wahlers schreef:
wahlers schreef:
By the way...you are making a huge mistake here!
You seem to implicitly admit and acknowledge that I at least proved some of them to be wrong (which, in fact, I did!). As such you are admitting that your beloved scientifically illiterate scholars are indeed fallible! So, you have to ask yourself the question which scientific claim is to be trusted and which is not!
In the name of Allah
AA
Wahlers, I know you were going to say something to that effect, incorrect wahlers, I've seen all of your agruments and none of them are level and unbias.You have in common what all of the other anti islamic atheist-secular humanist have against the Qur'an, which is to prove it unscientific and you all subscribe to your theories which they all are baseless. Theory of evolution? A fact is distinct from a theory. A theory isn't proven...
Really???
OK! Let's look at, and discus, my leveled and biased arguments!!!
1610:
Olbers paradox (as formulated by Kepler)! Why is the night sky dark?
Kepler nor any contemporary scientists could solve this problem.
The answer is the expanding universe!
Why did not a single Muslim even suggest that there might be an expanding universe?
1680 (or around that time):
Newton realized that the universe according his gravitation theory never could be stable.
Newton nor any contemporary scientists could solve this problem.
The answer is the expanding universe!
Why did not a single Muslim even suggest that there might be an expanding universe?
1826:
Olbers paradox! Why is the night sky dark?
Olbers nor any contemporary scientists could solve this problem.
The answer is the expanding universe!
Why did not a single Muslim even suggest that there might be an expanding universe?
1915:
Einstein realized that the universe according his gravitation theory never could be stable.
Einstein nor any contemporary scientists could solve this problem.
The answer is the expanding universe!
Why did not a single Muslim even suggest that there might be an expanding universe?
1928:
Lemaitre suggested that the universe might be expanding.
Why did not a single Muslim even confirm that there might be an expanding universe?
1929:
Hubble's measurements showed that (on a larger scale) the galaxies are moving away from us.
Why did not a single Muslim even confirm that this is because of an expanding universe?
1948:
Gamov theoretically calculated the remnant temperature of an expanding universe.
Why did not a single Muslim even supported that there is an expanding universe?
1948:
Hoyle/Bondi/Gold convincingly suggested a steady state universe.
Why did not a single Muslim even remarked that this was contrary there holy scripture?
1965:
Penzias&Wilson (accidentally) measured the remnant temperature of the expanding universe.
Dicke immediately confirmed this as a confirmation of the expanding universe!
Why did not a single Muslim even confirm that this is because of an expanding universe?
All of the above is verifiable history! In each and every occasion any well educated Muslim could have pointed the rest of the world in the right direction by suggesting the expanding universe!
At least 9 main historical events in over 350 years were met with a thunderous silence of the Muslims.
As a matter of fact the mystery of the universe was eventually explained by infidels among them a Jew (Einstein) and a Catholic priest (Lemaitre).
Tell me why did not a single of over a billion of Muslims ever suggested an expanding universe in over 350 years of science struggling with such a fundamental question?
Why was it that in over 350 years of history the 'scientific fact' of the expanding universe was overlooked in the much studied Koran by over a billion Muslims?
How do you explain that?
Tell me, where, when and in what - according to you - do I show any biased opinion! How - according to you - can I show a biased opinion by merely stating verifiable historical events!
Of course...I do have an opinion!
I claim that the 'amazing scientific fact' is not present at all in the Koran!
I claim that it is the hermeneutic interpretation after the fact that suddenly is interpreted to mean an expanding universe! And, as said before, you can do this kind of mental gymnastics with just about any holy scripture including the Bible (of which I have given an example!), the Thora, Veda, and you name it...!
I do in fact claim that this silly hermeneutic interpretation is, indeed, biased!
All of the above are extremely valid arguments!
Which arguments do you think you can use that invalidates my arguments and conclusion on this single issue of the expanding universe?
Regards, Wim Ahlers.