said movement to the mountain’s ‘fixed’ state, and compares it to the movement of the clouds. It directly relates the movement to the movement of the clouds – which you may think is ‘fixed’ but is moving very slowly. Even on windy days, clouds move relatively slow. So it does what you ask.
The initial joined together thing was long gone (by some 9.1 billion years) before the earth even came into existence.
Yes DrNoGods! Yes! The initial joined together thing is what we are talking about. The earth came from the same cloud since EVERYTHING came from the same cloud.

Said cloud, which is described in the Qur’an and by the scientists I’ve referenced as a light trapping ‘smoke’.
That was just an example of a similar exercise initiated by a Christian using a vague statement ... vague statements and suggest they have meanings that they don't.
I came with evidence from scientific articles and dictionaries and numerous translations and age old scholars of exegesis. You haven’t yet posted one iota scintilla jot tad smidge scruple bit of evidence. Is it maybe because you can’t find any to back up your views?

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Post #87

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 85 by Abdelrahman]
Why don’t you ever address my evidence like in the very previous post (72)?
You have posted numerous links to cosmology but none of them constitute evidence that the authors of the Qur'an passages were referring to any of it with their vague use of words like smoke, clouds, united etc. Until you can verify that what they were actually thinking is exactly the same as your interpretation, it is nothing more than speculation and an amusing play on words.
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.

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 #88

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 86 by Abdelrahman]
I came with evidence from scientific articles and dictionaries and numerous translations and age old scholars of exegesis. You haven’t yet posted one iota scintilla jot tad smidge scruple bit of evidence. Is it maybe because you can’t find any to back up your views?


No, you've presented personal interpretations of vague passages from the Qur'an, then claimed that these represent knowledge of modern scientific concepts and are therefore divinely inspired. I've argued that these passages can be interpreted in many different ways, and most importantly that they are far too vague to infer what you are inferring.

You keep asking for "evidence" of my claim that the statements are too vague. That evidence is the statements themselves. No other evidence is needed ... just an explanation of why they are too vague which has been done many times. Anyone without a predisposition to believe that the Qur'an is some kind of holy book with divine inspiration can see that these passages are not specific enough to claim any prediction or knowledge of modern science. For evidence ... just read them without that bias. Their vagueness is crystal clear.
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

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

Post #89

Post by Abdelrahman »

For brunumb:
You have posted numerous links to cosmology but none of them constitute evidence that the authors of the Qur'an passages were referring....
From: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/11 ... d-away-fog:
About 300,000 years after the big bang, the universe was like a smoke-filled chamber from which light could not escape.
And:
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.
In the above references, scientists refer to the hot gas cloud as a ‘smoke’ which light cannot escape.

The Qur’an also refers to the initial stages of the universe before the creation of Earth and the Heavens as a connected ‘smoke’. Completely agreeing with what scientists have deduced.

This is not my interpretation, this is scientific fact. You denied that everything was once connected as a smoke so post some evidence proving so.

You have yet to provide some evidence proving your statement that the Earth and Planets were not once a hot gas cloud.

What’s amusing are the mental gymnastics you are playing to jump around this, without evidence of any kind. First denying the statements remarkability, then admitting they are out of place with your source but written by someone else. I mean you keep jumping around and without evidence, your words are just hearsay.

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

Post #90

Post by Abdelrahman »

For DrNoGods:

This post is a summary of our debate so far and is thus slightly long.
No, you've presented personal interpretations of vague passages from the Qur'an....
I’ve posted evidence for these modern scientific concepts and you have not supported any of your statements with any whatsoever.
I've argued that these passages can be interpreted in many different ways, and most importantly that they are far too vague to infer what you are inferring.
You have argued this with no evidence whatsoever. No valid alternative interpretation backed with evidence. See…vagueness is defined as something unclear in meaning. So debate meaning with me…
You keep asking for "evidence" of my claim that the statements are too vague. That evidence is the statements themselves. No other evidence is needed ...
Here is a history of our debate so far DrNoGods:

Post 2 – You ask for examples of scientific miracles

Post 3 – I post a verse on the expansion of space

Post 4 – You ask me if ‘expand’ means the same thing as we interpret today in science. You also ask what is meant by ‘connected entity’ – giving the example of a galaxy as a ‘connected entity’

Post 7 – I provide you with evidence for the word expand and its root and definition. I translate ‘expansion of space’ for you and get the same statement as in the Qur’an.

Post 13 – You ignore my evidence in Post 7 and change topic suggesting it’s easy to discern that rainwater is the source of spring water by simple observation.

You also suggest that the Qur’an ignores underground water pockets, that can also create springs as if the water from such pockets does not originate from rain water - without evidence.

Post 14 – I provide scientific evidence that underground water pockets truly do originate from rain water. I also provide evidence that great thinkers like Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci and Bartholomew of England got this ‘simple observation’ wrong.

Post 19 – You ignore my previous evidence and argue another point posting your infamous wikiIslam article stating such word counting is ‘cherry picking’.

Post 20 – I provide evidence that your wikiIslam article mistranslates words and provide the resource for you to double check my claim.

Post 21 – You ignore my evidence, again, and state that you don’t want to ‘waste time’ (i.e. you are running from the debate) with the word counting.

Post 22 – Surprised, I beg you to debate me properly.

Post 24 – You incorrectly state that my argument is circular. You also try to run from the debate by posting a ‘rule’ that you’ve misunderstood. You continue to state that vague passages have many interpretations and provide no evidence of what else the verses can mean.

You ALSO bring up the wikiIislam article again, saying I don’t like it when I had clearly addressed it in post 20 but you chose to ignore it.

Post 26 – I explain to you what a circular argument is. I also clarify the rule that you’ve misunderstood in an attempt to avoid debating me. I also provide scientific evidence and re-clarify that you should check my rebuttal of the wikiIslam article – the only inkling of evidence you have posted in this entire debate.

Post 36 – You say you will not respond to every point (backing away again) and suggest that ‘pass’ can mean disappear or vanish – without evidence to back any of it up. You suggest that ‘pass’ should specifically mean movement for this to be a valid case.

You also imply that the rain water verse is incorrect since it can mean that crops get their water solely from springs, but we know it also comes from rain – without evidence explaining why it can mean this.

Post 39 – You claim it is surprising that I am giving English lessons while the Qur’an is vague – without evidence to back up what else the verses can mean and why they are vague.

Post 40 – I define what the Arabic word used means. I reference my evidence the Cambridge dictionary. I also use Google translate. I prove exactly what you wanted, that ‘pass’ specifically means ‘movement’.

You also state that you don’t need an explanation of the rules that you’ve misunderstood.

I also address your claim about the source of water for crops using evidence from Cambridge dictionary.

Post 42 – You ignore my evidence about ‘pass’ meaning movement and claim that ‘pass’ can mean ‘erosion’ – a stretch without evidence. You claim that a dictionary isn’t necessary to debate the meanings of words when the very definition of vague is something unclear in meaning.

You also ignore my evidence on the water verse.

Post 43 - You claim everything is vague, having not once posted any evidence since the beginning of the debate.

Post 50 – I address your claim that ‘pass’ means erosion with evidence.

Post 51 – I remind you that I’ve addressed your claims with evidence from the Cambridge dictionary.

Post 60 – You claim you do not want to waste anymore time (again trying to run away) and state that evidence cannot be posted for your claims. You state that all we need is the sentence itself and words themselves, without posting any evidence as to what those words and sentences mean – ironically what you call ‘vague’.

Post 63 – You state the website is English and we should not debate Arabic (again trying to run away) and not actually debating the translations we’ve posted with evidence to support your interpretation.

You funnily enough state that we are ignoring your responses when every single point you have brought up I’ve refuted with evidence.

Post 67 – You state that ‘you have made no such comment’ when we state that you need to justify your alternative translations. When in fact, you have claimed that ‘pass’ can mean erosion, vanishment and disappearance.

You finally muster up some evidence to support your claims (a first in this debate so far). Since this was in response to mms’s post I respectfully leave it to him to reply.

Post 69 – I again go over what ‘pass’ means and reference my evidence the dictionary again and remind you to debate me properly. I ask if maybe you don’t trust the Cambridge dictionary.

Post 77 – You ignore the evidence in post 69 and again change topics and suggest that joined entity as translated, can mean so many different things (including solid mass, joined entity and open) and thus it is vague - without evidence.

Post 78 – You FINALLY admit that ‘pass’ means movement and suggest that you aren’t even arguing the meaning of this word. When all your previous posts have been about ‘pass’ meaning something else other than movement. You again repeat that ‘pass’ can mean ‘erosion’ ignoring the Cambridge dictionary.

You suggest that I’m not posting evidence when I have posted at least 13 references just for you – None of which you have addressed. You simply ignore and move onto the next point. This isn’t how debating works.

You ALSO suggest that movement of the mountains should be related to the movement of something on Earth for it to be valid.

Post 86 – I reiterate what ‘joined entity’ means with evidence; 7 translations supporting my claim and 4 separate scholars of exegesis further explanations of said verses including the interpretation given by the Prophets (pbuh) very own cousin.

I quote how you have been debating the meaning of pass correcting your statement that ‘you have made no such comment’.

I also provide more evidence from Cambridge dictionary explaining for maybe the 3rd time, how ‘pass’ does not mean ‘erosion’ and that the movement is the movement of the entire mountain.

I also show you how the verse does compare the movement of the mountains to the movement of something on Earth – what you requested me to do.

Post 88 – You ignore all my evidence, not once referring to any of my references, suggesting they are ‘personal interpretations’ and remind us that you have argued that these passages can be interpreted in different ways -without evidence. You remind us again that you cannot post evidence since the statements are all that we need.

Now do you see a pattern here DrNoGods? I don’t really know what you are doing here. I have provided you with evidence 13 times, you have made 10 claims without evidence and have ignored all of my references. Not a single one have you touched up upon. Not a single point of yours have you backed up with evidence.

You seem to misunderstand simple linguistic translational processes indicating that because ‘pass’ in English means many different things in English it also must mean many different things in Arabic. That is simply not true. Arabic words are very descriptional and specific to each context. I have proven this with evidence. Your interpretations of what 'pass' means (vanish, disappears, erosion) are simply not true and fall on deaf ears without an iota of evidence to back any of it up.

What you are doing is giving us your opinion, and in a debate environment I'm sorry to say such statements hold no weight whatsoever without backing them up.
“And indeed, every time I invited them that You may forgive them, they put their fingers in their ears, covered themselves with their garments, persisted…� – The Holy Qur’an [71:7]
Back up your claims, without doing so, you confirm what Muslims believe even more since we know you won't be able to.

Post Reply