|
| |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Denis
Giron
Joined: 07 Sep 2002
Posts: 104
Location: New York City, Darul-Kufr
|
 Posted:
Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:44 pm
Post subject: |
 |
|
Pax
Vobis Spinoza
That sounds great. I anxiously await that, and my buddies
Lewis and Short are at my side waiting with me. The crux
of Nadir's argument is that if you have an anceint or
medieval text that contains eight statements that can be
correlated with modern science, there is no sensible
explanation save that a "greater power" is the
author of the text. If you can come up with eight
statements from Virgil, that'll be just fine. Though Nadir
might try to then raise other Qur'anic statements aside
from the eight he has already called to witness, it would
be a moot point if we can demonstrate at
least eight in other texts. I myself have been
planning on correlating passages from the medieval Hebrew
poems of Ibn Ezra with modern science, but have never
gotten around to it. Maybe I'll get cracking on that later
this week. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
 |
PeaceOnEarth
Joined: 13 Sep 2003
Posts: 102
|
| Posted:
Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:07 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Denis/Spinoza,
I am not understanding why you are trying to find other
sources with 8 or more "miracles" to disqualify
Nadir's claims.
You do not need to do this if you agree:
(a) that those "miracles" pointed out by Nadir
Ahmed are not scientific facts in the Quran - people like
Nadir are taking far-fetched explanations to extract such
ideas out of Quran when they are not in the Quran to begin
with.
and
(b) that even if the Quran has scientific miracles, it
cannot be the word of God. Worse, it could be the word of
Satan for all the inhuman principles outlined in the Quran.
Scientic facts cannot obviate a need to look at this
ominous side of Quran;
Both these arguments have been raised very effectively by
Ali Sina in the debate but Nadir has chosen to side step
them.
But more than that, Nadir Ahmed is not clear what his
hypothesis is. Is he saying that, if there are
"miracles" (or scientific facts not likely to be
known to an ordinary man), then the book containing 8 such
miracles is a word of God?
If Nadir is claiming this, then is he willing to find any
work that meets this requirement to be a work of God as
well? If he does not agree, then he needs to qualify his
criteria to distinguish Quran somehow.
Nadir has not done that.
In a previous message, I had provided an example of a
mathematical genius of 20th century who has shown
mathematical "miracles". I have mentioned in
that article "the miraculous" mathematical
theorems proven by an individual who had never had any
formal education. His works are far superior to any
"miracles" in Quran, far more objective, and are
still a subject of inquiry of many doctoral students in
math departments.
There is no need to find some Latin or Hebrew literature
to find "miracles". The above is more than
sufficient to pose these questions to Nadir Ahmed:
* Do you call this a work of God?
* How is Quran superior to this work?
* Given that this work is more objective than the Quran
and has more superior miracles, do you agree that it is a
bigger miracle than the Quran?
_________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -
Russell
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye.
The more light you shine on it, the more it will
contract." |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
PeaceOnEarth
Joined: 13 Sep 2003
Posts: 102
|
| Posted:
Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:23 am
Post subject: Nadir Ahmed's approach is not
scientific |
|
|
What science is Nadir
talking about? His approach (or that of Quran for that
matter) is far from scientific.
For one thing, scientific work is never cast in stone. It
is open to debate and correction.
The Scientific Method From
observation to law
People have long examined things in the world and wondered
about them. The scientific method is a process to
construct a reliable, consistent, and non-arbitrary
representation of the world. There is no one
"scientific method" that all scientists follow
as an algorithm. Science allows for creativity, genius,
inspiration and new ideas to enter at any stage in the
scientific process. What differentiates science from
non-science is that such creativity is tested against
experimental results, reviewed and published.
Step 1 Observation:
A good scientist is observant and notices things in the
world around him/herself. (S)he sees, hears, or in some
other way notices what’s going on in the world and
becomes curious about what’s happening. This can and
does include reading and studying what others have done in
the past because scientific knowledge is cumulative. In
physics, when Newton came up with his Theory of Motion, he
based his hypothesis on the work of Copernicus, Kepler,
and Galileo as well as his own, newer observations.
Step 2 Question:
The scientist then raises a question about what (s)he sees
going on. The question raised must have a “simple,”
concrete answer that can be obtained by performing an
experiment. For example, “How many students came to
school today?” could be answered by counting the
students present on campus, but “Why did you come to
school today?” couldn’t really be answered by doing an
experiment.
Step 3 Hypothesis:
This is a tentative answer to the question: a testable
explanation for what was observed. The scientist tries to
explain what caused what was observed. Hypotheses are
based on previous knowledge, facts, and general
principles. Your answer to the question of what caused the
observed effect will be based on your previous knowledge
of what causes similar effects in similar situations.
Multiple hypotheses should be proposed whenever possible.
One should think of alternative causes that could explain
the observation (the correct one may not even be one that
was thought of!)
Step 4 Prediction:
Next, the experimenter uses deductive reasoning to test
the hypothesis.
Deductive reasoning flows from general to specific. From
general premises, a scientist would extrapolate to
specific results: if all organisms have cells and humans
are organisms, then humans should have cells. This is a
prediction about a specific case based on the general
premises.
Generally, in the scientific method, if a particular
hypothesis/premise is true and “X” experiment is done,
then one should expect (prediction) a certain result.
Step 5 Testing:
Then, the scientist performs an experiment to see if the
predicted results are obtained. If the expected results
are obtained, that supports (but does not prove) the
hypothesis. If the expected results are NOT obtained, then
the hypothesis is modified.
Often in science when doing the experiment, a controlled
experiment is used. The scientist must contrast an
“experimental group” with a “control group”. The
two groups are treated EXACTLY alike except for the ONE
variable being tested. Sometimes several experimental
groups may be used. For example, in an experiment to test
the effects of day length on plant flowering, one could
compare normal, natural day length (the control group) to
several variations (the experimental groups).
When doing an experiment, replication is important.
Everything should be tried several times on several
subjects. For example, in the experiment just mentioned, a
student scientist would have at least three plants in the
control group and each of the experimental groups, while a
“real” researcher would probably have several dozen.
If a scientist had only one plant in each group, and one
of the plants died, there probably would be no way of
determining if the cause of death was related to the
experiment being conducted.
The experimenter gathers actual, quantitative data from
the experiment. Data needs to be compared statistically.
It’s not enough to say that the average for group
“X” was one thing and the average for group “Y”
was another, so they were different or not. The scientist
must also calculate the standard deviation or some other
statistical analysis to document that any difference is
statistically significant.
Step 6 Analysis:
The results of experiments are analyzed. Often this leads
to more and different experiments to examine other
variables. Sometimes an experiment yields and unexpected
result that changes the whole idea and a new hypothesis is
then created and tested.
Research is cumulative and progressive. Scientists build
on the work of previous researchers, and one important
part of any good research is to first do a literature
review to find out what previous research has already been
done in the field. Science is a process — new things are
being discovered and old, long-held theories are modified
or replaced with better ones as more data/knowledge is
accumulated.
Publish:
When, the scientist finds information by experimentation
that has value for other scientists, it is written up in a
particular format and sent to a Scientific Journal. A
scientific paper contains not only the conclusions of the
work, but also a detailed description of the data and
methods used to generate the data. Scientific Journals
have a set of reviewers who examine the paper for any
obvious flaws in researchers methodology. Often scientific
papers must pass intense scrutiny and sometimes an
important paper will result in a conference of scientists
who will examine, critique and discuss the merits of the
research. Sometimes further experimentation and
replication of results is demanded before a new idea or
finding is accepted. This level of scrutiny is designed to
ensure that as people do further research, the previous
results were acceptably valid, and can be reliably used to
base further research.
Hypothesis changes to a
theory:
A theory is a generalization based on many observations
and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that
fits existing data and explains how processes or events
are thought to occur. It is a basis for predicting future
events or discoveries. Theories may be modified as new
information is gained. This definition of a theory is in
sharp contrast to colloquial usage, where people say
something is “just a theory,” thereby intending to
imply a great deal of uncertainty. When observations and
ideas become a scientific theory it means that those ideas
have been widely tested, replicated, and validated by
numerous experiments and facts.
Theory changes to a Law:
When description of a natural phenomena does not vary, and
withstands every test and experiment, over time it becomes
a Scientific Law. Even at
this stage, Laws are subject to open questioning and even
one scientific evidence against it is sufficient to topple
it. That it is testable and falsifiable is of fundamental
importance for a law to be considered scientific.
_________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -
Russell
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye.
The more light you shine on it, the more it will
contract."
Last edited by PeaceOnEarth on Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:48 am;
edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
rand
Joined: 29 Jul 2002
Posts: 1858
|
| Posted:
Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:31 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Good points Peace On
Earth. I hope Nadir will address some of these issues.
Let's assume for arguments sake that there are 8
miraculous scientific verses in quran.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5111/islam.html
writes:
| Quote: |
The Qur'an does not name all of
God's messengers (40:7
but does, in various locations, list twenty-five
that were sent to the Semitic peoples, including
Adam, Noah, Moses, Job and Jesus. Muslim popular
belief holds the total number of prophets to be
124,000 and other numbers, such as 144,000 and one
million, are also thrown around. |
Hence, these words can be plagiarized from a prophet that
lived before or after muhammad.
So if we are forced to accept that those 8 verses must be
from prophecy (and I am very far from reaching that point)
then that does not prove that the rest of the quran is via
prophecy.
| Quote: |
| [6.39] And they who reject Our
communications are deaf and dumb, in utter
darkness; whom Allah pleases He causes to err and
whom He pleases He puts on the right way. |
It is possible that God is causing you to err by seeing
miracles in the Quran.
Best regards,
Rand |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Nadir_ahmed
Joined: 03 Jan 2004
Posts: 10
|
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
bread
Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 2067
Location: Eurasia
|
| Posted:
Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:49 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Mr. Nadir Ahmed,
that is great! when can we expect Mr. Esposito and the
``Others`` here? Looking forward to discussing wioth them.
By the way, did you read my last question? I am patiently
waiting for your answers and if you have any, for your
proofs.
_________________
Bread, proudly a former Muslim who saw the light.Islam is
the only personality cult dedicated to a dead man,
Muhammad. Muhammad is the only paedophile, antisemite,
ethnic cleanser and rapist who is worshipped and praised
for ``moral``behaviour. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
PeaceOnEarth
Joined: 13 Sep 2003
Posts: 102
|
| Posted:
Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:04 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Nadir Ahmed seems to
have accepted his defeat. He now realizes that the
arguments in this thread are too strong and clearly
undermine the Quran. So what did this self-proclaimed
filthy muslim do?
He removed all references to this thread which he had on
his web site until sometime ago today.
Nadir,
You are not just a filthy as
you have called yourself. You are a cowardly
loser too. I dare you to restore the link to this
thread. Let all the readers of your website see the link
to this thread.
_________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -
Russell
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye.
The more light you shine on it, the more it will
contract."
Last edited by PeaceOnEarth on Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:43 am;
edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
bread
Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 2067
Location: Eurasia
|
| Posted:
Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:29 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Nadir Ahmed seems to have accepted
his defeat. He now realizes that the arguments in
this thread are too strong and clearly undermine
the Quran. So what did this self-proclaimed filthy
muslim do?
He removed all references to this thread which he
had on his web site until sometime ago today. |
Is that True Mr. Nadir??? 
What happened to freedom of _expression? Why the
censorship, Mr. Nadir?
You said those who win post the debate. Now why have you
removed the link? Do you feel you lost??
_________________
Bread, proudly a former Muslim who saw the light.Islam is
the only personality cult dedicated to a dead man,
Muhammad. Muhammad is the only paedophile, antisemite,
ethnic cleanser and rapist who is worshipped and praised
for ``moral``behaviour. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
adnan
Joined: 29 Jun 2002
Posts: 3092
Location: Ex-Muslim from Pakistan, now in USA
|
| Posted:
Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:39 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| guys i think there
are still some links left, check it out. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
X
Joined: 08 Dec 2002
Posts: 42
|
| Posted:
Wed Jan 14, 2004 3:21 am
Post subject: |
|
|
what about your arguments about science and the Quran? Did
you forget about those. You lost the debate on that one
now you are changing gears, I find this very strange |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
X
Joined: 08 Dec 2002
Posts: 42
|
| Posted:
Wed Jan 14, 2004 3:27 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| X wrote: |
what about your arguments about science and the
Quran? Did you forget about those. You lost the
debate on that one now you are changing gears, I
find this very strange |
The Prophet of Islam and his rightly-guided Caliphs saw to
it that no trace was left of the pre-Islamic religion and
culture of Arabia, not even in the consciousness of the
converts. Franz Babinger writes vis-a-vis the pre-Islamic
Sabaean civilization of Arabia: “The new creed had the
greatest interest in obliterating all recollection of the
pagan period, not only in stone monuments which still
survived the natural weathering--these were destroyed to
provide material for new buildings, or burned for lime or
sometimes out of sheer vandalism--but
also in literature, and even in consigning the
ancient language to oblivion.”
First Encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936, Leiden, 1987, Vol.
VII, P. 15. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
trubluearthling
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 32
Location: New Kafirland
|
| Posted:
Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:16 am
Post subject: |
 |
|
It is particularly
irksome when Nadir prods Dr Sina shut down the site every
now and then. Add to that the regular rude, insulting,
boastful and colourless language he uses to play down the
event. Poor Nadir thinks all this is a surefire recipe for
success, a psychological advantage over his opponent. If
it makes you feel better Nadir, good onya. Little does he
realise that HE is the one beaten left right and centre.
Is Ali's second response added in his website yet?
Nadir Ahmed wrote:
| Quote: |
| IM SUCH A FILTHY MUSLIM |
If Mr Nadir gets his inspiration from the Quran we should
take it in stride when he says something consistent with
the teaching of that book- contradictory, repetitive,
incoherent, confusing and downright evil.
Nadir Ahmed also wrote
these:
| Quote: |
| And Now... we have come for you,
Ali Sina |
| Quote: |
| All the cheap polemics of the
Christians and Atheists have been silenced and
refuted in this one debate. |
| Quote: |
| no ... no.. ali.... Im not going
to let you run.... |
| Quote: |
| who cares... yawn.... |
| Quote: |
| But if you run Ali, then it will
not be the first time ,many have done so,the
Scientific and Archaeological evidences of the
Quran is IRREFUTABLE .. .. I think you know that
Ali... that probably explains your reluctancy.... |
| Quote: |
| What the...??? I never stated that
this is "the only thing I want to talk
about" this is a LIE. |
| Quote: |
| The debate has not even begun yet
and you have already been proven wrong! |
| Quote: |
What the..... this is a complete LIE !!!!!!! Now,
Ali Sina, by the grace of God, you have been
exposed as a liar just like Robert Morey:
|
| Quote: |
| I am challenging you.... to show
your evidence for this statement which you have
made, if you can not, then this will expose you as
a liar once and for all |
| Quote: |
| I can kinda figure, that Ali Sina
will never post this debate the debate folder.... |
When I jump to your website can I expect to see the whole
debate as it happened. Or at least ALL of what YOU and ALI
SINA wrote, unabridged?
Do you still stand your ground Nadir?
_________________
An ex-muslim since 1989. Islam robbed me of my sweet
childhood. Filled them with terrifying memories. Now as an
avowed atheist, humanist and a staunch anti-islam activist
I chase Islam into its own doom. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
Piggy
Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 1168
|
| Posted:
Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:39 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Nadir sounds/writes
like Menj????
Similar mentality, attitude and crass, egotistical
absurdness.
This person doesn't deserve any more attention, or time
wasted on his ridiculous claims.
I think it is highly possible that this person, Nadir is
deliberately here to attract attention to his web-site and
throw a spanner in the works to create a diversion for
Ali, in the knowledge that Ali is currently engaged in
REAL DEBATE with WORTHY opponents.
Giving credit where it is due.........Nadir is a good
laugh though. 
_________________
"Let us take our refuge in the community of those who
seek the truth and endeavor to live in the truth"
-Let the Children Play - Bring Joy to the World- |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
haverbob
Joined: 14 Jan 2004
Posts: 1
|
 Posted:
Thu Jan 15, 2004 12:54 am
Post subject: To Mr Nadir and Mr Sina |
|
|
Please excuse me if I
have missed something because I am new. Mr. Nadir, it
seems as though you feel that if the Qur'an agrees with
science, it is proof that it is the direct word of God. So
you are using science as somewhat of an official
arbitrator here. Just remember, if you want to get in bed
with science, you have to stay in bed with science.
Has anyone thought of asking this whole "scientific
validity" question backwards? Remember, that since
the Qur'an is the direct word of God, word for word, there
cannot be even the slightest of errors, and if there is a
scientific error (since you like to use science), then the
entire Qur'an falls to peices because it was claimed as
directly from God. I didn't make that rule, Islam did.
So, Mr. Nadir, could you please explain to everyone about
the jinn and shooting stars and explain how science would
agree with thus?
Q. 72: 8
“And (the Jinn who had listened to the Qur'an said): We
had sought the heaven but had found it filled with strong
warders and meteors.
9.
And we used to sit on places (high) therein to listen. But
he who listeneth now findeth a flame in wait for
him;"
Q. 37: 6/10
Except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they
are pursued by a flaming fire, of piercing brightness.
Notice the word "pursued"? Do you believe that
science would agree or disagree with this? Please explain.
I have never, in my life EVER had a Muslim give me any
sort of explanation for this. I believe that science would
say that it is more like the earth pursuing the shooting
stars (meteorite particles) by running in to them during
it's rotation. The particles themselves are relatively
stationary.
Go here to review what science says
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question12.html
Then, please tell me how you reconcile this.
Q. 67: 5
And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with
Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to
drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the
Penalty of the Blazing Fire.
I don't know if this one is the right translation. Here is
my source.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/067.qmt.html.
This is the University of Southern California website, not
some hokey homepage.
it has translations from YUSUFALI, PICKTHAL and SHAKIR and
all three uses the word missile. Why are these three
translators mistranslating the Qur'an? If you claim that
missile was really supposed to mean something like
projectile or something else, it would still be the same.
It stills comes off as something fired at the Jinn and
something that pursues the jinn. We know that is not true.
Meteorites are not fired at anyone, nor do they
"pursue" anything. They get caught up by the
earth's movement.
Unless you can answer me credibly and clearly, you have
lost this debate. This is surely an incorrect explanation
of meteorites, Therefore it would appear that the Qur'an
is not the direct word of God and that therefore either
Muhammed was delusional or he lied. Case closed. Bailiff,
bring in the next religion. |
|
| Back
to top |
|
|
mughal200
Joined: 16 Feb 2002
Posts: 533
Location: UK
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:24 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Hello haverbob,
welcome to the forum, it is very nice to have you here.
Thanks for the insightful commnets.
Regards and
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Go to page 14
| |
|
