This concerns only Video 1
First of all, i'd like to point out that you have been disrespectful in your reply. i specifically said NO INSULTS. No matter, i've heard worse than that, but i hope you'll keep that in consideration in any further posts.
Second of all, you seem to have an obsession with using external links to prove your point. i cant answer entire websites in one post, because as i said, i wanted to keep the discussion on topic (although all the arguments in these sites are actually laughable and easily countered. If you wish to discuss any of them, simply post a new topic, PM me that you have and we'll discuss it). Hey, i can link you to 1000 sites similar to that, but that will drif us off topic. Right now, i'll stick to what you've mentioned in the post
Third of all, unfortunately for you i might add, i'm an arab, so the whole 'translation misconcepts' game you're trying to pull here isn't going to work.
Fourth of all, i'm sick of people who are good at literature and think it's good enough to win an argument. When you say something, PROVE IT!!!!!!! a lot of things you mentioned are without evidence, everything shown in the videos, however, is supported by evidence
Now, to answer what you said, im gonna take it bit by bit :
Originally Posted by Tsen
First off, his point about the big bang is moot.
Not only moot, it's ridiculously bogus. The Bible "predicted" the earth was spherical, that there were deep-sea vents, and a million other things.
It's all based on the interpretation. The interpretation of the verse from the Koran that he quotes is quite obscure. It's not the most obvious meaning, it's not the most likely meaning. It's the most convenient meaning. It bolsters his point that the Koran is "scientifically accurate". In reality, it is no such thing.
Even accepting that his interpretation of that verse implying the big bang is the correct interpretation, you must realize that factual accuracy in one part of a book does not in any way imply factual accuracy throughout the whole book. Here's a link to more on that.
[/b]
how can the bible saying something disprove the Koran?? we, as Muslims, believe in the Bible, but not the one present today, we believe that it was the word of God but it has been changed by man so the Bible present nowadays is not the Bible we believe was conveyed to Jesus, the prophet, not the son of God. as for the 'it's all based on interpretation', what is it supposed to mean? that by saying that the earth was shaped like an egg, that's not what the Koran meant but rather that it 'accidentally' stumbled on a fact no one belived was true at that time? same goes for everything else. Yes, it's true that many of the verses have been interpreted in many ways, but you haven't shown how Dr. Zakir has misinterpreted the verses. and yes my friend, as an arab im assuring you that in all the verses Dr. Zakir recited it IS the most likely meaning and it IS the most obvious meaning. If you wish to disclaim that, once again i say PROVE IT. Then you said that the Koran isn't accurate and that if the Koran is proven at one part, that doesn't mean that it's all true. That doesn't answer the question of 'How did the prophet know that all by himself 1400 years ago?' Then again, when you think about it, what you're actually saying is that not all of the Koran is from God but only a part of it. this is ridiculous, i mean, even accepting that what you say is true, that still means that at least that part is from God, therefore God exists. So the 'some is factual doesnt mean all is factual' even though it isnt true, still doesnt disclaim God. Then you say 'Even accepting that his interpretation of that verse implying the big bang is the correct interpretation'. This made me laugh, because how else could you interpret that verse? it's so obvious. "Don't the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together then we separated them" it is so clear.
Moving on
Originally Posted by Tsen
But hey, if you thought that was bad, he continues to make a WORSE point: That the Koran states that the light of the moon is reflected light, not produced by the moon itself. Dun-dun-dun. First off, this falls into the previous category that I covered with the link. Second, it's not as if the Koran can call it a unique claim. In fact, it was rather old news by that point. Anaxagoras, a Greek scientist and philosopher theorized that the sun and moon were both massive spherical objects floating beyond the earth, and that the moon reflected the sun's light. This was before 430 BC! That's nearly a millennium before Muhammad came along with the Koran.
[/b]
My answer is : So? does this disclaim what the Koran said? it wasn't scientifically proven till the last century, yet all Muslims believed in it (same goes for the 'earth is spherical' part). you misunderstood what was said. it was shown as a theory years ago, fine, but it wasn't scientifically proven till the last century, proving that the Koran was right. oh and by the way, concerning the earth as a sphere : No one believed in it at the time the prophet was sent, actually the verse saying that the earth was a sphere caused many people not to enter Islam because they thought it was jibberish, no one believed that the earth was round, except for people who accepted Islam. It's like someone coming up to you today and saying that there is no such thing as light and that everything you see is in your mind. you'll say that that man is crazy, it's a known fact that light is why we see, so you will denounce anything he says. same goes for that part. when people found out that the prophet was saying the earth was round, they disbelieved in him. it has nothing to do with who said that the earth is round first but with rather was it proved or not. how could he possibly know if it was right? he was illiterate! only the creator could've known that
Next paragraph
Originally Posted by Tsen
Not to worry--if that wasn't stupid enough for you, he makes yet ANOTHER bogus point: That the Koran "predicted" that the earth was spherical. First off, the Bible says the same thing, and was written several centuries before the Koran, so what's so special about that?
Well, but if you're disinclined to believe that the Bible really meant that, and that it's only a bizarre and obscure translation (which is exactly my opinion of BOTH the Koran and the Bible's sentiments on the subject), I've still got you covered.
[/b]
i think i've already answered the spherical part, and again you wont be able to fool me with the translation bit, because as i said, im an arab.
Originally Posted by Tsen
Yajnavalkya stated that the earth was likely spherical in 900 BC. 1,300 years before the Koran. And, he was Hindu. Oops.
Pythagoras, in 570 BC, also stated the earth was spherical.
Plato, at about 400 BC, taught his students that the earth was spherical.
Aristotle, Plato's prized student, was the first to prove, with conclusive evidence, that the world was spherical, around 350 BC. He did this by noting that there were constellations visible in Egypt that weren't visible in Greece, and this would only happen on a curved surface. He theorized that the earth was a massive sphere, and even came up with a concept of gravity that pulled equally on all sections of the earth, aligning it into a roughly spherical shape. He also came up with an accurate theory describing climate zones, including two icy, barren, uninhabitable regions near the north and south poles.
Eratosthenes, at 180 BC, used varying shadow lengths on the same day in different places to estimate the circumference of the earth--to within 2% of modern figures. Fair shot better than what the Koran gets, isn't it? And 700 years earlier, to boot.
[/b]
already covered earlier, and to add to it : no one believed Aristotle, same as no one believed the prophet, now how did he know that it was true bearing in mind that he couldn't even read or write?
Originally Posted by Tsen
His bit on the sun and moon orbits are laughable--especially because the verse he reads implies that the sun orbits the earth.
[/b]
probably your weakest argument yet, as an arab im saying...well no it doesn't. so here remains a point you can't disprove.
Originally Posted by Tsen
On the expanding Universe bit--here's a brief summary on why it's ridiculous. More or less, the best translation of that verse would be "we enrich it" not "we expand it". Further, it's derived from the Bible, so credit for "divine inspiration" would go to the Bible, would it not? And lastly, nobody interpreted the verse that way until AFTER it was discovered that the Universe was expanding, so if "Allah" had intended it to enlighten the people, he obviously sucks at getting his point across.
[/b]
actually, this time i'm going to respond to your link. as a matter of fact, the word used is "Mooseoon" which is derived from the verb "Wasaa" which means to widen or to expand. enrich is nowhere to be found. i think i should've mentioned that i'm an arab, that could have saved you a lot of time trying to fool me with these stupid tricks.
Originally Posted by Tsen
On the water cycle--the water cycle is a readily observed phenomenon, and while it was not formally given a title until recently, it has been known about extensively for several centuries, and the Koran's description of it is not in any way unique.
[/b]
two words : NO PROOF. readily observed phenomenon huh? by who? even so, this still doesnt disprove the Koran.
Originally Posted by Tsen
Plants having sexes is rather misleading--most plants have both "male" and "female" reproductive organs, not one or the other. In fact, very few have only one. So, yet another moot point.
[/b]
the Koran didn't say that plants have only one or the other, where are you getting this from? it said that they have sexes, actually most plants are bisexual, in case you didn't know.
Finally, you didn't address the meeting of the seas (bodies of water part) or the mountains hold the earth part or that all creatures were created from water or the spider's life cycle or the ant or the bee or embryology or the embryonic cycle. i can get you with many many more evidence, but i'd like to see how you will reply to these first.
As for the second video, you haven't answered any of the points in it logically except with hate mail, so i wont bother replying, because you provided no proof whatsoever to what you have said. Don't take this the wrong way. i'm not evading an argument about it, actually it provides little but effective proof (i agree, most of the video is pointless). i used it as a back up, but some of what it says is conclusive such as that no living cell could emerge by itself and that the explosion had to be exact to the one billionth billion, which cant possibly happen by chance.
|
|
Bookmarks