Thread: Atheists Must Watch This

Apparently what i was afraid of happening exactly happened. this has turned into just like any other topic on this forum : a Christian vs atheist battle. i have to reassure both parties that neither of you will ever convince the other. why? simply because Christians (unlike Muslims) have no DEFINITE scientific proof that God exists, and atheists have no proof that he doesn't. so it turns into a matter of : should he exist in the first place and whether there is no proof that he doesn't, then he does. (as Christians say) or the opposite(as atheists say). Ofcourse there is no way one party is going to accept the other's point of view. That's why i tried to change this in here, but apparently i wasn't successful. No matter. Apparently using the second video was a loophole for atheists to say that i use propaganda. fine. i'm going to summarise the points i care about in it and i'd like a proper answer, not something with big words that makes it look like it's true.

1. No living cell can evolve from nothing, so where did the ancestor come from?
2. How did the exact laws of physics, chemistry and biology come about so accurately simply by chance? who laid these laws? Tsen said that laws of physics forced the bang to be so specifically accurate, who laid these laws? and does that mean that all explosions that happen, happen with the same accuracy? get real.
3. Why did mutation or evolution affect some species, but not all? why are there still primitive species? If they are all from 1 ancestor, why didn't all of them evolve at the same level?
4. How did the exact orbits of the planets and the sun come about? this incredible accuracy came by chance?
5. if the earth was formed by chance, why are all its components suitable for human life. ex: why is it that exact close from the sun? why does it have water? why is its atmosphere 'accidentally' suitable for humans and living organisms to breath?

there are more, but i'd like to see those points covered first.

As for Mr. Tsen's reply to me, that proved to me that he is in fact backed in a corner, and is trying to use the second video as means to escape. he did not provide a single piece of evidence, but rather retorted to (again) literature without proof. Also, the reason i didnt respond to your final 6 points is because you just stated jibberish with no proof to support it:

1. Those who pursue the arguments provide no room for alternative interpretations.
2. The argument makes Allah out to be weak/impotent.
3. The argument is a modern polemic.
4. At the end of the day, the "modern science proves the Koran" argument does not find science in the Koran, rather it uses science to judge the Koran
5. Selective interpretation can be used to prove anything.
6. Applying the argument means the Koran is no longer authoritative.

none of that is logical, true, or makes sense. until you prove it, i'm not going to counter it... well because there is nothing to counter. where is your damn evidence???


Also, you didnt address half of what the man said. Fine, i'll go your way. i'm not going to resort to arguing too much over one point (the earth is round part). Answer the other points. You said yourself that it doesnt disprove that the Koran is from God. Well, show me how the other points don't show that it isn't from God. I'm going to refer to the points that you can't use the 'other people said it first' card with, which are actually only 2 (the earth is round & the reflected moonlight)

As for why God didn't use Maths to show that he was the creator (someone said it, i dont remember who) , that's because it wouldn't be understood by people at that time. only 5% of the people could read or write and none of the branches of science were present. Algebra wasn't even invented yet, so E=mc2 would take just a little more than it took you to understand.

Now, back to Tsen:
Show me how the prophet could possibly have known about this without a creator informing him of it, Answer clearly without skipping points like you did last time

1. the big bang (and no physics was used in that verse because there was no physic at the time, how else would you show it other than the way it was in this verse?)
2. the sun and moon orbits
3. the expanding universe
4. the water cycle
5. plants' sexes
6. the meeting of salty and fresh water without mixing
7. the mountains holding the balance of the earth
8. all creatures were created from water
9. the life cycle of the spider, ant & bee
10. embryology and the embryonic cycle

i can provide you with many many more things similar to that, but as i said, this discussion is about the videos. there are over 1000 verses with scientific proof, so don't worry. God does exist, God did send the Koran and i have proved it with less than 15 points, 15 points which can't be countered.

Ofcourse you can't reply to any of this, so my friend instead of sticking to 2 points which don't even disprove what i said, you could have paid more attention to the other points. yeah, and bear in mind that you have to answer ALL points, don't play your translation game with one point then pretend that you have achieved the impossible and that you have disclaimed all the other points. i hope that is sufficient to bring my point through. don't go sideways, you have 10 points to go through. and both of us know that you are not going to have any reply for any of them

Please everyone, try to stick to the topic, there are plenty of Christian vs atheist discussions in this forum, i want the discussion to be within the numbered points I've mentioned.

Originally Posted by Tarek

As for why God didn't use Maths to show that he was the creator (someone said it, i dont remember who) , that's because it wouldn't be understood by people at that time. only 5% of the people could read or write and none of the branches of science were present. Algebra wasn't even invented yet, so E=mc2 would take just a little more than it took you to understand.

....

1. the big bang (and no physics was used in that verse because there was no physic at the time, how else would you show it other than the way it was in this verse?)
2. the sun and moon orbits
3. the expanding universe
4. the water cycle
5. plants' sexes
6. the meeting of salty and fresh water without mixing
7. the mountains holding the balance of the earth
8. all creatures were created from water
9. the life cycle of the spider, ant & bee
10. embryology and the embryonic cycle

... yeah, and bear in mind that you have to answer ALL points, don't play your translation game with one point then pretend that you have achieved the impossible and that you have disclaimed all the other points.[/b]

My point about maths was a direct counter to bullshit like this. Everything you have listed is not in the koran. What is in the koran is a series of ambiguous philosophical statments with no supporting evidence. It doesn't go into any detail, it doesn't offer any sort of proof - it just throws statements out there to be re-interpreted 1400 years later as containing miraculous information. It is no more science than the atomism of the greeks was.

Who cares about post hoc interpretation of ambiguous verses? I want something tangible, like e=mc^2, or the basis of modern biology, or germ theory, or chemistry. Ambiguous verses being re-interpreted to 'miraculously contain' the gist of recent scientific facts? Whatever, Retroactive Shoehorning is a Prophet's best friend..

You contention that god wouldn't use algebra as it wasn't invented yet is hilarious. That's the whole point - these miraculous claims fit entirely into the knowledge that was either - a) within logical reach of the knowledge at the time or; b) stolen from previous sources. What would be miraculous is if, in the koran, they took these statements and proved them to the level of modern science. Miraculous knowledge requires the transmission of unknowable (for the time) concepts - like advaced math.

So, in short, my points would be:

1. Ambiguous statements prone to re-interpretation on the discovery of new facts are not impressive;
2. Statements containing knowledge within easy grasp of the people at the time are not impressive;
3. Statements containing knowledge that had already existed for centuries are not impressive.

Certainly none of these imply divine intervention.

1. No living cell can evolve from nothing, so where did the ancestor come from?
2. How did the exact laws of physics, chemistry and biology come about so accurately simply by chance? who laid these laws? Tsen said that laws of physics forced the bang to be so specifically accurate, who laid these laws? and does that mean that all explosions that happen, happen with the same accuracy? get real.
3. Why did mutation or evolution affect some species, but not all? why are there still primitive species? If they are all from 1 ancestor, why didn't all of them evolve at the same level?
4. How did the exact orbits of the planets and the sun come about? this incredible accuracy came by chance?
5. if the earth was formed by chance, why are all its components suitable for human life. ex: why is it that exact close from the sun? why does it have water? why is its atmosphere 'accidentally' suitable for humans and living organisms to breath?[/b]

Again, since you can't seem to grasp the simple facts of the above, whats the point of going into the more complex areas of physics or biology? I don't see the point in investing the time to correct your huge misunderstanding of evolution, when you can't or won't even concede that your examples of miraculous knowledge are severely lacking

Originally Posted by spoon

My point about maths was a direct counter to bullshit like this. Everything you have listed is not in the koran. What is in the koran is a series of ambiguous philosophical statments with no supporting evidence. It is no more science than the atomism of the greeks was.

Who cares about post hoc interpretation of ambiguous verses? I want something tangible, like e=mc^2, or the basis of modern biology, or germ theory, or chemistry. Ambiguous verses being re-interpreted to 'miraculously contain' the gist of recent scientific facts? Whatever, Retroactive Shoehorning is a Prophet's best friend..

You contention that god wouldn't use algebra as it wasn't invented yet is hilarious. That's the whole point - these miraculous claims fit entirely into the knowledge that was either - a) within logical reach of the knowledge at the time or; b) stolen from previous sources. What would be miraculous is if, in the koran, they took these statements and proved them to the level of modern science. Miraculous knowledge requires the transmission of unknowable (for the time) concepts - like advaced math.

So, in short, my points would be:

1. Ambiguous statements prone to re-interpretation on the discovery of new facts are not impressive;
2. Statements containing knowledge within easy grasp of the people at the time are not impressive;
3. Statements containing knowledge that had already existed for centuries are not impressive.

Certainly none of these imply divine intervention.

Again, since you can't seem to grasp the simple facts of the above, whats the point of going into the more complex areas of physics or biology? I don't see the point in investing the time to correct your huge misunderstanding of evolution, when you can't or won't even concede that your examples of miraculous knowledge are severely lacking
[/b]

Are you retarded? what do you mean it wasn't mentioned in the Koran? if they aren't, well prove it!! as for your 3 points, well they are true except that they dont apply to the Koran. :

1. Ambiguous statements prone to re-interpretation on the discovery of new facts are not impressive;
2. Statements containing knowledge within easy grasp of the people at the time are not impressive;
3. Statements containing knowledge that had already existed for centuries are not impressive.


what exactly are you saying? that these verses aren't scientifically accurate? well, prove it!! besides the whole algebra part only concerns one point - the big bang. what about the other points? what does physics have to do with them you moron? you did exactly what i said you would. you played a stupid game on one point -which by the way doesn't disprove anything- to avoid trackling the other points. You guys have show no proof to what youre saying. "everything you have listed is not in the koran' eh? well, let me see you prove otherwise, tackling all points!!

also, yeah nice going on answering the 5 questions of the second video, do you really think these replies are convincing? get real

Originally Posted by Tarek

Christians (unlike Muslims) have no DEFINITE scientific proof that God exists,[/b]

HAHAHA! Muslims have "scientific proof" that God exists, eh? Why don't you show it? All you've done so far is post bizarre interpretations of verses and knowledge discovered thousands of years before the Koran was written.

Originally Posted by Tarek

1. No living cell can evolve from nothing, so where did the ancestor come from?[/b]

I already answered this, but you apparently skimmed past it. Abiogenesis is the field of science directly concerning how life arose from non-living elements. The leading theory is that clays on the ocean floor several billion years ago provided the shell to support the first cells, rather than the cells being free-living. RNA preceded DNA, and it has been demonstrated in reproduceable lab experiments how amino acids would form these cells SPONTANEOUSLY. As in, without external influence. Further, it isn't such a small chance as creationists (like yourself) like to make it out to be. Part of the spontaneous nature is that these elements naturally react, and it isn't in any way a product of chance--it's the natural tendency of the composing elements.
So why doesn't life keep spontaneously arising? Simple--modern earth is not the same as the primitive earth. Chemicals are not present in the same balance as they were then. For example, in the early earth, the seas were replete with dissolved iron, but now all of the iron has oxidized and precipitated out of solution. The atmosphere is primarily nitrogen and oxygen, whereas it used to be moreso carbon dioxide and methane.

Originally Posted by Tarek

5. if the earth was formed by chance, why are all its components suitable for human life. ex: why is it that exact close from the sun? why does it have water? why is its atmosphere 'accidentally' suitable for humans and living organisms to breath?[/b]

As stated earlier, because we are extremely adapted to our environment. It's a natural procession--all life tends towards specialization to their environments. And, as stated earlier, the early world's atmosphere permitted life, but not human life, so I fail to see your point.

Originally Posted by Tarek

none of that is logical, true, or makes sense. until you prove it, i'm not going to counter it... well because there is nothing to counter. where is your damn evidence???[/b]

I've given you plenty of evidence. If you refuse to read my resources, why should I have wasted my time with your videos? Those sucked a full hour of my life away, plus another hour composing responses. Reading my websites (which I summarized, unlike you), would take less than fifteen minutes.

Originally Posted by Tarek

As for why God didn't use Maths to show that he was the creator (someone said it, i dont remember who) , that's because it wouldn't be understood by people at that time.[/b]

Oh. So he wrote a verse, clearly describing the big bang </sarcasm>, which OBVIOUSLY the people at the time understood quite clearly, but he was afraid to put a little math into the book lest he confuse them.

Originally Posted by Tarek

Algebra wasn&#39;t even invented yet[/b]

Well, I&#39;m sorry, but actually Algebra was invented before 500 BC by the Babylonians.

Originally Posted by Tarek

Now, back to Tsen:
Show me how the prophet could possibly have known about this without a creator informing him of it, Answer clearly without skipping points like you did last time[/b]

Alright, then:

1. the big bang (and no physics was used in that verse because there was no physic at the time, how else would you show it other than the way it was in this verse?)

-This is the most bogus. Seriously, tell me with a straight face that obviously the people of the time read that and thought, "Hey, that must mean that matter exploded from an infinitely small point in a rapid explosion&#33;" Seems to me like it would more likely refer to Allah symbolically separating the heavens and the earth into two distinct places.
I cannot fathom how you insist on believing that the verse cannot be interpreted any other way, and that ancient readers of the book clearly understood its meaning. Especially seeing as how that interpretation was NEVER brought up until AFTER the invention of Big Bang theory. It&#39;s retroactive shoehorning.

2. the sun and moon orbits

Easily available knowledge at the time. Heliocentrism first appeared in HINDU texts around 800 BC, a millenia before your prophet wrote the Koran. The knowledge was old news by that time. The Chinese had even invented a calendar that mapped the moon&#39;s orbit extensively by 2,600 BC.

3. the expanding universe

I do not find this compelling evidence, as once again, it was void of meaning until after the expanding universe was discovered by science. Before that, the verse was meaningless.

4. the water cycle

Readily observable, and not something I would consider "godly knowledge".

5. plants&#39; sexes

This seems more anecdotal than scholarly. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, it&#39;s inaccurate. The verse describes plants as being either male or female, when in reality most plants possess both reproductive structures. Further, this seems to be moreso a mythical tale to explain what people don&#39;t understand than a means of conveying scientific knowledge.

6. the meeting of salty and fresh water without mixing

A bizarre interpretation of the verse, and again, one which had no meaning until AFTER science discovered such actions.

7. the mountains holding the balance of the earth

Excuse me, but please explain how this is accurate. What is this trying to convey?

8. all creatures were created from water

Which isn&#39;t by any means a unique creation myth. The Talmud says we were created from water, too. Many Native American traditions claim the same thing. So why should I believe that your scriptures are divinely inspired, and not just shots in the dark like the Native American&#39;s or the Jew&#39;s?

9. the life cycle of the spider, ant & bee

Easily observable phenomenon.

10. embryology and the embryonic cycle

Actually, almost all of the information relating to the embryonic cycle seems to be derived from the works of a Greek scholar, Galen, on the subject back in 150 AD. So not only was it already discovered, but it is extremely likely that the Koran derived directly from his works on this matter. Further, a Jewish scientist, Samuel ha-Yehudi, studied and added to Galen&#39;s works in 200 AD. It was old science at the time, readily available information, and further, it uses the exact same terms as Samuel&#39;s works from 200 AD to describe embryology, further strengthening the theory that it was directly derived from Samuel and Galen&#39;s works on the subject.

Originally Posted by Tarek

15 points which can&#39;t be countered.[/b]

Oops. Bet you feel stupid now.

Now, while we&#39;re on the subject of things that people "couldn&#39;t have known&#33;" at the time it was written, I&#39;m going to go more in depth on Mormon tradition and things that Joseph Smith, an unschooled young boy "couldn&#39;t possibly have known" when he wrote the Book of Mormon.
1. The Book of Mormon has a section called the "Word of Wisdom". This says that you shouldn&#39;t drink hot drinks, use tobacco, drink alcohol, and perscribes a diet consisting mostly of grains, with fruits and vegetables next, and meats and poultry only sparingly. This parallels modern knowledge perfectly. So how did Joseph Smith come up with a diet that predicted the food pyramid back in 1833? How did he know tobacco caused cancer and heart disease back in 1833?
The Word of Wisdom says if you follow it, you:
* "shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones"
* "shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge"
* "shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint"
* "the destroying angel shall pass by them...and not slay them"

2. The Book of Mormon predicts "steel birds with tails of flame", modern airplanes. How could Joseph Smith have known about jet airplanes back in the early 1800&#39;s?
3. The Book of Mormon described Jesus Christ visiting the Americas after his death in the early first century. Several Native American tribes speak of being visited by a white god who will come again. How could Joseph Smith have known about Native American mythology when their cultures weren&#39;t even known of at the time?
4. The Book of Mormon describes the theory of relativity in The Pearl of Great Price, as well as extensively describing the Universe&#39;s mechanics. It says that "man&#39;s time is not equal to God&#39;s time", and that worlds such as Kolob, which is closer to God&#39;s residence, has time far different from ours.
5. The Pearl of Great Price also speaks of how there are planets "which are numbered as the grains of sand". We have only just began to discover planets orbiting other stars in the last decade, so how could Joseph Smith have known about it?

(A transcript of the Pearl of Great Price can be found here.

Originally Posted by Tarek

Ofcourse you can&#39;t reply to any of this[/b]

Sorry. I don&#39;t mean to keep making you look stupid, but you just keep shooting yourself in the foot when you say things like this.

Originally Posted by Tarek

and both of us know that you are not going to have any reply for any of them [/b]

There you go again&#33;

I finally got a chance to watch both videos. The first one was a long speech rooted in a fallacy. That guy&#39;s speech was about how the Koran said stuff about space that turned out to be true. The fallacy is that he never says that the Koran was the FIRST to say that stuff. So if the Koran is proven true by making statements that others said first, a possibility he does not deny, is a book about worshipping fruit proven correct if it says things that others had already said and those things turn out to be true? What other religions can be proven true with that logic? Furthermore, I have not been persuaded that the Koran really can be interpreted correctly in the ways he talks about.

The second video was really frustrating. Although I am an atheist, I get a rush every time somebody makes a religious argument that really makes me think. The way the host was hyping up how awesome the arguments against atheism are, I kept assuming he was going to actually make some of them, or at least one. He never did. The whole thing was smoke and mirrors. The video would just say atheism is being disproven by science. The host would say that over and over while talking about atheist ideas and people and playing gloomy music, quoting religous writers, showing negative images like clips of Nazis&#39; marching, and quoting the Koran. He never really made logical points, where you go from premises and use rules of logic to reach conclusions. The video was 100% assertion, 0% argument.

So many things baffled me in that video that I actually had to write down a list of them to talk about them here. I will be touching on things other people have said, but I was so thrown off by them that I have to express bafflement too. The first thing that made me almost fall out of my chair was his definition of atheism. He said that it is "The denial of God". No it is not&#33; Atheism is a state of not believing in God. "Denial of God" makes it sound like atheists believe in God but tell him to get lost or just refuse to admit that he exists. That is a deliberately misleading characterization. Atheists don&#39;t believe there is a God to deny.

The next thing I wrote down was the guy&#39;s point that having a beginning is the same as being "created". That was a substanceless way to assert, not argue, that there is an intelligent creator of everything that ever came about.

The funniest thing in the video was the portrayal of the big bang. The big bang had a loud explosion sound in the video. The big bang that really happened did not make noise. You can&#39;t have sound waves without a medium. You could not just float in space away from the big bang and hear it. You can&#39;t hear anything in space. There are no sound waves.

What I have read about the big bang does not involve an infinitely small point. It involves a finite concentration of matter.

He said that Earth and its arrangement in space was ideal for human life. That does not prove that there was an intelligent designer. It illustrates the fact that humans would evolve in place that is ideal for human life.

The point that communism is the natural result of atheism is wrong. I am an atheist, and you can find on this site in the Extended Discussion forum where I have done a lot of arguing for capitalism and against communism. The fact that a mass of atheists were also communists when they were all from the same culture does not mean that atheism is an inevitable driver of communism. That is a fallacious point.

One of the last comments was the funniest one in the entire video. I wrote it down word for word. He said, "Atheism is the greatest irrationality possible." That is so classic. If atheism is the greatest irrationality possible, why is it that he didn&#39;t ever make an actual argument against it?

Originally Posted by Universal

I finally got a chance to watch both videos. The first one was a long speech rooted in a fallacy. That guy&#39;s speech was about how the Koran said stuff about space that turned out to be true. The fallacy is that he never says that the Koran was the FIRST to say that stuff. So if the Koran is proven true by making statements that others said first, a possibility he does not deny, is a book about worshipping fruit proven correct if it says things that others had already said and those things turn out to be true? What other religions can be proven true with that logic? Furthermore, I have not been persuaded that the Koran really can be interpreted correctly in the ways he talks about.

The second video was really frustrating. Although I am an atheist, I get a rush every time somebody makes a religious argument that really makes me think. The way the host was hyping up how awesome the arguments against atheism are, I kept assuming he was going to actually make some of them, or at least one. He never did. The whole thing was smoke and mirrors. The video would just say atheism is being disproven by science. The host would say that over and over while talking about atheist ideas and people and playing gloomy music, quoting religous writers, showing negative images like clips of Nazis&#39; marching, and quoting the Koran. He never really made logical points, where you go from premises and use rules of logic to reach conclusions. The video was 100% assertion, 0% argument.

So many things baffled me in that video that I actually had to write down a list of them to talk about them here. I will be touching on things other people have said, but I was so thrown off by them that I have to express bafflement too. The first thing that made me almost fall out of my chair was his definition of atheism. He said that it is "The denial of God". No it is not&#33; Atheism is a state of not believing in God. "Denial of God" makes it sound like atheists believe in God but tell him to get lost or just refuse to admit that he exists. That is a deliberately misleading characterization. Atheists don&#39;t believe there is a God to deny.

The next thing I wrote down was the guy&#39;s point that having a beginning is the same as being "created". That was a substanceless way to assert, not argue, that there is an intelligent creator of everything that ever came about.

The funniest thing in the video was the portrayal of the big bang. The big bang had a loud explosion sound in the video. The big bang that really happened did not make noise. You can&#39;t have sound waves without a medium. You could not just float in space away from the big bang and hear it. You can&#39;t hear anything in space. There are no sound waves.

What I have read about the big bang does not involve an infinitely small point. It involves a finite concentration of matter.

He said that Earth and its arrangement in space was ideal for human life. That does not prove that there was an intelligent designer. It illustrates the fact that humans would evolve in place that is ideal for human life.

The point that communism is the natural result of atheism is wrong. I am an atheist, and you can find on this site in the Extended Discussion forum where I have done a lot of arguing for capitalism and against communism. The fact that a mass of atheists were also communists when they were all from the same culture does not mean that atheism is an inevitable driver of communism. That is a fallacious point.

One of the last comments was the funniest one in the entire video. I wrote it down word for word. He said, "Atheism is the greatest irrationality possible." That is so classic. If atheism is the greatest irrationality possible, why is it that he didn&#39;t ever make an actual argument against it?
[/b]

I think you either didn&#39;t read my posts or chose to ignore them. i summarised the points i want atheists to answer in 15 points. so far, 2 have posted and neither have shown any type of response to them. i did in fact say that most of the second video is pointless BUT based on evidence which i showed in my 5 points. stop making pointless arguments, show me proof that you are right and i am wrong. The fact that you &#39;have not been persuaded that the Koran really can be interpreted correctly in the ways he talks about. &#39; is pointless. Show me why you weren&#39;t persuaded. give me proof that it is wrong. the fact is, there is no proof. why? because i am right. either accept that fact or dispute it. your post has been meaningless because you presented no proof whatsoever. as i said earlier, there are many other scientific miracles in the Koran. So far, you can&#39;t even handle the ones I&#39;ve shown. if you are so convinced that there is no God, why are you so afraid to answer my points? i think i&#39;m being very reasonable.

Originally Posted by Tarek

I think you either didn&#39;t read my posts or chose to ignore them. i summarised the points i want atheists to answer in 15 points. so far, 2 have posted and neither have shown any type of response to them. i did in fact say that most of the second video is pointless BUT based on evidence which i showed in my 5 points. stop making pointless arguments, show me proof that you are right and i am wrong. The fact that you &#39;have not been persuaded that the Koran really can be interpreted correctly in the ways he talks about. &#39; is pointless. Show me why you weren&#39;t persuaded. give me proof that it is wrong. the fact is, there is no proof. why? because i am right. either accept that fact or dispute it. your post has been meaningless because you presented no proof whatsoever. as i said earlier, there are many other scientific miracles in the Koran. So far, you can&#39;t even handle the ones I&#39;ve shown. if you are so convinced that there is no God, why are you so afraid to answer my points? i think i&#39;m being very reasonable.
[/b]

In your intitial post, you didn&#39;t say, "Argue with everything I say in this thread." You said this...

Originally Posted by Tarek

Only responses to what you&#39;ve watched should be posted. [/b]

I typed a very long post in which I did exactly that. I went point by point and explained the illogic of it. I used logic to do it. Now, YOU tell me how my specific points were not logical. Can you? I don&#39;t think you can. The only specific point of mine you attacked was the one about how I am not convinced that the interpretations he used are the correct ones. The fact that you are an Arab does not mean I should automatically trust whatever you say the interpretation is. Did you read my more important point, the one I posted before that one? You responded to my post without acknowledging it. I said that the guy never says the Koran was the FIRST to say that stuff. So what if it merely says it, if it actually does?

Now, respond to my points directly and attempt to counter my specific logic.

Originally Posted by Universal

In your intitial post, you didn&#39;t say, "Argue with everything I say in this thread." You said this...
I typed a very long post in which I did exactly that. I went point by point and explained the illogic of it. I used logic to do it. Now, YOU tell me how my specific points were not logical. Can you? I don&#39;t think you can. The only specific point of mine you attacked was the one about how I am not convinced that the interpretations he used are the correct ones. The fact that you are an Arab does not mean I should automatically trust whatever you say the interpretation is. Did you read my more important point, the one I posted before that one? You responded to my post without acknowledging it. I said that the guy never says the Koran was the FIRST to say that stuff. So what if it merely says it, if it actually does?

Now, respond to my points directly and attempt to counter my specific logic.
[/b]

the summarised points were a summary of the videos, so you should respond to them if you wish to denounce the videos. And you didn&#39;t present any proof whatsoever to disprove the videos, you just explained your views and mocked them without any evidence to support what youre saying. What wasn&#39;t logical in what you said is as follows :

Furthermore, I have not been persuaded that the Koran really can be interpreted correctly in the ways he talks about. on what basis are you saying that?

he did use science, as demonstrated in my points. if you think science can disprove it, you&#39;re welcome to try.

The next thing I wrote down was the guy&#39;s point that having a beginning is the same as being "created". That was a substanceless way to assert, not argue, that there is an intelligent creator of everything that ever came about. how did the beginning come about then? if there was nothing (and as many people have pointed out in this forum, small and nothing are far from each other) how did the first piece of matter come about?

The funniest thing in the video was the portrayal of the big bang. The big bang had a loud explosion sound in the video. The big bang that really happened did not make noise. You can&#39;t have sound waves without a medium. You could not just float in space away from the big bang and hear it. You can&#39;t hear anything in space. There are no sound waves.

i agree with you, but that&#39;s not the point. for the third time, i&#39;m saying that i don&#39;t care about the effects, literature or organization accompanied by what is said, i only care about proof. so far you didn&#39;t tackle any proof, just the flaws in the video, which has nothing to do with anything. discuss the proof shown in the videos, not the footage and whether it&#39;s funny or not.


One of the last comments was the funniest one in the entire video. I wrote it down word for word. He said, "Atheism is the greatest irrationality possible." That is so classic. If atheism is the greatest irrationality possible, why is it that he didn&#39;t ever make an actual argument against it?

i have made an actual argument, one that no one has been able to disprove yet

The fact that you are an Arab does not mean I should automatically trust whatever you say the interpretation is

that&#39;s funny, you are the one who is doubting my interpretation. on what basis are you doubting it. you say i&#39;m changing the interpretation? well, how did you know that? once again you show no proof.




oh and for the one millionth time people, PROOF PROOF PROOF&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; use proof to denounce what i&#39;m saying if you think it&#39;s not right. big words don&#39;t matter if they aren&#39;t supported by evidence.

Originally Posted by Tarek

oh and for the one millionth time people, PROOF PROOF PROOF&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; use proof to denounce what i&#39;m saying if you think it&#39;s not right. big words don&#39;t matter if they aren&#39;t supported by evidence.[/b]

Uh, burden on proof would be on the person making the positive claims. Am I missing some sort of evidence that you posted?

Originally Posted by Tarek

as for your 3 points, well they are true except that they dont apply to the Koran. :

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("spoon")

1. Ambiguous statements prone to re-interpretation on the discovery of new facts are not impressive;
2. Statements containing knowledge within easy grasp of the people at the time are not impressive;
3. Statements containing knowledge that had already existed for centuries are not impressive.[/b]

what exactly are you saying? that these verses aren&#39;t scientifically accurate? well, prove it&#33;&#33;[/b][/quote]My point is that they are not science at all. They are just philosophical statements made in passing, with no supporting discussion or evidence, that happen to line up with scientific discoveries of recent times. This is not suprising, as this philosophising was well within the competency of the authors of the koran. If this philosophising was backed up with some sort of miraculous knowledge that was demonstrably outside the competency of the writers, you might have a case.

But they aren&#39;t, so you don&#39;t. Everything you mention is covered by my 3 summary points.

besides the whole algebra part only concerns one point - the big bang. what about the other points? what does physics have to do with them you moron?[/b]

You do understand what an example is right? It was not meant to be an exhaustive case. And if you&#39;d given anything more than a cursory glance you&#39;d have read my suggestions of other areas, besides math, which follow from my example.

you did exactly what i said you would. you played a stupid game on one point -which by the way doesn&#39;t disprove anything- to avoid trackling the other points[/b]

The rest of your points are reduntant. Just exactly what the ambiguous philosophising says is moot. If you can&#39;t counter the simple fact that your examples of miraculous knowledge are not miraculous, the rest falls on its ass.

also, yeah nice going on answering the 5 questions of the second video, do you really think these replies are convincing? get real[/b]

Your second round of points show a complete lack of understanding of evolution (with a bit of physics thrown in). Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the subjects can see this. Whats the point of educating you if you can&#39;t even have a discussion about the basis of your first 10 points? On the off chance that you&#39;re willing to actually educate yourself, go here and look for the points you made. Use that as a starting point into further resources.

I edited my last post and added the answers to your five points while you were typing your last post. I will put them in this post now.

You have so many lists on here, it took me a minute to find the exact list you decided you need everybody to respond to. Here you go...

Originally Posted by Tarek

1. No living cell can evolve from nothing[/b]

A non-point. A cell can come from things, so what does "nothing" have to do with anything? Nonliving things come together to form cells. What comes together to form God? He couldn&#39;t come from nothing, right?

Originally Posted by Tarek

2. How did the exact laws of physics, chemistry and biology come about so accurately simply by chance? who laid these laws?
[/b]

God&#39;s God&#39;s God&#39;d God&#39;s God&#39;s God. There is an infinite heirarchy of Gods. God couldn&#39;t have just happened by himself (just an assertion, not an argument).

Originally Posted by Tarek

3. Why did mutation or evolution affect some species, but not all? why are there still primitive species? If they are all from 1 ancestor, why didn&#39;t all of them evolve at the same level?
[/b]

What is the point here? Different mutations hit different organisms just like different rain drops hit different organisms. A different set of mutations results in a different generational future. How is that supposed to be an argument against evolution?

Originally Posted by Tarek

4. How did the exact orbits of the planets and the sun come about? this incredible accuracy came by chance?
[/b]

Tsen has explained that, and so have I. We came about in accordance with those arrangements. Even if it were the other way around, how is that an argument for the existence of God any more than it is an argument for a magic bunny or a scientific law that makes large space objects do certain things in the presence of brain activity or something? What is the point here?

Originally Posted by Tarek

5. if the earth was formed by chance, why are all its components suitable for human life. ex: why is it that exact close from the sun? why does it have water? why is its atmosphere &#39;accidentally&#39; suitable for humans and living organisms to breath?
[/b]

My answer to #4 answers this one too.

As I said, post the exact quotes from the Koran you think prove your point. Then tell me why its merely saying it proves anything other than that it got the idea from somebody else.

Your argument is basically, "These strange situations exist. How is it that they do? If you can&#39;t tell me, then that proves God exists." You are not explaining how any of such situations prove God exists. We have also answered your questions about how those situations are not so strange any way.

You know what? I give up. You obviously aren&#39;t reading a single thing that anyone is writing. I&#39;d usually continue on for the benefit of the people who might be believing what you&#39;re saying - but I think it&#39;s clear to everyone but you that you&#39;re talking complete bullshit.

Originally Posted by Tarek

ok, i will. if he had a crystal ball, then it would have been better for him to say that he was God himself, instead of saying I&#39;m the messanger of God. someone with so much knowledge need not have related this knowledge to someone else but rather take the credit for himself.[/b]

You still didn&#39;t prove he didn&#39;t have a crystal ball. Your just speculating on what he should have done with his spectacular, all-knowing crystal ball. No evidence that he didn&#39;t have it.

Originally Posted by Tarek

i keep on hearing stuff like this from you guys over and over and over and over again. well show me how that is true using some valid proof, instead of just repeating it&#33; [/b]

Okay, the first verse, from what I could make out, "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were one and we clove them asunder." Keeping in mind that this verse is from the holy book of an abrahamic religion, I would say that it&#39;s talking about man&#39;s fall from grace and his separation from paradise. Especially since it even says, "we clove them asunder." If this verse is truly talking about the big bang, it&#39;s also saying that we caused the big bang which science obviously disagrees with.

If all these verses can&#39;t prove the theories, then they aren&#39;t proof that they are talking about the theories. Someone without previous knowledge of the big bang could not read the words "the heavens and earth were one," and understand that to mean that all the matter and energy of the universe were contained in one incredibly dense ball then exploded outward into the universe we know today. But someone could that believe those words allude to the big bang, and that is exactly what he does.

Originally Posted by Tarek

these are definite inexplainable questions that completely destroy the concepts of atheism, darwinism and randomness.[/b]

Questions are not evidence. You have yet to provide one scrap of evidence disproving anything.

Unanswered questions only prove that the questions can&#39;t be answered. And your questions are by no means unanswereable. I am the first to admit that I am no expert at evolution or cosmology, but even so, your claims have already been disproved. If you had been reading carefully, you would have seen them:

2/4/5. How are the laws of physics, the positions of the planets, and conditions on earth so accurate to be able to support life?

Originally Posted by Tarek

Unfortunately, this too, is a major misstatement of the truth.
The truth is, things are balanced quite nicely-- but it&#39;s not the gravity and electromagnetism that are finely-tuned to suit us, it&#39;s us who&#39;s finely tuned to fit them.
Evolution deals extensively with something called "specialization": the adaptation of life to fit it&#39;s environmental niche as best as possible. This means evolving to use the present chemicals, to work with the present amount of gravity and whatnot. In fact, evolution takes care of the whole thing quite nicely. Hardly a killing blow to atheism.
Also, important to note is that they keep stating "human life". This is perhaps the closest thing to accuracy in the entire movie. HUMAN life requires these things, but that isn&#39;t to say that life, even intelligent life, necessarily requires the same things. Human life just happens to be what fits our current environment and past ancestors.
[/b]

Originally Posted by Tarek

It didn&#39;t happen by chance. The laws of physics determined that the explosion could go neither faster nor slower than it did. That the laws of physics were determined in such a way isn&#39;t chance, it&#39;s just the way things are. And if it wasn&#39;t that way, we wouldn&#39;t be here to speculate about it, would we?
[/b]

Originally Posted by Tarek

He said that Earth and its arrangement in space was ideal for human life. That does not prove that there was an intelligent designer. It illustrates the fact that humans would evolve in place that is ideal for human life.[/b]

2. Why are there still primitive species? Why did mutation and evolution affect some species and not all?

Why ask a question about evolution when you know nothing about it?

All species mutate and evolve. If the mutated specimen is not better fit than the unmutated specimen to survive, the mutatation is not replicated and does not affect the evolution of the species.

What do you mean by primitive species? If your asking why aren&#39;t species that existed long ago still alive today, there are. Cockroaches, crocodiles, rodents, just to name a few.


If you don&#39;t think these points answer the questions you asked, logically explain why they don&#39;t and stop claiming that no one is replying to your points. They are, you&#39;re just not giving a reasonable rebuttal.

Originally Posted by Tarek

you made a claim with darwinism and claimed it to be true, and i&#39;m disproving it.
then i made a claim, supported by evidence, from the Koran, and you can&#39;t disprove it
[/b]

The only claim I have made is that there is no evidence in these videos and even the arguments are made of fallacies.

Frankly, you have not made a positive claim yet in this topic. The beginning post states that you want atheists to reply to the two videos.

Okay, the first videos claim seems to be that the koran was divinely inspired because it exhibited scientific knowledge in the form of verses alluding to modern theories. These verses in no way prove divine inspiration. If anything, they only prove that Muhammed had knowledge of these theories. There is nothing proving what introduced that knowledge to him. And since, as was previously stated, most of that knowledge was already theorized, a logical explanation would be that he heard of the theories. Even if Muhammed(sp?) was illiterate, someone could have spoke to him of these theories.

The second videos claim seems to be that atheism is collapsing. I don&#39;t know exact figures but I do know that attendance at many religion&#39;s places of worship are at an all-time low and I do know that that doesn&#39;t support the claim. And besides sweeping generalizations connecting atheism to communism and fascism along with claims that evolutional theory has collapsed without any evidence supporting why, this video is empty of logical arguments as well.

--edit: removed tarek&#39;s first point which tsen addresses in the above post.

Originally Posted by gregash

Okay, the first verse, from what I could make out, "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were one and we clove them asunder."[/b]

There&#39;s one of the verses. I kept asking Tarek to post the quotes so I could give them another look, and he wouldn&#39;t do it. That verse is so vague it could mean a ton of things. It is absurd for Tarek to assert that it automoatically means the big bang happened. That is such a stretch. I will let Tarek argue why it could mean nothing other than that the big bang happened. He can explain that on top of all of the other things he needs to explain. The verse above could not be talking about the big bang any way. Is the matter in Heaven really supposed to have been in the piece of matter that exploded in the big bang? Heaven was supposedly created in the big bang? That&#39;s the first I&#39;ve heard. If that is supposedly the case, Heaven wouldn&#39;t have been part of the piece of matter that exploded. Only its component matter would have. Heaven itself would not have existed yet. The same would be true of Earth. Earth was was not in the big bang. It was created much later FROM the big bang. Plus, there is no reason to assume the verse meant anything more than that Earth and Heaven were together as one place at one time (I would love to see somebody explain the astrophysics of that set up.) in the way that the U.S. states were together and then the Confederate states spit away from the rest of the states. The verse doesn&#39;t say they were one with the rest of the matter in the universe. For the reasons I and others have been saying, even if the verse did automatically say the big bang happened, it doesn&#39;t prove the Koran was the first to say it, and it wouldn&#39;t prove the existence of God any more than it would prove the existence of fairies.

Tarek, since you have stuck your neck out with bluntness and boastful behavior, I will say this... Your argument is pitiful.

First of all, I&#39;d like to clarify a misconception you all have concerning the interpretation of the Koran. many of the verses were not understood except in the light of science - such as the the big bang and the meeting of two bodies of water. Tsen holds his entire argument on that Muslims understood those verses before science proved them. that is not true, the meaning was vague until science explained what they meant, in other words : Only God, the creator, the inventor, etc.. could have known all of that, and people - including Muslims-, due to their lack of knowledge, couldn&#39;t understand it until science proved what they meant. Automatically, ofcourse, you are going to say : Ha&#33; so they did really interpret the verse as they wanted it. No, that&#39;s how it is interpreted, the way God wanted it to be to prove the scientific accuracy of the Koran, and there is no other way to interpret it : that&#39;s why people couldn&#39;t understand it at first.

Then i&#39;d like to come to another point, i&#39;d like to know how Tsen can memorize all these dates, scientists, etc.. I&#39;ve been taking these things as given truths, how do i know that you aren&#39;t just copying them off one of the hundreds of anti-Islamic sites that make up imaginary evidence for their propaganda? how did these people come to great theories before science could have proved them? just wondering if you can provide proof for that.

As for the way Tsen replied to my 15 points, well ,my friend, if you think that has answered the questions, well, you couldn&#39;t be more wrong, because you obviously got into the heat of the moment and just wanted to barter off at me like in this :

Sorry. I don&#39;t mean to keep making you look stupid, but you just keep shooting yourself in the foot when you say things like this. e

well, we are going to see about that :

First, to cover your pitiful arguments for the second video :

1. No living cell can evolve from nothing, so where did the ancestor come from?

I already answered this, but you apparently skimmed past it. Abiogenesis is the field of science directly concerning how life arose from non-living elements. The leading theory is that clays on the ocean floor several billion years ago provided the shell to support the first cells, rather than the cells being free-living. RNA preceded DNA, and it has been demonstrated in reproduceable lab experiments how amino acids would form these cells SPONTANEOUSLY. As in, without external influence. Further, it isn&#39;t such a small chance as creationists (like yourself) like to make it out to be. Part of the spontaneous nature is that these elements naturally react, and it isn&#39;t in any way a product of chance--it&#39;s the natural tendency of the composing elements.
So why doesn&#39;t life keep spontaneously arising? Simple--modern earth is not the same as the primitive earth. Chemicals are not present in the same balance as they were then. For example, in the early earth, the seas were replete with dissolved iron, but now all of the iron has oxidized and precipitated out of solution. The atmosphere is primarily nitrogen and oxygen, whereas it used to be moreso carbon dioxide and methane.


Abiogenesis has not been (and will never be) proven. it is not even a theory&#33;&#33;&#33; (according to Wikipedia). the reason why the word Abiogenesis (as an idea) was made was in order to answer people who ask my same question. it is simply to buy time (till forever ofcourse, since it will never be proven) to &#39;cover&#39; that question. there is no way a living cell can evolve BY ITSELF from non-living matter. you say the elements combine? who made them combine? who told them to do so? and if it is really in their nature, why can&#39;t we do it now, with all the science and technology we have? it is not in their nature, if you combine carbon with nitrogen, they don&#39;t form amino acids by themselves, it&#39;s that simple. and how did RNA form in the first place? so please, next time, before you lean on a myth for support, check it&#39;s background. it&#39;s not even logical and it can&#39;t be proven.

2. Why are there still primitive species? Why did mutation and evolution affect some species and not all?

Why ask a question about evolution when you know nothing about it?

All species mutate and evolve. If the mutated specimen is not better fit than the unmutated specimen to survive, the mutatation is not replicated and does not affect the evolution of the species.

What do you mean by primitive species? If your asking why aren&#39;t species that existed long ago still alive today, there are. Cockroaches, crocodiles, rodents, just to name a few.

by primitive species, i mean unicellular organisms such as bacteria and simple microorganisms. why didn&#39;t they evolve too? don&#39;t tell me they are better fit in their environment than multi-cellular organisms. bacteria die very easily and very quickly, why didn&#39;t they evolve to become stronger and to protect themselves from this? (Notice that i am using very simple words and logic here)

(Also notice that you showed no reply to questions 3 & 4 and that you didn&#39;t fully answer my questions of point 2, is something wrong? having a little problem with your failed argument? )


5. if the earth was formed by chance, why are all its components suitable for human life. ex: why is it that exact close from the sun? why does it have water? why is its atmosphere &#39;accidentally&#39; suitable for humans and living organisms to breath?

As stated earlier, because we are extremely adapted to our environment. It&#39;s a natural procession--all life tends towards specialization to their environments. And, as stated earlier, the early world&#39;s atmosphere permitted life, but not human life, so I fail to see your point.



why do we need water to survive? why can&#39;t we be just creatures who don&#39;t need water? and why is it such a coincidence that we need water - and there is plenty of it? pretty weird coincidence - huh? same argument goes for the sun&#39;s temperature and for oxygen in the atmosphere. why is it that for some strange reason, the features around us are perfect for human life? actually i cannot understand your answer, are you saying that humans needed these features because they were there? and if there was no water on earth then we wouldn&#39;t need water to survive? then that is probably a very lame argument since no living creature can live without water, even primitive ones.


the first video:

1. the big bang (and no physics was used in that verse because there was no physic at the time, how else would you show it other than the way it was in this verse?)

-This is the most bogus. Seriously, tell me with a straight face that obviously the people of the time read that and thought, "Hey, that must mean that matter exploded from an infinitely small point in a rapid explosion&#33;" Seems to me like it would more likely refer to Allah symbolically separating the heavens and the earth into two distinct places.
I cannot fathom how you insist on believing that the verse cannot be interpreted any other way, and that ancient readers of the book clearly understood its meaning. Especially seeing as how that interpretation was NEVER brought up until AFTER the invention of Big Bang theory. It&#39;s retroactive shoehorning.

i never said that ancient readers understood its meaning, and i already explained that part in the introduction of my post.
As for how else it could be interpreted, i&#39;d like to see you try (also, remember when i said that you will use the translation/interpretation game to answer one point and pretend that is enough to disprove everything else even though it doesn&#39;t even disprove this point? well, Voila&#33; here you are doing it, and UniversalMind did it too in his last post)

2. the sun and moon orbits

Easily available knowledge at the time. Heliocentrism first appeared in HINDU texts around 800 BC, a millenia before your prophet wrote the Koran. The knowledge was old news by that time. The Chinese had even invented a calendar that mapped the moon&#39;s orbit extensively by 2,600 BC.


you moron, he said that the sun and the moon orbit around THEMSELVES around their own axis, not each other, proving that you are desperately looking for anything. Notice also that until 1982 (as mentioned in the video) people thought that the sun didn&#39;t rotate about its own axis, but now we know that it does, and it was mentioned in the Koran 1400 years ago.


3. the expanding universe

I do not find this compelling evidence, as once again, it was void of meaning until after the expanding universe was discovered by science. Before that, the verse was meaningless.

well, yes you&#39;re right, i already explained that in the intro of my post. it was meaningless until it was explained by science. Again. it&#39;s not the most convenient meaning as you will obviously try to say, it&#39;s the only meaning, since you yourself said that : before it was explained by science, it was meaningless.

4. the water cycle

Readily observable, and not something I would consider "godly knowledge".

Readily observable by whom? and what do you mean you don&#39;t consider it Godly knowledge? how else could it have been mentioned in great detail in the Koran before someone else knew about it? oh and one more thing, your personal opinion isn&#39;t worth a dime unless supported by proof, so whether you &#39;consider&#39; it or you don&#39;t is worthless as you showed no proof whatsoever.


5. plants&#39; sexes

This seems more anecdotal than scholarly. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, it&#39;s inaccurate. The verse describes plants as being either male or female, when in reality most plants possess both reproductive structures. Further, this seems to be moreso a mythical tale to explain what people don&#39;t understand than a means of conveying scientific knowledge.


it doesn&#39;t describe plants as being either male or female, it says that there are male and female sexes of plants. there is a pretty big difference. Again, do not play the translation game, because both of us know that you are just making things up and that what you are saying isn&#39;t true. it doesn&#39;t say that an individual plant are one or the other, it says that there are both sexes in plants, which is true. If you use the &#39;i don&#39;t have to believe you because you are an arab&#39; card, well you are the one trying to say the verse means something else, not me. so unless you can prove otherwise, accept the fact that this point is uncounterable

6. the meeting of salty and fresh water without mixing

A bizarre interpretation of the verse, and again, one which had no meaning until AFTER science discovered such actions.


not a bizarre interpretation, there is no other interpretation. if you have another interpretation, show it or shut up. (you have a lack of liking for proof, or so i noticed) and as for the second part, i already answered that in the intro. (oh and before i forget, in the intro i said some verses , not all. other verses were understandable, but people couldn&#39;t understand why God had used these verses because it wasn&#39;t believed to be true at that time until modern science proved it to be so).

7. the mountains holding the balance of the earth

Excuse me, but please explain how this is accurate. What is this trying to convey?

yeah, great argument <sarcasm>. it means that mountains hold the balance of the earth and prevent it from shaking. modern science has shown that and it was mentioned in the Koran 1400 years ago.

8. all creatures were created from water

Which isn&#39;t by any means a unique creation myth. The Talmud says we were created from water, too. Many Native American traditions claim the same thing. So why should I believe that your scriptures are divinely inspired, and not just shots in the dark like the Native American&#39;s or the Jew&#39;s?


this once again falls under the &#39;how did you memorize all this&#39; category. I&#39;d like to know where in the Talmud it says so and WHEN it was said so (same as for the native american thing). also, you have to know that our position from the Jews is the same as Christians (as explained earlier with the Bible, meaning that even if it is said in the Talmud (remember that the Koran uses amazing details in describing it) that doesn&#39;t mean that God didn&#39;t tell the Jews so)

9. the life cycle of the spider, ant & bee

Easily observable phenomenon.

one of the worst arguments presented so far, they are actually 3 different points, but i made them into one because they are in a sort related. again, easily observed by who? and if you bothered reading the verses, you would know that the specific detail used is immaculate and no way someone could have known about it without modern science 1400 years ago.

10. embryology and the embryonic cycle

Actually, almost all of the information relating to the embryonic cycle seems to be derived from the works of a Greek scholar, Galen, on the subject back in 150 AD. So not only was it already discovered, but it is extremely likely that the Koran derived directly from his works on this matter. Further, a Jewish scientist, Samuel ha-Yehudi, studied and added to Galen&#39;s works in 200 AD. It was old science at the time, readily available information, and further, it uses the exact same terms as Samuel&#39;s works from 200 AD to describe embryology, further strengthening the theory that it was directly derived from Samuel and Galen&#39;s works on the subject.

again, most of what you said falls under the &#39;how did you memorize category&#39; and also, you didn&#39;t show what this Galen said and how it is similar to the Koran. and also, how could &#39;old science&#39; observe the changes occuring inside the mother&#39;s womb? the Koran doesn&#39;t say that simply the sperm combines with the egg. No&#33; it states the changes occuring to the baby while it is in it&#39;s mother&#39;s womb.

so as you see, Mr.Tsen your arguments have all proved pathetic, and yes my points are still to be countered. one last thing, for both our sakes, instead of resorting to insults and mocking as you like to do, include ONLY in your answer replies to these points and answering the &#39;how did you memorize all this&#39; part. same goes for everyone else, to prevent this from drifing off topic like earlier. if you choose to use some other argument to escape answering these points, then i will realize that you finally admitted the fact that you have no reply to these points and that you can&#39;t counter them (which is actually true )

one more thing, there is a question (with the 5 of the second video) that i need to add. i can&#39;t believe i missed it :

6. how did the small tiny particle which created the big bang come about if no one was there to create it?

i guess i have portrayed my points very clearly, you can&#39;t provide a proof-supported argument to disprove my points. now, who is shooting himself in the foot, eh?

Originally Posted by Tarek

i guess i have portrayed my points very clearly, you can&#39;t provide a proof-supported argument to disprove my points.[/b]

No one has to provide a proof-supported argument before you have done so yourself. Your videos made claims and did not provide evidence. You seem to have assumed those claims as your own and have not provided evidence.

For the first video, you have claimed the verses cannot be interpretated any other way. You have to prove that that is the case. It is not our responsibility to prove you wrong, it is your responsibility to prove your claim right. And no, just saying that they cannot be interpretated any other way does not cut it as a proof.

For the second video, you have made questions your claim. Questions are not an argument. They are neither evidence or a proof. Questions only prove a lack of knowledge on your part and by no means prove a theory wrong. Prove that these theories your pointing to are wrong and provide evidence. The responsibility is on you.

Originally Posted by Tarek

instead of resorting to insults and mocking as you like to do. . . now, who is shooting himself in the foot, eh?[/b]

It&#39;s ironic how you keep accusing others of things which you yourself are guilty of doing.

Originally Posted by gregash

No one has to provide a proof-supported argument before you have done so yourself. Your videos made claims and did not provide evidence. You seem to have assumed those claims as your own and have not provided evidence.

For the first video, you have claimed the verses cannot be interpretated any other way. You have to prove that that is the case. It is not our responsibility to prove you wrong, it is your responsibility to prove your claim right. And no, just saying that they cannot be interpretated any other way does not cut it as a proof.

For the second video, you have made questions your claim. Questions are not an argument. They are neither evidence or a proof. Questions only prove a lack of knowledge on your part and by no means prove a theory wrong. Prove that these theories your pointing to are wrong and provide evidence. The responsibility is on you.

It&#39;s ironic how you keep accusing others of things which you yourself are guilty of doing.[/b]

i only have very short time so i will reply to everyone but Tsen. i&#39;ll do that later. (everyone else please wait till i post my reply to Tsen before posting again)

how exactly can i prove they can&#39;t be interpreted in another way? you tell me what other way you expect it to be then i show you how it doesn&#39;t mean that, it&#39;s that simple. If, for example, i say : I have a pink elephant on my roof. how other way can it be interpreted? you keep on saying that i have to prove that it can&#39;t be interpreted as "I have a blue unicorn on my roof". How am i supposed to that? if you think there is misinterpretation, then the burden is on you to prove it.

As for the questions, they are defects in your atheist theories as they are unanswerable (despite the way you people are trying to get around these questions with unproven arguments)

Tarek, I hope you are going to respond to my points. Your magical verse is not only not automatically talking about the big bang, but also not even possibly talking about the big bang. See my post you ignored for details.

You responded only to Tsen. He has done a great job of defeating your points, and I will let him continue doing that. However, there are two things in your last post that are so unbelievably illogical that I have to go ahead and touch on them. Tsen made a very clear argument that it is not a coincidence that we are suited to the environment. We evolved in this environment. We didn&#39;t just pop up out of nowhere and happen to fit it. We require lots of water AND there is lots of water on Earth, yes. That illustrates that we evolved the way we did BECAUSE there is so much water. Do you understand that point? That concept has been explained to you repeatedly, and you keep missing it. Also, you are way off in saying that scientists made discoveries and then knew what the Koran was saying. Nobody knew what the Koran was saying because it is so vague and subject to so many interpretations. Your admission of the fogginess of the Koran is indicative of the fact that it was not flat out saying that the big bang happened. See my post you ignored for further details.[/b]

what points? and again, -as i said earlier- you are going to stress on only one of the points i said and discard the others because you have no answer to them.

We evolved that way because we needed water, not because there is much water &#33; according to your laughable argument, if we put the &#39;ancestor&#39; in a freezing planet with mercury instead of water, creatures that need mercury to survive and low temperatures to survive will evolve&#33; get real.

Question: Are there passages in the Qu&#39;ran that are still officially beyond understanding - i.e. that await new as yet undiscovered scientific breakthroughs to explain them?[/b]

the answer is : yes

i hope that Tsen proves his resources for the many things he keeps using in his arguments (scientists, dates, etc) and also reply to the points he discarded by the time i come online tomorrow. (Please everyone else don&#39;t reply, we need to organize this). (Oh and They WERE scientists, and they DID prove it. You seem to be under the impression that "science" is something we&#39;ve only had for the last 100 years or so. isn&#39;t enough, as you didn&#39;t show how they used the science they had and how you came to know it) notice that you skipped most of the things i mentioned in my previous reply. i hope one day is enough for you to invent another made up reply like you are used to.

Unfortunately, I only have five or six minutes to type a response, so I&#39;m going to skim some points and fill in the blanks later.

Originally Posted by Tarek

First of all, I&#39;d like to clarify a misconception you all have concerning the interpretation of the Koran. many of the verses were not understood except in the light of science - such as the the big bang and the meeting of two bodies of water. Tsen holds his entire argument on that Muslims understood those verses before science proved them. that is not true, the meaning was vague until science explained what they meant, in other words : Only God, the creator, the inventor, etc.. could have known all of that, and people - including Muslims-, due to their lack of knowledge, couldn&#39;t understand it until science proved what they meant. Automatically, ofcourse, you are going to say : Ha&#33; so they did really interpret the verse as they wanted it. No, that&#39;s how it is interpreted, the way God wanted it to be to prove the scientific accuracy of the Koran, and there is no other way to interpret it : that&#39;s why people couldn&#39;t understand it at first.[/b]

RETROACTIVE SHOEHORNING.
Google it.

Originally Posted by Tarek

Then i&#39;d like to come to another point, i&#39;d like to know how Tsen can memorize all these dates, scientists, etc.[/b]

I memorize very little. Instead, I bookmark reference pages with all the information I need so as to have it readily accessible. Some of it I do memorize, but only because I&#39;ve used it as a reference in a thousand arguments before.

Originally Posted by Tarek

how did these people come to great theories before science could have proved them? just wondering if you can provide proof for that.[/b]

They WERE scientists, and they DID prove it. You seem to be under the impression that "science" is something we&#39;ve only had for the last 100 years or so.

Originally Posted by Tarek

by primitive species, i mean unicellular organisms such as bacteria and simple microorganisms. why didn&#39;t they evolve too? don&#39;t tell me they are better fit in their environment than multi-cellular organisms. bacteria die very easily and very quickly, why didn&#39;t they evolve to become stronger and to protect themselves from this?[/b]

No, they&#39;re quite well adapted. Have you ever heard of anti-bacterial resistant bacteria? Basically, with everybody using antibacterial cleansers, bacteria are rapidly evolving defenses to it.
Now, again, you seem to have missed the point entirely. Evolution isn&#39;t about becoming bigger and stronger. Evolution is about adapting to fill a niche. Bacteria, single celled organisms, prokaryotes, etc, have filled a niche quite adeptly. Obviously, they&#39;re still alive and reproducing, and that&#39;s really the only measure of success that evolution cares about.

Originally Posted by Tarek

why do we need water to survive? why can&#39;t we be just creatures who don&#39;t need water? and why is it such a coincidence that we need water - and there is plenty of it?[/b]

It&#39;s frustrating how moronic you are. We are creatures who utilize water BECAUSE water is so extremely prevalent and easy to come upon. We wouldn&#39;t get far if we required Argon gas to survive, would we? We uitilize what is available. That&#39;s what evolution is about. Specialization to fill a niche.

Back later, got to go to engineering now.

Abiogenesis has not been (and will never be) proven.[/b]

Well, of course we cannot prove that life arose that way, because we weren&#39;t there to observe it happening. We CAN, however, examine whether or not it was possible and/or probable, and eliminate other possibilities of life&#39;s origin.

it is not even a theory&#33;&#33;&#33; (according to Wikipedia)[/b]

Uh...yes it is. Origin of Life: Current Models

you say the elements combine? who made them combine? who told them to do so?[/b]

Nobody, dipshit.
" 1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use."

"In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemist Stanley L. Miller working under Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 22 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that more complex molecules could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment simulated atmospheric conditions as the researchers understood them to have been on the primeval earth, including an external energy source in the form of a spark, representing lightning, and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen. There was careful filtering in place to preserve the results from destruction."

if you combine carbon with nitrogen, they don&#39;t form amino acids by themselves, it&#39;s that simple.[/b]

Oops. See above.

and how did RNA form in the first place?[/b]

Again, see above.

(Also notice that you showed no reply to questions 3 & 4 and that you didn&#39;t fully answer my questions of point 2, is something wrong? having a little problem with your failed argument? )[/b]

No, they were just ridiculously obvious.
3--The expanding universe--Retroactive shoehorning. Looked it up yet?
4--The water cycle--Look around. You can watch steam rise off of a lake on a warm day. You can observe that water puddles dry up over time. You can see that it only rains when it&#39;s cloudy. Therefore, you can deduce that the water evaporates, rises into the sky, then falls again as precipitation. It&#39;s not rocket science.

As for how else it [the verse Tarek says describes the Big Bang] could be interpreted, i&#39;d like to see you try[/b]

Well that&#39;s easy. The heavens and earth were formerly one, united place, and Mr. Allah says, BAM&#33; Too bad, earth suckers. Heaven&#39;s independent now.
The verse describes splitting Earth and heaven into two distinct places. I still don&#39;t understand how you say it can describe the spontaneous explosion of a singularity into a rapidly expanding universe.

More on the water cycle:

Chapter 39:21 "Hast thou not seen how Allah hath sent down water from the sky and hath caused it to penetrate the earth as watersprings, and afterward thereby produceth crops of divers hues; and afterward they wither and thou seest them turn yellow; then He maketh them chaff. Lo&#33; herein verily is a reminder for men of understanding."

Doesn&#39;t sound like a cycle to me. Kind of one-way.

30:24 "And of His signs is this: He showeth you the lightning for a fear and for a hope, and sendeth down water from the sky, and thereby quickeneth the earth after her death. Lo&#33; herein indeed are portents for folk who understand. "

Still no cycle...

15:22 "And We send the winds fertilising, and cause water to descend from the sky, and give it you to drink. It is not ye who are the holders of the store thereof."

Seems to be a reference clouds forming, but a little sketchy...

23:18 "And we send down from the sky water in measure, and We give it lodging in the earth, and lo&#33; We are Able to withdraw it."

Nope, no cycle here.

24:43 "Hast thou not seen how Allah wafteth the clouds, then gathereth them, then maketh them layers, and thou seest the rain come forth from between them; He sendeth down from the heaven mountains wherein is hail, and smiteth therewith whom He will, and averteth it from whom He will. The flashing of His lightning all but snatcheth away the sight."

So far, the author appears to have figured out that rain comes from clouds...

30:48 "Allah is He Who sendeth the winds so that they raise clouds, and spreadeth them along the sky as pleaseth Him, and causeth them to break and thou seest the rain downpouring from within them. And when He maketh it to fall on whom He will of His bondmen, lo&#33; they rejoice;"

Yes, the winds bring the clouds which bring rain... is he going somewhere with this?

7:17 "Then I shall come upon them from before them and from behind them and from their right hands and from their left hands, and Thou wilt not find most of them beholden (unto Thee)."

That says nothing about rain&#33;

25:48 And He it is Who sendeth the winds, glad tidings heralding His mercy, and We send down purifying water from the sky,

25:49 That We may give life thereby to a dead land, and We give many beasts and men that We have created to drink thereof.

Still, no cycle.

35:9 And Allah it is Who sendeth the winds and they raise a cloud; then We lead it unto a dead land and revive therewith the earth after its death. Such is the Resurrection.

Yeah...

36:34 And We have placed therein gardens of the date-palm and grapes, and We have caused springs of water to gush forth therein,

Oh yeah. Springs. A very important part of the water cycle.

67:30 Say: Have ye thought: If (all) your water were to disappear into the earth, who then could bring you gushing water ?

The author of the Quran has duly noted that springs exist. Wow.

86:11 By the heaven which giveth the returning rain,

"Returning rain"? As in, "it rains over and over"? Most likely. As in "the water that rained down before and evaporated"? A stretch.

On the sexes of plants:

20:53 Who hath appointed the earth as a bed and hath threaded roads for you therein and hath sent down water from the sky and thereby We have brought forth diverse kinds of vegetation,

Diverse kinds == different sexes? I see no mention of plants having different sexes.

If you use the &#39;i don&#39;t have to believe you because you are an arab&#39; card[/b]

Uh, you seem to be the only one who plays the "Arab" card. The rest of us couldn&#39;t give a damn what race you are.

On water:

25:53 And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas (though they meet); one palatable, sweet, and the other saltish, bitter; and hath set a bar and a forbidding ban between them.

Has this guy ever been to a spot where fresh water mixes with salt? (Yes, they mix. They don&#39;t magically stay separate. This is just flat out wrong.)

yeah, great argument <sarcasm>. it means that mountains hold the balance of the earth and prevent it from shaking.[/b]

I have no idea where you&#39;re pulling this "mountains prevent the earth from shaking" bit. They do no such thing. If you&#39;d argue otherwise, why don&#39;t YOU provide proof for once?

the specific detail used is immaculate and no way someone could have known about it without modern science 1400 years ago.[/b]

Post the verses, and we&#39;ll see about that. M&#39;kay?

On embryology:

Here&#39;s a brief counter.

6. how did the small tiny particle which created the big bang come about if no one was there to create it?[/b]

It&#39;s a phenomenon related to Quantum Tunneling. Matter has been observed to be spontaneously created and destroyed in a vacuum. The LHC at CERN will provide more info on that, but it&#39;s still in construction. It&#39;s due to open in November &#39;07, so we&#39;ll find out more then.

Tarek, I hope you are going to respond to my points. Your magical verse is not only not automatically talking about the big bang, but also not even possibly talking about the big bang. See my post you ignored for details.

You responded only to Tsen. He has done a great job of defeating your points, and I will let him continue doing that. However, there are two things in your last post that are so unbelievably illogical that I have to go ahead and touch on them. Tsen made a very clear argument that it is not a coincidence that we are suited to the environment. We evolved in this environment. We didn&#39;t just pop up out of nowhere and happen to fit it. We require lots of water AND there is lots of water on Earth, yes. That illustrates that we evolved the way we did BECAUSE there is so much water. Do you understand that point? That concept has been explained to you repeatedly, and you keep missing it. Also, you are way off in saying that scientists made discoveries and then knew what the Koran was saying. Nobody knew what the Koran was saying because it is so vague and subject to so many interpretations. Your admission of the fogginess of the Koran is indicative of the fact that it was not flat out saying that the big bang happened. See my post you ignored for further details.

Hi Tarek - interesting stuff. Coincidentally I just got given, by one of my students, a copy of teh Qu&#39;ran and &#39;A Brief Guide to Understanding the Qu&#39;ran&#39; which goes into some of the &#39;scientific miracles&#39; from the video. All very interesting - although much would be self-evident to an intelligent observer. There was a very advanced civilization in Mesopotamia/ Sumeria etc - good reason for its title &#39;the cradle of civilization&#39; - one that built the foundations for much of our current understanding, algebra etc... This was 2000+ years before the Qu&#39;ran.

Question: Are there passages in the Qu&#39;ran that are still officially beyond understanding - i.e. that await new as yet undiscovered scientific breakthroughs to explain them?

I am not impressed at all by those videos.

-

I do think it is funny that he &#39;praises&#39; atheists. Besides that, this dude really has no proof for any god.

Ya... I will never understand that as long as I live... "There is no god&#33;" ... "but we do worship our god Allah&#33;" I mean, what the crap?

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

Ya... I will never understand that as long as I live... "There is no god&#33;" ... "but we do worship our god Allah&#33;" I mean, what the crap?[/b]

I think that part of the Koran was written in a time when they still were expanding a lot. It is about giving up your old god for a new one. "There is no god, but Allah." It is the same as "There is Allah, and no other gods" or "The (Christian) god exist, and you should not worship other (false) gods".

-

Edit: Tarek: 0 - Universal Mind: 45 - Tsen: 4928 (edit2- Spoon: 0.5 points )

Tsen wins. Tarek loses.

I didn&#39;t even score a point

Nice work for sticking with it guys