the concept of god

[The_Cosmos]

Wallahi you're a bold-faced liar.



Let me guess, this is evidence because they said so? He actually believes this picture is real . Even if we say it was real for argument's sake, there's no evidence that the so-called radiation is a left-over of something that happened (supposedly) billions of years ago!

Nothing about an organism acquiring new genetic information.

Those same verses also use the world "sulb". Nah, definitely you're retarded.

You act like you know more about Islam, yet (ironically) you've refuted yourself. Wallahi if this is not a case of Dunning-Kruger effect, I don't know what is. You cannot read Arabic because if you could, you would see that it says "sulb". You're illiterate in both Arabic and English.


I don't know if you're illiterate or the karbash is getting to your head. I said ABOVE THE LOINS (AS IN THE GENITAL AREA), NOT FROM THE LOINS.




Wallahi you're either delusional or genuinely retarded... Or maybe both!

Also, @Inquisitive_ will gladly test you over video chat about these theories, do you accept the challenge? Why do you run away from this challenge? He will question you to test whether or not you have true understanding of these theories (we know you don’t) or whether you’re just a blind following charlatan, a scoundrel who merely regurgitates the words of his gods and concedes to whatever they espouse as if it were the gospel truth

You will be exposed for what a fool & charlatan you are; in fact you’ve already done a good job at that yourself. You’ve got the internet at your disposal and you’re still failing to define simple words; this is remarkable!

Even though in this debate, the odds were stacked against me (it was truly not a fear debate) and you still lost. Why was it not fair? Simply because you were throwing verses and ahadith at me & I had to write lengthy refutations (utilising the explanations of scholars) of each one of conclusions that you’ve wikiIslam & other Islamophobic websites have drawn from them myself.

Don’t ever fucking come on here trying to tell us “SCIENCE!” “EVIDENCE” when you don’t even understand the (usually ostensible) evidences and explanations of these theories yourselve, motherfucker. You want us to just take people’s word for stuff and become blind followers like yourself huh?

You have a slow Europhile intellect and take very long to reply even though you’re bashing (UK slang) the f*ck out of Google search . You’re literally wasting my time

I’m done here man. It’s past my bedtime and I have too much to do tomorrow. I’m out.

Wallahi you're a bold-faced liar.

The Quran states the Earth was created before the heavens, the prophet claimed that seasonal changes are the product of the inhaling of hell and not the orbit and axis of the Earth, the child resembles the one who ejaculates first and so on. All of these things contradict science.

Let me guess, this is evidence because they said so? He actually believes this picture is real . Even if we say it was real for argument's sake, there's no evidence that the so-called radiation is a left-over of something that happened (supposedly) billions of years ago!

Oh my days! It seems that I was right and you are uninterested in the scientific evidence. Note that you are rejecting the scientific evidence that the Universe is approximately around 13 to 14 billions of years old and the Earth is 4 billions years old. You are rejecting these ideas for the unsubstantiated claims that the Earth was created before the heavens. Not only are you dishonest, you are scientifically illiterate. I mean, you believe in a flat earth model of the universe.

Nothing about an organism acquiring new genetic information.

I have given you a video explains this, I have then explained it to you personally, and then I provided the actual research conducted, as you demanded. It's not that evolution is false, it's that you clearly don't care about scientific facts as I have shown above.

Those same verses also use the world "sulb". Nah, definitely you're retarded.

You act like you know more about Islam, yet (ironically) you've refuted yourself. Wallahi if this is not a case of Dunning-Kruger effect, I don't know what is. You cannot read Arabic because if you could, you would see that it says "sulb". You're illiterate in both Arabic and English.

You really must be on drugs! I will provide quotes of the definitions that I gave you in my previous posts to corroborate my points.

Lane's Lexicon translation of the word 'sulb'

and any portion of the back containing vertebrae: (S, MSB, TA [and particularly the lumbar portion; the loins:] and the back [absolutely]

↑
(Note: my definition is from the oxford definition).
Don't know how I missed this. I don't think I'll ever come across a dumber Europhile. I just wanted to add this before I permanently jet:

loins: the region of the sexual organs regarded as the source of erotic or procreative power:
‘he felt a stirring in his loins at the thought’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/loin

Loins: the part of the body that is above the legs and below the waist,especially the sexual organs:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/loin

Loins ----> (1) : the pubic region (2) : the reproductive organs

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loin

Khalas

As you would have seen from my previous post, I acknowledged that this definition also exists. I'll provide the quote:

"Very interesting... I know the term can be understood as you have described it, however, this is not how it was understood and is contradicted by another verse which backs my definition of that word. (Note: my definition isfrom the oxford definition)."

This is what I actually said and you can see I acknowledged it but I also rebuked the idea that it can be used as a viable definition. Here are the Quranic verses that rebuke that claim:

"Forbidden unto you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters [...] and the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins"
Qur'an 4:23

When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants...
Quran 7:172

These Quranic verses clearly rebuke the second definition which you have chosen.

As you clear disagree with me, provide evidence from the Quran that insinuates the second definition of the word loins.

Also, you have completely ignored the English translations that come from prominent Muslims who have studied the Quran better than me and you, who clearly back my points. I have provided them in my previous post. You have also ignored the tafsir from Ibn Kathir and others which clearly back my understanding.

Also, @Inquisitive_ will gladly test you over video chat about these theories, do you accept the challenge? Why do you run away from this challenge? He will question you to test whether or not you have true understanding of these theories (we know you don’t) or whether you’re just a blind following charlatan, a scoundrel who merely regurgitates the words of his gods and concedes to whatever they espouse as if it were the gospel truth

You will be exposed for what a fool & charlatan you are; in fact you’ve already done a good job at that yourself. You’ve got the internet at your disposal and you’re still failing to define simple words; this is remarkable!

Even though in this debate, the odds were stacked against me (it was truly not a fear debate) and you still lost. Why was it not fair? Simply because you were throwing verses and ahadith at me & I had to write lengthy refutations (utilising the explanations of scholars) of each one of conclusions that you’ve wikiIslam & other Islamophobic websites have drawn from them myself.

Don’t ever fucking come on here trying to tell us “SCIENCE!” “EVIDENCE” when you don’t even understand the (usually ostensible) evidences and explanations of these theories yourselve, motherfucker. You want us to just take people’s word for stuff and become blind followers like yourself huh?

You have a slow Europhile intellect and take very long to reply even though you’re bashing (UK slang) the f*ck out of Google search . You’re literally wasting my time

I’m done here man. It’s past my bedtime and I have too much to do tomorrow. I’m out.

I have explained on many occasions why I refuse to debate him.

1) He is a flat earth advocate and I will not debate the shape of the Earth.

2) @simulacrum has debates him and I have seen how he dismisses things on conspiracy grounds. He had the agenda that the elites are hiding the real information from us and shit like that. He wears a tinfoil hat! No amount of evidence I provide will convince him because that evidence comes from the scientists he dismisses as being part of the elite!

You keep claiming that you have won this and won that. The fact that you keep claiming this is evidence of your desperation.

You are a flat earth advocate, you dismissed my evidence for the age of the universe by saying "Let me guess, this is evidence because they said so?" you believe that the Earth was created before the universe, the seasonal changes arise as a consequence of the inhaling of hell, you believe the resemblance of a child arises from who discharges first in sexual intercourse and so on. You have relied on sneaky tactics of dismissing my claims, ignoring others, ad hominem attacks and straw-man. The idea that you have 'karbashed' me is by far a joke.

Oh, I also forgot that you were the one that created that thread making the claim that Jinn are behind the advent on modern technology like television and so on.

 

[Layth]

Finally, I have some time on my hands. Let's get the ball rolling.

The Quran states the Earth was created before the heavens, the prophet claimed that seasonal changes are the product of the inhaling of hell and not the orbit and axis of the Earth, the child resembles the one who ejaculates first and so on. All of these things contradict science.

As for the hadith about who the child will resemble: there's literally a scientific journal published explaining this. It's interesting that you said "this contradicts science" but as usual, provided no evidence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516053/

To claim that the hadith about heaven & hell and it's bearing on seasonal changes proves that Islam and science are incompatible is a logical fallacy; for example, just because the hadith says that, it doesn’t mean we cannot inquire into studying the nature of seasonal change; Allah (SWT) informs us of some of the functions of the celestial bodies, but we’re also informed to ponder on them. This hadith is true; but it would definitely reflect on our world as natural phenomenon that has it’s own laws (considering that heaven & hell are matters of the unseen) since it’s in a particular pattern; natural laws are basically patterns in nature. For example; we know that Allah (SWT) has created matter, but we still inquire in the nature of matter and it’s natural laws (that we can observe) that it was created with. The Muslim world have produced some of the best astronomists of all times who inquired into seasonal change; the nature of matter, etc. and have written extensively on them.

"A number of modern scholars such as Fielding H. Garrison,[29] Abdus Salam, Sultan Bashir Mahmood, Hossein Nasr consider modern science and the scientific method to have been greatly inspired by Muslim scientists who introduced a modern empirical, experimental and quantitative approach to scientific inquiry. Some scholars, notably Donald Routledge Hill, Ahmad Y Hassan,[30] Abdus Salam,[31] and George Saliba,[32] have referred to their achievements as a Muslim scientific revolution,"

The very origins of the scientific method (let alone theories,

The famous Ottoman scholar, Katip Celebi has written scKashf al-ẓunūn ‘an asāmī al-kutub wa-al-funūn, (كشف الظنون عن أسامي الكتب والفنون) ("The Removal of Doubt from the Names of Books and the Arts"), a bibliographic encyclopaedia, written in Arabic, which lists more than 14,500 books in alphabetic order. Literally thousands of books pertaining to the sciences and arts that were authored by Muslim scientists. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of their manuscripts were lost (think when the Mongol burned Bayt al Hikmah to the ground).

Wallahi I’m surprised that you’re still trying to push this narrative. Even the most Islamophobic people in the world would agree that Islam is a science-friendly religion.

MR. "SCIENCE IS HARAAM" ASS NIGGA.

Oh my days! It seems that I was right and you are uninterested in the scientific evidence. Note that you are rejecting the scientific evidence that the Universe is approximately around 13 to 14 billions of years old and the Earth is 4 billions years old. You are rejecting these ideas for the unsubstantiated claims that the Earth was created before the heavens. Not only are you dishonest, you are scientifically illiterate.

Your arguments are weak. Very weak. You tell us to accept theories because “it’s science”, because “they said so”; this is no different to a Christian saying “Pope said so”. You have the internet at your disposal yet you cannot provide me with one conclusive evidence, just one.

You act as if all theories are facts: but little do you know there were many theories, far more convincing than the big bang, that were widely accepted in the scientific community but have been proven to be false and were promptly discarded. YOU SAY THEORIES (ESPECIALLY BULLSHIT ONES LIKE BIG BANG THAT HAVE NO EVIDENCE) ARE FACTS BUT HOW CAN A FACT BE PROVEN WRONG? Thousands of theories were proven wrong, the vast majority of the prevailing scientific theories to ever be conjured up were proven to be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Many physicists are now starting to claim that the Universe had no beginning; I'm guessing after this theory catches on and gets adopted by your gods, you will immediately discard the big bang theory.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/quantum-equations-dispute-big-bang/


I found this quite interesting too: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/01/curtain-falls-controversial-big-bang-result

Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

Read the rest at: http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

So basically unobserved hypotheses are being given precedence to actual observations. It's much more reasonable to adopt an empiricist approach regarding synthetic statements (e.g. "our universe is a result of the big bang"); unless you're a brain dead Europhile of course.

Richard Feynman himself says science is the culture of doubt; yet we have this ignoramus Europhile who comes on this forum screaming "EVIDENCE! FACT! SCIENCE! SCIENCE! BUT LOOK THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID!" naclatullahi calayk. May you stay scrubbing shoes

I mean, you believe in a flat earth model of the universe.

That’s correct. I’m a unapologetic flat-earther (at least I didn’t blindly concede to the flat-earth model). Watch this video, skip to 6:36 (warning your mental condition may exacerbate after viewing such material or you may have a mental breakdown)

I have given you a video explains this, I have then explained it to you personally, and then I provided the actual research conducted, as you demanded. It's not that evolution is false, it's that you clearly don't care about scientific facts as I have shown above.

I’ve watched the video and nothing regarding an organism acquiring new genetic information was mentioned. He even says it’s a case of “point mutation” which is basically a result of variation; not a result of acquiring new genetic information. I hope you can get that through your skull, though judging by your posts on this thread, I assume it will be quite difficult. One example is humans acquiring blonde hair; it’s really a result of variation, not increase in new genetic information. What do I mean by new genetic information? I mean an organism acquiring any trait that is unusual for the specie in question to possess, not mere variation. Ever since humans have been supposedly evolving for thousands of years, there are still no humans today who possess characteristics that are not just a variation of the traits humans are known to possess, but are entirely different characteristics; or even characteristics that are relatively primitive. The only thing variation does is that it re-arranges existing DNA. Even if genetic chromosomal duplication was to occur – and on top of that point variation – the organism in question will still not acquire new traits that are not just a variation of what their specie are known to possess despite the fact that speciation will occur since the organism that has underwent these events will no longer be interfetile with their unevolved peers who were once part of the same species. Thus; there's no evidence that a fish can become something other than a fish.

You really must be on drugs! I will provide quotes of the definitions that I gave you in my previous posts to corroborate my points.

Lane's Lexicon translation of the word 'sulb'

and any portion of the back containing vertebrae: (S, MSB, TA [and particularly the lumbar portion; the loins:] and the back [absolutely]

As you would have seen from my previous post, I acknowledged that this definition also exists. I'll provide the quote:

"Very interesting... I know the term can be understood as you have described it, however, this is not how it was understood and is contradicted by another verse which backs my definition of that word. (Note: my definition isfrom the oxford definition)."

This is what I actually said and you can see I acknowledged it but I also rebuked the idea that it can be used as a viable definition. Here are the Quranic verses that rebuke that claim:

"Forbidden unto you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters [...] and the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins"
Qur'an 4:23

When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants...
Quran 7:172

These Quranic verses clearly rebuke the second definition which you have chosen.

As you clear disagree with me, provide evidence from the Quran that insinuates the second definition of the word loins.

Also, you have completely ignored the English translations that come from prominent Muslims who have studied the Quran better than me and you, who clearly back my points. I have provided them in my previous post. You have also ignored the tafsir from Ibn Kathir and others which clearly back my understanding.

Your posts are what true ignorance looks like.

There are many explanations and interpretations given to these verses. Like I said, they’re not conclusive. To claim it’s a scientific error is not only false, but shows your close-mindedness, just like your Europhile friends, the writers for WikiIslam (probably the most Islamophobic website), etc. almost everything you bring up can be found on WikiIslam; that’s where you go to learn about Islam LOL.

Most verses of the Qur’an are muhkumaat (which are straightforward, black and white, easy for anyone who’s reading it to understand) while some are mutashabihat (which are unclear and subject to interpretation).

“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise (muhkamaat) - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific (mutashabihaat). As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]…” (3:7)

Even if we were to translate it as the vertebrate, there are numerous of interpretations in this context too. It would still be ridiculous to dismiss this whole loins = vertebrate phenomenon and claim that it contradicts science without evidence. Man is created from fluid gushed forth from the loins. Let’s analyse this premise.

Think about this; men who are castrated (had their testicles cut off) can still ejaculate seminal fluid whilst depending on the severity of the spinal cord injury, men can barely, if at all, ejaculate.

In men with spinal cord injury, the ability to ejaculate is less common than the ability to obtain an erection. The rate of ejaculation varies depending on the nature and location of the neurological injury. In complete upper motor neuron lesions, the ejaculation rate is estimated at 2 percent. In incomplete upper motor neuron lesions, the ejaculation rate is estimated to be somewhat higher at approximately 32%. Many men who are able to ejaculate experience retrograde ejaculation into the bladder, some may experience dribbling of semen. Geraldine Sheu, Louis M. Revenig, and Wayland Hsiao, “Physiology of Ejaculation”

Also, read this:

Expulsion is a spinal cord reflex that is mediated by somatic motor components of the perineal branch of the pudendal nerve that originate from nerve roots S2–S4 as well as by concurrent relaxation of external urethral sphincter and urogenital diaphragm.[2] Stanley Ducharme, Sexuality and Spinal Cord Injury, retrieved from http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/5/

Surely the testicles are not responsible for the whole gushing forth phenomenon. The Qur’an does not claim that semen is produced in a place other than the testicles, rather what’s stated is that it gushes forth from the loins.


The Prophet (SAW) & Sahaba (RA) knew that sperm is produced in the testicles. There’s a hadith where some of the Sahaba (RA) asked the Prophet (SAW) whether they can be castrated as to avoid sperm production and stirring of the desires whilst they were not married. This without a doubt, proves the fact that Prophet (SAW), Sahaba (RA) and Arabs (and the Prophet) in general knew very well knew that semen comes from the testes, and that removal of the testes would lead to azoospermia.

Abdullah reported: “We were on an expedition with God’s Messenger and we had no women with us. We said: ‘Should we not have ourselves castrated?’ He (the Holy Prophet) forbade us to do so.’” (Sahih Muslim, 3243)

Closeminded Europhiles try to interpret al-ayaat al-mutashabihaat in a close-minded manner, foolishly & desperately latching on to the first suggestion that springs to their minds hoping that it would be a basis for them to dismiss wa7y.

Here are more explanations in different scenarios, I’m sure there’s much more but here are some: http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=2602

These are also more differing opinions:

Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali al-Baarr (may Allah preserve him) says:

The verse says that the gushing water comes from between the backbone and the ribs, and we say that this water (semen) is formed rather in the testes as the egg is formed in the ovary in the woman. So how can we reconcile the scientific fact with the Qur’anic fact?

The testes and ovary are formed from the genital tubercle between the sulb and taraa’ib of the foetus. The sulb is the spinal column and the taraa’ib are the ribs. The testes and ovaries are formed in this exact region, i.e., between the backbone and the ribs, then the testes descend gradually until they reach the scrotum (outside the abdomen) at the end of the seventh month of gestation; the ovaries descend to the female’s pelvis. … However, nourishment continues to reach the testes or ovaries via the circulatory, nervous and lymphatic systems from the point where they originated, i.e., from between the backbone and ribs. The arteries that supply the testes or ovaries come from the aorta, from between the backbone and the ribs, and the veins coming from the testes end in the same region, i.e., between the backbone and the ribs. The nerves to the testes and ovaries come from a group of nerves that exist beneath the stomach, between the backbone and the ribs. The lymphatic vessels also end in the same area, i.e., between the backbone and the ribs.

Can there be any doubt, after all this, that the testes and ovaries receive nourishment and blood from, and are connected to nerves that come from, between the backbone and the ribs?

The material for formation of the sperm in the man and the eggs in the woman comes from an area between the backbone and the ribs, in addition to the fact that the sperm and eggs develop from cells that originate between the backbone and the ribs. So this verse is a complete miracle, as it says “from between the back-bone (as-sulb) and the ribs (at-taraa’ib)” and it does not say “from the backbone and the ribs”. The word “between” is not only eloquent; it is also scientifically precise.

Modern science affirms that the water that does not gush, and only flows, is secretions from the vagina and Bartholin’s glands that are connected to it. These secretions play no role in the formation of the foetus; rather their function is to lubricate the vagina. But modern science has discovered something amazing: the sperm is carried by gushing water, which is the semen, but the egg in the ovary forms in the Graafian follicle surrounded by water. When the follicle ruptures, the water gushes forth and is caught by the fimbriae of the fallopian tube, where it meets the sperm to form the “Nutfah drops of mixed semen (discharge of man and woman)” (cf. al-Isnaad 76:2). This water carries the egg just as the man’s water carries the sperm. In both cases the water gushes, and both emerge from between the backbone and the ribs, from the reproductive organs, the testes and ovaries.

Once again the miraculous scientific meaning of the Qur’anic verses has become clear: gushing water from the testes, carrying the sperm, and gushing water from the Graafian follicle carrying the egg.

Simply put; none of the explanations (in practical terms) for these ayaat are conclusive.

From now on, don’t waste my time. You only regurgitate things from WikiIslam; if you sincerely want to read the refutations of anything spewed by WikiIslam, why don’t you Google search to find out the opinion of the Muslims and refer to the people of knowledge (far more knowledgeable than me)? I forgot, you’re not competent enough to use Google. You’re plaigairizing stuff from WikiIslam and spewing them on here when they’ve already been refuted to smithereens by others before me? I don’t understand? You’re a very interesting character. Wallahi I wouldn’t say it’s far-fetched to assume you’re suffering from some degree of brain-damage in real life. From now on, if you want to copy and paste things mentioned on WikiIslam, I’ll do the same and copy & paste the refutations of them; which will make this whole debate pointless, only a thick bastard would call this debating

I have explained on many occasions why I refuse to debate him.

1) He is a flat earth advocate and I will not debate the shape of the Earth.

2) @simulacrum has debates him and I have seen how he dismisses things on conspiracy grounds. He had the agenda that the elites are hiding the real information from us and shit like that. He wears a tinfoil hat! No amount of evidence I provide will convince him because that evidence comes from the scientists he dismisses as being part of the elite!

You keep claiming that you have won this and won that. The fact that you keep claiming this is evidence of your desperation.

You are a flat earth advocate, you dismissed my evidence for the age of the universe by saying "Let me guess, this is evidence because they said so?" you believe that the Earth was created before the universe, the seasonal changes arise as a consequence of the inhaling of hell, you believe the resemblance of a child arises from who discharges first in sexual intercourse and so on. You have relied on sneaky tactics of dismissing my claims, ignoring others, ad hominem attacks and straw-man. The idea that you have 'karbashed' me is by far a joke.

Oh, I also forgot that you were the one that created that thread making the claim that Jinn are behind the advent on modern technology like television and so on.

Again, some more illiteracy. I did not say debate him; I said he will test your knowledge (not only concerning the earth’s figure but also big bang, and other theories). Yacni to see whether or not you’re blindly accepting these “scientific” views (though we already know you are, but you need to be put in your place).

 

[The_Cosmos]

Finally, I have some time on my hands. Let's get the ball rolling.


As for the hadith about who the child will resemble: there's literally a scientific journal published explaining this. It's interesting that you said "this contradicts science" but as usual, provided no evidence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516053/

To claim that the hadith about heaven & hell and it's bearing on seasonal changes proves that Islam and science are incompatible is a logical fallacy; for example, just because the hadith says that, it doesn’t mean we cannot inquire into studying the nature of seasonal change; Allah (SWT) informs us of some of the functions of the celestial bodies, but we’re also informed to ponder on them. This hadith is true; but it would definitely reflect on our world as natural phenomenon that has it’s own laws (considering that heaven & hell are matters of the unseen) since it’s in a particular pattern; natural laws are basically patterns in nature. For example; we know that Allah (SWT) has created matter, but we still inquire in the nature of matter and it’s natural laws (that we can observe) that it was created with. The Muslim world have produced some of the best astronomists of all times who inquired into seasonal change; the nature of matter, etc. and have written extensively on them.

"A number of modern scholars such as Fielding H. Garrison,[29] Abdus Salam, Sultan Bashir Mahmood, Hossein Nasr consider modern science and the scientific method to have been greatly inspired by Muslim scientists who introduced a modern empirical, experimental and quantitative approach to scientific inquiry. Some scholars, notably Donald Routledge Hill, Ahmad Y Hassan,[30] Abdus Salam,[31] and George Saliba,[32] have referred to their achievements as a Muslim scientific revolution,"

The very origins of the scientific method (let alone theories,

The famous Ottoman scholar, Katip Celebi has written scKashf al-ẓunūn ‘an asāmī al-kutub wa-al-funūn, (كشف الظنون عن أسامي الكتب والفنون) ("The Removal of Doubt from the Names of Books and the Arts"), a bibliographic encyclopaedia, written in Arabic, which lists more than 14,500 books in alphabetic order. Literally thousands of books pertaining to the sciences and arts that were authored by Muslim scientists. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of their manuscripts were lost (think when the Mongol burned Bayt al Hikmah to the ground).

Wallahi I’m surprised that you’re still trying to push this narrative. Even the most Islamophobic people in the world would agree that Islam is a science-friendly religion.

MR. "SCIENCE IS HARAAM" ASS NIGGA.



Your arguments are weak. Very weak. You tell us to accept theories because “it’s science”, because “they said so”; this is no different to a Christian saying “Pope said so”. You have the internet at your disposal yet you cannot provide me with one conclusive evidence, just one.

You act as if all theories are facts: but little do you know there were many theories, far more convincing than the big bang, that were widely accepted in the scientific community but have been proven to be false and were promptly discarded. YOU SAY THEORIES (ESPECIALLY BULLSHIT ONES LIKE BIG BANG THAT HAVE NO EVIDENCE) ARE FACTS BUT HOW CAN A FACT BE PROVEN WRONG? Thousands of theories were proven wrong, the vast majority of the prevailing scientific theories to ever be conjured up were proven to be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Many physicists are now starting to claim that the Universe had no beginning; I'm guessing after this theory catches on and gets adopted by your gods, you will immediately discard the big bang theory.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/quantum-equations-dispute-big-bang/


I found this quite interesting too: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/01/curtain-falls-controversial-big-bang-result


Read the rest at: http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

So basically unobserved hypotheses are being given precedence to actual observations. It's much more reasonable to adopt an empiricist approach regarding synthetic statements (e.g. "our universe is a result of the big bang"); unless you're a brain dead Europhile of course.

Richard Feynman himself says science is the culture of doubt; yet we have this ignoramus Europhile who comes on this forum screaming "EVIDENCE! FACT! SCIENCE! SCIENCE! BUT LOOK THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID!" naclatullahi calayk. May you stay scrubbing shoes


That’s correct. I’m a unapologetic flat-earther (at least I didn’t blindly concede to the flat-earth model). Watch this video, skip to 6:36 (warning your mental condition may exacerbate after viewing such material or you may have a mental breakdown)

I’ve watched the video and nothing regarding an organism acquiring new genetic information was mentioned. He even says it’s a case of “point mutation” which is basically a result of variation; not a result of acquiring new genetic information. I hope you can get that through your skull, though judging by your posts on this thread, I assume it will be quite difficult. One example is humans acquiring blonde hair; it’s really a result of variation, not increase in new genetic information. What do I mean by new genetic information? I mean an organism acquiring any trait that is unusual for the specie in question to possess, not mere variation. Ever since humans have been supposedly evolving for thousands of years, there are still no humans today who possess characteristics that are not just a variation of the traits humans are known to possess, but are entirely different characteristics; or even characteristics that are relatively primitive. The only thing variation does is that it re-arranges existing DNA. Even if genetic chromosomal duplication was to occur – and on top of that point variation – the organism in question will still not acquire new traits that are not just a variation of what their specie are known to possess despite the fact that speciation will occur since the organism that has underwent these events will no longer be interfetile with their unevolved peers who were once part of the same species. Thus; there's no evidence that a fish can become something other than a fish.


Your posts are what true ignorance looks like.

There are many explanations and interpretations given to these verses. Like I said, they’re not conclusive. To claim it’s a scientific error is not only false, but shows your close-mindedness, just like your Europhile friends, the writers for WikiIslam (probably the most Islamophobic website), etc. almost everything you bring up can be found on WikiIslam; that’s where you go to learn about Islam LOL.

Most verses of the Qur’an are muhkumaat (which are straightforward, black and white, easy for anyone who’s reading it to understand) while some are mutashabihat (which are unclear and subject to interpretation).

“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise (muhkamaat) - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific (mutashabihaat). As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]…” (3:7)

Even if we were to translate it as the vertebrate, there are numerous of interpretations in this context too. It would still be ridiculous to dismiss this whole loins = vertebrate phenomenon and claim that it contradicts science without evidence. Man is created from fluid gushed forth from the loins. Let’s analyse this premise.

Think about this; men who are castrated (had their testicles cut off) can still ejaculate seminal fluid whilst depending on the severity of the spinal cord injury, men can barely, if at all, ejaculate.

In men with spinal cord injury, the ability to ejaculate is less common than the ability to obtain an erection. The rate of ejaculation varies depending on the nature and location of the neurological injury. In complete upper motor neuron lesions, the ejaculation rate is estimated at 2 percent. In incomplete upper motor neuron lesions, the ejaculation rate is estimated to be somewhat higher at approximately 32%. Many men who are able to ejaculate experience retrograde ejaculation into the bladder, some may experience dribbling of semen. Geraldine Sheu, Louis M. Revenig, and Wayland Hsiao, “Physiology of Ejaculation”

Also, read this:

Expulsion is a spinal cord reflex that is mediated by somatic motor components of the perineal branch of the pudendal nerve that originate from nerve roots S2–S4 as well as by concurrent relaxation of external urethral sphincter and urogenital diaphragm.[2] Stanley Ducharme, Sexuality and Spinal Cord Injury, retrieved from http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/5/

Surely the testicles are not responsible for the whole gushing forth phenomenon. The Qur’an does not claim that semen is produced in a place other than the testicles, rather what’s stated is that it gushes forth from the loins.


The Prophet (SAW) & Sahaba (RA) knew that sperm is produced in the testicles. There’s a hadith where some of the Sahaba (RA) asked the Prophet (SAW) whether they can be castrated as to avoid sperm production and stirring of the desires whilst they were not married. This without a doubt, proves the fact that Prophet (SAW), Sahaba (RA) and Arabs (and the Prophet) in general knew very well knew that semen comes from the testes, and that removal of the testes would lead to azoospermia.

Abdullah reported: “We were on an expedition with God’s Messenger and we had no women with us. We said: ‘Should we not have ourselves castrated?’ He (the Holy Prophet) forbade us to do so.’” (Sahih Muslim, 3243)

Closeminded Europhiles try to interpret al-ayaat al-mutashabihaat in a close-minded manner, foolishly & desperately latching on to the first suggestion that springs to their minds hoping that it would be a basis for them to dismiss wa7y.

Here are more explanations in different scenarios, I’m sure there’s much more but here are some: http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=2602

These are also more differing opinions:


Simply put; none of the explanations (in practical terms) for these ayaat are conclusive.

From now on, don’t waste my time. You only regurgitate things from WikiIslam; if you sincerely want to read the refutations of anything spewed by WikiIslam, why don’t you Google search to find out the opinion of the Muslims and refer to the people of knowledge (far more knowledgeable than me)? I forgot, you’re not competent enough to use Google. You’re plaigairizing stuff from WikiIslam and spewing them on here when they’ve already been refuted to smithereens by others before me? I don’t understand? You’re a very interesting character. Wallahi I wouldn’t say it’s far-fetched to assume you’re suffering from some degree of brain-damage in real life. From now on, if you want to copy and paste things mentioned on WikiIslam, I’ll do the same and copy & paste the refutations of them; which will make this whole debate pointless, only a thick bastard would call this debating



Again, some more illiteracy. I did not say debate him; I said he will test your knowledge (not only concerning the earth’s figure but also big bang, and other theories). Yacni to see whether or not you’re blindly accepting these “scientific” views (though we already know you are, but you need to be put in your place).

This is going to be my last reply, I'm not going to do this forever.

As for the hadith about who the child will resemble: there's literally a scientific journal published explaining this. It's interesting that you said "this contradicts science" but as usual, provided no evidence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516053/

To claim that the hadith about heaven & hell and it's bearing on seasonal changes proves that Islam and science are incompatible is a logical fallacy; for example, just because the hadith says that, it doesn’t mean we cannot inquire into studying the nature of seasonal change; Allah (SWT) informs us of some of the functions of the celestial bodies, but we’re also informed to ponder on them. This hadith is true; but it would definitely reflect on our world as natural phenomenon that has it’s own laws (considering that heaven & hell are matters of the unseen) since it’s in a particular pattern; natural laws are basically patterns in nature. For example; we know that Allah (SWT) has created matter, but we still inquire in the nature of matter and it’s natural laws (that we can observe) that it was created with. The Muslim world have produced some of the best astronomists of all times who inquired into seasonal change; the nature of matter, etc. and have written extensively on them.

"A number of modern scholars such as Fielding H. Garrison,[29] Abdus Salam, Sultan Bashir Mahmood, Hossein Nasr consider modern science and the scientific method to have been greatly inspired by Muslim scientists who introduced a modern empirical, experimental and quantitative approach to scientific inquiry. Some scholars, notably Donald Routledge Hill, Ahmad Y Hassan,[30] Abdus Salam,[31] and George Saliba,[32] have referred to their achievements as a Muslim scientific revolution,"

Well, the supposed 'scientific journal' that you provided is clearly not a reliable and nor is it scientific. This is the essence of the problem. The people in charge of that journal are clearly pushing the agenda of Islam and science which contradicts the scientific method on the premise that you can't try and prove something to be true, that will open the door to confirmation bias, but you must attempt to falsify the claims. What this journal has done, not scientific, is that it's playing on confirmation bias in order to push the agenda that Islam is true because, science.

It also attempts a mental gymnastics game which I find interesting... what does the dominance and recessiveness of an allele have to do with a man or a woman discharging first? The Hadith is very clear that whoever discharges first, the child resembles them. Anybody who tries to conflate this with the genetics is very much playing a game of mental gymnastics. The Hadith makes no suggestions, not even the slightest, to anything that can remotely hint to genetics. It clearly states that if a man ejaculates first, the child will look like him. If the woman ejaculates first, the child will look like her. This is scientifically wrong and I will prove it like I've proven the others. I'm going to give you an article on this to and I want you to read it carefully and tell me where it corroborates the idea that discharging first has an effect on the genetic makeup of the child. If you disagree with this, provide a neutral and scientifically reliable journal not any journal claiming to be scientific but is clearly pushing an agenda of Islam. It's not neutral mate.

http://www.vedicus.com/why-do-we-resemble-our-parents

As for your other point, it seems you misunderstood me. I simply wanted to point out that Islam and science are in complete contradiction to each other not that Islam tries to inhibit scientific growth. I am perfectly aware that there were many great Muslim scientists (the first to even acknowledge what we now call evolution) but that doesn't corroborate the position that Islam is compatible with science. I have clearly given you hadiths and Quranic verses that contradict the science. The real logical fallacy stems from saying that science and Islam are compatible because, Muslim scientists. They may have a name for that logical fallacy or they may not but it doesn't back up the arguments against Islam and science being mutually exclusive, which I have soundly demonstrated.

The Hadith clearly, without a question, contradicts the science which you yourself deny, as a flat earth advocate, and hence there for in contradiction with science. Muslims scientists it seems have went passed this by separating their faith and their science. Many people have done this. Galileo has done this and he has speech that back it up "the bible tell you how to go to heaven but not how the heavens go". It's not far fetched to assume that the Muslim scientists have also lived by something similar.

Your arguments are weak. Very weak. You tell us to accept theories because “it’s science”, because “they said so”; this is no different to a Christian saying “Pope said so”. You have the internet at your disposal yet you cannot provide me with one conclusive evidence, just one.

You act as if all theories are facts: but little do you know there were many theories, far more convincing than the big bang, that were widely accepted in the scientific community but have been proven to be false and were promptly discarded. YOU SAY THEORIES (ESPECIALLY BULLSHIT ONES LIKE BIG BANG THAT HAVE NO EVIDENCE) ARE FACTS BUT HOW CAN A FACT BE PROVEN WRONG? Thousands of theories were proven wrong, the vast majority of the prevailing scientific theories to ever be conjured up were proven to be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Many physicists are now starting to claim that the Universe had no beginning; I'm guessing after this theory catches on and gets adopted by your gods, you will immediately discard the big bang theory.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/quantum-equations-dispute-big-bang/


I found this quite interesting too: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/01/curtain-falls-controversial-big-bang-result


Read the rest at: http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

So basically unobserved hypotheses are being given precedence to actual observations. It's much more reasonable to adopt an empiricist approach regarding synthetic statements (e.g. "our universe is a result of the big bang"); unless you're a brain dead Europhile of course.

Richard Feynman himself says science is the culture of doubt; yet we have this ignoramus Europhile who comes on this forum screaming "EVIDENCE! FACT! SCIENCE! SCIENCE! BUT LOOK THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID!" naclatullahi calayk. May you stay scrubbing shoes

I am going to assume that it is due to your scientific illiteracy that you cannot differentiate between a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis, but nonetheless, I'll provide you with their definitions.

Scientific theory:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I'll give you another quote from the same website:

"As with most, if not all, forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive[6][7] in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.

Paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and science historian Stephen Jay Gould said, “...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world′s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.”[8]"

You have clearly shown yourself incapable of making a distinction between hypothesis and theories. A hypothesis is:

"A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and observation."

http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html

You have then provided more evidence of your ignorance by claiming that the Big Bang theory has no evidence supporting it. I'll give you the most basic of websites providing you with only some of the evidence. I'll quite Bitesize for educational purposes:

Evidence of the Big Bang
There are two key pieces of evidence for Big Bang theory. These are red shift and the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

Red shift
You may have noticed that when an ambulance or police car goes past, its siren is high-pitched as it comes towards you, then becomes low-pitched as it goes away. This effect, where there is a change in frequency and wavelength, is called the Doppler effect. It happens with any wave source that moves relative to an observer.

This happens with light too. Our sun contains helium. We know this because there are black lines in the spectrum of the light from the sun, where helium has absorbed light. These lines form the absorption spectrum for helium.

Spectrum of the sun



When we look at the spectrum of a distant star, the absorption spectrum is there, but the pattern of lines has moved towards the red end of the spectrum, as you can see below.

Spectrum of a distant star



This is called red shift. It is a change in frequency of the position of the lines.

Astronomers have found that the further from us a star is the more its light is red shifted. This tells us that distant galaxies are moving away from us, and that the further a galaxy is the faster it is moving away. Since we cannot assume that we have a special place in the universe this is evidence for a generally expanding universe. It suggests that everything is moving away from everything else. The Big Bang theory says that this expansion started billions of years ago with an explosion.

Cosmic Microwave Background radiation
Scientists discovered that there are microwaves coming from every direction in space. Big Bang theory says this is energy created at the beginning of the universe, just after the Big Bang, and that has been travelling through space ever since.

A satellite called COBE has mapped the background microwave radiation of the universe as we see it. Big Bang theorists are still working on the interpretation of this evidence.

Interpreting the evidence
A summary of some of the evidence of the Big Bang and its interpretation
Evidence Interpretation
The light from other galaxies is red-shifted. The other galaxies are moving away from us.
The further away the galaxy, the more its light is red-shifted. The most likely explanation is that the whole universe is expanding. This supports the theory that the start of the universe could have been from a single explosion.
Cosmic Microwave Background The relatively uniform background radiation is the remains of energy created just after the Big Bang.

It seems there is no limit to how scientifically illiterate you really are. Interesting... did you ever go to school?

"Thousands of theories were proven wrong, the vast majority of the prevailing scientific theories to ever be conjured up were proven to be wrong."

For a man who demands evidence, you seem to provide absolutely none.

"Your arguments are weak. Very weak. You tell us to accept theories because “it’s science”, because “they said so”; this is no different to a Christian saying “Pope said so”. You have the internet at your disposal yet you cannot provide me with one conclusive evidence, just one."

I have provided you with evidence, you just chose to reject it. Every point of evidence provided, you reject and give some shitty excuse for why it doesn't count. The evidence was in the previous posts which you then rejected.

Read this, it tells you how the ages of the Earth and the universe are calculated.

http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe

That’s correct. I’m a unapologetic flat-earther (at least I didn’t blindly concede to the flat-earth model). Watch this video, skip to 6:36 (warning your mental condition may exacerbate after viewing such material or you may have a mental breakdown)

Blindly concede, your entire religious is built on blindly following that which has no evidence go back it. The cognitive dissonance in calling others blind when you believe prophets flew to heaven on flying ponies, is bloody ridiculous!

1) Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.

2)If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.

The other points are on here, http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round

I’ve watched the video and nothing regarding an organism acquiring new genetic information was mentioned. He even says it’s a case of “point mutation” which is basically a result of variation; not a result of acquiring new genetic information. I hope you can get that through your skull, though judging by your posts on this thread, I assume it will be quite difficult. One example is humans acquiring blonde hair; it’s really a result of variation, not increase in new genetic information. What do I mean by new genetic information? I mean an organism acquiring any trait that is unusual for the specie in question to possess, not mere variation. Ever since humans have been supposedly evolving for thousands of years, there are still no humans today who possess characteristics that are not just a variation of the traits humans are known to possess, but are entirely different characteristics; or even characteristics that are relatively primitive. The only thing variation does is that it re-arranges existing DNA. Even if genetic chromosomal duplication was to occur – and on top of that point variation – the organism in question will still not acquire new traits that are not just a variation of what their specie are known to possess despite the fact that speciation will occur since the organism that has underwent these events will no longer be interfetile with their unevolved peers who were once part of the same species. Thus; there's no evidence that a fish can become something other than a fish.

Well clearly that's all bullshit that you have stated due to your lack of unbiased research.

The paper, by Sidi Chen, Yong Zhang, and my friend Manyuan Long, appears in this week’s Science: “New genes in Drosophilaquickly become essential.” It’s a clever piece of work. What the authors did was compare whole-genome sequences between various species of Drosophila(there are now many of these) to see how often new genes appeared in one lineage: the lineage that diverged from the ancestors of D. willistoni to become D. melanogaster. The divergence between these two lineages is 35 million years, but by comparing the genomes of other species that branched off these two branches, they could estimate how often new genes arise over the entire period from 3 million to 35 million years ago.

What do they mean by “new genes”? These are genes in D. melanogaster that aren’t found in D. willistoni, but have arisen since their divergence by several processes—most often the duplication of an ancestral gene or its RNA followed by extensive genetic divergence, so that the gene acquires a brand new function. (This process accounts for about 90% of the new genes. Some genes, however, are so different between the species that how they arose is a mystery.) These “new genes,” then, would qualify as what Behe calls “gain-of-FCT” adaptive mutations (“FCT” = functional coded element): the kind of mutations that Behe did not see arising in short-term lab experiments on bacteria and viruses.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/whye...21/new-genes-arise-quickly/amp/?client=safari

Your posts are what true ignorance looks like.

There are many explanations and interpretations given to these verses. Like I said, they’re not conclusive. To claim it’s a scientific error is not only false, but shows your close-mindedness, just like your Europhile friends, the writers for WikiIslam (probably the most Islamophobic website), etc. almost everything you bring up can be found on WikiIslam; that’s where you go to learn about Islam LOL.

Most verses of the Qur’an are muhkumaat (which are straightforward, black and white, easy for anyone who’s reading it to understand) while some are mutashabihat (which are unclear and subject to interpretation).

“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise (muhkamaat) - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific (mutashabihaat). As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]…” (3:7)

Even if we were to translate it as the vertebrate, there are numerous of interpretations in this context too. It would still be ridiculous to dismiss this whole loins = vertebrate phenomenon and claim that it contradicts science without evidence. Man is created from fluid gushed forth from the loins. Let’s analyse this premise.

Think about this; men who are castrated (had their testicles cut off) can still ejaculate seminal fluid whilst depending on the severity of the spinal cord injury, men can barely, if at all, ejaculate.

In men with spinal cord injury, the ability to ejaculate is less common than the ability to obtain an erection. The rate of ejaculation varies depending on the nature and location of the neurological injury. In complete upper motor neuron lesions, the ejaculation rate is estimated at 2 percent. In incomplete upper motor neuron lesions, the ejaculation rate is estimated to be somewhat higher at approximately 32%. Many men who are able to ejaculate experience retrograde ejaculation into the bladder, some may experience dribbling of semen. Geraldine Sheu, Louis M. Revenig, and Wayland Hsiao, “Physiology of Ejaculation”

Also, read this:

Expulsion is a spinal cord reflex that is mediated by somatic motor components of the perineal branch of the pudendal nerve that originate from nerve roots S2–S4 as well as by concurrent relaxation of external urethral sphincter and urogenital diaphragm.[2] Stanley Ducharme, Sexuality and Spinal Cord Injury, retrieved from http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/5/

Surely the testicles are not responsible for the whole gushing forth phenomenon. The Qur’an does not claim that semen is produced in a place other than the testicles, rather what’s stated is that it gushes forth from the loins.


The Prophet (SAW) & Sahaba (RA) knew that sperm is produced in the testicles. There’s a hadith where some of the Sahaba (RA) asked the Prophet (SAW) whether they can be castrated as to avoid sperm production and stirring of the desires whilst they were not married. This without a doubt, proves the fact that Prophet (SAW), Sahaba (RA) and Arabs (and the Prophet) in general knew very well knew that semen comes from the testes, and that removal of the testes would lead to azoospermia.

Abdullah reported: “We were on an expedition with God’s Messenger and we had no women with us. We said: ‘Should we not have ourselves castrated?’ He (the Holy Prophet) forbade us to do so.’” (Sahih Muslim, 3243)

Closeminded Europhiles try to interpret al-ayaat al-mutashabihaat in a close-minded manner, foolishly & desperately latching on to the first suggestion that springs to their minds hoping that it would be a basis for them to dismiss wa7y.

1) I've given you the English translations of the verse which back up my points

2) I've given you the oxford definition of the eyes loins that you asked for

3 I have given you the tafsir from Ibn Kathir and others which you completely ignored. Ibn Kathir was very clear on this matter something that you ignored when you were quoting him

4) I've given you the Quranic verses that back my interpretation. You have provided none to back up yours.

I'm not going to debate the understanding of the verse as it is very clear I have provided enough evidence to justify my understanding.

You claim that I am regurgitating wikislam but then a simply google search shows that your regurgitating some shit that comes from an Islamic apologetic website.

Listen, I am done with this. I have provided evidence for my claims, I have provided sources for my claims, I have remained logically consistent throughout the 'debate' and thus I no longer choose to debate with someone who doesn't think it worthy to drop the ad hominem and debate in a civilised manner.

Good day!

 

[Layth]

This is going to be my last reply, I'm not going to do this forever.



Well, the supposed 'scientific journal' that you provided is clearly not a reliable and nor is it scientific. This is the essence of the problem. The people in charge of that journal are clearly pushing the agenda of Islam and science which contradicts the scientific method on the premise that you can't try and prove something to be true, that will open the door to confirmation bias, but you must attempt to falsify the claims. What this journal has done, not scientific, is that it's playing on confirmation bias in order to push the agenda that Islam is true because, science.

It also attempts a mental gymnastics game which I find interesting... what does the dominance and recessiveness of an allele have to do with a man or a woman discharging first? The Hadith is very clear that whoever discharges first, the child resembles them. Anybody who tries to conflate this with the genetics is very much playing a game of mental gymnastics. The Hadith makes no suggestions, not even the slightest, to anything that can remotely hint to genetics. It clearly states that if a man ejaculates first, the child will look like him. If the woman ejaculates first, the child will look like her. This is scientifically wrong and I will prove it like I've proven the others. I'm going to give you an article on this to and I want you to read it carefully and tell me where it corroborates the idea that discharging first has an effect on the genetic makeup of the child. If you disagree with this, provide a neutral and scientifically reliable journal not any journal claiming to be scientific but is clearly pushing an agenda of Islam. It's not neutral mate.

http://www.vedicus.com/why-do-we-resemble-our-parents

As for your other point, it seems you misunderstood me. I simply wanted to point out that Islam and science are in complete contradiction to each other not that Islam tries to inhibit scientific growth. I am perfectly aware that there were many great Muslim scientists (the first to even acknowledge what we now call evolution) but that doesn't corroborate the position that Islam is compatible with science. I have clearly given you hadiths and Quranic verses that contradict the science. The real logical fallacy stems from saying that science and Islam are compatible because, Muslim scientists. They may have a name for that logical fallacy or they may not but it doesn't back up the arguments against Islam and science being mutually exclusive, which I have soundly demonstrated.

The Hadith clearly, without a question, contradicts the science which you yourself deny, as a flat earth advocate, and hence there for in contradiction with science. Muslims scientists it seems have went passed this by separating their faith and their science. Many people have done this. Galileo has done this and he has speech that back it up "the bible tell you how to go to heaven but not how the heavens go". It's not far fetched to assume that the Muslim scientists have also lived by something similar.



I am going to assume that it is due to your scientific illiteracy that you cannot differentiate between a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis, but nonetheless, I'll provide you with their definitions.

Scientific theory:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I'll give you another quote from the same website:

"As with most, if not all, forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive[6][7] in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.

Paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and science historian Stephen Jay Gould said, “...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world′s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.”[8]"

You have clearly shown yourself incapable of making a distinction between hypothesis and theories. A hypothesis is:

"A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and observation."

http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html

You have then provided more evidence of your ignorance by claiming that the Big Bang theory has no evidence supporting it. I'll give you the most basic of websites providing you with only some of the evidence. I'll quite Bitesize for educational purposes:



It seems there is no limit to how scientifically illiterate you really are. Interesting... did you ever go to school?

"Thousands of theories were proven wrong, the vast majority of the prevailing scientific theories to ever be conjured up were proven to be wrong."

For a man who demands evidence, you seem to provide absolutely none.

"Your arguments are weak. Very weak. You tell us to accept theories because “it’s science”, because “they said so”; this is no different to a Christian saying “Pope said so”. You have the internet at your disposal yet you cannot provide me with one conclusive evidence, just one."

I have provided you with evidence, you just chose to reject it. Every point of evidence provided, you reject and give some shitty excuse for why it doesn't count. The evidence was in the previous posts which you then rejected.

Read this, it tells you how the ages of the Earth and the universe are calculated.

http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe



Blindly concede, your entire religious is built on blindly following that which has no evidence go back it. The cognitive dissonance in calling others blind when you believe prophets flew to heaven on flying ponies, is bloody ridiculous!

1) Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.

2)If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.

The other points are on here, http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round



Well clearly that's all bullshit that you have stated due to your lack of unbiased research.



https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/whye...21/new-genes-arise-quickly/amp/?client=safari



1) I've given you the English translations of the verse which back up my points

2) I've given you the oxford definition of the eyes loins that you asked for

3 I have given you the tafsir from Ibn Kathir and others which you completely ignored. Ibn Kathir was very clear on this matter something that you ignored when you were quoting him

4) I've given you the Quranic verses that back my interpretation. You have provided none to back up yours.

I'm not going to debate the understanding of the verse as it is very clear I have provided enough evidence to justify my understanding.

You claim that I am regurgitating wikislam but then a simply google search shows that your regurgitating some shit that comes from an Islamic apologetic website.

Listen, I am done with this. I have provided evidence for my claims, I have provided sources for my claims, I have remained logically consistent throughout the 'debate' and thus I no longer choose to debate with someone who doesn't think it worthy to drop the ad hominem and debate in a civilised manner.

Good day!

Well, the supposed 'scientific journal' that you provided is clearly not a reliable and nor is it scientific. This is the essence of the problem. The people in charge of that journal are clearly pushing the agenda of Islam and science which contradicts the scientific method on the premise that you can't try and prove something to be true, that will open the door to confirmation bias, but you must attempt to falsify the claims. What this journal has done, not scientific, is that it's playing on confirmation bias in order to push the agenda that Islam is true because, science.

The author was using existing scientific facts to explain this phenomenon, what do you mean "not reliable and nor is it scientific"?

You seem to be very fond of making unsubstantiated claims, there's no scientific fact that contradicts what's stated in that hadith. You are not remotely qualified to make the claim that the hadith is not alluding to genetics; as you've proven countless of times on this thread alone, you're incapable of merely reading in Arabic (even without understanding the meaning of the words), let alone dictate what the definition of a word and it's possible interpretations can be; as if you're an expert in ma'aani and sarf.

On numerous of occasions, the Prophet (SAW) has used words and references that the Sahaba (RA) were familiar with and were able to comprehend but was clearly pointing at something completely different to it's apparent meaning. There are many examples of this in the sunnah. In this hadith, for anyone who has a basic grasp of the Arabic language, it’s not far-fetched to assume that it’s pointing to the whole concept of dominant & recessive genes.

http://www.vedicus.com/why-do-we-resemble-our-parents

This journal is not in contradiction to what I just shared. It appears you have read neither of them. It’s not in your best interest (in terms of debating) to cursorily drop the first link you find without examining it.

As for your other point, it seems you misunderstood me. I simply wanted to point out that Islam and science are in complete contradiction to each other not that Islam tries to inhibit scientific growth. I am perfectly aware that there were many great Muslim scientists (the first to even acknowledge what we now call evolution) but that doesn't corroborate the position that Islam is compatible with science. I have clearly given you hadiths and Quranic verses that contradict the science. The real logical fallacy stems from saying that science and Islam are compatible because, Muslim scientists. They may have a name for that logical fallacy or they may not but it doesn't back up the arguments against Islam and science being mutually exclusive, which I have soundly demonstrated.

Again, you've provided no evidence for your claims. You've also misunderstood the main point that I was trying to make: that the very ethos of Islam points to a science-friendly religion that encourages scientific thought.

"Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the benefit of mankind; in the rain which Allah Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth -- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise." (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:164)

"And hath made of service unto you whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth; it is all from Him. Lo! herein verily are portents for a people who reflect." 45:13

"And of His sign is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colors. Lo! Herein indeed are portents for men of knowledge." 30:22

There are many more ayaat of similar nature; we’re encouraged to inquire into the nature of (quite literally) everything that’s in existence (besides that which is part of the unseen of course).

If you’re insinuating that Islam contradicts undeniable, unfalsifiable facts, then you simply have no evidence for this. No one with a sound mind and basic scientific knowledge denies that scientific theories are falsifiable. Ironically, you’ve admitted this in one of your previous posts that “science is always changing”. I’m sorry, but facts do not change.

If I born a century ago when the consensus among scientists was that the universe had no beginning; would it have been a wise choice for me to have adopted their views and discarded by religious beliefs accordingly? I’ll answer that for you: no, it wouldn’t have. Why? Because it turns out their theory was not incontrovertible after all. If you haven’t come across the steady state theory, here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory#History

Well clearly that's all bullshit that you have stated due to your lack of unbiased research.


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/whye...21/new-genes-arise-quickly/amp/?client=safari

It's not bullshit. No published scientific journal contradicts it.

“The duplication of an ancestral gene or its RNA followed by extensive genetic divergence, so that the gene acquires a brand new function.” Absolutely no evidence for this. Interestingly, I've researched for this claim all over the internet and all roads lead me to Europhile blogs, not scientific journals.

The only thing that was observed (in the study that the person in question has cited) was gene duplication melded with increase in variation. It’s not conclusive whether the new traits acquired are a case of neofunctionalisation or subfunctionalisation , they’ve merely hypothesised the former based on their data; though they didn’t rule out the possibility of the latter. If it was a indisputable case of neofunction(s); these people would probably have won the Nobel Prize and many other awards for essentially proving the evolution theory to be true and it would be announced all over mass media.

The “divergence” between the two lineages, D. Willistoni and D. Melanogaster is 35 million years! Woah. Let’s have a look at them, shall we?

35 million years of evolution yet we don't see any perspicuous morphosis

The divergence between humans and chimpanzees has been estimated to have occurred 13 million years ago…

In what way did those organisms become something else in its entirety? Did either one of the two acquire any extraordinary trait? To further exacerbate this volatile condition you’re in (pun intended), the two lineages are still somewhat interfertile. Even after 35 million years of evolution?! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4415281/

I don't blame you. I mean, even your gods are incapable of addressing these matters.

You have then provided more evidence of your ignorance by claiming that the Big Bang theory has no evidence supporting it. I'll give you the most basic of websites providing you with only some of the evidence. I'll quite Bitesize for educational purposes:

I have been reading into this matter for a long time and the only ostensibly substantiated evidence for the big bang (as in supposedly based on “deduction”) is the whole “redshift” argument. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/306574/fulltext/38487.text.html

There’s an assumption that redshift = distance, which is subsequently a result of the Doppler effect, nothing else. From this; it’s surmised that this points to the occurrence of a “big bang” some billion years ago. Any possibility of it having an alternative explanation is ruled out. If this is not dogmatic, I don’t know what is. Horta these conclusions are all based on assumptions lmao.

I guarantee you if it was conjured up by a non-person you would flat-out reject these conclusions; but it’s not problematic as long as it’s evoked by one of your gods.

Some notable cosmologists are critical of the very “redshit = distance” phenomenon and have evidence for doing so. Many studies into quasars bring the whole redshift = distance phenomenon into question. http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

NASA realised this so they conjured up a hypothesis (with absolutely no evidence) to seemingly get themselves out of this catch-22 predicament. They've used an argument that seems to be a cliche among Europhiles, "it was just chance"; it was by chance that a spiral arm was connecting two quasars of different magnitude in redshift; there were even cases were one of the quasar had almost no redshift. The probability of having an intersection between such objects was reported to have been 1 in 3 billion.

No Europhile cosmologist has dealt with this plight either:

Quasars, or quasi-stellar objects, have provided much fuel for controversy ever since Maarten Schmidt realised in 1963 that the apparently stellar radio source 3C 273 possessed a much higher redshift than any star in the Milky Way galaxy.1 The redshift of 3C 273 is z = 0.158, meaning that the wavelengths of its spectral lines are stretched by 15.8%. Thus, for example, the H beta line of neutral hydrogen, emitted by 3C 273 as blue light at 486.1 nanometres, is observed as green light at 563.2 nanometres.2 If the redshift of 3C 273 is interpreted as a Doppler shift, it must be receding from us at a speed of about 47,000 km/s (kilometres per second). If this figure is reinterpreted as due to the general expansion of the universe with a Hubble constant of 71 km/s per megaparsec, it implies that 3C 273 is about 2 billion light years distant. This in turn implies a luminosity in visible light over 1012(a thousand billion) times that of the Sun—considerably brighter than the entire Milky Way galaxy!

Greenstein, J.L. and Schmidt, M., The quasi-stellar radio sources 3C 48 and 3C 273, Ap.J. 140(1):1–34, 1964.

For such calculations a series of handy ‘cosmology calculators’ is available through links on the NASA/IPAC web page at: nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html, 24 May 2005.

Nor were the Europhiles able to solve these conundrums:

Based on the Big Bang theory, cosmologists predicted that the distribution of matter throughout the universe would be homogeneous. Thus, based upon the so-called Cosmological Principle, it was postulated that the distribution of galaxies in the universe would be essentially uniform. No matter in which direction one looked, if one looked far enough, one would see the same number of galaxies. There would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in space. Recent research, however, has revealed massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. We exist in a very "clumpy" universe.

The present crisis in Big Bang cosmologies began in 1986, when R. Brent Tully, of the University of Hawaii, showed that there were ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across. These structures are much too big for the Big Bang theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge complex, but the age of the universe is supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years. R. B. Tully, Astrophysics Journal 303:25-38 (1986)

You cannot, in any way shape or form, prove why the argument that “redshift = distance = a result of Doppler effect; meaning the word started off with a bang” is a more viable argument than “the distribution of matter is not homogenous, thus the big bang couldn’t have happened”. There are many more arguments against the big bang theory, but these are just a few.

You’ve also conveniently ignored the fact that many physicists have announced that the big bang theory is in contradiction to particular quantum equations:
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/quantum-equations-dispute-big-bang/
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

It seems there is no limit to how scientifically illiterate you really are. Interesting... did you ever go to school?


"Thousands of theories were proven wrong, the vast majority of the prevailing scientific theories to ever be conjured up were proven to be wrong."


For a man who demands evidence, you seem to provide absolutely none.


"Your arguments are weak. Very weak. You tell us to accept theories because “it’s science”, because “they said so”; this is no different to a Christian saying “Pope said so”. You have the internet at your disposal yet you cannot provide me with one conclusive evidence, just one."


I have provided you with evidence, you just chose to reject it. Every point of evidence provided, you reject and give some shitty excuse for why it doesn't count. The evidence was in the previous posts which you then rejected.


Read this, it tells you how the ages of the Earth and the universe are calculated.


http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe

This shows, without a shadow of a doubt, that you’re an ignorant charlatan. Every scientist would agree that most theories to ever be conjured up hitherto were proven false. You don’t have the authority to label anyone as “scientifically illiterate” when not only have you refused to have your scientific knowledge tested, but you’ve proven that you’re illiterate in the truest sense of the word on numerous of occasions, including this one (ironic huh). I was not talking about hypotheses but theories. If you want me to provide a large, never-ending list of theories that were proven wrong, just ask me. It appears you’ve ignored this link too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Blindly concede, your entire religious is built on blindly following that which has no evidence go back it. The cognitive dissonance in calling others blind when you believe prophets flew to heaven on flying ponies, is bloody ridiculous!


1) Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.


2)If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.


The other points are on here, http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round

The Prophet (SAW) flying to heaven is a miracle in Islam which means it transcends the laws of physics. On the other hand, the claims that Europhiles make about the laws of nature are claims that are supposed to be substantiated by empirical evidence. It’s ridiculous to compare a miracle with a supposedly scientific theory (one clearly revolves around faith while the latter is based on observation).

1) As early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky. The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.” McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.”

“The Newtonian hypothesis involves the necessity of the Sun, in the case of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular earth, to cast its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses the Moon, and that the theory is a blunder.” -William Carpenter

2) They do not approach from “beneath the sea”, that’s absurd. If you use the “zoom” function of a camera or binoculars, you’re able to capture the ship before it seemingly ascends from the horizon (if you were to rely on the vision of your naked eye). I’ve tried this myself btw, when I was a globe earth advocate. Turns out these crazy flat earthers were onto something.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: it’s more reasonable to give preference to empiricism concerning synthetic statements (e.g. the earth is X shape). Pree this:

"the great navigators have been frustrated in their efforts, and have been more or less confounded in their attempts to sail round the Earth upon or beyond the Antarctic circle. But if the southern region is a pole or center, like the north, there would be little difficulty in circumnavigating it, for the distance round would be comparatively small. When it is seen that the Earth is not a sphere, but a plane, having only one center, the north; and that the south is the vast icy boundary of the world, the difficulties experienced by circumnavigators can be easily understood.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham

1) I've given you the English translations of the verse which back up my points


2) I've given you the oxford definition of the eyes loins that you asked for


3 I have given you the tafsir from Ibn Kathir and others which you completely ignored. Ibn Kathir was very clear on this matter something that you ignored when you were quoting him


4) I've given you the Quranic verses that back my interpretation. You have provided none to back up yours.


I'm not going to debate the understanding of the verse as it is very clear I have provided enough evidence to justify my understanding.

I’m not really a big fan of labelling others illiterate (or derogatory names in general for that matter), but sometimes you force me to sxb (this has been recurring throughout all your posts on this thread). I’ve provided explanations and interpretations based on Lane’s definition of the word sulb and have elucidated the undeniable fact that no explanation (in practical terms) of this ayah is conclusive.

I’m not against science; I just prefer Richard Feynman’s non-dogmatic approach to science (since most theories are falsifiable), which is to always come from doubt, not certainty.


Good day

 

[Naissur]

Well, the supposed 'scientific journal' that you provided is clearly not a reliable and nor is it scientific.

Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of North America is apparently a reliable scientific journal, according to this user. I was alarmed by the fact that this user was oblivious as to what's unreliable about this until I read further and realised he was a flat earther. Oh, another one!

 

[The_Cosmos]

Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of North America is apparently a reliable scientific journal, according to this user. I was alarmed by the fact that this user was oblivious as to what's unreliable about this until I read further and realised he was a flat earther. Oh, another one!

It's beyond me how anyone could seriously think that an Islamic journal that is trying to validate the beliefs held in Islam, is a reliable scientific source?

 

[Naissur]

It's beyond me how anyone could seriously think that an Islamic journal that is trying to validate the beliefs held in Islam, is a reliable scientific source?

Confirmation bias, my guess. I also laugh when they name drop ala I like Richard Feynman's approach followed by remarks that make no sense. That's like a holocaust denier saying they like the approach of Yehuda Bauer. They don't realise people can see right through them.