quran and science

Quranexplorer wrote: Looks like this is just going around in circles � I just explained above why just picking the stars part alone from the discussion does not make any sense just like your �A is true� statement, but you again come back with the same argument

For me the trouble with all these scientific interpretations of the Quran is that statements like "See ye not how Allah hath created seven heavens in harmony, And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?" are systematically turned into miracles.
- The 7 heavens are worthless from a scientific viewpoint (science just doesn't care about heaven(s) be it 1 or 7) - but this must not stop you to believe in it ! (I don't).
-Again, that the sun is hotter than the moon is trivial and even giving it a scientific twist (by the interpreter) still doesn't change the fact that the Greeks stated the reflection business of the moon almost a thousand years earlier and opposite to the Quran in a really explicit way.

Claiming defiantly that the Quran is better anyway doesn't make this fact go away and honesty (or call it scientific practice) should make you mention the true inventor !

Now to:

And if they were to see a fragment of the heaven falling, they would say: A heap of clouds"

Sure, I know this "argument". But I can be convinced: I do believe that the earth is round, that Quantum Theory really got something to say, as does Newtons Mechanics or General Relativity. Here the evidence is nothing else than overwhelming - what I can't say about the "scientific facts" in the Quran.

More to the embryology another time.

Airmano

Edited by airmano - 27 May 2014 at 2:22pm

Quranexplorer:

The best example could be the list of planets. I grew up hearing about a solar system with 9 planets including Pluto and we understand now Pluto has been eliminated from the list, and there could be new addition(s) to this list � the only thing certain in science is the uncertainty and that�s what is driving it forward. And with this history of science, no man of science can make a statement like below because something not known to science today does not mean it is not there

This is not a good example. Calling Pluto a a planet or not is just a matter of nomenclature, it barely implies a change in theory.

...the difference is that the Quranic verses stands the test of time whereas none of the above theories have stood that in an absolute sense (there are exceptions to them within science) and no one can be sure of their fate in future as a better theory can replace them any time

The "scientific cases" in the Quran are so far off that no scientist takes them serious (and will thus not even attempt to prove them wrong). By far the biggest part of the Quran are unprovable statements of the type "if you (don't) do this or that, you'll go to hell". The rest is what was common knowledge at the time anyway. Talking about the "test of time": Newtons theory has survived several centuries. In non-relativistic situations it is still a correct concept. Einstein didn't kill Newtonian mechanics, he expanded it.    

But I like the Heisenberg�s uncertainty principle because it really kind of accepts the human limitation and this will stand the test of time for sure

Science is not about what you like or not. Science is about theories which are supported (or contradicted) by observation and measurements (data).

The Quran does not express a theory which is/can be measured or supported by data. It is not a science book. It does not contain any "scientific miracles".

Airmano

Edited by airmano - 19 June 2014 at 11:19am

Of course this is a good example showing the limitation of science

We disagree

I admire the good things science has done, but has a problem only when people try to use science as an excuse for their non-belief, because science has nothing to stand against Allah, however advanced it gets.

Science and the Quran got nothing in common.

If you expect Quran to give details like a science journal, you are mistaken.

No I don't. As told, the Quran holds no scientificly usable claims but only unprovable statements about heaven and hell.

This is the whole point, science is only a human tool operating in a limited realm with limited success in explaining things that it observes, whereas there are things beyond its realm that cannot be explained by science. The problem is still you expect this imperfect tool to give you all answers and to testify everything

I admit that we don't not know everything but as far as I can see the Quran doesn't fill this gap either.

Quran is not limited as a science book.

Sure, it is not a science book as you write yourself. The Quran doesn't care about science.

How can you blame Quran if the available imperfect human tools including science fails to measure or testify the Quran as the wisdom of Quran is clearly beyond their realms?

Give me a statement from the Quran which is more than trivial and not of the "You go to hell" kind and we will discuss things.

But whatever is in the Quran that is known to the limited knowledge of science or human data today is in perfect accordance.

We are not made out of clay, sorry.

Airmano

Edited by airmano - 24 June 2014 at 2:40pm

Quranexplorer

No matter you agree or disagree, the fact that Pluto was though of as a planet initially for many years and later found out as not a planet shows the limitation of science as a human tool.

To cut a long story short, take a look at the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet
Obviously we will never agree since even the specialists in the field do not agree on their definitions(!).
To make live easier I will give you some better examples: Classical (Newtonian) mechanics was found to break down on very small scales which lead to the formulation of Quantum mechanics.
Furthermore Newtonian mechanics did also not hold at high speeds, high gravitational fields and so on and thus Mr. Einstein had to extend Newtons view for these cases as well. This does however not mean that Newton "was wrong". It simply meant that his theory had to be extended. When you take a plane or drive over a bridge good old Newton still does a marvellous job. I can even agree that there were scientific theories which had to be abandoned, like Lamarcks theory on the evolution (but his theory is still of use in the description of progress in science). May be you can look at these statements as soothing , but before you get overjoyed you should however realize that your claim that the "Quran has withstood any tests for 1400 years flawlessly" is also "wrong" in the same sense.
With modern knowledge it is easy to see that the story about Noah's arc is impossible. In ancient times Muslims (as well as Christians) did believe in these stories in a literal sense.
You don't need rocket science to find out that there is not enough water on earth to immerse all our continents, not to talk about the impossibility to construct a boat large enough (with the means of the time) to hold all air breathing animals (+ the dinosaurs + the food) inside. There are many more examples in the Quran (like people turning into monkeys) which - when taken literally are shear nonsense. Islam - like Christianity adapt to these changes (imposed by science) by shifting prior "explanations" of our world into metaphorical meanings. So don't tell me that [the interpretation of] the Quran has withstood all tests without changes. BTW: Looking at the "sun as a lamp", you still find people here in the forum that take this claim literally, but science tells a different story.
In clear terms: The Quran get's permanently adapted to science, not the other way round ! Wicked people would call this behavior: "Moving the goal-posts".

Now to your link: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=uld0Y-mLoVQC which you repeat twice. I refuse to respond to links (films) and books without any prior explanation from the posting person.
I hope it doesn't sound rude, but to me this looks like: "I have no clue, but may be the one who wrote the book knows more". If the book got really something important to say, break it down in a couple of lines and I'm willing to discuss it.

Embryology.
You're right, I should have answered earlier. Let me group my answer together with your last question regarding the clay:

If you are sure tell me what we are made of, then I can show you what is common between that and clay

You surely know that most our body consists of water H2O (by the way the Greeks knew that long before Mohammed but in Islam it is always Mohamed which is given as the "inventor". Strange isn't it ?). Bones are mainly hydroxyapatite, with the formula Ca5(PO4)3(OH) thus Calcium based. The other main constituent element of our body is Carbon.
Most of the clays are (Alumina-)Silicates like Kaolin (Al2Si2O5(OH)4), they are thus Silicon based. So already on the level of (chemical) elements our body and clay got nothing in common. Therefore this statement is thus simply wrong when taken literally. I guess that Mohamed saw that clay and "flesh" are similar in the sense that they are both soft and easily "malleable". Some forms of clay also look similar to the color of our skin, so nothing supernatural here and in the best case some (wrong) analogy. As usual there is of course nothing about proteins, peptides, DNA and so on in the Quran. No surprise: The Quran is not a science book !

Now more specifically to embryology. In 23:12 it is written:

We created man from an essence of clay, then We placed him as a drop of fluid in a safe place. Then We made that drop of fluid into a clinging form, and then We made that form into a lump of flesh, and We made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh, and later We made him into other forms. Glory be to God the best of creators.

Concerning the clay I just responded. Now, the "drop of fluid". (Islamic) literature is full of interpretations of this "drop of fluid". Sometimes it is referred to as sperm which brings us the incredible news that kids are coming from sexual intercourse. Next the lump of flesh, mostly interpreted as an embryo: Natural abortions did and do happen all the time (and the likelihood for it to happen goes up if you have several women and also with the age of the man). So you don't need to be Gods messenger to find out that foetuses are (mainly) a "lump of flesh". It is also of no magic to state that what we call "uterus" today can be called a "safe place" for an unborn child.
Now to the last sentence "...made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh" - No, a foetus never gets converted into bones to become covered by flesh afterwards. This is shear nonsense in the light of modern knowledge.
To finish "...and later We made him into other forms" is a bit like my "A" statement. May be true, but so vague that it becomes meaningless.


Glad to be of service: Airmano

Edited by airmano - 19 July 2014 at 2:18pm