| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 dday76
|
36:33 science fallacy, 36:77 source of man |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 1 08/27/09 19:51:01 |
36:33 status that Allah brings forth grain from dead earth. This never happens.
36:77 Hath not man seen that We have created him from a drop of seed It's a new source of man to add to the list (see 'source of man' contradition at 55:14)
Last Edited By: dday76 08/27/09 20:09:09.
Edited 2 times.
|
|||
|
|
||||
 JusticeForPeace |
It is my mother tongue | #1 | ||
|
Posts: 2 12/07/09 09:11:43 |
Peace to everyone seeking guidance,
36:33 - And a sign for them is the dead land. We gave it life, and We brought forth from it grains, so that they eat thereof. So, which part is nonscientific in this Aayah? a) God is the one who revive the dead land b) The Grain is brought forth from the land, that was once dead 36:77 - Does not man see that We have created him from Nutfah (mixed male and female discharge semen drops). Yet behold! He (stands forth) as an open opponent. 55:14 - He created man (Adam) from sounding clay like the clay of pottery. Let me add one more Aayah from the Quran that clarifies potential confusion (in case you're not convinced that this one refers to Adam (peace upon him): 32:6-8 - That is the Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, the Exalted in Might, the Merciful, (6) Who perfected everything which He created and began the creation of man from clay. (7) Then He made his posterity out of the extract of a liquid disdained. (8) |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Keith and Company |
#2 | |||
|
Posts: 4208 12/07/09 09:47:06 |
JusticeForPeace wrote:Well, if it's saying that something happened as the result of action taken by a supernatural being, then that's pretty much unscientific. Whether that's a historical event or not, by the definition of the purview of science, supernatural events and beings are outside the boundaries. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
JusticeForPeace |
Difference between "Scientific Fallacy", "Never Happened", and "Not Scientifically Proven" | #3 | ||
|
Posts: 5 12/07/09 11:02:51 |
Peace to all truth seekers,
God claimed that He brought forth the grains from the dead Earth. You can't claim that this is a scientific fallacy or that it never happened, which was the point raised in the original post. A land, once crocked, dry, seemingly dead, will, at a later point, bring froth grains after a farmer puts a seed into it. These are facts, and there is no need for proof of it. In the quoted verse, God claims that He is the one who caused this to happen "And a sign for them is the dead land. We gave it life, and We brought forth from it grains, so that they eat thereof." Now, the last response suggests that we can't prove that God is the one who brought forth the grains from the ground. However, God is making this claim here. Either there is another being who claims to do that (I personally never heard of such a second claim), or There is no creator, it is all biochemical interactions, and the whole life is a big cycle of vain, or There is one Creator who brought forth the grain from the, once, dead land. I go with the third choice, believing the claim made by God, until either someone else claims the creation, or someone gives me a "definite" proof that there is no God at all! |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Keith and Company |
#4 | |||
|
Posts: 4210 12/07/09 11:20:04 |
JusticeForPeace wrote:Well, technically, people who claim that they are speaking for God have claimed that... And unless/until they can back up their claims, starting with the basic existence of gods, then it remains nothing more than a claim. The action of God in bringing forth life from the ground is indistinguishable from life springing forth with no supernatural influence at all. A land, once crocked, dry, seemingly dead, will, at a later point, bring froth grains after a farmer puts a seed into it. These are facts, and there is no need for proof of it."Seemingly dead" is an important point there. We know more than a little bit of what plants need from soil in order to grow. We know that some plants want different types of soil, different nutrients in it, different acid/base make-up. The more we know, the better we can prepare and restore ground so that it produces crops after being planeted. And given the choice between praying for God to bring forth life and irrigating the field to bring forth life, i tend to think you get better results digging a ditch. Now, the last response suggests that we can't prove that God is the one who brought forth the grains from the ground. However, God is making this claim here.G'head, prove it's god making that claim, then. Rather than just someone claiming to be God's prophet. Either there is another being who claims to do that (I personally never heard of such a second claim),Every religion has at least one member of the pantheon that either found life on Earth or caused life to be. Your ignorance does not improve your apologies. orWell, frankly, there could be a creator and it could still be biochemical interactions. Science is mute on the subject of a deity. I go with the third choice, believing the claim made by God, until either someone else claims the creation, or someone gives me a "definite" proof that there is no God at all!'Kay. More power to you. |
|||
|
|
||||
| 36:33 science fallacy, 36:77 source of man | 08/27/09 19:51:01 | dday76 |
| It is my mother tongue | 12/07/09 09:11:43 | JusticeForPeace |
| Re: 36:33 science fallacy, 36:77 source of man | 12/07/09 09:47:06 | Keith and Company |
| Difference between "Scientific Fallacy", "Never Happened", and "Not Scientifically Proven" | 12/07/09 11:02:51 | JusticeForPeace |
| Re: 36:33 science fallacy, 36:77 source of man | 12/07/09 11:20:04 | Keith and Company |
