₦airaland Forum

muhsin:
You can go on and on. . .

Sure and I will. . . .

More jargoons from the book of allah. . . .

Quran 67: 5 And We have (from of old) adorned the lowest heaven (sky) with lamps, and We have made such (Lamps as) missiles to drive away Satans…

According to the koran the stars are nothing but missiles to throw at devils so that they may not eavesdrop on the heavenly council. Once again we find how Allah was high on his superstitious weirdness.

Quran 21: 32 And We have made the sky a roof withheld (from them). Yet they turn away from its portents.

Quran 31: 10 He hath created the heavens (Skies) without supports (pillars) that ye can see, and hath cast into the earth firm Mountains/Hills, so that it quake not with you; and He hath dispersed…

Quran 2: 22: Who has made the earth your couch, And the heavens (Sky) your canopy

Modern science tells us- whole thing around the earth is space and there is no boundary even if we go Billions of light years away in all directions. Questions are: When there is no sky above us then how in the world, it needs pillars for support? Do we really have a roof above us? Is there a canopy above the Earth? Is there anything called above or beneath us? Are mountains there to prevent Earth from shaking? Give me a break!

Once again Allah considered sky as roof over the Earth, which will broke/shattered during dooms day

Quran 78: 19 And the heavens (sky) Shall be broken (opened) as if there were doors opens…

Quran 82: 1 When the Sky is cleft asunder

Quran 69: 16 And the sky will be Rent asunder, for it will That day be flimsy (soft)

Quran 81: 2 When the stars fall, losing their luster.

Does allah really know what the stars are? he said they will fall? fall into the earth or where?

muhsin:
What do you understand by the word "guidance"?

Are you trying to play a Neotic on me by asking me silly questions?. . . .Is are the members of the taliban that are busy behaeding people's head not under the guidance opf allah? did mohammed not personally behead other people? Are they not following the foot step of their beloved prophet(beheading prophet)?

More nonsense from the koran and hadiths. . . .

In the Hadith(Bukhari 4:483, 486) Muhammad explains the cause of fever and the reason for high body temperatures - they come from the fire of hell. From today's medical studies, we know the real cause of fevers

Muhammad said that camel's urine should be drank as medicine for those who are feeling sick (Bukhari 1:234). He sometimes spat on his clothes (1:242). He let people catch his own spit and then rub it on their faces and skin (3:891). To someone else, he ejected a mouthful of water on them (1:188). After washing himself, Muhammad would give his dirty water to his followers to drink and smear themselves with (1:187-188)

muhsin:
Surely Allah guides whom He wills.

Like the way allah is guiding Osama bin laden and the taliban that are busy behading people in pakistan and afganistan? Sure very good guidence from allah. . . .

Abuzola:
@mazaje, he was a jewis h muslim,

Accordıng to your lying koran?

Formation of sperm error

Take a look at this. Sura 86:5-7

"Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted-Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs,"

He is created from a drop emitted-proceeding between the backbone and the ribs.

The verse is telling us that sperm comes from between the backbone and the ribs. Therefore we can assume that it is formed in the chest area, since the chest area is between these two. The abdomen is below the backbone and the ribs. The testicles are far below that. However scientist have shown that "Sperm is made in the testes where it takes about 72 days for one sperm to grow." Clearly the quran does not know where sperm comes from.

However many muslims argue that the quranic verse in question is valid. Carm.org(2007) argue that "The response that Muslims give to this problem is that the testicles, during the embryonic formation, descend from an area below the kidneys. Since the kidneys are in the abdominal area, they assert that the Qur'an miraculously and with scientific accuracy portrays what could not have been known except by God; namely, that in the embryonic development, the testicles were up in the chest area."

Is this accurate?

The answer is no. The testicles are not formed in the chest. Cooper(2006) states that "When the testicle is formed it is located in the abdomen. In most boys it comes down into the scrotum by birth". This is supported by http://urology.jhu.edu(2007). "The testicles are formed inside the abdomen, and gradually migrate down"

Conclusions
Testicles are not from the chest area and thus sperm is not from the chest area.

Where is law prince to come and defend the lying koran?

More jargoons and nonsense from the koran. . . . .The book of lies and myth. . .

The sunset.


And they ask about Dhu'l-Qarnayn. Say: "I will give you this account of him." We established him firmly in the land and We gave him access to everything. And so he followed a course; Then, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found that it sets in a spring of black mud and found, by it, a people.Sura 18:83-86

Firstly the sun cannot set in the spring of black mud because the sun is much bigger than the earth. The sun has a mass of 1.9891 x 10 to the power of 30 kilos( about 330,000 times the mass of earth), Furthermore it is known that compared with the earth, the sun is big. It would take about 109 planets the size of the earth, side by side, to stretch across the diameter of the sun. This means that the volume of the sun is more than a million times the volume of the earth.

The simple conclusion is that the sun cannot come into contact with earth because this would result in total destruction of the earth.

Muslims argue that the setting of the sun in the muddy spring is not to be taken literally. They argue that from a visual perspective, it looks like it's setting in the spring but it's not.
However that this is not true, "as it was said that allah gave Alexander the great everything, and granted him the knowledge, so he was under the commandment of allah and his guidance, he was following the knowledge and not the mere vision"

The mere fact that it says that alexander the great "found it" confirms that he went by himself and actually found the sun setting in a muddy spring. So if muslims argue that it looks like the sun is setting in a muddy spring but it isn't then they going against their Quran which confirms that Alexander the Great did find the sun in a muddy spring. However the mere fact of the sun in the muddy spring is wrong because the sun is bigger than the earth and therefore would cause damage to earth. Therefore the koran is false QED. . . . .

More jargoons are nonsense lies and stupidity from the koran. . . . .

sura 78:6 "Have WE not made the earth as a bed, And the mountains as pegs"

sura 71:19 "And God has laid the earth for you as a carpet"

Sura 20:53 "[Since he is the one] Who has laid out the earth as a carpet for you"

sura 51:48 "And the earth we have spread out, and how excellently do we spread it out!"

sura 88:20 "Nor even how the earth has been flattened out?"

All these arabic words describe the shape of the earth as flat. However modern science tells us that "the Earth's shape is a sphere. . . . .This science of the koran is incredibly wrong, the earth and its surface depended upon the constant cooling and heated implosion, its nuclear and gravity, not mountain-like pegs that hold the earth and centre together with the surface. . . . . those expressions in the koran are the typical scientific postulates of the ancient bronze aged arabic minds.

Can you tell us about the science involved when mohammed divided the moon into two and made it bow down to him?. . . . .

What about the numerous scientific jargoons written in your own copy and paste koran?

Bones Before Muscle? The Koran got it wrong!

Look further at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh , " (Al-Baqara 2:259)

The Koran gives the impression that first the skeleton is formed, and then it is clothed with mustle. The muscles and the cartilage precursors of the bones start forming from the somite at the same time. At the end of the eighth week there are only a few centers of ossification started but the fetus is already capable of some muscular movement. Besides bones don't develop before the flesh, as in case of abortion we never see the abortus formed of a skeleton only without flesh, as medicine is telling that body parts are developing all together, so bones develop at the same time as flesh. So the bones never been clothed by flesh as the quran said The quran puts the creation in this order
Fertilisation
cell formation
bones
flesh

In fact, flesh formation begins before bone structure. "Cellular division forming bone tissue takes place after flesh and organs begin developing"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesh




The earth is it fixed or moving?

Al-Tabry said that:" God has affixed into the Earth Mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you to the right and left, causing troubles so they let the earth settle down with you
Al-Quortoby said: narrated Anes Ibn malek, the prophet: when the earth was created, it was shaking, so God made the mountains over it, so it settled down, and the angels were wondering for that

The question is: does that accord with science? How could the Mountains affix the earth and hinder it from movement? Isn't it well approved by science that the earth is in continuous motion, spinning around itself, once in every 24 hours, and spinning around the sun once in each year?

Sura 36:40
"it is not permitted to the sun to catch up the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day, each just swims along in its own orbit"


Firstly if we simply look up into the sky we can undertstand it for ourselves."The only way the verse can be accurate is if mohammed is taking about an ellipse".The moon from a visual perspective catches up with the sun.

Furthermore the greeks knew about orbits before Muhammad. Therefore no new revelation was revealed.

Additionally the quran states that the night cannot outstrip the day. Wrong!!!The night is longer than the day in polar regions in cetain times of the year.

In 36:38 we see this
"The sun runs its course to a settled place"
What is this settled place? Scholars argue that this is the place that the sun rest when it's usefulness had diminished. This is wrong, the sun does not have a settled place on earth. muslims would use this.

"When he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring and found a people thereabout. We said: ?O Dhul-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness"? (Surah 18:86).

What!! The sun settles in a muddy spring?

So deal with the so many scientific errors that abound in your own koran before pointing fingers and the book of others. . . .

Abuzola:
Jesus was a muslim

Abuzola:
True and jesus remain a jew

With what you have written above I now concluded that you should not take offence when I say that you are a senseless FOOL, because you have just demonstarted that you are one. . . . . .

Sadly, nothing happens afterwards, so the efforts of religion are an even more complete waste since no body has ever provided evidence to show that the spirit exist in the first place. . . . . . . Before you were born you were unalive. When you die, you return to this state. Never to wake up,  . . .  Simple as that, There is no reason to think otherwise until evidence for it surfaces. And there is none other than some silly ancient scribblings and bronze age myths. In other words, no evidence. . . . . . .

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo&hl=en_US&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T79uaP_Kx6E&hl=en_US&fs=1&[/flash]

davidylan:
As regards your "error" in Gen 1:1 . . . please spare us the rubbish. heaven - heavens is a problem? Was Gen 1:1 written in English?

Do these folks ever reason at all?

You make this kind of remarks and some how feel that others do not "reason" at all. . . .did you bother to read what he wrote? What has the fact that genesis wasnt written in english got to do with the fact that it was wrongly translated in the KJV? By the way Did you bother to read what he wrote? He it is once again

toneyb:
I do not even have time for these missing verses, some have argued that the missing parts are not just one or two verses as you will like to have us believe. The bottom line is this, if the god of the bible truly exist as you guys will like to have people believe, is he so weak that he depends only on debates about copies of ancient texts that have been changed, ancient text whose originals we do not have and ancient text that were written in some obscured langauge spoken by very few people to reasonably prove his existence and will? Human effort alone is a poor and inefficient means to spread the supposedly most important and helpful message in history but that is the method that this god whom you guys claim knows all things chose to reach out to the world through writings that have undergone various revisions and have various textual difference? I find this incredible.


Then we are left to deal with people like you constantly trying to come up with excuses for this god and the mysterious ways he works or does not work, this does nothing but tell me it is all made up because if he did exist, there is no way he is that stupid.

Manmustwac pls I want you to pin this thread on the first page of the religious section. . . . . .Thanks. . . . . .

Deep Sight:
Must reason and faith be mutually exclusive?

Must creation and evolution be mutually exclusive?

Can a creator not ignite an evolutionary process? Does the Cosmological Argument not demonstrate that there must perforce be a first cause, or unmoved mover?

Can we not posess a faith grounded in both reason and deep personal intuition?

Do we need a Bible or a Quoran, or any religion at all?

Do we not have faculties embedded within us by the Creator which can lead us aright, Jesus regardless, and Mohammad regardless?

Hey Mr deist

toneyb:
Every light, If it hasn't you fellow christian apologist will not be trying endlessly to use it to prove the existence of the god you subscribe to. You were able to know about the christian narrative only because science was involved,the colonialists that came with the message of christianity used ships, navagating systems, to get to us, they used science(books, ink, printers) so that a copy of the bible can get to you. You are a christian today only because some science was used at one stage or the other in propagating the message to you, and yet you still ask these very embarassing questions. Science REMAINS the only hope for humanity.

As you have pointed out the religionist cry all day about science and are very afraid of it because they know it is always exposing their myths for what they are. I laugh when our resident "scientist" talks about science not having answers for cancer as if his own mythical believes has any clue as to what cancer is. . . . For example, no ancient writings/myth discussed disease-causing germs, the atom, gravity, where extinct animal fossils could be found, what was on other continents not yet discovered, what was on other planets, what would eventually be seen on the moon, or what would be found inside the human body--cells, nerves, bacteria, etc. All we have are stories about how god or gods lived inside of boxes, how they lead people through wars by killing and destroying their enemies and soaking their cloth with the blood of humans or how sin came into the earth because some people that did not have any knowledge of right or wrong eat from a tree, we have other stories of a man dividing the moon into two and making it bow down to him or other more bizzare stories like a tree crying because the prophet mohammed refused to speak under its shade . WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE IN ALL THESE MYTHS?

So as far as trying to argue Science VS Religion. It's stupidity. . . Religion is called faith for a reason. . . .cannot be rationalized with. Science does its job, It creates a framework for understanding what goes on around us. . . . . . . It explains things in a common language so that anyone can digest what is being said and draw a reasonably common set of conclusions about what it state or professes. . . . Religion on the other hand is all about making baseless claims that have no basis in reality about fighting stars, falling stars, offending imaginary deities, dying and going to blissful places or horrible places all with no evidence at all, empty promises of some being lucky to have been chosen by some imaginary deity and others condemmed, nonsense claims and stories and lies that just have no basis in reality at all. . . . .Science is the only hope for humanity because even the religious people are now depending on science or trying to use it to show that their deities are real. . . .

Trust the moslems always sacred of being exposed for believing in an obvious fraud, bunch of silly cry baby cowards I must say. . . . . .

Crazy Islamic science

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0kR1qqzbKs&hl=en_US&fs=1&[/flash]

ababda:
this video is a wake up call to all free thinking people everywhere. it is very important to watch this one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHcwL5S1OSw&feature=related

Don't mind all these crazy and stupid slaves of allah, they think they are clever when they are completely stupid. . .

Here is another vidoe for you to watch.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjfFP-a5myA&hl=en_US&fs=1&[/flash]

davidylan:
The bible has never claimed to have a cure for cancer and i doubt any christian with a brain makes such an assertion. The problem is that you and your ilk trumpet science as being the be all and end all . . . unfortunately science itself has no answers to a large majority of burning questions today.

Your argument (or lack of it to be honest) is poor . . . i asked if science had an answer for cancer and your response is to ask if the bible has got one?

Science and scientist have never claimed to know or have answers to everything, in fact a lot of scientist acknowledge that science is dynamic and changes all the time as new knowledge is gained, so science does not claim to know everything, scientist admit that we know very little about some things. . . . . Personally I trust science and some of its finding because the philosophy of science is that you can postulate explanations which may be tested by observation or experimentation or you can postulate explanations which may only be deduced to be correct but which have a high order of probability of being correct. This is not the same with religion, religion just makes up claims without providing any evidence for it and wants to be protected from criticisms, for example religions propose that that there is another world,  a supernatural world, where beings who are just spirits live,  . . . .We are told this by various holy books and these teachings are repeated and repeated over the generations across various cultures that this is true even though no evidence for this claim has ever been provided. . . .

Science would like to see something more than conjecture about a supernatural world,Yet there is nothing tangible to be provided by the proponents of religion. Ultimately I believe that there is nothing  in common with religion and science at least until a religion comes up with something that suggests their worldview, including the supernatural is a possibility. Until then religion and science are opposed in view.

davidylan:
Science has no answers for cancer

Does the bible have any answer for cancer? Or is it one of those diseases caused by the wicked evil spirits and demons that need prayers and olive oil to cure? Why do you keep embarassing yourself like this? The fact that science has no cure for cancer today does not mean it will not have an answer for it tommorow. Let us know if your religion or any other religion out there has the answer to cancer.

It seems like some Nigerians are finanlly begining to wise up and drop most of thier ridiculous and inane supertitious and mythical beliefs that have no basis at all in reality. . . .Nice way to go chief executive of FRSC. . . .

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4pUD9IhyYI&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsbNJAnkCq4&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFKJqyrlN10&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETNdz2cPQnA&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqtezrZxpwk&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPB5FHNBVVM&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mfju4OHptw&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

viaro:
^^ Certainly it's a brilliant question to ask, mazaje. Although I do not force any assertions about Matthew's authorship of the Gospel that bears his name, I simply accept it as being so. On what grounds? Partly on textual criticism, and partly on general consensus. Of course, people may disagree one way or another (and I've tried to understand some of these disagreements, like the ones you raised against davidylan); but be that as it may, I don't think that the particular identity of its author is critical to my faith and commitment to Christ.

OK, fair enough. . . . .

viaro:
Hi again mazaje,

Hehe, I apologise - I had over-reached myself in the use of the word "most". That said, the word was used in a broad sense without limiting myself to just Matthew's Gospel of the synoptic Gospels. I also hinted that might have been ("may be" the case with Luke's Gospel and the Acts; although I know that a plethora of other works evidently have intros to them. By the word "most", I do not mean "ALL".

No problelm at all. . . . .I shouldn't be asking you this because you werent the one that brought it up (davidylan brought it up). . . but I will still go ahead and ask you. . .

You accept that matthew wrote the gospel based on. . . . . . . . . . . ?

The tradition for authorship which began with papias or some other evidence you have to point to authorship outside of papias? I just want to know your position on that. . .

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94f2h-5TvbM&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

viaro:
Be that as it may, I'm quite aware that most of the works in that period do not have introductions identifying them specifically - Matthew's Gospel happens to be one. The same may be said of Luke's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, where the author identifies his recipient but not so much himself. It is in the Acts that critics gather their information to ascribe that document to a 'Luke the physician', even though I do not remember the author directly introducing himself.

Why do you use the word MOST? LOL. . . do you have any evidence to show that most of the works in that period do not have the writers identifying themselves? Historical works even at that time typically had a table of contents, the authors of the works identified themselves, and they were written in a formal style. You can check The Wars of the Jews by Josephus(70CE), History of Rome written by the Roman historian Livy around 30 BCE, Tacitus the Histories 109 CE, The works of Pliny, Philo, Justus etc they all wrote in a formal style and identified themselves. . . .