From: ramamurt@tlab1.cs.unc.edu (Srikanth Ramamurthy)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Islam and Science
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:53:50 GMT
	<15747@borg.cs.unc.edu> <1992Sep30.190956.18040@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 19:09:56 GMT


>
>   > >   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.

  No. Because I don't provide quotes in the first place. If you need a
  glossary just to understand the message I write...hmmph. Obviously,
  when you quote something you provide an exact idea of how you interpreted
  the quote. But in your case, you seem to think that it 'obviously' has
  a certain interpretation when it is not at all obvious. Needless to say,
  the quotes you furnished to show that the Quran does not contradict 
  the Big Bang theory is more a game of (mis)interpretation of the verses
  than a solid interpretation of it. All in all, you failed miserably. 
  
>   > 
>   >    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? :)

   It would be great if you followed your own advise of reading whatever
   you wrote. I'll repeat it, how does mentioning heaven and earth in any
   way show that it is consistent with the Big Bang SPECIFICALLY. In a
   general sense it is consistent with any other trivia you can think of.
   It still doesn't prove your claim that it is consistent  with the
   BB theory SPECIFICALLY. 

>   > >   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?

   Most certainly did and you should be the last person talking about 
  intellectual honesty anyway. There has been enough evidence on this 
  net for some time about it.


> >    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.

   I already gave you another possible interpretation. So, just claiming
   that everyone has to accept your interpretation just because you say
   so is not exactly being intellectually honest. 


   > >   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...

  So, it is agreed that the heaven and earth could refer only the known
  universe, at least the way it was stated in your books and the way
  you see it. BB has a
  different meaning for "everything" and it is not limited by how one
  perceives 'heaven and earth' right now. 'Heaven and earth' is just
  a subset of "everything". So claiming that they are equivalent is
  wrong and hence your interpretation needs better support.



Srikanth R.