Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Lucid

Member
  • Content count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Lucid

  • Rank
    Full Member

Previous Fields

  • Religion
    Atheism
  1. You present no evidence whatsoever that the Qur'an has gone unchanged.
  2. A Challenge

    To be pedantic, it's denser, not "less dense". That's funny, because I just got a copy of that book "Marine Geology by Kuenen" which you cite, from my university's library. And surprise surprise, it contradicts you. To quote it, page 42, "turbulence causes some mixing with the inflow in the straits. The salinity is thereby reduced from 38% to 37%, but the temperature is also lowered from 13 degrees C to 11 degrees C". Furthermore, "Finally at 1000m it reaches a level at which the deep Atlantic water is of the same density. Here the Mediterranean water leaves the bottom and spread out north, west, and south". To put emphasis on the question, I'll bold it up: So where exactly is this "barrier" which cannot be "transgressed"? Furthermore, it's important to point out that seas are not defined by their saline levels. What constitutes a sea is quite arbitrarily defined by man; plenty of adjacent seas have the same saline levels. So where does your* argument stand then? Hold on, where is the partition? That diagram shows a continuous mixing of saline levels. In fact, you even contradicted yourself with that Princeton definition "estuary-the wide part of a river where it nears the sea; fresh and salt water mix". So, again, where is the partition? And what does this have to do with the Qur'an? Notice that even if you were right (which you're not) it wouldn't prove divinity, for you have reverse engineered it! You could not get from "He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do no transgress." to "there is a slow, minimal diffusion of saline levels amongst some sea boundaries". You've had to go backwards which is exactly what you'd expect if it wasn't divine (this is exactly what they do with the bible). It's laughable. * I say "your argument", but of course, you've merely copied and pasted an Islamic website rather than actually looking into it yourself. (Easily found, (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetIslam-guide(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/ch1-1-e.htm)"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetIslam-guide(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/ch1-1-e.htm)[/url]
  3. Women In Islam

    Close to 0% leave the Exclusive Brethren (a Christian denomination). But that's not because it's true, or a nicer religion than others (to the contrary), it's because it's very greatly shun upon. And this is also true in Islam. (In fact, in Islamic countries, the punishment for apostasy is death.)
  4. Women In Islam

    Just to point out: if you look at the data, Islam is only ahead by an amount accounted for entirely by migration.
  5. A Challenge

    The modern English word "gas", yes. The concept came long before; furthermore that does not mean that Arabic lacked a word for it. It does matter. If the Qur'an clearly stated unknown science, then the Muslims would have came fourth with it. The fact that they didn't.... (Look up "contrapositive") That's not true (show me a scientific source that says this). There is not a distinct boundary between seas which the water from either side cannot transgress (which is what your interpretation of that verse says). Again, find me this 'partition'. Furthermore, an estuary separates rivers from seas - not two seas. (And yes, it is an important difference). Granted, dense saline regions tend not to dilute with the adjacent low-saline water, but they are not separated by a well-define layer which cannot be transgressed, they mix just like when you mix 70%- and 90%- rubbing alcohol. This is truly desperate.
  6. Arrogance

    Is claiming that you're definitely right, that god favours your people, and that others will go to hell if they disagree with you, not arrogant?
  7. A Challenge

    "How can you just say that? After everything we have said, you still dont listen." I have listened. And I've explained that you've yet to present anything that is solid evidence of divinity. This is really the best an omniscient being could do? Furthermore, you did not address my question (see my last post). "You still arent grasping the complexity of the arab languauge. Many words in arabic have different meanings. Different letters in the arabic language have to be said with more emphasise and so different sounds thus have different meanings. Its complicated." Okay, well if it's beyond me, then I'm hardly going to just take your word for it. Give me some actual science, not language. "You are merely in self denial, making up excuses and when the truth is in front of your eyes. You are caught up over one word in the verse which brother Younes has already justified" I'm really not satisfied with his 'justification'. His argument essentially seems to be that there is no Arabic word for 'gas'; is this really true?
  8. "I would have raped her, but I did not want to go to jail", there's nothing wrong with that? Which question? "Would you kill your mother if God commanded you to do so?" If so, then I doubt it (mainly because I could not be 100% certain that God really wanted me to. I could lose my marbles and hallucinate the event of a burning bush commanding me to). In fact, this has reminded me to post that follow-up thread... I shall do so shortly. twoswordali, half of what you said made no sense, and the rest was utterly ridiculous. So I shall be the bigger man and just laugh you off.
  9. A Challenge

    You lot seem to have missed my point: Until science came along, Muslims did not come fourth a propose that chromosomes existed, nor that the big bang occurred, etc. So why not? I expect it's because those verses originally had a different meaning, and have since been simply reinterpreted to try and fit in with science..
  10. A Challenge

    Well, here's just one idea: suppose the universe was believed to be eternal and static (as was generally held to be true in those days), then "smoke" could refer to the collection of stars; each star being the analogy of a smoke particle. Because, if you were to look at the cosmos as a whole, it would indeed look a bit like that. Why does it say "smoke" then? At what time? Before the heavens were as they are today? The earth was part of them. Furthermore, if Allah created the heavens and then the earth, it should say "and said unto it and then unto the earth". That small difference would resolve this problem and be more accurate, but Allah didn't think to do that? Pick a holy book X, and then google "science in X". Here's one web page for supposed scientific miracles in the Bible: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetclarifyingchristianity(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/science.shtml"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetclarifyingchristianity(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/science.shtml[/url] That definition of smoke is correct (except that smoke is always a product either of combustion or pyrolysis), but it certainly would not be the perfect word to use. Prior to the heavens, the universe was a gas, not smoke. So why does it not say "gas"? Which phase of the universe does this relate to? And again, "gas" would be the right word, not "smoke". I have? The word "gas" existed at the time the Qur'an was written.... Why would Allah not use that instead? Especially seeing as he's omniscient, and thus has the foresight to realise that we'd eventually establish a difference between the two....
  11. The Big Bang 101

    A surprising number of you don't believe in the big bang. If you're such a disbeliever, then this topic is for you. I'm going to present just a tiny portion of the evidence, and before you deny the big bang, I challenge you to present an alternative explanation for the data. Let me point out that the Big Bang theory says nothing about what came before the earliest moment. And it certainly does not state that something came from nothing. It just states that the universe is expanding, having been in a very small and very hot state at a finite time in the past (and then it gives some details). 0. Theory I've numbered this as '0' because I'm not presenting it as evidence per se, but it's an interesting fact: Einstein, based on his General Theory of Relativity (which is most certainly correct), deduced that the universe could not be static - ie, it had to be expanding. But now for some actual evidence. 1. The Universe is Expanding. When a police car, with it's siren going, drives towards or away from you, the pitch of the sound changes. This is known as the Doppler effect. A similar 'relativistic Doppler effect' occurs with light; when something is moving away or towards an observer at a sufficiently high speed, we can measure a shift in the frequency of the source's light. By applying this principle to the spectral lines ('Fraunhofer lines') of stars/galaxies, we can measure their velocity relative to us. When we do this, we find that all the galaxies are moving away from us at high speeds; in fact, there's a direct correlation (known as 'Hubble's Law') between the distance and the velocity - the further away, the faster it's receding. So clearly, if we run this backwards in time, the universe falls back in, eventually to a single point. In fact, from Hubble's law (v=Hd), we can work out the age of the universe: 1/H ~ 13.73 billion years. WMAP measured Hubble's constant (H) to within +/- 1.3 km/s/Mpc, which means that we can be certain that the universe is no younger than 13.61 billions years. This in itself was highly convincing to most. But still, being humble, scientists pursued more evidence. 2. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation It was predicted that if there was a big bang, then there should be some thermal energy left over from it. In fact, Gamow predicted that there should be microwave radiation left over, corresponding to a black body temperature of approximately 5 Kelvin (K). It wasn't until nearly 20 years later that this afterglow was accidentally measured (by Penzias and Wilson) - and was found to be about 3 Kelvin! Furthermore, it was predicted that this radiation should be isotropic, but with minor fluctuations (which has been confirmed by the COBE satellite). The above in itself is pretty conclusive. But I'll give one more before I go to bed. This should be more than sufficient. 3. Abundance of primordial elements The ratio of the basic elements (Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, etc) can be calculated if one assumes the big bang were true. And surprise surprise, the calculations are in amazing agreement with observation. Like I said, I'll leave it there for now. But there is plenty more evidence; I would strongly recommend "The first three minutes" by Prof. Steven Weinberg. If you deny the big bang, then please justify why - and better yet, try and present an alternative explanation for the above.
  12. That's like me asking you if you'd kill your mother if the tooth fairy commanded you to.
  13. Haha, twoswordali, are you ready for a big slap in the face? The term "big bang" was actually coined by a theist (one of you), named Fred Hoyle, who opposed the theory. He was on a radio chat show when he said it, and the media liked the term, and so it stuck. (As for the validity of the theory, which part of the evidence do you not find convincing? It is rather conclusive. In fact, the evidence eliminates practically every possible alternative that anyone has been able to conjure up - even with giant leaps of the imagination.) Thus, in that pathetic rant of yours, you have (i) insulted your own kinda (theists), and (ii) demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about the topic you're speaking of. I did not bother reading the previous dribble that you wrote, it was just the paragraph containing 'big bang' that stood out. I'm guessing the rest is equally infantile.
  14. I just posted a comment in another thread which is of essentially the same topic, so I thought my comment would be relevant here too: It's worth pointing out that although there are of course a few (very few) converts of scientists to Islam (as there are as many such cases to Christianity, Hinduism, etc), it has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of Islam. It seems quite desperate for many of you to gain so much reassurance from these few silly cases, whilst ignoring the big picture. In fact, is your faith really that weak that you need to make a big hoo-haa on every convert? Anyway, let me paint the big picture for you: According to the recent surveys carried out at some top scientific institutes (such as the Royal Society, and the National Academy of Science), 90% are non-believers. Of the remaining 10% that do believe in a god, essentially 0% are Muslim. (Furthermore, the minority of these 10% are actually qualified in the fields of science which are relevant to the deep questions of the universe (e.g. physics, biology, etc)). Also, if anything, Islam has stunted science in modern times. To illustrate this: Turkey is among the most productive Islamic countries in the world regarding scientific research, and yet over a 9 year period, the country as a whole published as many scientific papers as a single Ivy League university does within a single year! Nevertheless, as pathetic as it may seem to me, who am I to stop you taking solace in these dozen outliers?
  15. It's worth pointing out that although there are of course a few (very few) converts of scientists to Islam (as there are as many such cases to Christianity, Hinduism, etc), it has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of Islam. It seems quite desperate for many of you to gain so much reassurance from these few silly cases, whilst ignoring the big picture. In fact, is your faith really that weak that you need to make a big hoo-haa on every convert? Anyway, let me paint the big picture for you: According to the recent surveys carried out at some top scientific institutes (such as the Royal Society, and the National Academy of Science), 90% are non-believers. Of the remaining 10% that do believe in a god, essentially 0% are Muslim. (Furthermore, the minority of these 10% are actually qualified in the fields of science which are relevant to the deep questions of the universe (e.g. physics, biology, etc)). Also, if anything, Islam has stunted science in modern times. To illustrate this: Turkey is among the most productive Islamic countries in the world regarding scientific research, and yet over a 9 year period, the country as a whole published as many scientific papers as a single Ivy League university does within a single year! Nevertheless, as pathetic as it may seem to me, who am I to stop you taking solace in these dozen outliers?
×