Science and Religion

Throughout history, people have tried to use science to prove religion wrong. Claims, such as the Bible stating the Earth is 6,000 years old (which I have yet to see proven,) and things along those lines are what athiest usually use to substantiate themselves. If you can take a truth to prove part of a religion is a lie, why should the rest of it be depended on?

I myself have seen plenty of arguements against Islam of this sort, none on this board, but in general. However, this isn't true; Islam does comply with modern science.

heavens and the Earth were meshed together but We have torn them apart?

This states that heaven and Earth were once a single body, (the fiery mass before the big bang,) then they were torn apart (the big bang.)

[/i][/u]. The pull towards the absolute center of the universe is decellerating the expansion, until eventually it will turn around an crunch, back into a single mass.

 

And He [Allah] sends down from heaven mountains with ice inside them; that strike whomever He wishes or miss whoever He wishes; Its' flash almost blinds you.[/b]

Hey guys, what did we learn in science classed that has always seemed odd?

The fact that those comets that look as if they're on fire are actually partially frozen, and this Qu'ranic verse supports the fact.

 

http://islam.speed-light.info/relativity_quran.htm

 

Some interesting footnotes from the site:

 

The Christian Bible says that the universe was created less than ten thousand years ago. Science says that the universe was created 13.5 billion years ago. We can actually observe galaxies 13 billion light years away; that is, light already traveled 13 billion years before it reached us. This alone proves their Bible wrong. To fix this problem, they need the speed of light to decay (to slow down over time); that is, light was faster and covered that distance in much shorter time. But the theory of relativity says that the speed of light is constant... Since the theory of relativity contradicts their Bible, they reject it. They need the theory of relativity to be wrong for their Bible to be correct.

 

It is interesting to note that the Christian Bible has a similar claim about time dilation (time difference):

 

(2Peter 3:8) But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, AND A THOUSAND YEARS ARE LIKE A DAY. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

 

Obviously this verse is talking about God's patience, but some Christians say that it predated the scientific claims of the Koran.

 

First, if this verse was referring to time difference (time dilation) due to the mass of God's Throne, then the Bible got it wrong: 1 day at God's Throne should measure 2.25 billion years on Earth. Instead the Bible says that 1 day on Earth measures a 1000 years by God. The Bible got it in reverse! So how small is God's Throne? Even if God's Throne is microscopic, Earth is not massive enough to generate this time dilation.

 

Second, if this verse was referring to time dilation due to God's movement then it got it all wrong as well. Special relativity states that a faster moving object experiences slower time and not the other way round. In this verse in the Bible, it is man who experiences the slower time; hence travels faster than God! Man experiences less time of 1 day (travels fast) and God experiences more time of 1000 years (travels slow). This verse practically says that once God travels faster than man but immediately follows it with a fatal mistake that man travels faster than God.

 

Third, some Christians claim that Quran 32.5 (angels travel in a day the same distance that the moon travels in a 1000 years) is a restatement of this Bible verse. Not only this Bible verse does not talk about any distance traveled, but also Christians and the Jews before them use solar years. The Jews used to add a 13th lunar month every few years to make up for the difference between the lunar and the solar year. The calculations based on their standards fails to reveal the speed of light. The other problem with this Christian claim is that the Quran is referring to the angels moving and not God moving. Here in this Bible verse God has to be moving.

 

So the Bible got it wrong in every possible way.

 

Actually the Bible records scientific knowledge that contradicts all modern science and genetics. While today's scientists have confirmed that animals inherit their colors and stripes from their parents (through DNA), the Bible says something else: In Genesis 30:37-42, the Bible explains how baby goats get their streaked colors: If their parents were mating AND LOOKING at upright rods, then the baby goats will have stripes. While if their parents were mating BUT NOT LOOKING at upright rods, then the baby goats will not have stripes!

 

Do we really need science to reject this one?

 

Anyhow, if science is too much for the Bible, let's try common sense: Common sense says that the sun illuminates Earth, and that without sunlight darkness will cover the Earth. Is there anything simpler? But the Bible says something else: In Genesis 1:1-31, the Bible explains how the sun is related to day and night. The Bible says that on the first day, God created the light and darkness on Earth. The first evening came and the first morning followed. But God did not create the sun until the fourth day, specifically after three evenings and three mornings. So three evenings and the three mornings occurred on Earth before there was a sun. So according to the Bible, daylight occurs without the sun!

 

Anyways, defend yourself, refute these points, have fun .

I am an Atheist, and I don't use science to back up my ideas. I mean, some science you can use, but whatever, that's not my main point.

I accept that I don't know, and since I don't know, I choose not to believe anything. I don't want a religion as my comfort food to an answer. How can a religion attest to being THE only right religion out there? And if there's more than one right religion? Great. But we don't know. There are so many people who have shut their minds off (mainly Christians, from what I've seen) and just are so self-absorbed in their thinking that that there is ONE truth, and they alone are the beholders of that truth. Heaven forbid a different denomination of Christianity disagrees

I'm not Atheist because science tells me to be. I'm atheist because there aren't answers, and I don't want to justify my life with a book (be it bible or some other religious book).

As an Atheist in a Catholic school (long story) I am exposed to religion constantly (luckily for me it is never shoved down anyone's throat). I am a great believer in science and I have a question that always nags at me whenever I'm in Theology. My question is (for all the religious types) For more than a thousand years the Church maintianed the scientific validity of the statements made in the Bible... then they were proved wrong. Now many Christians claim that the Bible stories are simply tales designed to help us live our lives correctly and that while God does exist, the Bible isn't literally true. However, how could something that is supposed to be the story of God's chosen people (old testament) and God's son (new testament) and some say written by God have been wrongly interpretted for more than a thousand years.

Never once have I heard of a case where science has been forced to retreat in the face of religion; however, the last five hundred years have been full of cases where religion has been forced to retreat by science.

We read a book in class called the Tao of Pooh . I don't remember the exact words but the gist of one of the paragraphs was... Science answers things it can't explain by saying instict. Science is not all knowing. Religion is better, because Religion is all knowing.

In my opinion this is junk because at least science attempts to answer questions it can't understand instead of chalking it all up to 'faith'.

MJ, this is your most assinine post yet! read on...

Can anyone guess what this refers to? For the uneducated reader, I'll explain it to you.

This states that heaven and Earth were once a single body, (the fiery mass before the big bang,) then they were torn apart (the big bang.)

This refers to heaven (in olden terms, existance outside of Earth was the heavens,) and we are still expanding refers to the expansion of the universe.

On the day when We will fold the heaven' date=' like the folder compacts the books, and as We originated the first creation We shall return it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will deliver.

This speaks of the big crunch which scientist believe will happen.

Yes, I agree sounds like the universe will end. But it says We again, hummmmm.

 

When the Big Bang first happened, the near infinite mass body had an immense gravitational pull which held it together. Because of this high gravitational pull, it had immensive momentum.

Ok Einstein, hold right there... momentum and gravity have NOTHING to do with each other ie. momentum = mass times velocity, gravity is the effects of to masses upon each other.

 

Now, physics has shown that all bodies keep their momentum, and in explosions, kenetic energy increases.

This is jibberish ... all bodies will keep there momentum until acted on by a force (newtons 1st law of motion... has nothing to do "kinect energy increasing" which of coarse is ludicrous.

 

So, as a result of this, when the Big Bang occured, the Universe began expanding at an astronomical rate, and will eventually slow down. Now, momentum has to be conserved, but this is ONLY in closed systems, and gravity is an outside force, so it isn't a closed system. The pull towards the absolute center of the universe is decellerating the expansion, until eventually it will turn around an crunch, back into a single mass.

This is true... it has nothing to do with closed systems, it has to do with gravity acting on everything else in the universe. This is exactly the premise Einstein used when he described the universe as being finite.

 

 

Now, let us think... are the mountains constantly moving...

Yes.

So, what scientific principle is this referring to?

Tectonic Plates.

Mountains are moving away like clouds are moving? Not exactly, clouds float... but I seriously doubt this refers to tectonoc shifts.

 

This one, I admit, is a bit hard to see, but I've got it figured.

Just, as CES'd do, go hmmm... for a minute or two.

This is a stretch, everyone from the beginning of time knows that it's harder to breath on mountaintops than in the valleys below..

 

Give up?

Enlighten us, oh great one.

 

 

 

 

 

Atmospheric pressure.

We know, for a fact, that on Earth, we breath normally, but in space, without a pressurized suit, we'd implode.

You'd Explode... the pressure in your body is about 14 psi... you'd pop like an ant in a microwave.

"as if they are ascending to the sky."

Well, we also know the higher up we get, the lighter the air. ^.^

We do, well gowlly..

Hey guys, what did we learn in science classed that has always seemed odd?

The fact that those comets that look as if they're on fire are actually partially frozen, and this Qu'ranic verse supports the fact.

http://islam.speed-light.info/relativity_quran.htm

 

Some interesting footnotes from the site:

The Christian Bible says that the universe was created less than ten thousand years ago.

Science says that the universe was created 13.5 billion years ago. We can actually observe galaxies 13 billion light years away; that is, light already traveled 13 billion years before it reached us. This alone proves their Bible wrong. To fix this problem, they need the speed of light to decay (to slow down over time); that is, light was faster and covered that distance in much shorter time. But the theory of relativity says that the speed of light is constant... Since the theory of relativity contradicts their Bible, they reject it. They need the theory of relativity to be wrong for their Bible to be correct.

It is interesting to note that the Christian Bible has a similar claim about time dilation (time difference):

 

(2Peter 3:8) But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, AND A THOUSAND YEARS ARE LIKE A DAY. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Obviously this verse is talking about God's patience, but some Christians say that it predated the scientific claims of the Koran.

First, if this verse was referring to time difference (time dilation) due to the mass of God's Throne, then the Bible got it wrong: 1 day at God's Throne should measure 2.25 billion years on Earth. Instead the Bible says that 1 day on Earth measures a 1000 years by God. The Bible got it in reverse! So how small is God's Throne? Even if God's Throne is microscopic, Earth is not massive enough to generate this time dilation.

So if you want to do something as stupid as try to prove the relativistic effect of mass with bible verses then here you go, it even seems more "relative" since it works both ways!

Second, if this verse was referring to time dilation due to God's movement then it got it all wrong as well.

Third, some Christians claim that Quran 32.5 (angels travel in a day the same distance that the moon travels in a 1000 years) is a restatement of this Bible verse.

Not only this Bible verse does not talk about any distance traveled, but also Christians and the Jews before them use solar years. The Jews used to add a 13th lunar month every few years to make up for the difference between the lunar and the solar year.

The calculations based on their standards fails to reveal the speed of light.

The other problem with this Christian claim is that the Quran is referring to the angels moving and not God moving. Here in this Bible verse God has to be moving.

So the Bible got it wrong in every possible way.

Actually the Bible records scientific knowledge that contradicts all modern science and genetics. While today's scientists have confirmed that animals inherit their colors and stripes from their parents (through DNA), the Bible says something else: In Genesis 30:37-42, the Bible explains how baby goats get their streaked colors: If their parents were mating AND LOOKING at upright rods, then the baby goats will have stripes. While if their parents were mating BUT NOT LOOKING at upright rods, then the baby goats will not have stripes!

37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban's animals. 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob.

It never states the reason some were striped and some were spotted only that they were, and they were made to copulate by the branches.

Do we really need science to reject this one?

Anyhow, if science is too much for the Bible, let's try common sense: Common sense says that the sun illuminates Earth, and that without sunlight darkness will cover the Earth. Is there anything simpler? But the Bible says something else: In Genesis 1:1-31, the Bible explains how the sun is related to day and night. The Bible says that on the first day, God created the light and darkness on Earth. The first evening came and the first morning followed. But God did not create the sun until the fourth day, specifically after three evenings and three mornings. So three evenings and the three mornings occurred on Earth before there was a sun. So according to the Bible, daylight occurs without the sun!

Anyways, defend yourself, refute these points, have fun .

Done, and my head hurts from reading your stupid blasphemy.

MRIH, I didn't make up those points from the site, I just posted them.

Now, if you really want, I can get this same site that was written by a scientist, and if you want to try and prove a scientist wrong, good luck.

About "we," this is from a translation diffuculty, hard to understand without knowing something about Islam. Allah is refered to as we, except for sometimes when his name is referenced. This is because he has ninety-nine names to reference his ninety-nine properties (none of which'd be human ).

Heh, it seems I made a mistake up there. I believe it's supposed to read "and to counter this high gravitational pull, it needs to have high momentum." I'm not quite sure right now, a bit tired. Anyways.

About the tectonics. Well, I understand your point about it seemings... odd. But, the clouds don't float away from the Earth, they float apart from eachother. Or towards. And we know that each of the tectonic plates shifts all the time, but at infinitesimal levels.

You'd Explode... the pressure in your body is about 14 psi... you'd pop like an ant in a microwave.

Right then, next time I'll say you go bye-bye. I was pretty sure it's implode, but the Qu'ran just said it'd open their chests. And when you open... you explode... ho ho ho

Mountains of Ice? Giant Flashes? Hitting people? ... MJ, when was the last time you heard of someone being hit with a comet, or seeing giant flashes from a comet?

This is called personification. It's not referring to PEOPLE, but celestial bodies. Giant flashes = celestial body going "bye-bye," as referred to above.

Restated: I didn't read the Bible, not entirely. These are just footnotes from the site, as I said.

MRIH, I didn't make up those points from the site, I just posted them.

Now, if you really want, I can get this same site that was written by a scientist, and if you want to try and prove a scientist wrong, good luck.

About "we," this is from a translation diffuculty, hard to understand without knowing something about Islam. Allah is refered to as we, except for sometimes when his name is referenced. This is because he has ninety-nine names to reference his ninety-nine properties (none of which'd be human ).

Heh, it seems I made a mistake up there. I believe it's supposed to read "and to counter this high gravitational pull, it needs to have high momentum." I'm not quite sure right now, a bit tired. Anyways.

About the tectonics. Well, I understand your point about it seemings... odd. But, the clouds don't float away from the Earth, they float apart from eachother. Or towards. And we know that each of the tectonic plates shifts all the time, but at infinitesimal levels.

Right then, next time I'll say you go bye-bye. I was pretty sure it's implode, but the Qu'ran just said it'd open their chests. And when you open... you explode... ho ho ho

more irrelevance.

 

This is called personification. It's not referring to PEOPLE, but celestial bodies. Giant flashes = celestial body going "bye-bye," as referred to above.

now your either back peddling or changing more meanings of words... I have already contested all of your points, and you have nothing to counter with. It is not your fault that you have nothing... it's just that there is nothing, at least nothing credible. I ghuess one could just post more random shit and claim it proves something...

 

Restated: I didn't read the Bible, not entirely. These are just footnotes from the site, as I said.

Well only an idiot would post something he believed, but not know.... Throw yourself in the idiot box.

 

 

... and when you come out, try to prove me wrong!

I would post it, but it'd make my post too long, so here's a link.

http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/june02_index.php?l=22

Such is the story of one PhD holder, and, in my humble opinion, they aren't very stupid or irrational.

I'm still looking for that article... it was in a magazine, so they aren't easy to find.

But, while I'm looking, I have a question for you, MRIH: If you regard the Qu'ran as total bullshit, why would you regard the Hadith's, written and spoken by followers of the previously proclaimed bullshit, to be true? It's like being Christian, but not believing in Christ... it doesn't make sense.

I would post it, but it'd make my post too long, so here's a link.

Such is the story of one PhD holder, and, in my humble opinion, they aren't very stupid or irrational.

But, while I'm looking, I have a question for you, MRIH: If you regard the Qu'ran as total bullshit, why would you regard the Hadith's, written and spoken by followers of the previously proclaimed bullshit, to be true? It's like being Christian, but not believing in Christ... it doesn't make sense.

I have a question for you MJ, Why did yopu post all of that scientific proof crap against Christianity, and then give up after I refudiated it all point by point... I didn't expect you to give up that easily... Does this mean you agree with me? And by agree here I mean agree that the article was bullshit, I know we'll never agree on islam.

What you guys at least agree that you are both praying to/about the same god?...

Because once you figure that much out... it's really just a question of how to interpret it...

The other religion had a prophet who was a massmurdering, insane childmolester and in this religion you

Aisha was sexually developed when they first had intercourse

She was NINE YEARS OLD you piece of islamic trash!!!!

And women were burned at the stakes in Massechusetts<sp and deemed WITCHES for simple blasphemy in there speech. Back then, the CHRISTIAN belief of the almighty permitted such punishment to another human in some sick way or other. Now C-J, your getting fucking old real quick..

Pedophila by its definition is a SOCIAL belief that has been deemed BAD, why?? simple..we are better humans then we once were to each other in some respects. You are living the PAST into TODAY. Why do you fucking INSIST on persisting. Don't make me put up a fucking poll, or even worse, get angry.

I can see how it was much easier for Jaffer to refute YOU over MRIH. MRIH, will at least fucking SHUT UP about it and go on, AND BRINGS TONS OF KNOWLEDGE AND CONJECTURE. Christ man, let MRIH handle this from now on, your fucking yourself here.

.

.

And women were burned at the stakes in Massechusetts<sp and deemed WITCHES for simple blasphemy in there speech. Back then, the CHRISTIAN belief of the almighty permitted such punishment to another human in some sick way or other. Now C-J, your getting fucking old real quick..

 

 

Pedophila by its definition is a SOCIAL belief that has been deemed BAD, why?? simple..we are better humans then we once were to each other in some respects. You are living the PAST into TODAY. Why do you fucking INSIST on persisting. Don't make me put up a fucking poll, or even worse, get angry.

 

I can see how it was much easier for Jaffer to refute YOU over MRIH. MRIH, will at least fucking SHUT UP about it and go on, AND BRINGS TONS OF KNOWLEDGE AND CONJECTURE. Christ man, let MRIH handle this from now on, your fucking yourself here.

.

.

You must be equally stupid if you dont see the difference between the acts of single individuals, and the acts of the founder/leader/prophet of a religion.

Nice to see that you

She was twelve you athiest piece of trash .

You know nothing of Islamic tradition, so stop spouting out your senseless trash.

She was twelve you athiest piece of trash .

You know nothing of Islamic tradition, so stop spouting out your senseless trash.

She was NINE when they got married, and even younger when they first "met". And even if she HAD been twelve, it would still be sick for a grown man to have sex with her, but since he probably had the emotional maturity and IQ of a 12 yearold, I guess he didnt realize that. And given the fact that he also was considered insane by most people, that would also give us a clue to his acts. And now 1 billion people over the globe follows this pathetic excuse for a human being. If he lived in the year 2005, he would most certainly be on deathrow by now.

Islam is as uncivilised and barbaric as it was 1400 years ago, no wonder you paople have opinions that makes the rest of us want to puke our guts out.

You (MJ) accept paedophilia, something that in the western world is considered amongst the worst acts of them all, thats just one of many things thats wrong with islam..

She was NINE when they got married, and even younger when they first "met". And even if she HAD been twelve, it would still be sick for a grown man to have sex with her, but since he probably had the emotional maturity and IQ of a 12 yearold, I guess he didnt realize that. And given the fact that he also was considered insane by most people, that would also give us a clue to his acts. And now 1 billion people over the globe follows this pathetic excuse for a human being. If he lived in the year 2005, he would most certainly be on deathrow by now.

 

Islam is as uncivilised and barbaric as it was 1400 years ago, no wonder you paople have opinions that makes the rest of us want to puke our guts out.

 

You (MJ) accept paedophilia, something that in the western world is considered amongst the worst acts of them all, thats just one of many things thats wrong with islam..

This is all bullshit.

This western civilization, guess what? It hasn't existed for 1400 years. Perhaps you have stricter "moral values," like letting a 13 year old get an abortion, when she isn't even old enough to go on a field trip without a permission form.

I'll ask CES to bring up that little article he did not so long ago, about how in the US, up until either 1820 or 1920, it was OK to have sex with anyone 7 and up. You must be proud of your history.

This is all bullshit.

This western civilization, guess what? It hasn't existed for 1400 years.

Perhaps you have stricter "moral values," like letting a 13 year old get an abortion, when she isn't even old enough to go on a field trip without a permission form.

I'll ask CES to bring up that little article he did not so long ago, about how in the US, up until either 1820 or 1920, it was OK to have sex with anyone 7 and up. You must be proud of your history.

The idiot CJ was banned for having no substance,or opinion of his own that actually made sense, and Jaffer leaves to prepare for battle with the Infidel MRIH, Jaffer is weary and cold, and has blown "CHUNKS" at least 24 times now... Stay tuned

.

.

You know, my favorite thing in life is that Christianity is losing followers and Islam is gaining followers. I'm going to sleep for now, maybe tommorow (12 AM )

Your "convert or die" tactics do work! No one doubts that!

Gotta find some way to rid us of infedels .

Besides... being a Christian, as I've heard from a Christian friend of mine, to go to heaven, you aren't exactly required to be a good person, just a good Christian (which in most ways... is being a good person...) So, if, as you say, "Convert or Die" (which really makes no sense, 10% of the Egyptian population is Coptic Christian...), and supposing your religion is true, wouldn't they have a better existance if they went to heaven, instead of converting to my, as you claim, false religion and then going to hell?

It shows the quality of Christians in the world today.

About the same quality as 15% - 25% of the Muslims in the world today.

(Debate comes later... sleepy)

Gotta find some way to rid us of infedels .

Besides... being a Christian, as I've heard from a Christian friend of mine, to go to heaven, you aren't exactly required to be a good person, just a good Christian (which in most ways... is being a good person...)

10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

(Romans 10:9-10)

So, if, as you say, "Convert or Die" (which really makes no sense, 10% of the Egyptian population is Coptic Christian...), and supposing your religion is true, wouldn't they have a better existance if they went to heaven, instead of converting to my, as you claim, false religion and then going to hell?

It shows the quality of Christians in the world today.

About the same quality as 15% - 25% of the Muslims in the world today.

(Debate comes later... sleepy)

Any convert to any religion shows either weak moral character, or intellegence .

And, MRIH, you've helped me prove yet ANOTHER surah from the Qu'ran ^_^.

I don't want to copy the verses, but I'll paraphrase what I'm aiming at:

Surah Al-Hajri

"And even if you show a kafir(nonbeliever,) this divine write, with all of its science, all of its morals, they will not believe. Kafirs are so bent on denying the truth, that if we (Allah, as earlier clarified,) open a straight path to heaven, that will not suffice; the kafir will call it a trick."

You're just aiding my book .