Islam and the Big Bang

[Garnaqsi]

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.

[Garnaqsi]

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]

Garnaqsi;862132 wrote:

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.

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.

[N.O.R.F]

Garnaqsi;862136 wrote:

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?

I doubt there are any available English translations by Muslims before Pickthall. If you have any provide a link.

 

We can always research what the Arabic word means

[Garnaqsi]

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.

[ElPunto]

Garnaqsi;862154 wrote:

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.

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.

[Garnaqsi]

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]

Garnaqsi;862187 wrote:

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.

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.

[Garnaqsi]

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.

[ElPunto]

Garnaqsi;862552 wrote:

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 cases 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.

I see what you're saying now - negate is not quite the word but it was only to show that if they 'routinely re-interpret verses' - why wouldn't they have done so in this case? That they haven't done so doesn't by itself disqualify your claim outright - but it does poke a hole at an assertion you yourself admit you haven't proven.

 

Bit too cynical - wouldn't that be right up your alley?

[Garnaqsi]

Touché.

[puntnomads]

Garnaqsi

"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."

 

"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." Many verses of the Quran are said to be scientific facts and my question is which one are recent discoveries? That couldn't have been known at that time period? And which one could possible have been know at that time? This is for intelligent debate and not pointless Pickering!

[Raamsade]

Puntnomads, actually a better test of a miracle is if Nimco Dareen (after she recuperates from that brutal attack... Walaahi if I ever see the SOB who hurt Nimco my geriatric **** would Bruce Lee kick him in a jiffy) pops out of my computer screen and shakes her tail feather at me. That would be a true miracle.

 

Seriously though, what constitutes a miracle? Most of what is peddled as "scientific miracles in the Quran" are tendentious interpretations and commentaries couched in modern scientific lingo. In light of this there must be standards that any "scientific miracle" must meet. I can think of few and please add yours.

 

1. The purported miracle must be true. This standard, for example, would nullify the alleged "embryological stages" miracle in the Quran on the account of being plain wrong.

 

2. The supposed miracle must not have been known to any individual or group prior to its revelation. It is not really a "miracle" if what is conveyed in that miracle was previously known. The so-called "ostrich shaped earth" miracle in the Quran is annulled in this case because the Greeks already knew the earth was round.

 

3. The miracle in the Quran must be plainly discernable by any one without any recourse to biased interpretations. This standard is paramount because often times people are interpreting the Quran to say things it is actually not saying. If the ayah containing the miracle is not clear and there are competing interpretations, it is not miraculous.