Quran and Modern Science Debate
Ahmed’s second rebuttal for 10 minutes.
Thank you.
Basically, to put it in a nut shell, what Denis Giron is saying, he is saying:
I don’t want to look at the evidence
collectively.
That’s pretty
much what he is saying. He saying, I don’t want to explore what are the
possibilities, or anything like that. You see, my job here, I’m not here to
make the blind to see, I’m not here to give life to the dead. You know, I’m not
here to force my views on anyone. Basically I’m here just to make what I
understand clear, and I used Mathematics, and I used it CORRECTLY and
PRECISELY. Which Denis Giron DID NOT future. He said, "well some people can
misuse it (probabilities). Even in his analogy, I’m not sure what was the
misuse, but anyways, maybe there was some misuse in his head.
Ok, he said,
"I’ll tell how you explain all these verses…." . He tried one.. one
time he tried to explain the evidences collectively. He said, "I
reinterpreted all of the verses". I DID NO SUCH THING!! If I did
this, then why didn’t you catch me in your first 30 minutes or ( I mean ) your
first one hour? Why didn’t you catch me over there if I pulled some kind of
stunt like that?
I said, that
in the Quran it is clearly specifying that it is a female bee. I said in the
Quran in the Quran the word used in the Quran has a dual meaning of lowest
land. How do you explain that? I did not sit here and say, "oh, by the
way, you see this verse means … (for example) Jeff went up the hill, and
actually when Jeff went up the hill… what that means is that Jeff went to a
higher a higher understanding of knowledge". Man, I didn’t do none of
that.
So he has to
come and show me where I twisted the verse. And that goes ….actually I refuted
this argument in first one hour presentation. That this is a common logical
fallacy made by Atheists. I said that… look, so long as one logical valid
interpretation is valid, they it can be used as evidence. And I proved that in
my first one hour, I don’t have time to rehash all that information. Denis did
NOT refute what I said. He simply committed the same..… he repeated the same
argument which I already refuted! Rather, than refuting what I said… "No
No No…" he should have came back and said, "No Nadir, If I can spin
another logical interpretation which doesn’t agree with science (like he did
with the Iron verse, even that was a poor attempt), than that does disprove
your evidence!".
He’s not
actually putting anything. What Denis basically did tonight, is that he said:
I don’t want
to look at your evidence COLLECTIVELY and I’m going to go back and look at
each piece of evidence INDIVIDUALLY!
That’s pretty
much his stance tonight. And as I said, I can not force people to believe in
things, that’s not my job here. So my point is, so long as what I told you in
the Quran, actually…. I just let the Quran read for itself. I did not twist
anything.
He said,
"I was simply showing that it is possible for a human to make these
statements." But what I did, I said:
"Ok,
here are the eight (human)possibilities Denis! And if it is possible,
then which one of these 8 are? (meaning, if it was humanly possible to make
these statements, what category would these scientific statements fall
under?Coincidence, guess, luck…etc.)
He doesn’t
what to do that. He doesn’t want to touch the algorythm!
I cited for you 8 of the logical (human) possibilities. He’s basically, he’s
dancing around it. He will not commit and say… "oh no… no.. no it’s
this" "oh no no , its that." "or may be it is combination
of this, this and this: A, B, C, D."
He wont do
that!
Because that is where he feels most comfortable. So long in his heart, he can
say for each verse INDIVIDUALLY, I can come up with a human explanation. That’s
where he feels most comfortable. Ok.That’s fine. I don’t have a problem with
that. But you are not refuting what I said.
Anyways, he
said about deep dark seas, that, the Quran didn’t mention the level. Who
cares!?! The Quran mentions at the deep dark sea, there is NO LIGHT. That is
what is stated in the Quran.
He said
basically, he did not even answer my question. He’s not answering my question
about the nearer land in the Quran. My question to him is, "how do you
explain, that the Author of the Quran used a word which one of the meanings is
the lowest point, and we know that is the lowest point." Science today
tells us that is the lowest point. He basically said, "its possible to
have a human explanation." Again, he is just looking at it individually.
The issue of
Walt Wittman is a red herring. Weather if there is scientific statements in any
other book, "no problemo!". We will use our algorithm and we will use
it against ANY book, any place, anywhere. The statement about the journey work
of the stars, my response is this Denis:
"It
could be one of 8 possibilities. Look at your algorythm,
it could be one of those 8: (D)coincidence, (B)luck, good guess, (C) scientist,
(F)observable and the list goes on. I already stated all of that.
But anyways,
I already pointed out, that there are 8 statements in the Quran which agree
with modern science. Actually there is more that that. But I only had time to
go over 8. And I said, what are the probabilities of all of this being luck? He
admits that this stuff is not guess work! He admits that this stuff is not
coincidence! He admits,yes,the Author of the Quran is not a scientist! Then if
you admit all of this stuff, Denis, then, what is the source of ALL of
this information????? Again, I’m asking you to look at the information
collectively, but he doesn’t want to. "No problemo."
His analogy
of the misuse of probabilities, I believe people can misuse a lot of things, I
believe people can dupe themselves in refusing to look at evidence. People can
misuse anything. There is really nothing worth refuting over there.
Anyways, so my
point is, I’m just going to have to repeat myself. If we look in the Quran, in
fact, let me pull up my old presentation here, which I was just pointing out,
that in that murder trial, if we look at each piece of evidence INDIVIDUALLY.
Each piece of evidence individually, yes, it has a "human
explanation", as how Denis likes to put it. I’m using his words. Each
piece of evidence if we just look at it individually, may be may be not he is
the murderer. But, when you look at the evidence COLLECTIVELY,… you say,
"ok… hold on a second…first of all you wrote a letter that you were going
to kill your girlfriend… AND THEN you also bought a knife that same week."
And in your mind what you are asking is, "what is the probability of you
doing ALL of these things?". And so, you mind is making a
probability and you are multiplying it. And then you add another piece of
evidence (to multiply).. and another piece of evidence.
What would
you say about the defense attorney who came up on that court date and said,
"you know what? There is is a human explanation for each one of these! On
each one of thes pieces of evidence its very possible that, my defendant is
innocent!" (the attorney is refusing to look at the evidence
collectively). People would laugh at him!!!! J J J
Anyways, so
the SAME logic, the same common sense, hate to even use the word logic, if we
use it to the Quran, and we ask the question:
"how do
you explain ALL of the verses in the Quran, these scientific 8
statements in the Quran which clearly speaks about modern science?"
you will
never come up with any other logical alternative other than there has to be a
greater source than man who is the Author of the Quran. We know this is not
guess work, if we run the probabilities on guess work, it is IMPOSSIBLE. If you
run the probabilities on coincidence, it is IMPOSSIBLE. We know the author of
the Quran was not a scientist. There is no way you stare at a piece of Iron and
say to yourself, "it did not come to this earth". We know that is not
the case. I pointed out, that just because you can spin another interpretation,
that does not prove my evidence. I proved that with my analogy of the big bang.
We know that this is not observable. Then what other alternative is left? The
only alternative that is left, is that, this can be from only one source, and
that is from a greater power than man.
*Because
no man can make 8 scientifically correct statements which is way before its
time.*
Even .. lets
hypothetically say all of the 8 statements were inside books which were written
before. Lets say, everyone at verbatim was written before. Still, how did the
Author of the Quran know, "Hey, you know what, that’s the correct one! I’m
going to use this concept of how the universe was created, about Iron, versus
all the WRONG, false beliefs. That argument doesn’t work
And so,
anyways, I only have 30 seconds, if you logically analyze the statements in the
Quran, there can be no other conclusion you can make, other than, that the
author of the Quran could not have been a man, it had to have been a greater
source. When you look at the evidence COLLECTIVELY. I did not spin my own false
interpretations on any of this stuff, so with that, I see my time is up, and my
last point is that:
No other book
in the World, can demonstrate what the Quran has demonstrated today
And my time
is up. Thanks.
Go
back to Quran and Modern Science debate
Home