From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: Islam and Science
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:09:56 GMT


In article <15747@borg.cs.unc.edu>, ramamurt@smith.cs.unc.edu (Srikanth Ramamurthy) writes:
> 
>    In article <1992Sep30.020201.7851@cs.yale.edu>, A. Satish Pai
>    <Pai-Satish@CS.Yale.Edu>  writes:
> 
>    > Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist. :-) 
> 
> >   Good thing you put that there...  The stuff I quoted came from a
> >   well-respected nuclear physicist.  Let's take a look at how your
> >   "arguments" stand against his:
> 
>    So, what was all the nonsense about it being from the Quran. Obviously,
>    you just spewed all that stuff out from some book, all the while
>    pretending that you had thoroughly understood how the Quran was 
>    consistent with the Big Bang theory. 

Hmmmm, last time I checked, a quote of a quote is still a quote.  I
didn't realize that concept could be difficult enough for someone to
not understand.  You see, if a book quotes from the Qur'an, or
provides references to it, then those references or quotes still refer
to the Qur'an.  Geddit?  Or do I need to bring up those color pictures
again?

>    So why don't you tell us 
>    who  that "well known" physicist is?? We could cross check with
>    sci.physics about the validity of your claims. 

Perhaps you should read my article before you start flaming it.  You
will find all relevant information including the name you are looking
for, in the original article.

> >   So you need a written invitation from God with all the ABC's of the
> >   creation of the universe spelled out for you with little color
> >   pictures on the side?  Let's see now, what could possibly be meant by
>   
>    Look, if the Quran is supposed to be consistent with the Big Bang theory,
>    you obviously need to give the exact interpretation. So much for 
>    putting the burden of proof on the people who have opposing views when it
>    was you who spewed this nonsense in the first place.

You don't provide a glossary with every article you write, do you?
Things which are *obvious* don't need interpretations.

> >   "earth?"  Um, well, see, I think it is this spherical kind of thing
> >   that we sorta live on, know what I mean?  The Qur'an was revealed at a
> 
>    Bravo. Now, go ahead and spew some more 'humorous' stuff without 
>    bothering to give the exact explanation. So  WHAT did they mean by 
>    earth, and how does mentioning earth out there prove that it is
>    consistent with the big bang theory??

You *still* don't understand what the earth is.  And you accuse me of
being humorous? :)

> >   time when people had no concept of any of these things you refer to
> >   today, so it had to be explained in terms that they would understand.
> 
>    Well, you apparently seem to have no concept of it yet. It clearly
>    shows in the amount of pain you have (not) gone through to explain
>    that verse. Other than claiming that Satish's arguments were nonsense
>    you have done little else.

I see you are following in his footsteps...

> >   You don't go and explain the atomic model to a kindergarten kid
> >   without using some of those little color pictures that I speak of
> >   above...  Heavens and earth refers to the universe and the fact that
> >   it was all joined together is rather consistent with Big Bang theory,
> >   wouldn't you say?
> 
>    No. now, go ahead and explain why you say so?  A reference to the
>    universe is not enough to claim consistency with the Big Bang theory.
>    Now, if there was something about an expanding universe, one would
>   have more reason to believe so. Now go ahead show that the verse claimed 
>   to say something about   and expanding universe.

You really did not read the entire thread of articles, did you?  There
are other verses which refer to the expanding universe which have
already been quoted.  In addition to this, I provided an extensive
list of references from the Qur'an which you obviously have not
checked on.  How can you challenge this references if you did not look
at them?  Is this intellectually honest?  Or is it merely
characteristic of arguing without knowing?

> >   I never claimed it was a *description* of Big Bang theory.  All I
> >   claimed was that it is *consistent* with Big Bang theory.  Maybe I
> >   should start using some of those little colored pictures too...
> 
>    Just like our existance out here on earth is consistent with the Big bang
>    theory, because if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be out here. Instead
>    of coming up with some new ways of being sarcastic, why don't you come
>    up with some solid interpretation of the verses to prove your
>    point??

I already showed how it is consistent with the Big Bang theory.  Now
it is your turn to show why it is not.

> >   If everything was together at one instance in time, and then there are
>        ^^^^^^^^^^
> >   seperate entities, it is not particularly difficult to see that the
> >   word "cleave" can apply rather well here.
> 
>    So where did you get the interpretation that 'Heaven and Earth' was
>    'Everything'??? They could very well have had only a subset of the 
>    universe in mind (as far as they could see). Substantiate your 
>    definition of 'heaven and Earth' (In the sense that it does mean
>    'Everything'). 

Heavens and earth refer to the universe in general and the earth.
Since I don't know what lies beyond the universe, it qualifies as
"everything" in my books...

> >   Um, I *really* should use those little color pictures!  The verse
> >   says:
> >      We made them from water 	
> >      Every living thing.
> >   Now tell me, are stars "living things?"  What were you saying earlier
> >   about not being a physicist?  This statement no longer has anything to
>   
>    So effectively only the first four lines were about the beginnings of
>    the universe. 

In that verse, yes.  But you obviously chose to ignore the long list
of other references I provided.

> >   Did I ask you to believe this?  All I said is that this is what the
> >   Qur'an says.  I distinctly remember saying that whether you want to
> >   believe it or not is your problem.
> 
>    If we did believed it, it definitely would be our problem. It would
>    bring one  closer to the level of a congenital recto-cranial invert like 
>    yourself.

Insults of this manner don't add substance to your argument.  They
*do* prove the general baseless nature of your wild allegations,
however.  I tell you that you are free to believe what you want, and
you come back with an insult.  This is sadly characteristic of the
nature of this argument.

> >   Good.  Because the original claim was that the Qur'an is not
> >   compatible with science.  A claim like that needs to be substantiated.
> 
>     You still haven't shown it's compatible with science. A verse which
>     says, rather you've shown just the opposite.
> 
>     " We created the universe by splitting it asunder etc etc."
>     
>     Reeks of creationism which is directly incompatible with the
>     theory of evolution. So go ahead and substantiate your claim
>     of the scientific compatibility of Quran. I have used the Quran to
>     substantiate my claim that it isn't. (Now, let's see your new (TM)
>     interpretation  for that verse..).

You have used what?  Where, when?  You haven't quoted once.  You have
not checked the references I provided.  The depth of your argument is
restricted to comments such as accusing me of being a "congenital
recto-cranial invert" and your inability to understand what "earth"
means.

-- Shakil