Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't you people have something you need to be doing?
11-20-2019, 10:34 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheresACatForThat
None of the Wikipedia definitions (Synodic month, Sidereal month) measures anything in terms of sidereal days my friend.
That doesn't even come into it.
The Stack Exchange rebuttal author was caught red handed dishonestly claiming a Sidereal month should be 27.21 days, even while linking to the value for a Synodic month in a WIkipedia article, and the section above it gives the actual value for a Sidereal month as 27.321 days, which is the value used by Dr. Hasseb-Elnaby to show the Qur'an encodes the speed of light when it equalises 1000 lunar years to 1 day. Or at the very least, Dr. Hasseb-Elnaby distinguishes between sidereal and synodic day, which your Stack Exchange author knowingly conflates.
Caught redhanded bro. LOL!
You are just ignoring the point along with the other links. But who cares I don't expect you to believe any of it. Have fun with your fantasies.
11-20-2019, 10:35 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by turf3
Don't you people have something you need to be doing?
Sorry, how does this affect what l've just written?
The Wikipedia article gives Synodic and Sidereal month in terms of solar days. So why are you banging on about sidereal days?
Dr. Hasseb-Elnaby uses a value of 27.321 for a Sidereal month. In agreement with Wikipedia.
Your Stack Exchange rebuttal author is dishonest because he says a Sidereal month is 27.21 solar days. If it were sidereal days it'd be even less. He links to the Wikipedia article, to the section giving the value for the Synodic month, which indeed is 27.21 days. But that's not the Sidereal month he states in his link. It is an out and out lie. There's no excuse for it.
You are ignoring my replies and just trying to move the debate onto the next page, whilst filling the thread with noise and confusion. Peace be upon you. The OP suffices The OP withstands critique so far.
Yes, l am aware of at least one of those verses. (Thanks for posting them by the way)
However:
1. The Bible version(s) don't imply light. The Qur'anic verses do - because Angels are made of light, and they mention angels or the work done by angels (conveying tidings to Allah).
[...]
Read more closely...
Psalm 90 - “... In thy sight, a thousand years are but as yesterday, that has come and gone, or as one of the night-watches.
But the whole approach of proving the Quran as true using an external source of truth, does the exact opposite, and forces the Quran to be subordinate, and is a failed approach in my opinion.
Psalm 90 - “... In thy sight, a thousand years are but as yesterday, that has come and gone, or as one of the night-watches.
But the whole approach of proving the Quran as true using an external source of truth, does the exact opposite, and forces the Quran to be subordinate, and is a failed approach in my opinion.
Hi there bro:
Sight? God sees your deeds even those done in secret. So if you did a deed in total darkness, God would still see it. It does not imply light, sorry my friend. I doubt Allah has a lens, iris, aqueous humour, vitreous humour, retina, eyelids etc. So no, l really don't "see" your point.
Also, if Qur'an says there's a mountain 20 km from my house, and l verify this by travelling to the mountain, that does not make the Qur'an subordinate to my scientific inquiry. Reductio ad Absurdam (logical fallacy) or more correctly: Reduction via Absurdity.
The Qur'an invites us to investigate, to verify, to question. That is why there was an explosion in lore leading to the Islamic Golden Age, in the advent of Islam. Such intellectual striving was unknown prior to Islam in the lands where the Golden Age came about.
Summary:
- Verifying the speed of light does not undermine Islam, quite the opposite. Non-Sequitur Logical Fallacy. Also, in fact, it exalts Islam. Also note that there is yet a small discrepancy in the final value. A very small one mind.
- And moreover, your claim that it undermines Islam is Reductio ad Absurdam Logical Fallacy because if l verified a mountain truly was 20km from my house that would not make the Qur'an subordinate to me, as l have just explained.
Bro, l assume you accept that there is indeed a miracle in the Qur'anic verse cited?
Also don't you think it's ironic to claim that the Bible verse also references light, whilst also saying that comparison with the speed of light makes the sacred text subordinate to modern science?
Finally, as per my earlier post, don't you think it odd that the encoding of the speed of light - as a hallmark of Divine intellect - occurs in the Gospel + Book of Psalms, two books that the Qur'an claims to have originally been Divinely revealed? Encoded in an innocuous way that avoided the eyes of the censors that corrupted those texts? And the Qur'an also encodes the speed of light?
Sight? God sees your deeds even those done in secret. So if you did a deed in total darkness, God would still see it. It does not imply light, sorry my friend. I doubt Allah has a lens, iris, aqueous humour, vitreous humour, retina, eyelids etc. So no, l really don't "see" your point.
[...]
The word “sight” is of course a metaphor, but the primary meaning of the word involves light.
You play loosely with definitions. Similar to how you redefined “eternal” in another thread.
Bro, l assume you accept that there is indeed a miracle in the Qur'anic verse cited?
Also don't you think it's ironic to claim that the Bible verse also references light, whilst also saying that comparison with the speed of light makes the sacred text subordinate to modern science?
Finally, as per my earlier post, don't you think it odd that the encoding of the speed of light - as a hallmark of Divine intellect - occurs in the Gospel + Book of Psalms, two books that the Qur'an claims to have originally been Divinely revealed? Encoded in an innocuous way that avoided the eyes of the censors that corrupted those texts? And the Qur'an also encodes the speed of light?
You assume wrong, I find many logical problems with Islamic theology.
I make no claim to hidden scientific knowledge in the Bible.
The word “sight” is of course a metaphor, but the primary meaning of the word involves light.
You play loosely with definitions. Similar to how you redefined “eternal” in another thread.
I am objectively pointing out your errors. I am being completely fair, formal, and relevant. Please reciprocate
Your analogy is not an analogy. The eye is limited to a band of the electromagnetic spectrum. All eyes are. In fact it is a very narrow band. Yet God sees all, even without any electromagnetic rays. So how can there be an analogy with light when God's sight is mentioned? False Analogy Logical Fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_N
You assume wrong, I find many logical problems with Islamic theology.
I make no claim to hidden scientific knowledge in the Bible.
That's nice so why are you beating around the bush with all this other stuff. Go direct to disproving that the Qur'an verse encodes the speed of light. Get stuck in! Come on squire!
Peace be upon you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP withstands critique so far.