Introduction

Okay, thank you. Insha'llaah, you can go ahead and start clocking me now. Well, let me first start out tonight by welcoming everyone for today's debate on the Qur'an and modern science. I would also like to extend a warm welcome to Denis Giron for coming for tonight's debate. In fact, me and Denis have debated this on Google Groups for the last, I believe, nine months, so we are very familiar with the topic and of course Denis has written many papers regarding Islam.

Let me start off by saying today that the Qur'an is a book which Muslims believe to be the literal word of God, and this book was revealed one thousand four hundred years ago to the Prophet Muhammad (salallaahu alayhee wa's-Salaam), who lived in the Arabian city of Makkah. Now I believe that if anyone were to analyze the Qur'an, they will find that the Qur'an contains many statements - many correct scientific statements which were not discovered only until recently. Therefore, the question I would like to raise for tonight's discussion is: how could a man in the Arabian desert, fourteen hundred years ago, have this kind of scientific knowledge? The technology and the means to get this kind of scientific information simply did not exist at that time. Advanced equipment and sophisticated methods were not developed at that time. Therefore, the only conclusion a person can make is that there had to have been a greater power other than man who was the author of the Qur'an. Man could not have been the author of the Qur'an because there is no way a man could attain that type of scientific knowledge.

[ Logical reasoning explained ]

Tonight is going to be kind of a very mentally intensive exercise, so I would recommend people to take notes and if you get the opportunity to listen to this debate, maybe two or three times if you can. So let me start off by saying that I think one of the difficulties we have in doing these types of discussions is that we tend to import many of our biases and our own personal opinions in this matter, and we tend to come to the table with a lot of emotional baggage. And that tends to blow our judgement. Even Denis himself, as an Atheist, of course, admits that he has a lot of bias too. But my issue is that being biased is not the problem. We cannot allow our biases and our prejudices to affect our judgement, and that is where the real problem comes in.

Therefore, what I would like to do tonight, I would like to bring some standard procedures that will sort of keep all of us in line tonight. Therefore, what I would like to present for you today is an algorithm which will provide a systematic method of analysis without personal opinion or bias. I'm going to cut and paste this algorithm to you inside the link which you can click on and you will be able to follow along with me. I'm going to send that to you right there – click here - okay. You're going to have to remove the digits "555" from the link; so if you do that, the link should work pretty good.

Okay, anyways, this is an algorithm which I think will provide a systematic method of analysis without personal opinion or bias. It will provide a logical analysis of statements concerning science - modern science - in any ancient text, whether it is the Qur'an, the Bible, or any other book. You're going to need to refer to this pretty often for the debate tonight. So, for those of you who don't have it in front of them, perhaps you might want to write it down very quickly - I'm going to go through it very quickly here. It says basically this:

if a statement in a book, whether it is the Qur'an or any other book, agrees with modern scientific fact, then it can be one or more of the eight following possibilities:

Perhaps the author of the Qur'an was a genius - he was like Albert Einstein or something, and he discovered these scientific statements.
Perhaps the author of the Qur'an guessed; he just guessed "I wonder what this could be" and he got it right.
The author of the statement was a great scientist; so basically he had a laboratory in his backyard, he conducted experiments and that is how he came to the conclusion of these modern scientific facts.
Maybe it is just a coincidence, like a poetic statement which just happens to match up with science. Now let me look at this option (D). What that means is that the author had no intention of talking about modern science. He had no intention, and it was a pure accident, and out of accident the statement agrees with modern science.
Let's look at (F,(this is mistake,should be E)) here. If the link doesn't work, please write something inside the box so I can manually cut and paste all this stuff. Anyway,
Perhaps the scientific fact is observable, like for example to say 'bees have a leader'. Well I think if you observe the bee hive, you will see that it is something observable; there is nothing really miraculous about that. Let's look at
Information already pre-existed in history. So what this basically says right over here is that the author of the Qur'an basically plagiarized from another source, maybe Aristotle or something like that. So that is another possibility. And then finally…
Which is a source greater than man the author of these statements.

So these are your eight logical possibilities of how we could explain the Qur'an and modern science. So the very important point over here is that, therefore just because you have a statement in a book,which matches up with modern science, that does not automatically make it miraculous. It can be any one of these eight possibilities. Let me pause for a second so I can cut and paste all this information to you, for those who cannot open the link or something like that. Okay, there we go, these are all the possible scenarios and we will be referring to them

often.

[ Atheists Logical fallacies #1: Reinterpretation ]

Okay, so now I want to just briefly talk about some logical fallacies which Atheists have made and other critics in their study of the Qur'an and modern science. These are three main logical errors. The first error is called The Fallacy of Multiple Interpretations. Basically what this means is that they think "if we can create another new interpretation, then we can dismiss that statement of modern science as being evidence - if I can just create another interpretation." And this is a very common mistake some people deal with. Let me give you an example: this is what science today tells us about the origins of the universe: science today tells us that the universe was created some time between ten to twenty billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all directions. Now let's say you read inside some arbitrary book that it said the universe underwent a "big bang". Well, one person can correctly state that the statement in that arbitrary book matches up with modern science on the origin of the universe, and could therefore use this verse as an evidence, because it does match up with science. Science says there was this huge explosion and this book says there was a big bang. So yes, the statements do match up. But now an antagonist - he can create an equally valid interpretation saying that "no, no, no, you see what 'big bang' here means is actually a big surprise, you know like a big surprise that any big bang would cause for anyone, therefore the statement in that book is not talking about the origin of the universe - the author of the book had no intention of referring to the origin of the universe, therefore you cannot use this as evidence." But this is a logical fallacy I'm pointing out here - that just because you can spin more than one interpretation does not disprove that piece of evidence. Now of course we all know that when someone says this statement he is clearly referring to the scientific origins of the universe - about the Big Bang - so there is not question about that. So basically, the rule of thumb here is that so long as one feasible, logical interpretation matches up with science, that is all it takes to be used as evidence.

[ Atheist logical fallacy #2: Science pre-existing in other books ]

Let's look at the second fallacy which many Atheists have made. They said "well, the science pre-existed in other books." Basically they're talking about - I believe what we're looking at - is (G) the information already pre-existed in history. Therefore, what the author of the Qur'an simply did - or of any book - they just copied from that other source. That is one of the greatest misconceptions among Atheists; which is just because something has been mentioned in a book before hand, this automatically dismisses the case for the verse in the book, therefore you can't use it as evidence, and this is wrong. Let me explain to you why. Let's say that the Big Bang theory was mentioned in Aristotle's book, and it was also mentioned in the Qur'an - now this is all hypothetical - and someone brings up that verse of the Big Bang mentioned in the Qur'an and they use it as evidence showing that man could not have been the author of the Qur'an. Now someone can say "wait a second, wait a second, hold on - look, this statement that you are talking about of the Big Bang mentioned in the Qur'an cannot be used as evidence because it was already used in Aristotle's book, therefore what the author of the Qur'an simply did - he just copied from Aristotle's work." But there is a very, very big problem with this type of argument, which is: how did the author of the Qur'an know to select this explanation versus the several wrong ideas of how the universe was created which existed at that time? We all know what if you read the books of history, whether it is the Hindu scriptures, Bible, or whatever, there are several wrong and incorrect understandings of how the universe was created. How did the author of the Qur'an know to select this particular concept? That's the first question. How was he able to detect truth in an ocean of falsehood and myths? How did he know this is the right one? Therefore, my conclusion on this is that the argument that the Qur'an was just a copy job from previous books because of the fact that it mentions scientific information that was also present in those earlier books, that argument does not work because logic dictates to us that we better find five times as many clear scientific errors, right? Let me give you an example: you see when I was in high school, I never studied. In fact, what I would do, I would copy from my neighbor when it came on test day. But you know what happened? My neighbor didn't study either, so I wound up flunking. What basically happened was yes, I did copy some correct answers off his page, but I also copied some wrong answers from his page and I also incorporated that on my test exam, therefore I flunked. Likewise, doing a copy job in the year 600 AD was an even more dangerous job. It is literally a recipe for disaster, because the books available to the author of the Qur'an are filled with myths and legends and are filled with scientific errors and blunders. In fact there are much more scientific errors and blunders than there are any true statements, probably at least a thousand times, and even Denis, my opponent tonight, will verify that for you. Therefore, my conclusion on this point is that when we see a scientifically correct statement in the Qur'an, whether it was mentioned in other books or whether it was not, that does not matter, because what matters is how did the author of the Qur'an know this was the correct answer in an ocean of falsehood and myths. So that is another illogical argument used against the Qur'an or any book for that matter.

[ Atheist logical fallacy #3:Issue of scientific errors ]

Now let me talk about the last part. If you study the Qur'an you will see that the Qur'an does not contradict any established modern scientific fact. This is a true statement. That's really not what is going to be debated tonight, but I just wanted to bring up that point. Anyway, many have tried to find scientific errors in the Qur'an, but they have failed. On person in particular was Richard Carrier, who is also Denis' I guess friend or colleague, and he is also a writer for infidels.org, and he basically could not really find any scientific errors in the Qur'an. But my point is this here: scientific errors really are not germane to the topic tonight - they're really irrelevant. Let me explain to you why. Let's hypothetically say again that there is this book we found - an ancient book - two thousand years ago - I'm just giving you a hypothetical. And in that book you found every single concept of modern day chemistry that scientists have only discovered today. I don't think anyone would hesitate in concluding that man could not have been the author of this book - nobody would hesitate on that conclusion. Now let me throw this in this equation also: what if there were two pages filled with scientific errors also in that book? What does that mean? Does it change the fact that there are statements in that book which a human being could not have known two thousand years ago? Of course not, it does not change that fact. So again I'm talking logically here. Logically, scientific errors are irrelevant. Whether a book contains scientific errors or not is really irrelevant. It does not prove or disprove anything. These are all emotional arguments. They're basically used to capture a shock effect, but it doesn't prove or disporve the fact that this book cannot have been written by a man - it had to have been a greater source. I hope everyone understands it - I can repeat that point again in case anyone needs to. But as I said, if you look in the Qur'an, there is nothing in the Qur'an which disagrees with established modern scientific fact, though that is not being debated to night and I understand.

Okay, having said all of that, I spent sixteen minutes pretty much laying down the ground rules and basically laying down the logic which we are going to use tonight. So let me start with the first piece of evidence of the Qur'an. I'm going to give you eight pieces of evidence, and these are eight statements in the Qur'an which agree with modern scientific fact which scientists have only discovered recently. Let me go ahead and start right here. Now what I'm going to do is I'm going to break up my talk into two different parts. I'm going to first tell you what science says, and then I'm going to tell you what the Qur'an says and then we can go from there.

[ Evidence #1: Quran on Bee’s role in nature ]

This is what modern science has to say on the topic of zoology, in particular bees. We're going to be talking about bees over here. Today science tells us that the male bee has only one purpose, and that is to reproduce with the female - there's really no other purpose for a male bee. Now here's the important point - however, the worker bee or the soldier bee is a female bee. She is the one that builds the nest, leaves her home, and goes out in search of food. This what modern science tells us - that we have discovered only recently. Now it takes a specialist in the field to detect the sex of the bee - you cannot look at it from the naked eye - it is impossible, there is no way you can look at it that way. Now let me show you what the Qur'an says about bees. Now, keep one thing in mind here. In the Arabic language, animals are either male or female. Like in English we have the word cow - "the cow in the pasture" - that does not tell us if the cow is male or female. But in Arabic animals are either male or female. There is no gender neutral term for animals. Let's look inside chapter sixteen verse sixty-eight. It says over there:

"and thy Lord taught the bee" (here it is specified a female bee) "to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in men's habitations, then to eat of all the produce and find with skill the spacious paths of its Lord."

This is exactly what modern science today tell us - that the bee that goes out and builds the nest, that goes out looking for food, as what the Qur'an has mentioned, is indeed the female bee.

So anyway, I'll have to raise a question now. How did the author of the Qur'an know this scientific statement, that the bee that leaves the nest in search of food is the female bee? Let's go back to the algorithm. If you can look at that link which I have just sent you, let's look at that algorithm. Perhaps the author of the Qur'an was a genius or a scientist, which is (A) and (C). Well, I don't think that could be a possibility, becuase no matter smart you are, you'll never be able to detect the sex of a bee, unless you had these modern scientific methods which did not exist one thousand four hundred years ago, so those could not be a possibility. Let's look at (F). Perhaps the scientific fact is observable. Well, this is not true either, because you cannot look at the bees and tell which one is a male or female. Let's look at (B). Perhaps it was a very good guess. Well, it is a possibility. If it was a good guess then we'll say it was a fifty-fifty chance, one half chance if that was the case - or coincidence, we can look at it that way. Now let's look at (G) here, I want to pause on this one for a second. The information already pre-existed in history, therefore the author of the Qur'an simply plagiarized from another source. Let's analyze this for just a second here.

Learn more about it here.

[ Aristotle’s work on Bee research ]

I want to bring up one of the books which were written much before the time the Qur'an was revealed, and that is the works of Aristotle. Because I think when you look at Aristotle's works here, it's going to give us some insight, because he did some research on bees, which a lot of people don't know. Anyway, when you go to his books on meteorology you will find that he has done studies on bees. This is what Aristotle had to say - and actually Aristotle did make some scientifically correct statements regarding bees - Aristotle discovered that there were three categories of bees, and he discovered that there was such a thing as a leader bee, which today we know are queen bees, as well as drones and workers. So he did make some correct discoveries inside modern science when it comes to bees. But that can very easily fall under the category of (F), that this is something which is observable. Meaning, if you study the bee hive, you're going to see the same thing.

Anyway, here's an important point on Aristotle. Aristotle also made many scientific errors regarding bee study. I'm going to give you seven scientific errors, which Aristotle made.

Aristotle first of all thought the queen bee was actually a male, which is wrong, it is female.
Number two: he thought bees do not give birth to young, but they fetch their young from flowers, which is actually false. We know that bees are actually hatched from eggs.
Number three: Aristotle thought bees come from olives[?], which of course we know is not true.
He said the honey comb of the bee is actually made from flowers. This is false - the honey comb is made from wax.
He knew of bee's wax though, but he thought the bee's wax comes from the gum of trees, which is completely scientifically inaccurate - it comes from the wax glands of the bees.
He said female bees do not sting because nature does not provide females with weapons, but this is also false, because female bees are the ones that are stinging you. They are the ones with the stingers. The male bees don't have stingers.
And he basically thought that the worker bees were basically sexless, meaning they had no male or female parts to them.

So these are basically seven scientific errors which Aristotle made. Now I want to ask a question - I want to raise a point here. What is the scientific truth over scientific error ratio for Aristotle? Well, I believe it is one over seven(1:7). For one scientifically correct statement he made seven errors, and that's reasonable. There's nothing wrong with that, because that's how scientists learn and make discoveries. They make these discoveries by a trial and error method.

[ Borrowing material from pre Islamic sources revisited ]

Anyway, let's say the author of the Qur'an really like Aristotle's work, he thought it was incredible, "wow, this is great stuff." If he was going to copy from Aristotle's book, you know what is going to happen? The same thing which happened to me in high school: he's going to copy many of the wrong and false statements into his book. Am I right? If you're going to use this book to copy from, you're in big trouble, because there is a lot of scientific errors in there. So, that is why the point I would like to raise here is that if we are going to entertain - going back to this point which I raised - if we are going to entertain this possible scenario which is (G) the information already pre-existed in history and the author of the Qur'an simply plagiarized from another source, well then what we are going to have to find - you'll have to also show us many of the scientific fallacies that the author of the Qur'an also copied. Because how did he know what to copy and what not to? So that's my point here; that's the only way we can entertain this particular objection or this particular possible scenario. If you going to say he copied from the book, then show us other things that he copied from that book. And if you cannot show that, then we cannot entertain this possible scenario, logically. Anyway, let me ask another question: what is the ratio of the scientific error over scientific truth for the Qur'an in relation to bee study? Who can tell me? Well, it is one over zero. Aristotle's was one over seven, the Qur'an's is one over zero. Which means that the author of the Qur'an could not have plagiarized this from any source, because if you're copying from a source, believe me man, I know this [from] first hand experience: you're going to copy some of the wrong answers too.

[Evidence #2: Lost city of Iram]

Anyway, let me move on to the second piece of evidence here. Evidence [...inaudible...]. If you look in the Qur'an it talks about a city named Iram inside chapter eighty-nine, verse seven. Now, there's something very unique about the city Iram, which is that nobody has ever heard of a city called Iram before. You can look through all the pre-Arabic or Arabic literature, none of the companions of Muhammad (salallaahu alayhee wa's-Salaam), or Aristotle's work, or the Hindu scriptures, nobody has ever heard of a city called Iram yet this is a city mentioned in the Qur'an. And for this point many people have actually ridiculed the Qur'an and made fun of it because it is talking about cities which nobody has ever heard of. And even one of the most famous critics of the Qur'an, his name was Wellhausen, he stated that Iram was actually a fictional place - it didn't exist - whoever wrote the Qur'an just made up some corny city and then put it in the Qur'an. This is basically what many people thought, especially Wellhausen. Some Muslims also, they felt very ashamed of this fact and so they said "okay, okay, Iram is not the name of a city, actually Iram is the name of a person, yeah, yeah it is the name of a person," because they felt ashamed on this point. Well, anyway, all of this changed in 1978, because there was an archeological dig and they discovered a city named Ebla. Now in this city Ebla, they looked in the library and there they discovered a city that Ebla used to do business with, and low and behold, that city was named Iram. The very same exact city as mentioned in Surah eighty-nine, verse seven of the Qur'an. And that was done in 1978. Now, how was the author of the Qur'an able to have knowledge of this city? This is a question I would like to raise. And even the person who wrote the article from National Geographic in 1978 - I believe it was the December edition, I'm not sure - but he even makes specific reference to this. He says "Iram, this is that strange or obscure city that was mentioned in the Qur'an." That is even mentioned in the National Geographic article. So how did the author of the Qur'an know that such a city existed?

Well again, we would look at the algorithm and we could see that it is any one of those eight possibilities, perhaps. Now, actually Denis made kind of a very strange statement in the Google Group -I just want to raise it right now for just a second. He said - well first of all, let me back up a little bit here. Some people have guessed or basically made a hypothesis that Iram is a city in Southern Arabia. There's really no proof for that, but some people have basically guessed at that - but anyway, let's go along with that. Denis made a statement - he said "oh what's so big about an Arab talking about a statement in Arabia? There's nothing really strange about that or something miraculous." I would ask Denis to really look at that argument a little bit more carefully, because the point is, it does not really matter if it is in Europe or China or Malaysia. The point is that no one in history - in ten thousand pages of hadith literature as well as all history - has ever heard this city named Iram. And how is it mentioned in the Qur'an, this city? That is like me coming saying that let's say in Montana there was an archeological dig, and there we discovered a city named - I'll just make up some name, Montezuma, no not Monetzuma - Bohemia! I'm just going to think up some name here. And Bohemia is actually a city, which is five thousand years old. Now if somebody in Florida was talking about a city called Bohemia, that would be something very profound. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. How was that person in Florida talking about a city named Bohemia? Would there be anyone who would come up tonight and say "oh, no, no, no, that means nothing, that could be nothing - it is simply an American talking about a city in America." Well of course that would be foolish. So, there's really no basis for that argument.
Learn more about it here.

[ Evidence #3: Quran on barriers between different seas ]

Anyway, let me move on to proof number three here. We are now going to move away from archeology and we are going to talk about oceanography. Today, scientists tell us that there is actually a barrier between the bodies of water, and that this information has only been discovered recently, using advanced equipment. Now let me give you an example: there is actually a physical barrier between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. This barrier - the two seas basically differ in, number one, temperature, salinity, and density, and between these two seas there is an actual physical barrier. Now there is a diagram of this barrier which I'm going to give everyone right now. It is on this link - you can click on this link and you will see the diagram of that barrier between the seas. And of course, this barrier between the seas which we are talking about is not visible to the naked eye.
Let's see what the Qur'an has to say on this topic. Inside chapter fifty-five, verse nineteen it says over there:

"He it is how has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress."

Now this is a statement which completely agrees with modern science. Scientists have only recently discovered that there are barriers inside the ocean, between the seas, and I gave an example between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. So anyway, we see that this statement of the Qur'an agrees with modern science.

[ Quran does not speficy what type of barrier ]

Now I was looking and I saw that there tended to be a lot of useless debate in [which] people were trying to define what type of barrier is being used - what type of barrier is the Qur'an referring to? Because they cannot refute the idea that the Qur'an clearly, clearly states that there is a barrier between the seas, so they start to try to make a controversy out of what type of barrier.

Well, anyway, I can kind of settle the debate tonight by saying that the Qur'an does not say anything as far as what type of barrier is being used - because you know, there are many different types of barriers: there's multi-layered barriers, there's radiating barriers. Basically, a barrier impedes movement of an object or a substance - something which blocks the passage of a certain substance. Different types of barriers perform different functions. Some act like an iron curtain, which completely blocks off two substances, while some barriers do the same task of blocking two substances but they do it in a more subtle fashion, by kind of slowly bringing them to a halt. So anyway, my point is the Qur'an does not speak about what type of barrier, and there is really no point in trying to guess and trying to make a controversey out of that.
Learn more about it here.

[ Evidence #4: Quran on barriers between salt and fresh waters ]

Anyway, let me move on to the next piece of evidence. Proof or evidence number four. We talked about barriers between the two different seas, which differed in temperature, salinity, density, et cetera. But science today has also told us that there is a barrier between fresh and salt water. In fact this barrier which the scientists talk about - they call it the zone of partition. So basically, on one side of the zone of partition you have salty water, and on the other part of the partition you have fresh water. And this has been also clearly, explicitly stated in the Qur'an. Let's look at chapter twenty-five, verse fifty-three:

"it is he who has let free the two bodies of flowing water, one palatable and sweet - (referring to fresh water) - and the other salt and bitter…."

Now here is the important point I would like everyone to take heed to:

"yet he has made a barrier between them, a parition that is forbidden to be passed."

Now again, many of the antagonists and Atheists can not refute the fact that the Qur'an is clearly talking about a barrier between fresh and salt water. That is unmistakable, and that completely agrees with modern science. But again they try to make a controversey out of "what type of barrier? what type of barrier is the Qur'an talking about?" which is really a red herring. But again, this partition that is forbidden to be passed, that is something which is vague and ambiguous. That does not still tell us what type of barrier, whether it is a radiating barrier or et cetera. Anyway, I just wanted to make that one point.
Learn more about it here.

[ Aristotle’s faulty knowledege on salt and fresh water phenomenon ]

Let me refer back to Aristotle again. Aristotle did research on oceanography in his books, in addition to bee study. And he tried to explain this phenomenon of fresh water and salt water. He had no idea that there was an actual physical barrier between them. This is what Aristotle thought: he says "the same thing happens in animal bodies. Here, too, the food when it enters the body is sweet, yet the residuum and dregs of liquid food are found to be bitter and salt." So basically what Aristotle is saying is that when you eat a twinkie, it tastes nice - yeah, it's great - but now, if you taste your own poop or your own feces, it is very bitter and salty. Now, this is what I call a very dedicated scientist, you know, who would taste his own feces. You have to give credit to the man.

Anyway, so Aristotle continues: "This is because the sweet and the drinkable part of it has been drawn away and the natural animal heat has passed into the flesh and other parts of the body according to their several natures." So basically he is saying when you eat something by a process of evaporation - animal heat, he's referring to evaporation - this is how fresh water becomes salty. Just like when you eat a twinkie, and you go to the bathroom and you defecate that twinkie, that is the same thing which happens when you see salt water and fresh water. So of course, needless to say, this is a gross scientific error. We all know this does not describe the relationship of salt and fresh water.

So my point here is, again, I do not think the author of the Qur'an was plagiarizing from Aristotle, or else he would have copied this gross scientific error in his book. Or let me ask the question again: out of all the scientific statements I have been showing in the Qur'an, what is the scientific truth over scientific error ratio? Who can tell me? It is one out of zero for every one - every single one of them, one out of zero.

[Evidence #5: Quran on no light on the bottom of the seas]

Okay, let me continue. Now, we are still on the topic of oceanography. Let's look at the fifth piece of evidence. Scientists have only recently discovered that at the very bottom of the ocean it is completely dark. That is, you are going to have to travel one thousand meters, and after you have traveled one thousand meters in the ocean, it is complete pitch darkness. In fact, if you have ever seen the movie Titanic, the Titanic is actually at the very bottom of the sea, and the Titanic right now resides in complete total darkness. Now man, on the other hand, he could probably swim about - at the most - forty meters down in the ocean without special equipment. So he could only go about forty meters, but like I said, once you go down one thousand meters, that is when you see that it is complete pitch darkness. And scientists have only recenlty been able to discover these details - pieces of information about the seas.

Now let's see what the Qur'an has to say about this. Chapter twenty-four, verse forty of the Qur'an. It is talking about the disbeliever – that:

"the disbeliever is like the darkness in the vast deep sea,(and it goes on in a later verse - I mean, in the same verse:)if a man were to stretch out his hand, he can hardly see it; and for he whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light."

It says in the Qur'an:

"there is no light for him"

and it is talking about the vastest deep ocean. So the Qur'an is saying at the very deep, dark levels of the ocean it is complete darkness, and that is like the analogy of a disbeliever - he lives in complete darkness. Again, this is exactly what scientists today have told us - that the ocean, after one thousand meters, is complete death[?] darkness. I would raise a question: how did the author of the Qur'an know this type of scientific information?

Learn more about it here.

[ Evidence #6: Quran names the lowest point on Earth ]

Okay, let's look at evidence number six over here. We are going to get off the topic of oceanography. I have produced for you three pieces of evidence of oceanography. Basically, that the author of the Qur'an knew that there was a barrier between the seas. Number two, he knew that there was a barrier between salt and fresh water, and the author of the Qur'an also knew that at the very depths levels of the ocean is complete darkness. Let me now move on to proof number six here. We are going to talk about geology.

If you have a topographical globe - topographical globes show the elevations and depressions of the earth - and if you look at where is the lowest point on the earth, you will see that that is around the Jerusalem area. That is the lowest point on the earth. Anyway, let me read to you this verse of the Qur'an. Again, this is what scientists todat tell us: that the area around Jerusalem is the lowest point on the face of the earth. Surah thirty, verse two of the Qur'an says "the Romans have been defeated in the nearer land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious." Now, this word, "nearer land," that the Romans have been defeated in a nearer land, the word is adnaa 'l-ard, and if you look in the dictionary, they have two meanings for adnaa 'l-ard. One is "nearer land," which many commentators used, because it is a lot easier for people to understand "nearer land". But if you look for the other meaning of this verse, I'm sorry, for this word, adnaa 'l-ard, you will find that it means the lowest part of the land. So, the Romans were in fact defeated at Jerusalem, and that is the lowest point on the earth. So let me read to you this verse again: "the Romans have been defeated in the lowest part of the land." It can also be read that way, that is, any scholar of Islam will tell you that is an equally fine interpretation, because the word adnaa 'l-ard has two meanings: "nearer land" as well as "lowest part of the land". And of course the Romans were defeated at Jerusalem. So here is a statement which completely agrees with modern science. So we see here that the author of the Qur'an used a word in which one of the meanings was lowest land. Could that be a coincidence? This is my question.

Learn more about it here.

[Evidence #7: Quran correctly states Iron is not from Earth]

Anyway, let's now jump over to the topic of astronomy. Now, we know that there are many elements in the universe today, or in our planet today - I'm sorry. Scientists today tell us that after studying the element of iron, that iron could not have been created on earth. And not only that, they say iron could not have been even created in our universe. They say that in calculating the energy required to form one atom of iron, it was found to be about four times as much energy of the entire solar system, just to create one atom of energy. Scientists go on to tell us that this kind of energy is not observable in our sun, our planets, in our solar system combined. So, what they are telling us is that iron could not have been formed on earth, neither in our solar system; rather, it should have come from some external source. That is the only place where iron could have come from.

Now, if we look in the Qur'an, we see that the Qur'an actually talks about things which were created on earth. Like, for example, inside chapter thirty-six, verse thirty-six, it says:

"glory be to Him Who has created all the pairs of that which the earth produces,"

and then it goes on to say that the human beings were also created from the earth:

"and Allah has brought you forth from the dust of the earth."

That is chapter seventy-one, verse seventeen. So basically, someone would look at the Qur'an and say "well, yeah, that's reasonable, I mean how else would a man one thousand four hundred years ago - you know, he looks around his surroundings he sees that everything produced comes from the earth: grass grows from the earth, pairs come from the earth, so yeah, that's very natural." But now the Qur'an also talked about where did iron come from. Now, we would assume that the Qur'an would say that iron came from the earth, just like human beings, pairs, just like everything else - like any man would.

Notice what the Qur'an says about iron. Surah seventy-one, verse seventeen:

"and Allah as brought you forth from the dust"

I'm sorry, wrong verse! Chapter fifty-seven, verse twenty-five. Let me read this verse to you. Chapter fifty-seven, verse twenty-five, it says:

"We sent aforetime our apostles with Clear Signs and sent down with them the Book and the balance that men may stand forth in justice."

Now here is the important part I want everyone to pay attention to:

"and We sent down iron."

It says in this verse that God sent down iron to the earth which the meaning is when people study the Qur'an that iron could not be created by the earth; rather God says We sent down iron from (I mispoke, I meant TO, not from)the earth. That is exactly what modern scientists today are telling us - that iron could not be produced by earth. The earth does not possess the type of energy, nor does our solar system, and that is exactly what the Qur'an is stating. Okay, so the question I would like to raise in regards to this is how did the author of the Qur'an even know that certain elements are not from earth? What would ever make him come to that conclusion? A man one thousand four hundred years ago in the desert - if he was the author of the Qur'an, how would he have that type of information?
Learn more about it here.

[Evidence #8: Quran states Sun and Moon have Orbits]

Okay, let me move on to the next piece of evidence. And this is going to be my last piece of evidence here, and then I am going to give a summary. Today, we all know, and I think this is not a surprise for anyone, that the moon actually moves in an orbit - a circular path, we all know that. But the scientists also tell us today that the sun also has an orbit, which many people do not know. Yes, all the planets are revolving around the sun, but the sun has an orbit in which is revolves around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. So both the sun and the moon have an orbit. This is what scientists have only recently discovered.

Let me now point you to chapter twenty-one, verse thirty-three of the Qur'an. It says over there:

"and He it is Who has created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating."

The Qur'an clearly states that the sun and the moon have an orbit, and that word, falak, if you look in the Hans-Wehr dictionary, that word refers to a woman's chest, a round woman's chest. So it talks about that the sun and moon have a circular orbit. So this is a statement which clearly agrees with modern science. Now, someone may say "maybe the author of the Qur'an was referring to the sun and moon orbiting around the earth, like geocentricism - ah ha - that is what is [the] meaning."My response to that is, but why didn't he say that? Why did not the author of the Qur'an clearly and explicitly state - not according to your interpretation, but clearly state that the sun and the moon orbit around the earth? It does not state that. Anyway, so you would say "well, that is a coincidence, just an amazing coincidence that the author did not state that."

Okay, but let me show you how that coincidence keeps happening in the Qur'an. Look at this verse over here, it says, inside chapter thirty-nine, verse five:

"He coils the night upon the day and coils the day upon the night."

Now, it is a little bit hard to visualize this, I understand. That word "coils," basically, you could think of it as "donut" the night upon the day and the day upon the night. Again we are seeing that there is this roundness about the night and the day, you see? And basically the point over here you can see that anyone who walks away from this verse, they are going to come up with a conclusion: "hey, you know what? there is something very circular about the earth." That is okay - that is not the point I am trying to make.

My point here, is why didn't he say that the sun revolves around the earth, or the sun and the moon revolve around the earth, or something like that? Someone will say "well, that is another coincidence that he did not mention geocentricism." And you will find that there are like six to seven verses in which the author of the Qur'an was talking about the sun and the moon and its revolutions, but yet it never stated that they revolve around the earth. That is all coincidence I suppose? Anyway, my point is that this verse clearly agrees with modern science. The Qur'an says that the sun and the moon have an orbit - full stop, do not add anything more to that - and that is exactly what we know about science today. The sun and moon have an orbit.
Learn more about it here.

Okay, I am all done over here, and I just want to review, very quickly, the eight pieces of evidence which I have mentioned in tonight's debate:

Number one, I talked about bees: how the Qur'an correctly said that it is the female bee which leaves the house.
Number two, I talked about a city named Iram, which no one has heard [of] until 1978, and this city was mentioned in the Qur'an and archeologists dug up the city. I'm sorry, the archeologists dug up a city named Ebla, and they found out that a city named Iram did exist.
Number three, barriers between the seas: this was clearly stated in the Qur'an.
Number four, barriers between salt and fresh water.
Number five, that at the bottom of the ocean, it is complete deep darkness after, of course, one thousand meters.
Number six, the Qur'an clearly pointed [to] the lowest point on earth by using a word adnaa 'l-ard, which one of the meanings is "lowest point."
Number seven, the Qur'an clearly stated that iron did not come from earth, rather God said "we sent down iron," meaning it came from some external source, which is exactly what scientists today tell us.
And number eight, the Qur'an clearly stated that the sun and the moon have an orbit, and that is exactly what scientists today tell us.

So, okay, I am all done over here. I would like to invite Denis Giron to come and take the microphone, and then I will summarize my conclusion on this evidence in my next thirty minutes. Thank you.

Go back to Quran and Modern Science debate

Home