From: ramamurt@smith.cs.unc.edu (Srikanth Ramamurthy)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Islam and Science
Date: 30 Sep 92 07:04:35 GMT
	<1992Sep30.045627.9543@cs.yale.edu>
Followup-To: soc.culture.indian
Organization: UNC-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599
In-reply-to: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU's message of 30 Sep 92 04:56:27 GMT


   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. 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. 

   > 
   > What are the "heavens" and the "earth"? I see nothing in descriptions of the
   > Big Bang that refer to heavens and earth like this. Is this supposed to be
   > matter and energy? Gas and solid? What does it mean? Please do
   > elucidate.

>   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.

>   "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??

>   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.

>   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.

>   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??

>   > seems to have been a (rather violent) expansion with subsequent formation of
>   > stars, galaxies etc. by gravitational forces. No cleaving of any sort. If
>   > anything, things (elementary particles) are coming together to form new things,
>   > not splitting apart. 

>   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'). 

>   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. 

>   > along with the insistence that we believe them. This is hardly the way to 
>   > get someone to believe in something, I think. 
>
>   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.

>   > 
>   > See above. There seems to be quite a lot of difference between what the 
>   > verse says and what the BB theory says. Perhaps you can explain how to 
>   > resolve the apparent differences I have pointed out. 

>   Perhaps you can explain why you read something different from what I
>   posted?

   

   > SA> [stuff deleted]
   > 
   > SA> But if you want to show that it is *wrong*, the burden of proof rests on
   > SA> your shoulders.  
   > 
   > I don't understand this. So every book that someone shows me I must accept
   > as being correct by default? The burden of proving that something is _wrong_
   > rests on the reader??? Strange. But I won't dwell on this topic. 

>   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..).

-Srikanth R.