The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.
- Thread starter eanassir
- Start date
Oh, my goodness, eanassir! That's some of the funniest and silliest stuff I've read in a long time. Doesn't it embarrass you to be so stubbornly and demonstrably wrong?Some corrections of the present mistakes of scientists:
- The origin of Earth and other planets.
- Life exists on the planets, with the exception of Mercury and Venus, on which life – once existed – is now extinct. Venus and Mercury have stopped axial rotation and now orbit the Sun with one hemisphere only facing the sun always.
- Moon orbits the Earth, but does not rotate around its axis.
- Most mountains are not from Earth in origin.
- Comets are masses separating from the Sun; they do not orbit the Sun, but they move forward with no specific orbits.
- Mars is larger than Earth.
- Asteroids do not orbit the Sun; some of them orbit Mars and others orbit Jupiter.
- And many other points; in fact all the subjects in the book: The Universe and the Quran, that I have translated, are worthy of investigating and studying.
- Doomsday is inevitable.
- The origin of the Stratosphere
the seven gaseous stratified heavens) is from the earth itself.
- And many other subjects like the origin of life, the four human races have been created separately; Adam is not the father of all mankind, but the father of the most recently created human race: the Caucasian race. Even though all the races are human beings.
- And other subjects and many many others about various science disciplines.
Pangloss
Your insisting is like that of Noah's people, as in the Quran 71: 7
وَإِنِّي كُلَّمَا دَعَوْتُهُمْ لِتَغْفِرَ لَهُمْ جَعَلُوا أَصَابِعَهُمْ فِي آذَانِهِمْ وَاسْتَغْشَوْا ثِيَابَهُمْ وَأَصَرُّوا وَاسْتَكْبَرُوا اسْتِكْبَارًا
The explanation: ("And whenever I call them [to believe], that You may forgive them [their sins], they thrust their fingers in their ears, veil their [heads] with their garments and persist [in their refusal] and grow arrogant.")
Eanassir
http://universeandquran.741.com
http://man-after-death.741.com
http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.comEanassir
http://universeandquran.741.com
http://man-after-death.741.com
Has your Archeology studies made you love the idols, and you choose an idol as your symbol?
Eanassir, with all due respect, you should practice what you preach. Pardon the pun, but your first sentence speaks volumes. You have no voice on matters of science, you are simply repeating what some people wrote hundreds of years ago.
If you are a GP, then you must know how peer review works. Arguing from authority has no value whatsoever in the realm of science.
I just find it interesting, it reminds me how little I know about the world. I'll find your book by myself and not bother you anymore. Goodday
Last edited:
Some corrections of the present mistakes of eanassir
* The origin of Earth and other planets.
The best current evidence is that they all formed together from a rotating cloud of gas and dust about 5 billion years ago. There’s no evidence that there was ever a pre-existing system that was destroyed and reassembled into what we see now.
* Life exists on the planets, with the exception of Mercury and Venus, on which life – once existed – is now extinct.
There is not a shred of evidence for that claim. All the evidence for life on other planets is negative.
*Venus and Mercury have stopped axial rotation and now orbit the Sun with one hemisphere only facing the sun always.
Mercury rotates on its axis more slowly than it orbits the sun, so its day is longer than its year, but it does rotate. The same is true of Venus, but with a twist: Venus rotates in a retrograde direction. Sunrise is in the west and sunset is in the east on Venus.
* Moon orbits the Earth, but does not rotate around its axis.
Still haven’t figured that one out? In order to keep the same side facing the earth all the time, and at least you seem to have grasped that simple observational fact, the moon must rotate on its axis in the same time it takes to make one revolution around the earth. You make this error about Venus and Mercury too: keeping the same face toward the central body doesn’t mean axial rotation has stopped, it’s merely been slowed by tidal effects to match the orbital period.
* Most mountains are not from Earth in origin.
There is no evidence for this claim, and plenty of evidence contrary to it. It’s fairly easy to trace in many areas the sedimentary layers that have been thrust up into mountains and their continuation in adjacent non-mountainous areas. It’s obvious in the thrust faults of the Rocky Mountains in western Canada. The rocks exposed up high in the mountains continue out to the east beyond the mountains. It’s the same rocks. You’d have us believe that great slabs of rock thousands of kilometres across fell to earth without doing major damage. A rock only a few kilometres across impacting the earth will do major damage.
* Comets are masses separating from the Sun; they do not orbit the Sun, but they move forward with no specific orbits.
Never heard of the Oort Cloud or the Kuiper Belt? The best evidence is that comets are small bodies left over from the original formation of the solar system. They’re composed mostly of rock, dust, and ice, and have been aptly described as dirty snowballs. The sun is mostly hydrogen, comets are made of quite different stuff, they couldn’t have come from there. There are several types based on orbital characteristics. Some of them don't orbit the sun, they come in on parabolic paths and get flung out of the solar system, never to return, but most of them do orbit the sun in elliptical paths of varying eccentricity, but predictably enough that astronomers know when many of them will return.
* Mars is larger than Earth.
Direct observational evidence is that Mars is about 6800 kilometres in diameter, about half the size of the Earth.
* Asteroids do not orbit the Sun; some of them orbit Mars and others orbit Jupiter.
Direct observation indicates otherwise. The orbits of many asteroids have been documented, particularly those that cross earth’s orbit, as they are potential threats, and there’s no doubt that they orbit the sun.
* And many other points;
Like that ludicrous claim that life came to earth with those mountains that fell on it? Aside from the complete lack of evidence for it and the enormous damage falling mountains would do, it doesn’t solve the question of the origin of life anyway, it just takes it to someplace other than the Earth.
* Doomsday is inevitable.
Well, you’re right about that one at least, but not in the way you think. The sun has a finite lifetime and will eventually be unable to sustain life on earth.
* The origin of the Stratosphere the seven gaseous stratified heavens) is from the earth itself.
I must have missed your discussion of that one, I don’t recall it. And I’m not going to go looking for it, it’ll be just as inane as all your other discussions of science. The stratosphere is the second layer of the atmosphere, one of six, not seven, recognized layers. Going from ground level upwards, we have the troposphere, the stratosphere, the mesosphere, the thermosphere, and the exosphere. Look it up.
* And many other ... Adam is not the father of all mankind...
News for you eanassir: Adam is a fictional character, so I guess you’re right about that much too. He’s not the father of anyone.
I am amazed that someone bright enough to qualify as a medical doctor, with the training in scientific and critical thinking that implies, and with all the resources of the Internet available, clings to the nonsense you’ve posted here. You could look up any of this stuff with a few key words in Google and find thousands of sources confirming how wrong you are. How can you possibly diagnose your patients’ problems thinking the way you do? Medical diagnosis is a learned and difficult process of critical thinking and evidential reasoning, and if you can do it in a medical context you should be able to do it in an astronomical context. The level of thinking you display here on astronomical matters is like a medical doctor looking for descriptions of patients' symptoms in the Quran and trying to figure out what god would have prescribed. I'm tempted to think that must be how you do it, in which case you must have lost a lot of patients. I can't think of any other reason why you'd be unable to generalize your thinking skills from one area to another.
* The origin of Earth and other planets.
The best current evidence is that they all formed together from a rotating cloud of gas and dust about 5 billion years ago. There’s no evidence that there was ever a pre-existing system that was destroyed and reassembled into what we see now.
* Life exists on the planets, with the exception of Mercury and Venus, on which life – once existed – is now extinct.
There is not a shred of evidence for that claim. All the evidence for life on other planets is negative.
*Venus and Mercury have stopped axial rotation and now orbit the Sun with one hemisphere only facing the sun always.
Mercury rotates on its axis more slowly than it orbits the sun, so its day is longer than its year, but it does rotate. The same is true of Venus, but with a twist: Venus rotates in a retrograde direction. Sunrise is in the west and sunset is in the east on Venus.
* Moon orbits the Earth, but does not rotate around its axis.
Still haven’t figured that one out? In order to keep the same side facing the earth all the time, and at least you seem to have grasped that simple observational fact, the moon must rotate on its axis in the same time it takes to make one revolution around the earth. You make this error about Venus and Mercury too: keeping the same face toward the central body doesn’t mean axial rotation has stopped, it’s merely been slowed by tidal effects to match the orbital period.
* Most mountains are not from Earth in origin.
There is no evidence for this claim, and plenty of evidence contrary to it. It’s fairly easy to trace in many areas the sedimentary layers that have been thrust up into mountains and their continuation in adjacent non-mountainous areas. It’s obvious in the thrust faults of the Rocky Mountains in western Canada. The rocks exposed up high in the mountains continue out to the east beyond the mountains. It’s the same rocks. You’d have us believe that great slabs of rock thousands of kilometres across fell to earth without doing major damage. A rock only a few kilometres across impacting the earth will do major damage.
* Comets are masses separating from the Sun; they do not orbit the Sun, but they move forward with no specific orbits.
Never heard of the Oort Cloud or the Kuiper Belt? The best evidence is that comets are small bodies left over from the original formation of the solar system. They’re composed mostly of rock, dust, and ice, and have been aptly described as dirty snowballs. The sun is mostly hydrogen, comets are made of quite different stuff, they couldn’t have come from there. There are several types based on orbital characteristics. Some of them don't orbit the sun, they come in on parabolic paths and get flung out of the solar system, never to return, but most of them do orbit the sun in elliptical paths of varying eccentricity, but predictably enough that astronomers know when many of them will return.
* Mars is larger than Earth.
Direct observational evidence is that Mars is about 6800 kilometres in diameter, about half the size of the Earth.
* Asteroids do not orbit the Sun; some of them orbit Mars and others orbit Jupiter.
Direct observation indicates otherwise. The orbits of many asteroids have been documented, particularly those that cross earth’s orbit, as they are potential threats, and there’s no doubt that they orbit the sun.
* And many other points;
Like that ludicrous claim that life came to earth with those mountains that fell on it? Aside from the complete lack of evidence for it and the enormous damage falling mountains would do, it doesn’t solve the question of the origin of life anyway, it just takes it to someplace other than the Earth.
* Doomsday is inevitable.
Well, you’re right about that one at least, but not in the way you think. The sun has a finite lifetime and will eventually be unable to sustain life on earth.
* The origin of the Stratosphere
the seven gaseous stratified heavens) is from the earth itself.I must have missed your discussion of that one, I don’t recall it. And I’m not going to go looking for it, it’ll be just as inane as all your other discussions of science. The stratosphere is the second layer of the atmosphere, one of six, not seven, recognized layers. Going from ground level upwards, we have the troposphere, the stratosphere, the mesosphere, the thermosphere, and the exosphere. Look it up.
* And many other ... Adam is not the father of all mankind...
News for you eanassir: Adam is a fictional character, so I guess you’re right about that much too. He’s not the father of anyone.
I am amazed that someone bright enough to qualify as a medical doctor, with the training in scientific and critical thinking that implies, and with all the resources of the Internet available, clings to the nonsense you’ve posted here. You could look up any of this stuff with a few key words in Google and find thousands of sources confirming how wrong you are. How can you possibly diagnose your patients’ problems thinking the way you do? Medical diagnosis is a learned and difficult process of critical thinking and evidential reasoning, and if you can do it in a medical context you should be able to do it in an astronomical context. The level of thinking you display here on astronomical matters is like a medical doctor looking for descriptions of patients' symptoms in the Quran and trying to figure out what god would have prescribed. I'm tempted to think that must be how you do it, in which case you must have lost a lot of patients. I can't think of any other reason why you'd be unable to generalize your thinking skills from one area to another.
Dexter Sinister said:
* The origin of Earth and other planets.
"The best current evidence is that they all formed together from a rotating cloud of gas and dust about 5 billion years ago."
I say: How do you know that for certain, will you swear to it?
"There’s no evidence that there was ever a pre-existing system that was destroyed and reassembled into what we see now."
I say: But it is worth to be verified:
The meteorites and the celestial rocks may indicate some destroyed planets. Life should have come from outside the earth.
* Life exists on the planets, with the exception of Mercury and Venus, on which life – once existed – is now extinct.
"There is not a shred of evidence for that claim. All the evidence for life on other planets is negative."
I say: But you cannot say there is no life outside the earth; on the contrary evidence of some complex organic materials have been found and discovered on some meteorites, many years ago, like the Merkson meteorite in Australia, and many other meteorites. The water is essential for life, and evidence of water on some planets and moons have been discovered. Why then are they concerned with making projects and programs for seeking after evidence of life elsewhere; the interperter of the Quran pointed out that the Quran included many revelations declaring the existence of intelligent life on the planets. Therefore, when they will discover life, remember his words and your words. Because what you have said and wrote is recorded, as are my words and the words of others.
*Venus and Mercury have stopped axial rotation and now orbit the Sun with one hemisphere only facing the sun always.
"Mercury rotates on its axis more slowly than it orbits the sun, so its day is longer than its year, but it does rotate."
I say: We have now returned to the past arguing: <Mercury does not rotate around its axis> is more logical than <Mercury rotates on its axis more slowly than it orbits the sun, so its day is longer than its year> Why it does so, is it resentful?
"The same is true of Venus, but with a twist: Venus rotates in a retrograde direction. Sunrise is in the west and sunset is in the east on Venus."
Why it does so, contrary to the rest of the planets? Why a planet rotate around the sun in some direction? Is there any rule for that, or is it haphazard? O.K. now the illiterate man gave a rule: The planets orbit the sun in the same direction of the sun rotation around itself; i.e. the sun rotates around itself from right to left and drag its planets to revolve around it in the same direction, and they will also spin in the same direction.
* Moon orbits the Earth, but does not rotate around its axis.
"Still haven’t figured that one out? In order to keep the same side facing the earth all the time, and at least you seem to have grasped that simple observational fact, the moon must rotate on its axis in the same time it takes to make one revolution around the earth. You make this error about Venus and Mercury too: keeping the same face toward the central body doesn’t mean axial rotation has stopped, it’s merely been slowed by tidal effects to match the orbital period."
We said previously; this is a relative not real. Its movement around the earth will cause such imagination; and when the earth will stop its axial rotation, the moon will be fixed in its place.
* The origin of Earth and other planets.
"The best current evidence is that they all formed together from a rotating cloud of gas and dust about 5 billion years ago."
I say: How do you know that for certain, will you swear to it?
"There’s no evidence that there was ever a pre-existing system that was destroyed and reassembled into what we see now."
I say: But it is worth to be verified:
The meteorites and the celestial rocks may indicate some destroyed planets. Life should have come from outside the earth.
* Life exists on the planets, with the exception of Mercury and Venus, on which life – once existed – is now extinct.
"There is not a shred of evidence for that claim. All the evidence for life on other planets is negative."
I say: But you cannot say there is no life outside the earth; on the contrary evidence of some complex organic materials have been found and discovered on some meteorites, many years ago, like the Merkson meteorite in Australia, and many other meteorites. The water is essential for life, and evidence of water on some planets and moons have been discovered. Why then are they concerned with making projects and programs for seeking after evidence of life elsewhere; the interperter of the Quran pointed out that the Quran included many revelations declaring the existence of intelligent life on the planets. Therefore, when they will discover life, remember his words and your words. Because what you have said and wrote is recorded, as are my words and the words of others.
*Venus and Mercury have stopped axial rotation and now orbit the Sun with one hemisphere only facing the sun always.
"Mercury rotates on its axis more slowly than it orbits the sun, so its day is longer than its year, but it does rotate."
I say: We have now returned to the past arguing: <Mercury does not rotate around its axis> is more logical than <Mercury rotates on its axis more slowly than it orbits the sun, so its day is longer than its year> Why it does so, is it resentful?
"The same is true of Venus, but with a twist: Venus rotates in a retrograde direction. Sunrise is in the west and sunset is in the east on Venus."
Why it does so, contrary to the rest of the planets? Why a planet rotate around the sun in some direction? Is there any rule for that, or is it haphazard? O.K. now the illiterate man gave a rule: The planets orbit the sun in the same direction of the sun rotation around itself; i.e. the sun rotates around itself from right to left and drag its planets to revolve around it in the same direction, and they will also spin in the same direction.
* Moon orbits the Earth, but does not rotate around its axis.
"Still haven’t figured that one out? In order to keep the same side facing the earth all the time, and at least you seem to have grasped that simple observational fact, the moon must rotate on its axis in the same time it takes to make one revolution around the earth. You make this error about Venus and Mercury too: keeping the same face toward the central body doesn’t mean axial rotation has stopped, it’s merely been slowed by tidal effects to match the orbital period."
We said previously; this is a relative not real. Its movement around the earth will cause such imagination; and when the earth will stop its axial rotation, the moon will be fixed in its place.
* Most mountains are not from Earth in origin.
"There is no evidence for this claim, and plenty of evidence contrary to it. It’s fairly easy to trace in many areas the sedimentary layers that have been thrust up into mountains and their continuation in adjacent non-mountainous areas. It’s obvious in the thrust faults of the Rocky Mountains in western Canada. The rocks exposed up high in the mountains continue out to the east beyond the mountains. It’s the same rocks. You’d have us believe that great slabs of rock thousands of kilometres across fell to earth without doing major damage. A rock only a few kilometres across impacting the earth will do major damage."
We said previously that this happened in the early time of Earth formation: we don't know the conditions exactly: the nature of the crust at that time: was it very much solid or is there some elasticity, or are the portions of the destroyed planets came perpendicular or at a tangent; or were they moving in the same direction or in opposite directions …etc.
* Comets are masses separating from the Sun; they do not orbit the Sun, but they move forward with no specific orbits.
Never heard of the Oort Cloud or the Kuiper Belt? The best evidence is that comets are small bodies left over from the original formation of the solar system.
I say: I surprise how do you believe such a postulation and say it is scientific?
"They’re composed mostly of rock, dust, and ice, and have been aptly described as dirty snowballs.
The sun is mostly hydrogen, comets are made of quite different stuff, they couldn’t have come from there."
I say: Most elements have been discovered in the sun, but in vapor or gaseous state; when the lava of volcanoes cools down, they will be converted to rocks.
There are several types based on orbital characteristics. Some of them don't orbit the sun, they come in on parabolic paths and get flung out of the solar system, never to return, but most of them do orbit the sun in elliptical paths of varying eccentricity, but predictably enough that astronomers know when many of them will return.
* Mars is larger than Earth.
Direct observational evidence is that Mars is about 6800 kilometres in diameter, about half the size of the Earth.
Yes, they say so; but is there any rule for the arrangement of the planets in their distances away from the sun? Or is that haphazard? So that any planet comes where it likes and moves retrograde or otherwise without following any rule? Or they do not know, but cannot admit that? Will the illiterate be better than them in solving this subject, depending on a true guidance of his Lord?
* Asteroids do not orbit the Sun; some of them orbit Mars and others orbit Jupiter.
Direct observation indicates otherwise. The orbits of many asteroids have been documented, particularly those that cross earth’s orbit, as they are potential threats, and there’s no doubt that they orbit the sun."
After that planet broke up in the past and became many pieces; those pieces were attracted to the nearest planets: Mars and Jupiter; if they orbit the sun, they should be nearer to the sun: nearer than Mercury is to the Sun.
* And many other points;
"Like that ludicrous claim that life came to earth with those mountains that fell on it? Aside from the complete lack of evidence for it and the enormous damage falling mountains would do, it doesn’t solve the question of the origin of life anyway, it just takes it to someplace other than the Earth."
I say: You will not agree at all, although many hints may point to the possibility of such things
.
* Doomsday is inevitable.
"Well, you’re right about that one at least, but not in the way you think. The sun has a finite lifetime and will eventually be unable to sustain life on earth."
I say: Every material object has a certain life span: a beginning and an end.
* The origin of the Stratosphere
the seven gaseous stratified heavens) is from the earth itself."I must have missed your discussion of that one, I don’t recall it. And I’m not going to go looking for it, it’ll be just as inane as all your other discussions of science."
I say: This affirms my idea that you and others did not refer to our website where I put the book: The Universe and the Quran, and did not study it, neither did they examine it carefully, but they kept on saying: This is wrong, this is silly.
The stratosphere is the second layer of the atmosphere, one of six, not seven, recognized layers. Going from ground level upwards, we have the troposphere, the stratosphere, the mesosphere, the thermosphere, and the exosphere. Look it up."
In fact I have not written, in the forum, any topic about the stratosphere, which originally came from the smoke that filled the atmosphere of the earth in its early fromation..
Refer to:
The gaseous heavens
http://universeandquran.741.com/#GaseousHeavens
* And many others ... Adam is not the father of all mankind...
"News for you eanassir: Adam is a fictional character, so I guess you’re right about that much too. He’s not the father of anyone."
I say: how do you know that? There must be an origin, and one father of which each race has originated.
eanassir
http://universeandquran.741.com
http://man-after-death.741.com
http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com
I have referred to your website and I find it very interesting and will read it in its entirety. I did have some difficultly on my first visit with pop-ups but last evening tried again and to my delight the pop-up problem was no problem at all. Thank-you for your contributions.
I don't know exactly about what book you speak.
With pleasure, I present for you the three books that I have translated:
1. The Universe and the Quran, by the late Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Hilli, published at Beirut, by Al-ilmiah you will find it at our free website and you may download it from:
(Also it is obtainable at
2. Man after Death, by Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilli, published at Beirut, by Al-ilmiah; you will find it at our free website, and you may download if from:
Also it is obtainable from:
sales@al-ilmiyah.com
[URL="http://www.al-ilmiyah.com"]www.al-ilmiyah.com[/URL]
sales@al-ilmiyah.com
[URL="http://www.al-ilmiyah.com"]www.al-ilmiyah.com[/URL]
3. The Disagreement of the Quran with the Hebrew Bible, by Mohammed-Ali Hassan, the late interpreter of the Quran and the Bible.
You may obtain it at our website
http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com
You may obtain it at our website
http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com
Also it is obtainable from:
sales@al-ilmiyah.com
www.al-ilmiyah.com
N.B. Our websites include some advertisements, which are out of our control; therefore the dear reader may delete the advertisements and read the books.
sales@al-ilmiyah.com
www.al-ilmiyah.com
N.B. Our websites include some advertisements, which are out of our control; therefore the dear reader may delete the advertisements and read the books.
With best regards.
eanassir.
Thank-you very much eanassir. I was confused initially about the availability of your material, and thought perhaps I would have to purchase it locally, that was my mistake. I am very interested in the material you have recommended, it can only improve my dismal understanding of Islam.
Best regards D B Eaver
Best regards D B Eaver
Swear to what, exactly? I won't swear that's what happened, no scientist worthy of the name would do so, and that's an inappropriate thing to ask of science or a scientist anyway. Science doesn't deal in absolute certainties, all scientific knowledge is provisional to some extent, that's just the nature of the scientific enterprise. I will, however, swear that's what the best current evidence indicates.
Nobody who understands science would have asked such a question. Everything you post simply underlines how little of science you understand. You want absolute certainty, your religious perspective leads you to think that it's possible, and you think you've found it in a particular interpretation of a 1500 year old religious text, even when it produces claims directly contradictory to the findings of science.
Nobody who understands science would have asked such a question. Everything you post simply underlines how little of science you understand. You want absolute certainty, your religious perspective leads you to think that it's possible, and you think you've found it in a particular interpretation of a 1500 year old religious text, even when it produces claims directly contradictory to the findings of science.
That's not true, though I'm sure you'd like to think it is because you can't believe anyone could read that book and not be convinced as you are. I spent several hours at your website after the first time you posted a link to it. That was long enough to convince me that the book is the ravings of an ignorant and superstitious man who knew nothing of either the methods or the findings of science, and in particular failed to grasp, as you have, that an argument from authority carries no weight and is logically not valid.
Quote: ...you and others did not refer to our website where I put the book:
I hope your not including me as one of those others, I have downloaded a great deal of your work, I must say it looks very interesting, as yet I haven't gotten to read but a very little, my printer has given up the ghost some idiot got me parkers ink instead of shaffer and I'v plugged my nozzles. I don't like to read directly off the god forsaken VLTs they burn my eyes out, I expect repairs will be executed tommorrow no later than noon if I'm not disturbed to early. You are an interesting writer I'm sure that over the course of the winter which I have off again this year I will get lots of reading done on your very well presented material, I can see you've devoted considerable time toward it.
I enjoy your intercourse with Dexter Sinister, He's a skeptic you know.
I hope your not including me as one of those others, I have downloaded a great deal of your work, I must say it looks very interesting, as yet I haven't gotten to read but a very little, my printer has given up the ghost some idiot got me parkers ink instead of shaffer and I'v plugged my nozzles. I don't like to read directly off the god forsaken VLTs they burn my eyes out, I expect repairs will be executed tommorrow no later than noon if I'm not disturbed to early. You are an interesting writer I'm sure that over the course of the winter which I have off again this year I will get lots of reading done on your very well presented material, I can see you've devoted considerable time toward it.
I enjoy your intercourse with Dexter Sinister, He's a skeptic you know.
Yeah, I think he knows, he keeps being almost insulting about atheism, 'cause he doesn't know that an ad hominem argument isn't valid either.
It is an interesting book though Dexter, a mixture of science fiction and Allah, Islamic science fiction. Very good story. There's a lot of early science fiction.
· The origin of Earth and other planets
Therefore, in this case, you cannot say that it is wrong that " the earth and the rest of planets were one sun and it burst and broke up to form the present palanets".
And to be scientific, you m ay say:
< it may be so, but I cannot prove it>
· The book: The Universe and the Quran:
I have such impression, because it happened that I gave the book (the Arabic edition), to one of the Arab Muslim, so that he may read it; he took the book, kept it with him for few days then returned it to me; he said: I have read it. I said: Tell me what is the implication of the "swearing included in the Quran" , like :
By the sky and its night visitant! or
By the sun and its much heat! or
By the sea that will be baked, etc.
But he did not answer me, and I knew that he only went over the pages quickly and did not investigate its contents, and he did not ask me any question concerning the contents of the book.
Then I told him that the swearing in the Quran implies the threatening of the idolaters with punishment that would afflict them, in case they did not believe in the One God and that Mohammed is His apostle and the Quran revealed from God.
(1) The past [oath] means: If you do not believe, I will punish you, just as had I punished those [nations] before you [when they denied their apostles.] This is every oath preceded by the Arabic letter و ) ( i.e. the word ‘By’, like His saying -be exalted - in the Quran,86:
وَالسَّمَاءِ وَالطَّارِقِ(1)وَمَا أَدْرَاكَ مَا الطَّارِقُ(2)النَّجْمُ الثّاقِبُ (3)
2-But can you imagine what a ‘night visitant’ [that was!?]
3-It was the [tailed-]star of sharp brilliancy [: the flaming comet.] )
The ‘star of sharp brilliancy’; God sent it on the inhabitants of Nineveh, when they did not believe.
The interpretation: If you do not believe in Mohammed, I will send on you one of the comets, just as did I send – in the past – on the people of Nineveh, when they disbelieved and denied Prophet Jonah.]
Likewise is every oath preceded by the Arabic letter ( و ) i.e. the word ‘By.’
(2) [ The future oath ]: While the second type is a threatening by an event of a torment which will take place later on.
A- It is every oath preceded by the Arabic word فَلا i.e. (But no) or (But shouldn’t) or a similar translation; like His saying -be exalted - in the Quran, 56: 75-76
فَلا أُقْسِمُ بِمَوَاقِعِ النُّجُومِ(75)وَإِنَّهُ لَقَسَمٌ لَوْ تَعْلَمُونَ عَظِيمٌ(76)
76- And that, surely, is a serious oath, did you but know [it.] )
This, also, is a threatening oath, which means: If you do not believe in Mohammed, then I will send on you some of the future torment that I have told you about.
It means: the falling down of the tailed stars or comets on Earth in the future when it will stop its rotation around itself, like Mercury and Venus.
To find more details, refer to:
[ The Oath or Swearing in the Quran:]
http://universeandquran.741.com/new_page_4.htm#The Oath
This, I have mentioned as an example that some may read the book, but I myself studied it many times; and every time I read it, I find more ideas.
eanassir
http://universeandquran.741.comTo find more details, refer to:
[ The Oath or Swearing in the Quran:]
http://universeandquran.741.com/new_page_4.htm#The Oath
This, I have mentioned as an example that some may read the book, but I myself studied it many times; and every time I read it, I find more ideas.
eanassir
Thank you, darkbeaver.
The Glorious Quran is concise, but yet a tremendous knowledge is derived from it. It includes a large number of ayat (or Quranic revelations); the one aya includes many phrases or sentences with deep menaing; everyone may have benefit according to his level of learning and education. The parts of the Quran explains each other.
But What can you do and you do not know Arabic:
The translations are not the Quran; the Quran is the word of God revealed in Arabic, and the translation is the word of the translator. To make comparison may be beneficial; and sometimes the translation of an English or American man may be nearer to the correct thing rather than that of a Muslim; because some of the Muslims may twist the meaning to suit their interpretation, and the Western translator may twist the meaning according to his background.
But What can you do and you do not know Arabic:
The translations are not the Quran; the Quran is the word of God revealed in Arabic, and the translation is the word of the translator. To make comparison may be beneficial; and sometimes the translation of an English or American man may be nearer to the correct thing rather than that of a Muslim; because some of the Muslims may twist the meaning to suit their interpretation, and the Western translator may twist the meaning according to his background.
eanassir
eanassir@gmail.com
Dear Dexter,
The truth is the truth; if you seek after reaching to the truth, I hope God will guide all of us to success and prosperity in the World and the next life; and what we want more!
You're still not getting it. Of course I can't say absolutely that that's wrong, but what I can and do say is that according to everything we currently understand about processes like stellar and planetary system formation, and what we can directly see of them going on in the night sky, that's not what happened, and the evidence strongly suggests the idea is so extremely unlikely to be true that it's not worth further investigation.
No, that's not what science or a scientist would say. The statement would be, "It may be so, and here is the evidence and reasoning that supports it." It's not enough simply to make the claim, you have to produce a legitimate argument that supports it. An argument from authority is not legitimate, and that's all you've produced so far. It doesn't matter what the Quran says about scientific matters or what anybody interprets them to mean, if they're contrary to observations of how nature actually behaves they don't deserve to be taken seriously. Observation is the test that counts, not authority. You have failed consistently to make a case on anything but authority, can't grasp even a simple concept like the moon rotating on its axis, and deny the legitimacy of direct observations of things like the size of Mars, the orbital dynamics of Mercury and Venus, the composition of comets, the behaviour of meteorites, and a lot of other things. You haven't got even the most basic understanding of what you're talking about, but base it all on books written by people who didn't understand it either. You simply don't understand what science is or how it works, and seem determined not to.
Exactly eanassir, I am aware of the beauty and power of the Quran and Islam there is a dignity that appeals to my base western background as exotic and mysterious, so I would educate myself. The trouble with translation, I'm aware of that to, I am struggling with english
and it's my mother tounge. The complexitys of the human experiance is gold to me, the gift and pleasure of communication is devine I think, I see god that far at least. God has provided me with an abundance of empty cranium that I my stuff at my liesure with whatever sawdust I want.