Ahmed-Giron Quran and Modern Science Debate:
Giron’s second rebuttal for 10 minutes.
Ok, I would like to say thank you to the moderator as well as to Nadir. It seems that in 10 minutes we are not going to be able to bring this to a close, so again,I would like to remind people, that if they would like to see out debate in text, which is a much longer version of this debate, that we had over usenet over the course of 9 months,it is http://www.joes.com/home/ahmedgiron/
Nadir said, if we look at the evidence collectively, there is no other logical alternative then to assume that God is the source… or source higher than man. What other alternative is there? Now I said that, I summed it up in 3 words, or I tried to sum it up, lets say… and the term I used was miracle of reinterpretation. Nadir supposed me as saying he’s been putting a false spin on these verses, or that he twisted these verses. That’s actually not what I am saying. I’m not claiming that at all. What I am saying, is that 8 verses have been taken, and after the fact, correlated with science. Some of them are VERY clear. Indeed bees being female. Or at least a feminine conjugation, or feminine word being used for bees. Indeed, that’s pretty clear. But other things like, orbits of the sun and moon, I mean, that’s not clear, I mean, a lot of people long before the Quran believed that the sun and moon were orbits, and so, to correlate this with some scientific fact.. eah.. I don’t know. You know, it doesn’t say in what sense these orbits are.
Same thing with the dark seas. And issues like that. Is it possible to take 8 verses and correlate them after the fact with science? Yes. I mean I recited the Nathan abviat does this. We have 8 verses from Genesis alone. He actually does this with many. And Nadir, I’m sure, and I know for a fact, from out debates, can do this with many verses. He actually had another 5 examples that he was nice enough not to bring up in this debate, and I appreciate that, because helped us focus a little more.
Ok, now he bought up this issue where he claimed that I committed this fallacy where,that I claimed I can bring another interpretation to the verse, therefore, its not evidence. He said so long as one interpretation can be correlated with science, then it can be given as evidence. The problem here, is that, I’m not claiming my interpretation is right, and Nadir’s is wrong. What I am saying, is this other interpretation possible. And if its possible, well, then its possible for a human being to say such,therefore, its possible for someone to do this,to utter this statement. A mere mortal to utter this statement.
For example, the near land comes up, nadir asked me a directly, he put out a direct challenge, "how do you explain that the author the verse used a word that one of the meaning could be correlated with scientific fact?" I mean, I think this happens all the time, many words, in many languages, have many meanings. It doesn’t mean that the person who used this word intended the meaning. Am I claiming that he didn’t intend this meaning? No not at all. What I am stating is that……that, you know… its possible that one meaning was meant… you know… and that meaning is very easily for a man to use, and then there you go. I mean, a lot of words have multiple meanings, cleave in English is a great example, it could mean to cling or to separate. It doesn’t mean, that when someone uses cling,that they mean both cleave and separate, you know or, you know, it has to be taken in context….etc…..etc….etc. So the fact that the word has multiple meanings does not mean that the author intended all those meanings.
Now finally Nadir, said:
"what is the source of all of this information?"
That was another direct challenge that he gave me. And….uh… I’m not going to answer that question because….. I think….. I cant. Nor, was it my objective. If I say the source was Aristotle, then I’m positively asserting that the book is not the Word of God. And I said at the outset that I’m not going to positively assert that the Quran is not the Word of Allah. So I’m not going to do that. I mean, that’s for another debate. What I’m saying is that you have 8 statements and you can have many more that are being correlated with science, and you can do that with many statements. The fact that you can correlate them with science doesn’t necessarily mean that no human being could have uttered them. That the point I’m making. The question is, is it possible that a human being could have uttered these statements? Yes. Absolutely.
And I apologize to Nadir if he feels that I haven’t dealt with this issue
sufficiently. I think may be further discussion is going to be needed. And I
apologize to others who are offeneded. You can email
me at my first name, email@example.com.
Or you can go visit our thread and take part in it. The link
that I gave. You can go to that thread. So again I would like to thank
Nadir and I would like to thank the gentlemen ???? The
Islamic Brother who moderated this debate, and I hope there..
nobody was offended. So I would like to say thank you
very much, and I enjoyed this emmensly. Pax Vobis.