ElPunto;862367 wrote: Your similtude doesn't fit. Integers divisible by 4 is a black and white thing. To show that a verse has been re-interpreted is gray. To claim it's routinely done - you would have to show a large proportion of verses are re-interpreted. You haven't done that. I don't understand how you keep thinking you have. This is the crux of my objection. What explanation was there before the Quran? Is it like the Quran one - in similarity and detail? Doesn't it warrant an actual analysis and proof before asserting the explanation was there before the Quran? This is a moot point since whatever it may be you cannot accept a miracle - you will necessarily ascribe it to something else. Is it really that hard to admit that your claim that what I've said can be negated by finding a countering example is wrong? Not only have you now implied that logic might hold for one issue and not the other, but you have also put the weight of your emphasis on there not being many re-appropriated verses provided on my part. Fair enough, you can say that large number of verses where that is the case should exist for my claim that this is routinely done to hold, but don't make excuses that don't make sense for a claim that's blatantly wrong. As for the second issue, the similarity and detail you demand has been done to death. See this page for a non-Islamic perspective and this for an Islamic perspective. As you can see the similarity is so eerie that whether there had been plagiarisation is a subject of debate (with the defensive position mainly being that it isn't because he couldn't have known about it, and not because the explanation never existed). I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence, but it sounds bit too cynical.

Mario B;862186 wrote: What I was criticizing was your use of bias and prejudice/bad experience to support this woman's use of bias and prejudice/bad experience in her attack on all Somalis. And how does she thinks working/supporting extremists groups whom she share the same prejudice will help Somali cause? I don't really know, but be honest Mario, how widespread do you think some of the things she stated are?

ElPunto;862163 wrote: You would have to prove it in each and every example if you believe they 'routinely' re-interpret. Your position is a generalization. Can you understand that? That means any one case where that hasn't happened negates your alleged routine. Two - even if we take your two as accurate regarding re-interpretation - does not MAKE a routine. You only have tendrils of a case. Scientific miracle? Isn't that an oxymoron? Something that was not known? - are you saying that at that time - embryology was in fact KNOWN or was it postulated by some? Clearly you can't argue it was known pre-quran - that would require scientific evidence and tools they didn't have. It's too easy to dimiss your excuses. Any one case where that hasn't happened doesn't negate the routine because my assertion allows these cases. If I say that there are many integers between 1 and 100 that are divisible by 4, citing 15 does not negate my statement. On the second case, your objection is completely unnecessary and off the mark -- the explanation was there before the Koran, you either accept that or you don't (whether it was postulated/known or even scientific at all doesn't really matter -- why should it, really?). If you do, then the fact of the matter is this cannot be sufficiently considered to be a miracle of any sorts in fact. If you actually don't, then please say so.

ElPunto;862139 wrote: A straw man is representing your position as one you haven't taken. Is your position only those 2 verses you provided have been re-interpreted and no others have - if it is then introducing my verse is a straw man. If your position is that Muslims routinely re-interpret verses to suit the 'miracle' that is the Quran - then any verse that has not been re-intepreted like the one I cited is sufficient to negate your position. Clearly - I don't think you only meant that 2 verses only have been re-interpreted but if it is - please clarify now. My example falls short? How? 7th century Arabia that within 50 years of the Prophet's death had written down the Quran was able to appropriate this particular peice of knowledge from the Greeks and it was copied down as it is and somehow thought it vital to detail? To prove this - would be a pretty big task. My position is many Muslims do routinely reinterpret the Koran to fit the scientific miracles bill, but that doesn't mean every verse used in such vain has been. How you think a counterexample is sufficient to counter this is beyond me. As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong here, the definition of a scientific miracle is something that was not known at the time and was revealed in the Koran only to later be confirmed by science. This particular explanation existed and that renders the claim of it being a scientific miracle moot. I have no burden to explain how he might have known about it -- nor does the validity of anything that I've asserted depend on the providence of such an explanation -- and your implication that he couldn't have is a circumstantial excuse.

N.O.R.F;862130 wrote: Did you read what I wrote? You're relying on translations to make your point. Translations! Considering there are so many over so long which ones are right? Furthermore, what translations do you have available prior to the above list? If you can give me a single commentary or translation of the Koran (from, let's say, the first ten -- yes, that's right TEN -- centuries it was around) that matches the Mohammed Assad translation you have provided above, I'll hand it to you. I assume it won't be hard?

ElPunto;862125 wrote: ^Interesting stuff. I didn't watch the clip nor plan to. I simply addressed your remark that verses in the Quran are re-interpreted to suit modern science. When the Quran says at the first stage the embryo is this, and then this, and then this. There isn't much interpretation there - it is either the case or it isn't. If it is the case - then you can say it's a coincidence or borrowed from the Greeks or any myriad explanation that soothes your character. And you should know better than to bring up Greek postulations as scientific proof - that isn't sufficient and you know that. I don't care what floats your boat - just don't say - oh you guys just re-interpreted it as you wish. There is no case there. Then you have committed a straw man here. I presented two cases whose interpretation/meaning I argued was appropriated after science, and you have presented a completely different one and said look, this one isn't, and apparently dismissed my case on that basis. If that's not a textbook example of a straw man then I don't know what is. On the top of that, as I have said your example still fails short of what you indented for because these stages of developments given in the Koran have existed long before that time.

N.O.R.F -- LOL @ the age of your translations. Did you even read what I wrote? It's even more hilarious that your only fitting translation is from 1980! :D

Apophis;861967 wrote: Here comes the personal attacks/invalidations. Me and Garnaqsi are not the same and Freeman??? Our friend Mario believes (among other things): omniscient/omnipresent God and omniscient/omnipresent atheist. Omniscient atheist because he was so unbelievably excited that he found an unsupported claim from me. :D Omnipresent atheist because he thinks all the atheist members in this board are really one and the same. :D

Mario B;861919 wrote: Lol. Garnaqsi is using anecdotal evidence to come up with the 80% statistics. Coming from a man who relies on " factual objectivity " this is very depressing reading indeed. :eek: As Apophis has pointed out, I had the disqualifying phrase 'in my experience' there; so it was pretty clear that it wasn't meant to be taken as a supportable statistic of sorts. Nice to know I'm being scrutinised here, though. Hard feelings from religious debates?

ElPunto - You didn't really address the disparity of interpretation that I've pointed out (I wasn't talking about that/I've my doubts about him sounds more like a cop-out, since these ARE the sort of verses that are now widely considered to be scientific miracles by many Muslims). Besides, as has been said, the embryology description in the Koran wasn't something that science came to know later on -- in fact, the Greeks had very good understanding of it -- so it falls short of the example you were meaning to provide. N.O.R.F;861992 wrote: Its one thing to have already rejected what Ibn Kathir is summarising but its quite another to use it to make a point (a futile one at that) What a useless tautological sentence. Honestly, are you trying to be witty here or something? And why do you think my point is futile? It seems you always come to threads with half-arsed intellectually empty remarks which you end up being unable to defend.

*Blessed;860839 wrote: Here is a learned Islamic scholar however, who eloquently explains the futility of some of these science proofs/ negates the existence of Allah debates. “There is nothing in the logic of the created world that can irrefutably point to beyond its own nature…” He goes into more detail in this long lecture, it's definitely worth listening to if you have the time. Now this guy knows what he's talking about and gives an interesting perspective. The Coherence of Theism is the title and subject of an entire (excellent) book by Richard Swinburne. But I don't understand his reasoning for a theory of everything being impossible.

Love is marriage? More like it kills love! Apophis;860919 wrote: This question is best answered by films. I'm curious - what particular films do you have in mind?

Mario B;861133 wrote: Lol @ Garnaqsi, do you have to have an argument with theists on every thread? Why don't you enjoy your freedom from religion and leave us to worship sky pixie/imaginary friend [ or what you call the monster of Loch ness]. And how is fasting a blunder? I didn't call fasting a blunder. :confused:

I highly doubt the honesty of those who say what she said is not true. In my experience, all of what she said is true for at least 80% of Somalis, except perhaps the violence part. I volunteered in a Somali community centre in my school days and was so shocked!

How is your claim any more valid than that of someone proclaiming that science is slowly catching up with Buddhism as Buddhist meditations have been found to have therapeutic values? Being critical of your own thoughts is the best way to avoid major blunders.

NGONGE;860981 wrote: p.s. Chelsea look good. Torres is finally getting some service. People were telling Hazard how tough it's to adopt into the EPL but now he probably can't believe how easy he's finding it. On Liverpool, Joe Allen seems to fit right in and Sterling looks such an amazing prospect.

Do people take exams to qualify for this 'scholarship'? Or is it sort of like the athletes, if you know what I mean?

I love it.

Proper nouns are mostly boring.

N.O.R.F;859370 wrote: Are there any Quranic Arabic experts here? Is that a cry for help?

How long have you known each other? Just asking! :]

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who suffers with word fetishism here! Chimera;860382 wrote: Shimbir(o) - Bird(s) , there is something angelic about that word, a sense of freedom, like a wandering beautiful spirit. Good name for a beauty salon, other fitting titles would be Dharab: dew -- a word whose English and Somali versions are both beautiful. Recall how Hadrawi describes Suleykha's beauty: "Ma ubax dhashoo xalay, ka dharqaday xareedo, dharab kii ku yaal baa," or how Tagore says "let your life lightly dance on the edges of time like dew on the tip of a leaf" (you lose poetic flair in translations but sometimes they are unbelievably good). If you add dharab and shimbir, you get shimbir-dharab, which is a type bird - e.g. "Shimbir-dharabtu meel aar fadhiyo shuuqdi ka ma deeyne, sha'dii baan hayaanka u rariyo shaambis geedigaye,' which is what Cabdi Iidaan opens with the poetic chain Shiinleey.

LOL @ Raamsade. Welcome back, Blue.

Mooge;859137 wrote: I majored in mathematics at uni so i have a dumb challenge for you. 2" tell me the number that comes after the last one if i continued: 1 2 3 7 What do you mean by "the number"? It's not necessarily unique. For example, I could construct a sequence in the following way. Write down all the (non-zero) positive integers. Cross out/leave out every other three. Done. So it would be 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, etcetera.