The Instigator
wateva232
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
fuzala
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

The Qur'an is not the word of God, it contains too many scientific mistakes.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
wateva232
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,551 times Debate No: 40418
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

wateva232

Pro

I find that the Qur'an contains too many scientific mistakes to turn a blind eye on. Most of the Muslims try to prove that Islam is the true religion by saying that the Qur'an contains scientific miracles that could not be known at the time. However, they seem to miss all the wrong information and turn a blind eye on them.

The first example that I have is the creation of the earth. How can an all knowing God claim that the earth was created in two days and the rest of the universe created in two other days?

Quranic verse "Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.
He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance). Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge. 41:9-12

How can anyone with basic understanding of astronomy claim that this verse is scientifically correct? This verse claims that God/Allah created the earth in 2 days, then everything on the earth in 4 days, THEN he created the skies and adorned the heavens with lights or stars. For argument sake lets say days mean period of times, but how can this be scientifically correct? How can the stars be created after the earth has been created? Seems to me the one who was writing this book did not even have a minute understanding of galaxy formation or celestial bodies.

To move on to biology, the Qur'an claims that everything is created in pairs. I find this to be one of the worst mistakes in the Qur'an.

Verse "And of every thing We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction. 51:49"

Again, an all knowing God would surely not make this mistake, since not everything is made in pairs. There are lots of examples in nature that proves otherwise like bacteria, yeast, even some mammals like the lesbian lizard. So how come this the word of God since clearly he doesn't know the existence of his own creation that doesn't exist in pair?

These two are just small examples of the scientific nature of the Qur'an that Muslim
fuzala

Con

I take the position that this holy book is the word of God, and it does not contain mistakes.




For the first example, note the use of the tranlated word "smoke."

Zaghlool El-Naggar, an Earth Sciences professor explains:

This elementary body was in a state of density and heat that the human mind can hardly imagine and where there is no place for the laws of physics. This elementary body exploded, by Allah's command, in what is called in the Qur'an Al-Fatq, which refers to the phase when the Earth and heavens exploded after being a one solid mass, and by scientists as the Big Bang. Thus, the Qur'an is the first to mention this great cosmic event exceeding any human knowledge; Almighty Allah says:


[And have not the ones who disbelieved seen that the heavens and the Earth were an integrated (mass), then We unseamed them, and of water We have made every living thing? Would they then not believe?] (Al-Anbiyaa' 21:30)



When an elementary body with these characteristics explodes, it turns into a cloud of smoke from which the Earth and all the celestial bodies were created. Again, the Qur'an exceeds all the human knowledge when it mentions the phase of "smoke" before 1,400 years, as follows:

[Say (O Muhammad), "Is it true that, indeed, you surely disbelieve in (The One) Who created the Earth in two days, and do you set up compeers to Him?" That is The Lord of the worlds. And He made therein anchorages (i.e. mountains) from above it, and He blessed it and determined therein its nourishments in four days, equal (i.e. all these four days were equal in the length of time) to the questioners (about its creation). Thereafter, He leveled Himself to the heaven (while) it was smoke, then said to it and to the Earth, "Come up (you two) willingly or unwillingly!" They (both) said, "We come up willingly." So He decreed them as seven heavens in two days, and He revealed in every heaven its Command. And We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, and (set Angels) preserving them. That is the determining of the Ever-Mighty, the Ever-Knowing.] (Fussilat 41:9-12)


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...


You put an emphasis on the number of days. You did acknolowdge periods of times, but I still want clarify this portion. Days in this context does not neccesarily mean days as we know it (24 hours). Remember that "days" is a translated word. The exact length of creation is not known to us.

As for the order you mentioned, I don't understand how you got that interpretation.

I'll quote Nabil Haroun: "It is noteworthy also that, in the Qur’an, whenever the earth and the heavens are mentioned in conjunction, the word heavens precedes the word earth, the same as the order of creation. This consistently occurs in 187 verses. In two exceptional cases the word heavens is preceded by the word earth, but that was entailed by the context. This is again in accordance with the Qur’anic concept of the creation and with modern science."
http://www.onislam.net...

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Let us now look at the second example you mentioned.

*{And of everything We have created pairs, that you may remember (the Grace of Allah).}* (Adh-Dhariyat 51:49)

Note the translated word "everything." This does not just apply to biology but to everything. One should also note the translated world "pairs." This is not just male and female pairs. This can be seen much more broadly.

Sabah E. Karam explains:
"The word 'zawgyne' is consistently translated into the English language as 'pairs.' In scientific literature its meaning is extended to incorporate such concepts as 'duality", 'complementarity', 'opposites', 'inverses' and several other concepts reflecting conjugate and/or reciprocal properties."
http://www.onislam.net...

Let us take a look at examples. There is night and day, celestial bodies and black holes, neutral neutrons and antineutrons, particles and antipariticles. The list goes on and on.

Nabil Haroun says "Millions of animal species discovered, classified and investigated only during the last two centuries, were found to be invariably in 'pairs,' male and female. Electron microscopy has clarified that all living creatures, however minute, are in pairs. The smallest microbes, viruses, and bacteria have their counterpart antibodies."

http://www.onislam.net...



__________________________________________________________________________

You got cut off at the end. "These two are just small examples of the scientific nature of the Qur'an that Muslim..." That what? I would like clarification.

Debate Round No. 1
wateva232

Pro

First example; You barely replied to the argument, you just dodged it and posted something completely irrelevant. You copy pasted Zaghlool el Naggar who is not an earth science professor, he is simply an Islamic scholar.

Proceeding, first the earth and heavens were not smoke. Dukhhan means smoke, which is a product of fire. The dense state you are mentioning during the big bang was GAS, not smoke. This is a crucial mistake you have just fallen into, not including that you did not reply to my argument on the Ayah regarding the correct order of the universe creation. So please be more precise.

Then again, you moved onto to present another argument about the heavens preceding the word earth in the Qur'an which still proves nothing. The ayah I presented is pretty clear, so please do not diverge and debate something I was not debating in the first place.

I will return to the Ayah I presented and please stay in topic and please do not copy paste from Islamic sites, use your own words and your own interpretations. Another aspect that I already clarified that I will take for argument sake that day means a long period of time, lets say a billion years or whatever. Is that ok? I have no intentions on debating the word days in Arabic or how long does it mean.

The Ayah 41:9-12 broken down claims; First, that Allah created the earth in two days. Then he created the mountains in four days. Then he turned to the heaven when it was smoke. If we look at it and take it that scientific miracle of mentioning the big bang because it was "smoke", then this verse claims that the earth was created first before the big bang. Then he adorned the heavens with lamps, obviously meaning stars.

So how does that conform with modern science? The ayah clearly states that the earth was created before the stars. How is that possible? If an all knowing God created this universe he would've known that earth was created 4 billion years ago, while the rest of the universe was created 14 billion years ago. So the Ayah is just pligarizes old mythical creation tales and it is not scientific whatsoever.

Second Example; I forgot to mention that I am an Egyptian and an ex-muslim. So I understand Arabic clearly as it is my first language and I studied almost my entire life the Islamic religion.

"Wa min kol shay2en khalaqna zawjayn" 51:49

I know that this does not apply only to biology. However, according to this verse I should look around me and I find that everything has a pair. Male and female, day and night, right and left, etc.... I know that the pair rule is pretty common, but not EVERYTHING is created in pairs. There are many creatures that does not have a counterpart. So if the Ayah stated instead of everything has a pair, but almost everything has a pair then it would've been correct. However, it is not.

But, this is God we are talking about he should know that to every rule there are exceptions. In biology there are a lot of exceptions to this rule and as a biologist I can definitely relate.

If this message is truly from God, then he would've known about parthenogenesis. Parthenogenesis is the Asexual reproduction of a being without the need of an opposite sex or a dual. This means that the species clones itself and thus does not require a "pair". This can even occur in bigger species such as sharks. There were three female sharks held up in a tank and it did not require a male to give birth (1). So where is the pairing in this circumstance? This debunks the ayah clearly.

Other instances is viruses. Viruses have no counterpart, they live as one and reproduce thousands. It does not need a pair or a counterpart. Bacteria are also known for being asexual and does not need a counterpart.

An all knowing God should've known there are exceptions to the pair rule. However, Allah did plainly say that everything is created in pairs and simply neglected all the other creatures that requires no pair. Why did that happen, simply because the people writing the Qur'an at the time did not have knowledge of such creatures and neither anyone at that time. So 1400 years ago that Ayah is correct, but now 1400 years later and with the scientific discoveries, this Ayah is clearly wrong.

Antibodies are proteins, they are not a pair of a living cell. I am quite astonished about how you claim that viruses and bacteria have counterparts in antibodies. It's like saying a fork and a steak are counterparts because I use the fork to eat the steak. Not so logical, right?

I don't know why I was cut off, but I was saying that Muslims turn a blind eye on these scientific mistakes simply because they don't want to believe that what they believed their entire lives is wrong.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
fuzala

Con


It says Naggar is an earth science professor in the link.




That's your interpretation. It is well known that people have subjectivity that influences the way they interpret holy books. That's how one gets differences in opinion.




It was relevant because it was information that dealt with those particular verses. The other information is also relevant since we are debating about the Qur'an in relation to science.




I don't know if you noticed, but all the links were from one site. It's the site I use to better understand things because I am not a native speaker. A lot is lost in the translations; thus, I cannot do raw interpretations. Also, is the Arabic in the Qur'an the same as the Arabic that is spoken today? Do Arabic speakers not have trouble interpreting the Qur'an on their own? I know someone who speaks Arabic and has told me that she has trouble interpreting. She does not claim she has the qualifications to make interpretations.




Since we are talking about the Qur'an, using Islamic sites to explain verses is a valid method in debating this topic. It's better to get a scholar's interpretation than to get an interpretation from a layman like me.




"Another aspect that I already clarified that I will take for argument sake that day means a long period of time, lets say a billion years or whatever. Is that ok? I have no intentions on debating the word days in Arabic or how long does it mean."




You clarified that for argument's sake according to what you said in the first round. I clarified to further explain. If you didn't want to debate about the length, then you never should have brought the length of time up in the first place. Since length was brought up in your first round, it's fair game. Since I already explained this portion in the first round, I'll move on to the order you speak of.



You provided your interpretation of the verses. I will provide an explanation as well but from another source.



"..it would be wrong to interpret 'then He turned to the heaven' to mean that first He created the earth, then set mountains in it, then arranged blessings and provisions of food in it, and then, at the end, He turned towards the creation of the universe. This misunderstanding is removed by the following sentence: 'He said to it and the earth: Come both of you, willingly or by compulsion. They said: We have come willingly.' This makes it clear that in this verse and in the following verses, mention is being made of the time when there was neither the earth nor the heaven, but the creation of the universe was being started. Only the word thumma (then) cannot be made the argument to say that the earth had been created before the heavens. There are several instances of this in the Quran that the word thumma is not necessarily used to show the chronological order but it is also used for the order of Presentation."


http://www.islamicstudies.info...

The link, of course, provides a fuller explanation. The part I included seems sufficient in explaining the argument of order that you made for the first example.

______________________________________________________________________________________
On to the second example.


As I mentioned before, Karam says "The word 'zawgyne' is consistently translated into the English language as 'pairs.' In scientific literature its meaning is extended to incorporate such concepts as 'duality", 'complementarity', 'opposites', 'inverses' and several other concepts reflecting conjugate and/or reciprocal properties."

Plants are asexual as well but have both male and female reproductive systems. Again, pairs doesn't just apply to reproductive concepts. It can have a much broader definition.

Since pairs can also mean complementarity, meat and the fork used to eat it can very well be used to fit the meaning of pairs.

You mentioned the sharks and "virgin birth". I'll mention the Virgin Mary and the virgin birth of Jesus (pbuh). Let me say again that pairs is not just about reproduction.

The broad definition of pairs literally allows for everything to come in pairs.

____________________________________________________________________________

Another thing I want to note is concerning language.
When someone says "Everything in my life is messed up," does that mean everything in their life is messed up or does it mean that there are numerous things in this person's life that are not going well? I would say the meaning fits the latter. The person obviously means many things in their life are messed up even when using the term everything. This is just something to think about, but I am not using it in relation to the verse since I am not a scholar.

Debate Round No. 2
wateva232

Pro

Hello fuzala, how are you?


Before I reply we have to agree on something first. You will definitely agree that the God/Allah is perfect and since the Qur'an is the word of God, then the Qur'an is the perfect word of God. Thus the Qur'an is perfect and should be absolutely clear. I am quite sure there are no objections to this statement. It is also stated many times in the Qur'an as well.

"That's your interpretation. It is well known that people have subjectivity that influences the way they interpret holy books. That's how one gets differences in opinion."

The perfect and clear word of God should not have different interpretations. Second, the verse is quite clear on the contrary. Third, the people living during 7th century Arabia, how are they going to draw a different conclusion than this? The verses goes 1-2-3-4 very simple and clear.


1. "you surely disbelieve in who created the earth in two days, and you set compeers to him, that is the lord of the worlds" 41:9?;

Quite simple and clear, nothing really major in all English translations to indicate anything other than the earth was created in two days. Any objections?


2. " And He made therein anchorages (i.e. mountains) from above it, and He blessed it and determined therein its nourishments in four days, equal (i.e. all these four days were equal in the length of time) to the questioners (about its creation)." 41:10;

  • Again I doubt any objection to the interpretation that the earth is complete by then. This what the verse clearly indicates that the earth had it's mountains and food and all so the earth we know now it exists.
  • But this verse presents a problem also of itself. The earth creation required 4 total days, while the rest of the universe required only 2 days? It took 1.5 more time to build the earth than it took for the universe?


3. "Thereafter, He leveled Himself to the heaven (while) it was smoke, then said to it and to the Earth, "Come up (you two) willingly or unwillingly!" They (both) said, "We come up willingly."

  • This ayah is the root of all the problems. The word "Thereafter" is actually "Then". In Arabic "Thumma" means "Then" and the verse clearly in the beginning says Thumma. "Thumma estawa ela al samaa' we heya dokhan". Which means then he leveled him to the heaven when it was smoke.
  • The problem here is that is speaking as if heaven and earth are completely two seperate entities. Also it clearly claiming that afte he finished the creation of the earth and set the mountains on it "Then" he leveled himself to the heaven as it is in another place or dimension when it was smoke. Here is your big bang by the way.
  • Last part of the verse just proves it furhter, he asked the heaven (when it was smoke) and the earth (after it is completed), do you come willingly or unwillingy.

4. "So He decreed them as seven heavens in two days, and He revealed in every heaven its Command. And We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, and (set Angels) preserving them. That is the determining of the Ever-Mighty, the Ever-Knowing"

  • After the heavens and the earth come willingly, he made the heaven into seven in two days and he adourned the lowest heaven with stars. It continues the previous verses, earth in two days, rest of earth in another two days, the last two days he turned to the universe or the big bang as you claim and made them into seven??!! and made the stars.
  • How is that scientifically possible? How can one interpert these verses any differently? How can a 7th century Arabian be able to tell the justifications you are giving me today?
  • Lastly, if an omniscent God really wrote this book the verses that were unrefuttable would've been something more like this. "God created the heavens in two days. THEN he created the stars in two days. Then he created the earth in two days". This would've been chronolgically much better and much more in relation to the actual timing of the evens happening.



"I don't know if you noticed, but all the links were from one site. It's the site I use to better understand things because I am not a native speaker. A lot is lost in the translations; thus, I cannot do raw interpretations. Also, is the Arabic in the Qur'an the same as the Arabic that is spoken today? Do Arabic speakers not have trouble interpreting the Qur'an on their own? I know someone who speaks Arabic and has told me that she has trouble interpreting. She does not claim she has the qualifications to make interpretations. "



Yes i did notice that all the links are from one site. The Arabic spoken back then is the Quraishi dialect which is dead now. The trouble is not in interpretations, the trouble is in the vocabulary which is a little bit different than the Arabic we speak today. This makes certain Ayahs hard to understand because of a certain word or a phrase not really common in that person dialect.


"There are several instances of this in the Quran that the word thumma is not necessarily used to show the chronological order but it is also used for the order of Presentation."



So the argument here presented is only in trying to prove taht the word "Then" does not mean chornological order. I am sorry what? Thumma means then, plain and simple. You can never use it for anything else. How would saying "i went to school then i woke up from bed" by a correct sentence? Am sorry this makes no sense.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As I mentioned before, Karam says "The word 'zawgyne' is consistently translated into the English language as 'pairs.' In scientific literature its meaning is extended to incorporate such concepts as 'duality", 'complementarity', 'opposites', 'inverses' and several other concepts reflecting conjugate and/or reciprocal properties."


Correct, but when the word everything is accompanied i should find that 100% of the time the world consists of a binary system. If i find one thing in the world that doesn't follow this rule, then this statement is false. If in a scientific journal if i write i "Always" find that X is always paired by Y, then it should be 100% X pairing with Y. Anything else i would be wrong and since is God we are speaking about here then his words are perfectly chosen. Everything is created in pair, then it must be. I gave plenty of examples and you replied to none thus far. What is the complentary of a bacteria or a virus. Where is the pairing here?

"Since pairs can also mean complementarity, meat and the fork used to eat it can very well be used to fit the meaning of pairs."

Really? Are you serious :)? How about a knife and a fork and meat? Really i can't find anything to comment on this.

"You mentioned the sharks and "virgin birth". I'll mention the Virgin Mary and the virgin birth of Jesus (pbuh). Let me say again that pairs is not just about reproduction. "

I don't believe in the story of jesus and it means nothing to me. You are trying to prove your book from your book. Circular argument. On the other hand, i know this is about everything. Like night and day, male and female. So if there is a species that exists only in females, then the ayah is incorrect.

Let me elaborate futher, the word used in the Qur'an is "Zawjayne" which actually means more of mates. Zawaj means marriage, Zawj means husband, Zawja means wife. So how is the presence of a lone species with no mate is in conformoty with the Qur'an?


"Another thing I want to note is concerning language.
When someone says "Everything in my life is messed up," does that mean everything in their life is messed up or does it mean that there are numerous things in this person's life that are not going well? I would say the meaning fits the latter. The person obviously means many things in their life are messed up even when using the term everything. This is just something to think about, but I am not using it in relation to the verse since I am not a scholar. "


You said it, "when someone". That someone is a human, he is not God. He's just saying a word that is not for all times and places. If a human wrote the Qur'an then i would have no problem with that, but this is God we are referring to her. He is perfect and his words are perfect. Any imperfection indicates that the Qur'an is imperfect, thus not the word of God.





fuzala

Con

If it is as clear as you say, then, why is it that the person from the source says "There are several instances of this in the Quran that the word thumma is not necessarily used to show the chronological order but it is also used for the order of Presentation."?
http://www.islamicstudies.info...

You said it doesn't make sense, but this source provides in detail explanations.

" I gave plenty of examples and you replied to none thus far. What is the complentary of a bacteria or a virus. Where is the pairing here?"

I already gave you those answers in the first round. I included the discussion about antibodies. I'll bold the area.

Nabil Haroun says "Millions of animal species discovered, classified and investigated only during the last two centuries, were found to be invariably in 'pairs,' male and female. Electron microscopy has clarified that all living creatures, however minute, are in pairs. The smallest microbes, viruses, and bacteria have their counterpart antibodies."
http://www.onislam.net...

"You said it, 'when someone'. That someone is a human, he is not God. He's just saying a word that is not for all times and places. If a human wrote the Qur'an then i would have no problem with that, but this is God we are referring to her. He is perfect and his words are perfect. Any imperfection indicates that the Qur'an is imperfect, thus not the word of God."

What this "someone" says things like that, it is called a hyperbole. It is a literary and/or rhetorical device used. Devices such as hyperboles do not mean imperfection. Plus, I said that since I am not a scholar, I cannot claim this in relation to the verse; however, I did provide the broad definition of "pairs," which allows everything to have a pair.

"I don't believe in the story of jesus and it means nothing to me. You are trying to prove your book from your book. Circular argument. On the other hand, i know this is about everything. Like night and day, male and female. So if there is a species that exists only in females, then the ayah is incorrect. "

This is not circular. I wasn't trying to prove the Virgin Birth of Mary. I'll explain. You talked about sharks and their "virgin birth." I talked about Mary (pbuh) to show that religion talks about everything have a pair as well as the virgin birth of Mary. That doesn't mean Mary didn't have a pair. Single people still have pairs in some way, shape, or form.

Even if the shark had a "virgin birth," that doesn't take away the fact that there are male sharks out there. The pair for female sharks are the male sharks. They don't have to copulate in order to establish the pair. The pair simply exists.



Debate Round No. 3
wateva232

Pro

Hello there,


Is it me or did you completely dodge almost every question i asked? This reply is really missing lots of things i asked and you did not bother to reply to any. Please go back and reply part by part to what i presented, i asked alot of questions and i got zero answers especially on my first example.


"If it is as clear as you say, then, why is it that the person from the source says "There are several instances of this in the Quran that the word thumma is not necessarily used to show the chronological order but it is also used for the order of Presentation."?
http://www.islamicstudies.info......
"

He only gave one example which is nonsense, he gave this ayah:
"He created you from one soul. Then He made from it its mate, and He produced for you from the grazing livestock eight mates. He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, within three darknesses. That is Allah , your Lord; to Him belongs dominion. There is no deity except Him, so how are you averted? 39:6"


He is trying to use this Ayah to prove nothing really. He says here that is talking about Adam and Eve. How? I have no idea. What the person from the source is trying to claim is that the word "Soul" here refers to Eve, thus "Zawjeha" or "Mate" refers to Adam somehow. All i can say is that this is very deceptive, he is saying nonesense to people who don't understand Arabic to simply try to justify this mistake. I'll go through the trouble of proving this nonesense.

The Ayah says, He created you from "Nafsen waheda" which means the soul and its feminine. The soul has a mate or pair (zawjeha) which is masculine. The person in your site is deceiving people into thinking this means Adam and Eve which is a complete lie. He is simply playing with words to people not familiar with Arabic to try and justify the Qur'an's mistake, knowing that the faithful will not doubt or react to his words with skepticism. He is deceptive and straight out lying.



Now please go back to what i've posted in round 3 and reply to it thoroughly. Your reply is insuffecient.


Another thing to add as well is a picture that really explains this Ayah perfectly.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com...


This picture is really worth a thousand words. First, it is in concordance with the verse i presented "We adorned the lowest heaven with lamps" Which is true if the universe looks like this.

Second, There is another Ayah that says, "Do you not see how God has created the seven heavens one above the other, and made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a lamp? 71:15-16"


Simply put the Qur'an supports the geocentric universe. The earth and heavens are two seperate entities, not knowing that the earth is part of the universe and that the earth is completely insignificant in the vasteness of the universe. Not once has the Qur'an ever mentioned that the Sun is a star. Not once has the Qur'an ever mentioned that the earth is a planet like the other planets. Not once has the Qur'an mentioned that the Earth orbits anything.


On the other hand we find the Qur'an clearly saying that the Earth was created first in 4 days, then the heavens or the universe created in two days and raised it without pillars. How can an omniscient God make such a mistake? How can the creator of the universe even try to emphasize in the simplest of ways that the Earth did not take as twice time to create as the universe?


Simply because it is not God who wrote this book, but 7th century Arabs who put their understanding of the universe at that time and how they thought it came to being.


By the way this is from your site "But the fact is that nowhere in the Quran has the mention of the creation of the universe been made to teach Physics or Astronomy, but while inviting towards belief in the doctrines to Tauhid and the Hereafter." Is it me or is this simply a cop out? He can't really find any excuse to this verse and he answers with something completely irrelevant? If it is to teach us about Monotheism then atleast it should've been in concordance to what really happened and not be completely wrong. These are supposedly the words of an omniscient God after all.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I already gave you those answers in the first round. I included the discussion about antibodies. I'll bold the area.

Nabil Haroun says "Millions of animal species discovered, classified and investigated only during the last two centuries, were found to be invariably in 'pairs,' male and female. Electron microscopy has clarified that all living creatures, however minute, are in pairs. The smallest microbes, viruses, and bacteria have their counterpart antibodies."
http://www.onislam.net...;

This argument completely contradicts itself. It says first that during the last two centuries, species were discovered to inveriably in pairs "male and female". Then it goes to say that the counterparts or viruses and bacteria are antibodies. This is astonishing to be honest.

This is plain ignorance, antibodies are not counterparts of bacteria and viruses. Antibodies kill bacteria and viruses. Antibodies are not the "male or female" counterpart of the bacteria or a virus. Antibodies are proteins, they are a molecule, they are non-living. How can you claim that a non-living thing has a counterpart of a living cell? Or claiming that the bacteria is a male and the antibody is a female or vice versa? how does that make any sense?

If i find a bone or a piece of plastic, does that make it my counterpart? This is very silly to be honest. There is no male or female in many species of bacteria and viruses. They exist solely as ONE. No counterpart. NO PAIR.

"This is not circular. I wasn't trying to prove the Virgin Birth of Mary. I'll explain. You talked about sharks and their "virgin birth." I talked about Mary (pbuh) to show that religion talks about everything have a pair as well as the virgin birth of Mary. That doesn't mean Mary didn't have a pair. Single people still have pairs in some way, shape, or form.

Even if the shark had a "virgin birth," that doesn't take away the fact that there are male sharks out there. The pair for female sharks are the male sharks. They don't have to copulate in order to establish the pair. The pair simply exists. "

First Mary got impregnanted by the spirit of God, Gabriel or Jibreel.
"And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel, and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient. 69:12"


So Mary actually needed a pair. She did not get pregnant without a "pair". That pair however is Gabriel. So the Virgin birth of Jesus is not really an example to be used. Since still Mary needed a counterpart.

Second, i was using the shark as only an example for an illustration of parthenogenesis. There exists entire species such as the whiptail lizard which does not have any males. They clone themselves over and over. Another very good example is the blind snake (Ramphotyphlops braminus) which no male has ever been found and it is surviving very well. This is because they are parthenogenic creatures and requires no counterpart.



Now please reply thoroughly to my first example arguments in round 3. You totally avoided it and dodged all the major questions asked. Now please go over them.

Thank you.





fuzala

Con

You kept saying I dodged your questions. I think you said that at least 3 times, but I don't know what question you're talking about.



"He is simply playing with words to people not familiar with Arabic to try and justify the Qur'an's mistake, knowing that the faithful will not doubt or react to his words with skepticism. He is deceptive and straight out lying."

What proof do you have of such? What purpose would it serve the person in that source?

Also, you brought up the length of time again, when you clearly said that you didn't want to debate such twice. I already said the exact time is not known to us.

"Simply because it is not God who wrote this book, but 7th century Arabs who put their understanding of the universe at that time and how they thought it came to being."

You gathered all that from just a few verses about creation?

You said Heavens or the universe. Is Heaven a part of the universe we are in? Heaven is a place people go in the afterlife so I am a bit confused here.


"It is also recorded authentically that the Arabs themselves were surprised by the language of the Quran because the Prophet was not known to have composed any literature before its revelation. Clearly, the language of the Quran was not from Muhammad’s own tongue. Even in translation non-Arabic speaking people can see a difference between the Quran and the Hadith."
http://www.onislam.net...




........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Again, pairs is not just about reproductive qualities such as male and female. I have stated this multiple times.

I'll post the quote once again.

Sabah E. Karam explains:
"The word 'zawgyne' is consistently translated into the English language as 'pairs.' In scientific literature its meaning is extended to incorporate such concepts as 'duality", 'complementarity', 'opposites', 'inverses' and several other concepts reflecting conjugate and/or reciprocal properties."
http://www.onislam.net...

This allows for bacteria to be considered the "pair" of antibodies.



This allows for asexuality, photosynthesis, etc.

Also, flowers have both (male and female) reproductive structures even though they are asexual.



Debate Round No. 4
wateva232

Pro

Well you simply ignored alot of what i said, just see how detailed i was in round 3 and how every part of your reply was taken bit by bit and refuted. On the other hand, you just pick a handful of things from what i say and choose to reply to. While the rest was simply ignored.


Since this is the final round any how, so there is no more room for a rebuttal to what your saying since you provided no arguments at all to refute. You failed to use any argument except copy and paste from a website that i kept replying to every time and you kept repeating what you said over and over.


"What proof do you have of such? What purpose would it serve the person in that source? "

I already gave the proof of what i said, if you cared to read what i wrote. You will find that he used an example stating that "Nafsen waheda" was Adam of some sort even though the Ayah is talking about the "soul" not adam and eve. Read what i wrote, and read the Ayah from the internet and i am sure you will not find it is talking about Adam and Eve. http://quran.com...
Otherwise which i surely suspect is that you have not even read what he wrote about how the word "Thumma" is used for presentation.


By the way here is what i refuted from your website, http://islamicstudies.info...;


Now honestly have you read this?


His purpose is to try and make an excuse for the Qur'an that it is correct even if it is not. Instead of being honest and saying this verse has nothing to do with reality he goes to great lengths of trying to justify that the word "Thumma" simply doesn't mean "Then". I would like you to go to any Arabic speaking person and ask him what does "Thumma" means, and i guarantee you will find no other answer than it means "then" AND it has to be used in a chronological order. I woke up THUMMA i went to school.


So simply the proof: Deliberate deception to try to change the Ayah's meaning to try and prove that "Thumma" can be used for presentation and not a chronological order which i debunked already.

Purpose: To try to correct the Qur'an fallibility because he cannot admit that the Ayah is completely wrong and is not in conformity with modern science but infact quite the opposite.


"Also, you brought up the length of time again, when you clearly said that you didn't want to debate such twice. I already said the exact time is not known to us."

I am not talking about how long it took, i am talking about conformity with science. I don't care how long is a day in this Ayah. My point is how can the Earth take twice as much time as the universe? Earth took 4 days and the universe took only 2 days? I asked this question two times already and was not replied to twice. Universe is 13.7 billion years and earth is only 4 billion years. This Ayah has it upside down, which supports the geocentric view that i proposed and still had no reply whatsoever.

"You gathered all that from just a few verses about creation?

You said Heavens or the universe. Is Heaven a part of the universe we are in? Heaven is a place people go in the afterlife so I am a bit confused here. "

Janna is in the afterlife. I did not even come close to this so i am not sure what and why you are talking about it here. The Qur'an uses many times the word heavens "Samawat" as the universe and this is what my argument has been all about. I was talking about the creation of the universe.

Well there are tons of other reasons, but the verses about the creation are completely spot on about how whoever wrote this book is simply someone with the idea that the earth is the center of the universe. I gave my verses that prove this and till now you have failed to reply to my arguments or prove otherwise. I have shown how the Qur'an clearly states that the stars are in the lower heavens (Not Janna) and the moon is in their midst. So infact the stars are closer to us than the moon which is something an omniscient God would not say, but simply 7th century Arabs who had no understanding of the universe as we do today.

""It is also recorded authentically that the Arabs themselves were surprised by the language of the Quran because the Prophet was not known to have composed any literature before its revelation. Clearly, the language of the Quran was not from Muhammad’s own tongue. Even in translation non-Arabic speaking people can see a difference between the Quran and the Hadith."

Off topic, not what i was discussing in any sort of way. Has nothing to do with the debate. I can debate the linguistics of the Qur'an and how it is not really that eloquent but that is a debate of itself. My debate here is about science and the Qur'an, not Qur'an and linguistics and eloquency.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The only argument you presented here is that antibodies and bacteria are a pair. You dodged what i said before, since i clearly replied that you cannot say that a plastic bag and a human being are a pair in any sort. If you think this is ridicilous because it is and that is exactly your argument. "Me" and an Iphone are not a pair and will never be. Me and my wife are a normal "zawjayne" or a pair and that is completely fine. Just try it out with anyone saying that you and a dead object are a zawjayne and see if ti really makes any sense.

You can go to any biologist even a muslim biologist and ask him are antibodies and bacteria a pair and see his reply. Just don't tell him its from the Qur'an and he will laugh at you. Because it is nonesense. And we can add anything to the equation and make it a triad. Ok an antibody and a bacteria are a pair, but if we add RNA into the mix then its a triad, thus the Qur'an is false. Really nonesense that has taken too long.


Why you came up with flowers, i have no idea. I haven't given one plant example, i gave you the snake and whiptail lizard and neither were replied to. So this is a diversion and doesn't really refute anything i said.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Final words:


I have shown time and time again that the Qur'an is simply not in conformity with science and it got it absolutely wrong about the universe creation and the only argument i got from con was a really weak proof that the word "then" does not mean "then" somehow. I gave evidence about how the Qur'an supports the Geocentric universe and still got no reply. Then my opponent went on to talk about the Qur'an linguistics which was not a topic of discussion in the first place.


My opponent only tried to reply by copy pasting from an Islamic website which is definitely biased and wanted me to read the entire website and from her replies, she seems to have not read it ENTIRELY herself. Even still i debunked the website and it's really silly claims and shown its deceptiveness and my opponent still asked me for proof about its deception which proves to me she did not read the website claims about how the word "thumma" is used for presentation. Again which i debunked clearly.

Anybody reading this will surely see how argument after argument were simply ignored and only cherry picked what my opponent wanted to reply to.


My second example, my opponent had only one argument. That antibodies and bacteria are a pair. Which any biologist will claim as nonsense because, it is.


This is what i was trying to prove from the first place that adherers of Islam have a blind spot toward the fallibility of their holy book. I have shown how incorrect the Qur'an is about the creation of the universe and how it really got wrong that everything is created in pairs.


Thank you for your time and good luck.




fuzala

Con

I made more than one argument. I didn't just talk about antibodies and bacteria. The length of my rounds contained numerous arguments.

You ignored many of what I said. I provided a source explaining the broad definition of pairs, and I explained many times that pairs is not just about reproduction, but it can hold a broader meaning. Yet, you kept talking about biology and things like male and female. I clearly provided the broad meaning of pair several times, and kept saying how it's not just reproduction. Yet, you still kept bring it up round after round.

You still didn't provide proof on how the person is deceptive when talking about the order. I even stated that interpretations vary, and there are differences of opinion because of the subjectivity that each interpreter has within themselves.

I also replied to the length of time explaining that we don't know the exact time, yet , you say how I did not reply to such. I stated this many times as well.

I gave the flower example to add to the pairs. Yet, you say I ignored the talk about snakes; however, I talked about photosynthesis and how pairs aren't just male and female. Again, pairs can have a broad definition that is not limited to biology and male and female.

"Really nonesense that has taken too long."
That is a fallacy I believe. You are the one who chose to set up 5 rounds.



"Off topic, not what i was discussing in any sort of way. Has nothing to do with the debate. I can debate the linguistics of the Qur'an and how it is not really that eloquent but that is a debate of itself. My debate here is about science and the Qur'an, not Qur'an and linguistics and eloquency."

My opponent was the first one to say "Simply because it is not God who wrote this book, but 7th century Arabs who put their understanding of the universe at that time and how they thought it came to being."

That is why I brought up a source that talks about the Author of the Qur'an. I brought up the Author because my opponent said the authors were 7th century Arabs.

My opponent also said I copied and pasted from other sites. Well of course I did that. I wanted to provide information from other sources. That's a valid method in debating.

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
I have two points:

1. The exact length of time is not known to us in terms of creation. Also, people have interpreted the order in different ways.

2. The term "pairs" can have many meanings. I'll bring up the source again.

Sabah E. Karam explains:
"The word 'zawgyne' is consistently translated into the English language as 'pairs.' In scientific literature its meaning is extended to incorporate such concepts as 'duality", 'complementarity', 'opposites', 'inverses' and several other concepts reflecting conjugate and/or reciprocal properties."
http://www.onislam.net...

This does not have to be limited to biology and just male and female pairs.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BitterTruth 3 years ago
BitterTruth
Original followers of Jesus (pbuh), the Nasorean Jews never believed in Greek Testaments used by Christian Romans. After all the Greek Testamenst are filled with fables written after the ascend of Jesus to heaven.

Kartir, the Zoroastrian high priest and advisor to Hormizd I in the late 3rd century c.e., campaigned against other religions among which he clearly distinguished Christians from Nasoreans.

Kabah of Zartusht"And in kingdom after kingdom and place after place throughout the whole empire the services of Ahura Mazda and the Yazads became preeminent, and great dignity came to the Mazdayasnian religion and the magi in the empire, and the Yazads and water and fire and small cattle in the empire attained great satisfaction, while Ahriman and the devs were punished and rebuked, and the teachings of Ahriman and the devs departed from the empire and were abandoned. And Yahud (Jews), Shaman (Buddhists), Brahman (Hindus), Nasara (Nasoreans), Kristiyan (Christians), Maktak (Baptisers), and Zandiks (Manichaeans) in the empire were smitten, and destruction of idols and scattering of the stores of the devs and god-seats and nests was abandoned.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
This debate was a bit of a mess.

S&G was equal--both sides had some strange syntax.

Sourcing was equal enough, but I would like to note that sourcing is intended to *only support your own arguments*. I'm not going to go to another site to have *that* site make the arguments for you. Present them HERE, in THIS debate, or don't bother.

As to conduct: Con explicitly dodged answering specific questions, and, when called on it, attempted to argue that no questions were ignored. How many times does Con have to be asked the same questions?

As to arguments: Con was distinctly hampered by trying to make arguments about a language she admits she's not a scholar in. The argument over the word "then" was clearly lost by Con, because there was nothing but assertion, a "Yes it means 'then' but not always"...an assertion backed up with nothing BUT assertion. Pro's knowledge of the language seemed better than Con's--this meant that his interpretation was preferred, as Con never really offered legitimate defense of her interpretation. Pro pointed out several contradictions between the verses and science. Con attempted to claim that the words don't mean what they mean--it's a tough row to hoe unless you *really* know your linguistics.

So Conduct and Arguments to Pro.

As always, happy to clarify anything in this RFD.
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
now, it is among my favorites, I havenot read yet, at one of my free times, I will read, now, I also do not accept quran as the word of god, I am not a muslim but I have read the quran, I have read the bible, some parts of the book of bahai's, name was difficult, something like: kitab al bayan or e,t,c but if the book of god exists, in my opinion quran has the highest probability to be the book of god among the books read by me which are believed to be the book of god.

later, I will comment back and write who I agree with.

quran is better than other books like bible or beyan and has higher possibility than others to be the book of god OF COURSE IF SUCH BOOK EXISTS.
Posted by wateva232 3 years ago
wateva232
Well I wasn't insulting, I was just frustrated that a lot of my argument were simply sidelined. I never told her to go have another debate, where did you get that? When I say you dodged my questions I want her to be more detailed and to reply part by part to what I say.

I dissected her post part by part and she cherry picked what part to reply to and what part to ignore, which kept on happening time after time.

I never put any emphasis on the days length and I said clearly from the beginning that this was not the point of debate. My point is how can the earth take twice as much time as the universe? 4vs2. however long the day is still doesn't justify this mistake that the earth would never take twice as much as the universe to create.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
RFD[Part 2]

Conduct goes to Con as Pro was very insulting at times and told her to go have another debate and used aggressive accusations such as "you're dodging my questions" and things that showed hatred.

Spelling and grammar goes to Con as Pro didn't bother to do a simple spell-check. He misspelled many words. I don't know where to start. Here are some examples... "pligarizes" "furhter" "unwillingy" "unrefuttable" "vasteness" etc. I did a simple spell-check and I could find more than 20 words misspelled by Pro while Con had no mistakes.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
RFD [Part 1]

The debate went downhill after Round 3 but I made sure to provide an 85 line summary below on the main aspects I'm taking into consideration.

Pro, according to my summary, managed to get away with 1 out of the 3 scientific errors. Con disproved "Earth before creation" by showing that "Thumma" doesn't necessarily entail sequential order. Pro could have simply used some linguistic method to state that it does, but he simply argued against such well-known concept to Arabs about the functionality of "Thumma" is an alien aspect. Con then refuted "2-day creation" scientific error by showing that the "days" could have meant something other than "24hrs" which is a reasonable refutation although it is not strong. However, Con failed to disprove the "everything created in pairs" and gave false arguments about antibiotics being a pair with viruses, when those are two different things and hence pairing them doesn't make any sense. Con also failed to established "what things" could be paired and didn't answer effectively Pro's objection that an all-knowing God should have stated that there are objections to everything created in pairs. Con raised a good point "everything" could mean "some things" but that was too late as she already adopted the former and because she didnt' define clearly what those "some things" were. The resolution is, "The Qur'an is not the word of God, it contains too many scientific mistakes." The fist half was won by Pro as he offered one valid scientific error which Con did not refute. However, the second half says "many" which means one or more. Pro simply provided one but Con didn't claim that she just though that not many errors exist. She claimed that the Qur'an contains no errors and so Arguments go for Pro.

Both participants used shady sources from blogspot to Islamic websites which are clearly biased to one side. Hence, sources are a tie.
Posted by fuzala 3 years ago
fuzala
For the something and everything part with the pairs, I made sure "This is just something to think about, but I am not using it in relation to the verse since I am not a scholar." I made sure to say that I'm not talking about the "something" in relation to that verse. I put that there just as something to think about. I think I was better off not saying that part at all.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
SUMMARY OF ROUND 1

Pro provides 3 scientific errors in his opening statement: 2-day creation of Earth, creation of Earth before the Universe and creation in pairs.

Con responds to (arg2) with the same verse with Najjar's interpretation and says that it describes the Big Bang.

Con explains that Dokhan means "Smoke." As a native Arabic speaker, I agree with that. Even if refers to "Gas", there was no way to say "Gas" in Qur'anic Arabic as our word in Arabic for "Gas" is "Ghaz" which is a transliteration of the English word.

Con responds to the 2 day that it doesn't neccasarly mean 24hrs which is a valid refutation.

Con mentions a great point which is entailment by context said by Haroun. As an Arabic speaker, I second that "Thumma" is not always used for sequential order, and hence (arg2) given by Pro is doubted as the entailment could be non-sequential.

Con responds against (arg3) that "pairs" could be pairs of anything since it said pairs of everything which is a reasonable assertion.

Con says that everything is in pairs, which I quote don't agree with. But she does.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
SUMMARY OF ROUND 2

Pro says, "You copy pasted Zaghlool el Naggar who is not an earth science professor, he is simply an Islamic scholar."

This is actually false. Naggar is a geologist according to his Wikipedia page. And there is nothing wrong with copy/pasting someone if you're quoting him.

Pro says, "Proceeding, first the earth and heavens were not smoke. Dukhhan means smoke, which is a product of fire."

This is false. The word for "gas" was "dokhan" in Qur'anic Arabic as established above.

Pro clearly explains that the Earth did come before the universe according to the sequential order of the Qur'an by dissecting the Ayah.

Pro points out to things that suggest that pairs don't exist for everything and does that brilliantly by giving viruses and bacteria examples which are asexual.

Pro makes a brilliant point that an all-knowing God would have specified exceptions to the pair rule.

Pro makes a brilliant point that antibodies are not pairs with viruses but are proteins.

Pro, by that, rescues 2 of his scientific errors, Earth creation before universe and the "everything is in pairs."

Con tells Pro that Naggar is actually an earth science professor.

Con raises a point about the difference between classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic. I have to tell her that they're not very different. We even refer to them using the same name "Fus7a" in the Arab world because of their symmetry.

Con claims, "The broad definition of pairs literally allows for everything to come in pairs."

I didn't understand that. Con had to show us how this happens but instead just stated it.

Con then contradicts the definition of everything she started with and says that everything might refer to "some things."
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
SUMMARY OF ROUND 3

Pro establishes Allah's theological definition to prove he is all-knowing.

Pro brilliantly points out why some find difficulty in translating the Qur'an but doesn't mention "loan words" which is an understandable mistake.

Pro wrongly explains that "Thumma" always suggest a sequential order when it doesn't as established by Con. It sometimes is just for entailment purposes.

Pro shows yet again that not everything follows in his words "a binary system" and that things are not all in pairs.

Pro makes a brilliant point that God is perfect and should have specified that some things do not have pairs.

Con refutes Pro brilliantly on "Thumma" sometimes not having a sequential order.

Con says God used a hyperbole which is not a very convincing explanation. IMHO.

Con disproves Pro's point about Virgin Mary not having a pair brilliantly by saying that male single sharks still have a pair even if they're single.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
wateva232fuzalaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
wateva232fuzalaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: 85 line summary of debate + RFD(part 1 and 2) in comment section.