Scientific Indications in the Holy Qur'an, Part-I

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

SGTObvious Ooops, the Quran is WRONG 5/8/2004 9:56:09 AM

While General Relativity may point to the Big Biang as the origin of time, it does not fit well with Quantum Physics and Strong Theory. Read all about it in Scientific American: link Sorry, Mohamed, you were good at uniting warlike desert tribes and starting wars, not science. Time to convert, Achernar.

Quote Reply

Achernar RE:Dr. SGTObvious 5/8/2004 10:14:57 AM

Dr. SGTObvious Read this yah again. â??The day that we roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed), - even as we produced the first creation, so shall we produce a new one: a promise we have undertaken: truly shall we fulfil it.â? [Sura-21: Aya-104 What exactly String theory suggest. You have to assume two time line. One which creates from big bang and destroy by big crunch. Another is plain time which passes through the process.

Quote Reply

chemist Science vs. Works of Faith 5/10/2004 11:41:53 AM

Sorry, but science doesn't support the Quran or vice versa. The original 'string theory' has largely been superceded by membrane theory(M-Theory) which rules out a 'big crunch.' I've forgotten alot of my non-Newtonian physics, but what I do remember also doesn't jive with Achernar's portrayal. Beisdes, quite a few people have tried this with the King James Bible and been laughed off of University campus's the world over. It isn't bias, it's just an acceptance of the sillyness of the concept.

Quote Reply

SGTObvious RE:Dr. SGTObvious 5/10/2004 1:27:30 PM

Achernar: "Read this yah again." So that's what it's called? A "Yah"? OK. Good name for it. Has a sort of primeval scream sound. Works for me. "â??The day that we roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed), - even as we produced the first creation, so shall we produce a new one: a promise we have undertaken: truly shall we fulfil it.â? [Sura-21: Aya-104" This means exactly nothing- or anything. It's sufficiently vague and bogus to be squeezed into any meaning you like. I mean, really, it makes a Delphic Oracle sound as specific as a bus schedule.

Quote Reply

Final Historian RE:Dr. SGTObvious 5/10/2004 4:10:59 PM

Excuse me, perhaps physics was his strongsuit, but biology was not. Mohammed thought that fetus' formed from a blod clot. There is plenty of scientific rebuttal of the Quaran, try : link

Quote Reply

Final Historian RE:Dr. SGTObvious 5/10/2004 4:12:10 PM

I would also like to point out that all evidence shows that the Universe is actually Open, and that expansion pressure will likely destroy everything so time in the future.

Quote Reply

Final Historian RE:Dr. SGTObvious 5/10/2004 8:53:15 PM

*some time in the future.

Quote Reply

doggtag religion versus science 5/10/2004 9:18:28 PM

I'm not slamming anyone's religious beliefs, but as we progress further and gain knowlegde of the physical laws that govern our existence (EM, gravity, matter, space/time and all that), we are dispelling many myths (not necessarily religious-based beliefs, but possibly) that have shaped our beliefs of the world around us. We used to believe the world was flat, remember? And we also thought (from "western" religious background) that the Earth was the center of the universe and everthing revolved around us (well, some people STILL think the universe revolves around them...). "Any suffiently advanced civilization will appear as magic to a lesser society." (I can't remember who wrote it, but it proves a point.) These arguments/discussions here make for some interesting ideas, but I'll leave it to the future historians, 1000 years from now on a university on a planet far, far from here, inhabited by many different species of beings (alien, human, etc), to put up the question, "WHAT WERE THESE PEOPLE THINKING???)

Quote Reply

Achernar RE:chemist/Final Historian 5/11/2004 10:38:35 AM

Chemist: >>> Sorry, but science doesn't support the Qurâ??an or vice versa. <<< First of all Al-Qurâ??an is not a book of science. Al-Qurâ??an is a complete code of life. But there is no contradictory between Al-Qurâ??an and science. Main difference between the two, Al-Qurâ??an describes physical and spiritual life but science describes only physical life. Chemist: >>> The original 'string theory' has largely been superceded by membrane theory(M- Theory) which rules out a 'big crunch.'<<< How did you find String theory rules out a big Crunch? String theory gives some flexibility to understand the singularity. From Big Crunch to Big Bang possible in string theory but we yet to know initial conditions, wave functions of the Universe and how time pass through the singularity. Final Historian: >>> I would also like to point out that all evidence shows that the Universe is actually Open, and that expansion pressure will likely destroy everything so time in the future.<<< Yes, it is true current evidence shows that the Universe is actually open. But as I said earlier that, it is not enough to settle the issue because of the uncertainty about how match unobservable material exist in space. You need to observe remote object such as "quasars" for example how do their recessional velocities vary with distance. There are many theories like: Inflationary Theory Ether Theory Superstrings, M-theory Super Symmetry (standard model) The Big Crunch (how will it end) Multi Universe theory (many parallel universes) But none can describe firmly, theories change/modify by time and experiences, because theories are created by human being within the space and time frame. On the other the Al-Qur'an which represents the final revelation of Allah to mankind has never been changed. Almighty Allah created all things including space and time Allah knows the beginning and the end at the same time.

Quote Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan RE:religion versus science 5/11/2004 11:32:24 AM

The Quran and Bible may be vague but as the true word of God (distorted by the men who wrote them) are probably not that wrong. Both refer to something like the Big Bang. "God said let there be light". Well, what do you expect to be the first thing produced by a big bang? "God created the earth and the heavens", we can take this to mean only the earth but peer through a telescope and it is easy to see we are wrong. What I am getting at is the God/Allah/Yahweh was trying to explain the creation of the universe to people who burned bones, drew in the dirt and danced around in animal skins to predict the future. So the supreme being had to tone down the content a bit. Just like when God created life we assume that only the earth was involved, but if the concept of "earth" actually included many planets in the solar system we are in for a rude awakening one day. My entire background is science and technology, but my belief is that we are destined to never discover the truth, something will always be smaller, further away or governed by some as yet untangible force that is just out of our reach. We have yet to prove the existence of dark matter even though we can see its effects, as well as anti-gravity, so we don't know if the universe will collapse or expand. Some models predict the universe is a sphere as the result of a big bang and some predict that the universe is a blob due to differing concentrations of mass. In short we will never know the truth, but discovery can be just as interesting as the ultimate answer...which we will never find.

Quote Reply

1 2