The difference in temperature, salinity and CO2 concentrations in seas cause water to separate into layers; this was only known recently. But 1400 years ago the Quran referred specifically to the sea water separating. In the Bible the story was about separating the water in the sky from the water in the seas; so it is not the same story as in the Quran as this video falsely claims.
@wormhole199 No there is no barrier, the term layers is used to describe small differences in salinity and temperature, so stop grabbing at straws you dumbass, the quran even fails in embryology and never mentions the egg, even a high school kid could do better!,,,retard.
I thought there was something better. Anyway even if it says that in the Bible, u do realise that muslims believe the Bible was the word of God but changed by man. So we believe that the bible does have truth in it.
The fact that he needs to explain the quran, is prof that Allah is a loser when it comes to writing. he cant even explain himself to people. how perfect allah must be.
Aristotle was actually talking about fresh water being lighter than salt water, so it rises up to the top of the sea and is then lifted into the air (evaporation.)
He was pondering why the two waters meet (rain/rivers into the sea) but they never mix (the sea stays salty.)
The lowest heaven is where the clouds are that provide fresh water to form rivers etc. These meet when rivers run into the sea but the sea never becomes less salty - it was a phenomenon that Aristotle himself pondered in one of his ancient writings.
@TheRationalizer He means, if the firmament was INDEED the same barier that the Quran speaks of, why is it called the sky? The Quran never mentions the barier as a firmament...it calls it a "partition" and a "barrier"...so i dont understand how you could equate the two...the verses in genesis say God separated the seas from the seas by the sky, and the ground...meaning it was all water until God created the sky and the land, hence making "and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas"
@TheRationalizer secondly, the verse from proverbs is extremely ambiguous and does not say anything about the division of the sea water and fresh water by a physical barrier...it just says the waters should not pass his commandment.
@TheRationalizer there's no point in debating you...those references are in no way shape or form like the Quranic ayaat...but you are just dead set on remaining true to your point of views no matter the evidence...to you is your way and to me mine...
So, you think it is ABSOLUTELY impossible that the Quran is referring to the barrier between the two waters in Genesis, and far more likely that a supernatural entity wan't to impress mankind by telling us about something any sailor can see with their own eyes?
@TheRationalizer based on the verses in Genesis, yes, I think they are completely different...and any unbiased person can see that...especially the verses in proverbs...Im not desperate my friend lol...the literary beauty of the Quran is enough to convince any rational being that it is from the divine...the first muslims never needed to know about the origins of the Universe in the Quran, or anything else to accept islam...but fact is fact, and the genesis account is not the same as the Quran
@TheRationalizer and besides, why cant it be that you are desperate to disprove the miracles? you have just as much contempt for religion as I do for atheism...so that's a possibility...but then again I dont know whats in your heart only God does...you could be genuinely sincere...It would do you well, God Willing, to remind yourself, my friend, that the two fastest rising belief systems are Islam and Atheism...there is a reason for that I am sure
@notes2468 You believe a man lived in a whales belly for days? Think about that! Your dumb shit religion says a man lived inside the belly of a whale for days on end! *lol WTF Don't you people feel any sense of shame promoting this bullshit?
The definition of a miracle is that there is NO other explanation other than divine intervention. If another human has postulated the same idea in the past then it immediately rules out all possibilities of a miracle - because it shows that a mere human mind CAN reach that conclusion.
However, it is just a regurgitation of genesis anyway.
@TheRationalizer Tafsir al-Jalalayn for 25:53 "...and He set between the two an isthmus, so that the one does not mix with the other, and a forbidding ban, a shield that prevents the two from becoming mixed."
he rephrased and the word barrier just appeared. oh you forgot to mention the creation of the earth before the sun in genesis 1. or are you reading from the jimmy swaggart version of the bible.
Now what you've then quoted from proverbs 8 is also totally misleading. You've quoted half a sentence, the rest of it being '... should not pass his commandment'. This simply means God gave the sea it's boundaries once he marked out the earth's foundations. It's got nothing to do with the difference in waters lol Come on, be honest, you've just tried your best to come up with an argument and searched for random things on the net that could help you build a feable one.
Secondly, where in genesis that you've quoted does it mention about the difference in water or the barrier?? What you've quoted is God simply saying for some of the water to become sky - 'God called the expanse sky'. And if you want to use the word Rakeeeya, it still makes sense that God wanted a barrier between the sea and the sky. Your translation is completey different of what is said in Genesis.
Ok, this is where I blow your argument to bits. Anyone could simply taste water and tell which is sweet and which is salty. This however, is not the point which is emphasised by God in the Quran. The outright point is, is that there is an invisible barrier between the two types of water. NO ONE knew this until recent times with the help of technology. Aristotle stated the obvious. It's a bit like tasting cheese and onion crisps and salt and vingear and saying they're different.
All separate (and obscurely worded) miracles, or all three a simple rewording of genesis 1?
My point wasn't to show that these other sources explain the phenomenon claimed, it was to show that the Quran could just as easily be talking about the same things.
@whiteboyrighty Aristotle didn't only describe the difference but the fact that they kept from mixing... How arrogant to start your sentence with "I blow your argument to bits" when you're about to quote mine it. Speaks volume about you.
I just saw a video of Niak talking about circumcision. I thought to my self that has got to be one of the most ignored yet strongest arguments against religion or a Aberamic God.
Why would a merciful, logical or sane God wish for you to cut of the tips of your babies penis right after they are born ? Hey you have a new born baby boy now go cut off the tip of its penis cause God made it unclean cause he is odd like that *lol
As far as I recall the purpose of cutting off your sons' foreskins was merely to prove that you believed in Yahweh, it was never claimed to be of any benefit. Any claimed benefits have been retrofit in order to try to make the procedure seem justified, which is silly considering Yahweh could have just made us without them.
@TheRationalizer See that alone is reason enough to disregard all Abrahamic religions at bat shit crazy cults as if an all merciful all loving God wants the very first sensation your baby feels to be that of his foreskin being cut off.. freaking sickos. Also do you know Muslims have to do something called wudo before they pray and if they pass gas they have to do wudo all over again yet wudo has nothing to do with washing your bum, its just washing your face, hands, arms and feet *lol
Facts are facts, and the fact is that Naik claimed to answer the question but didn't. If you think I am wrong then show which verse he quoted describes evaporation and show me up for the idiot you claim I am.
That is your conclusion, so now present the evidence on which you based your conclusion. Show me where I am wrong, show me the verse that Naik quoted which DOES describe the evaporation of water.
Shall I tell you why you won't? Because I know you cannot, because unlike yourself I did my research before reaching my conclusion.
@TheRationalizer My proof is a waste as you dont believe or understand it neather can u understand zakir which is why you came up with this sick idea of posting this stupid pointless brain fucking video bye retard
Yeah, people who follow religions usually mistakenly believe that others "cannot understand" their proof. The fact is that I will understand your proof sufficiently, it's just that I will understand it for what it REALLY is.
@Angles786 Why are you so angry and evil in your manner of speech? I thought Muslims are supposed to talk to the people in the best of manner at least according to the Koran. Could it be that you know the Koran is untrue in your heart which is why you dont give a damn about how Allah tells you to address people?
@Angles786 Converted from what? BTW I dont care if you are a Muslim most Muslims I know are kind helpful people. They are just gullible when it comes to outrageous claims.
@Angles786 Okay so you were a Christian and now you believe that Christianity is wrong. In other words you admit to the fact that you were at least at one point in your life tricked to believing something you now know to be wrong. I'm sure when you were a Christian you had a Christian hero type speaker like Dr.Niak is to you now as a Muslim that you dont think that highly of anymore once you did your research and found him to be wrong. (cont)
(CONT) The Rationalizer love him or hate him has put in allot of hard work researching his point of view. He is one of the very few people here who challenges Islam with logic, reason and a high level of respect towards believing Muslims. Tell me if I proved to you 100% that Islam was untrue would you go crazy?
@BusinessEdgeRadio christianity is boring and some part of that religion make no sence Jesus is son of god why is a son of god white? why not black god cant be so unfair to his people and even if Jesus was a son of god why would he die? if god is for ever so is his son :[
@Angles786 Right see if you are going to judge with logic you should judge with logic all around. For example Islam teaches that it is your duty to circumcise your child after they are born. Why would God think like that? The min you have a baby boy you must torment this poor baby by cutting of his foreskin? That is so cruel and pointless. A God of reason would make the baby be born with all the parts the way the needed to be from the start.
If the Quran is the word of god why would it say that god decorated the sky with stars to act as missiles to shoot down evil ones? The closest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri which would take 4.2 years to reach us if it travelled at the speed of light, and is 70,000 times larger than the Earth. The idea that stars are shooting stars is ridiculous.
@TheRationalizer why does bible say that if you are a christian you should drink poison and you wont die every stupid person know that drinking poison will cause death
It's not that I don't understand, it's that you haven't actually said anything other than completely unqualified conclusions.
I know why you are not qualifying your conclusions though, it's because you cannot. You believe you are right without knowing why you believe you are right.
@TheRationalizer nononono wait a min are you telling me to read a man made koran so that you can brain wash people am i correct because you completely changed the words of koran on that site wow I dont have much knowledge about Islam but i am not stupid
I'm not twisting anything. If you didn't concede the Moon itself was in the 7 heavens then I simply misunderstood you.
Again, name the 7 layers of the Earth's atmosphere. Why are you avoiding this question? What are the names of the 7 layers of the Earth's atmosphere? Please name them.
The *Moon* is a light therein the 7 heavens and the *Sun* is a lamp. It also says that the NEAREST heaven is beautified by stars.
It's pretty clear, I have no idea why you are so adamant to hold onto this idea that 7 heavens is the 7 layers of the Earth's atmosphere - Which you STILL have not named.
Please name "The seven layers of the Earth's atmosphere".
You missed the caps on *A* light therein. The Moon is "A LIGHT" the Sun is "A LAMP" - the 7 heavens were created and they were placed therein. It explicitly says so.
You just conceded that the verse says the Moon + Sun were made within the 7 heavens and yet you still cling to the false claim that 7 heavens means "7 layers of the atmosphere"? Please explain that to me.
You also have not yet named the 7 "layers" of Earth's atmosphere.
You are arguing that the 7 heavens are the layers of the atmosphere (of which there are actually 5, not 7 by the way.) But the Quran says the LOWEST heaven has been "beautified" with stars. That would be incorrect because you can see the stars from all of the layers of the Earth's atmosphere.
great video mr. rationalizer.. and you are absolutely right in your argument.. however you fail to explain what the quran means.. to find that out we need to take a look at the 10 commandments.. check out the 4 commandment..
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the WATER UNDER THE EARTH..
the people back then thought that earth was flat and floated on an ocean of water..
im not sure about this video. The aristotle reference was interesting, and i was not aware of that. But I think you are missing the bigger point. The two waters DO mix. what do these people think estuaries are?
different density waters (due to heat, or salinity etc) simply slow down the mixing. it doesnt present an 'intrangressible barrier'.
its very amusing that zakir describes the zone where they MIX as the barrier itself.
I saw a BBC documentary where it would appear there are circumstances under which fresh water merges with salt water via under-sea springs in caves where the fresh water rises to the top due to having a lower density.
But anyway, this is just a vague rewording of genesis which has had its meaning bastardised to be a miracle. Dawahgandists will even quote mine the Quran :)
it doesnt make sense...if the bible claimed this then why has not a single christian or jew ever claimed it, or why have no translations come about where we can read it for ourselves
also just for arguments sake even if true..then how would muhammad know what verse to pick that is correct and what is incorrect..theres many errors in the bible so how could he know a correct one...where the verse doesnt exist in the bible anyway
I didn't once say that the bible makes this claim. What I said is that the Quran doesn't make this claim either - it is simply people deliberately misinterpreting the true meaning of the verse, which is simply a rewording of the creation story of Genesis in which two waters are separated by a barrier in order to create the heavens and the Earth.
i think the quran is self explanitory, just like the other comment you posted me you seem to have problems with interpreting it
"He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition. (Quran, 25:53)"
"He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress. (Quran, 55:19-20)"
the quran does not say the earth was all water. so if this is what genesis says then the quran has not ripped off the bible. also, ive never ever heard a bible scholar make this claim. & considering the number of errors in genesis, there is no way muhammad could cherry pick correct info (which is not there anyway) and ignore the false. it it illogical to assume this
I didn't say that the Quran says the whole world was water. I said that the verses in the Quran fit perfectly with the story of Genesis, and considering Muhammad was claiming to be a messenger for the people of the area (including Jews and Christians) it makes sense he would make references to the Torah and Bible.
No miracle here, easily explained, please move along...
why are you saying the quran fitted perfectly with the story of genesis when genesis says that the whoel world was water (at 1.23 you say "according to genesis the world was all water"). but if the quran story fit perfectly with the bible which is what you just said...it would have to say this...and it does not. there is a miracle and you are using deceptive tactics
there is a reason your sitting unemployed answering at daytime while naik is in oxford. you cannot interpret anything correctly, or are lying. which is it?
The verse in the Quran is talking about the separation of two waters via a barrier/firmament as per Genesis. The Quran is not talking about water density.
Therefore, Genesis did not make a claim about water density, but neither did the Quran when it referenced the creation event of Genesis.
your going off topic...you said the story of genesis fits perfectly with the quran...but you dont even show the versus of the genesis story...then you claim genesis says the whole world was water. but the quran does not say this...so it doesnt fit perfectly. density or no density it fails and i have never seen anyone try to make such a dubious claim in a debate as it would fail
show me an error from genesis muhammad copied? if you cant it means he never, and according to you he would have to have cherrypicked this water info from genesis(im still waiting for you to show me versus where in genesis it says this).
you said god turned to the earth while it was still smoke in the quran...but the quran says
41.11 Then He Istawâ (rose over) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come, willingly."
it doesnt say the earth was smoke...you are once again unable to interpret basic versus
Sorry I just typed it up wrong, I meant to write "while IT was still smoke" - the Earth was not "smoke" at this stage and that is the entire basis of my claim.
there are 7 heavens of paradise....they are not in the universe. so they may well have been in form of gas or "smoke". it doesnt mean the universe was not created
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
the verse claims god made seperate lights for the sun..AND the moon which is obviously an error. the quran has not copied this verse or info, it mentions the creation of stars but there is nothing to suggest it is copied, all this does is prove the bible alterations.
you say stars "formed" before the earth. but the quran never says they dont, these versus mention allah moved the heavens and the earth. and then the stars were "ADORNED" in the lowest heven at this stage. it doesnt say they formed. you are misinterpreting once again
and genesis also says in the same verse there were 2 lights created (sun and moon), so once again one would ask hoe could muhammad cherry pick the stars but not the 2 lights?
im not claiming that at, the quran says the stars were ADORNED at this stage. it does not say they were formed at this stage which is what you claimed it says
definition of adorned: To lend beauty to/To enhance or decorate with or as if with ornaments
so you can see the quran says the stars beautified the heaven at this stage. there is no mention of making the stars unlike genesis
41.12 "And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment "
Light from many stars in the universe would have been passing through our area of space long before the Earth existed, in fact long before the supernova of a nearby star which resulted in our solar system forming.
The "adornment" also occurred before the Earth was created. It's wrong no matter how you try to warp it in your mind to make it right.
@TheRationalizer your interpretation just like on the other vids comments (which was an absurd interpretaion) is the error. you claimed it was copied brom genesis...but we can clearly see it is not. again you choose your interpretations..just like you claimed this was a scientefic verse
"18.90"90. Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun."
Well you explain it to me then. Here is a correct chronological order of stars and Earth
1: Stars formed
2: Light from the stars reached the area where Earth would later form
3: A near here exploded
4: The debris from this star formed our sun + Earth
So, with the adorning light from these stars already passing through our space billions of years before the Earth even formed....in what way did the adornment occur after the creation of the Earth?
firstly you explain to me why you think 18.90 is a scientefic verse? you choose what to answer and what not. it can only be an error if its scientefic..so you must be implying its a scientefic verse
chapter 41 does not mention when light reached the earth, its all irrelevant. it mentions the earth was created, and the stars of the lowest heaven were "finished off" as an adornment during this phase...so its not referring to our sun either its reffering to the stars of adornment
then you have to tell me why you claimed this was copied from genesis, as its obviously not. genesis claims the stars were CREATED (quran says the heaven was adorned with stars). also, you still have not shown me the verses where genesis says what the quran does about water, and please explain why you said the quran story fits perfectly with genesis about water, even though genesis says the whole world was water according to you (the quran does not)
The adornment of the sky with stars IS the creation of the stars. Unless of course you care to explain how light emitting stars can exist for billions of years without adorning the heavens with light, and how exactly the creation of the Earth would make them start?
when it comes down to everything your interpretations are off as verse 18.90 shows. you even said yourself how you would have written the quran in different ENGLISH terminology, but it is not english to begin with, it is arabic which is an older and stronger language then modern english. so when a direct translation is made you misinterpret it. this is why when you say quran 41.9-12 is an error on creation of stars, creation of stars is not mentioned in arabic nor english.
You avoided my question completely, because you know I am right but your mental programming won't allow you to think about it.
Adorning the sky with stars means they were created. If you think this is incorrect then explain to me what changed in the universe as we switched from a state of the Earth WITHOUT a sky adorned with stars over to a state of having the Earth WITH a sky adorned with stars.
off course you are not right & you shouldnt be brigning up avoiding questions because you have avoided many and im still waiting. the defintion of adornment is to beatify, you falsly claimed the quran says stars were created when it doesnt, it doesnt say when they were created so your claims have no bearing, science is still discovering all the time so maybe you will have your answer one day, until then you are continiously making false claims of what the quran says
it is such a vage verse that you cant claim it reffers to light emitting, it doesnt say that. theres many "theories" we can go through, but nothing in the quran if kept in context can be shown untrue. some people scientists do not believe in the big bang so its all theories. add to that the definition of adornment and ask why did it not say forming of star, but the finishing of the heaven? it cannot be disproven if kept in context, argued...maybe, but all theories are argued.
Okay, I have had enough. Here is my summary of my experience.
1: You challenged me to show incorrect info in the Quran taken from genesis, I did.
2: You make up some crap in your mind that convinces you that to "adorn the sky with stars" had nothing to do with light.
Either someone has brainwashed you, or you have done it to yourself. You ignore basic scientific facts in order to continue your belief in something just because you WANT it to be true.
then you have to understand how flawed you intrpretation are. you claimed this is an error, it can only be an error if you imply its a scientefic verse
18.90". Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun."
that is obviously a story of a mans POV, i am still waiting to hear how you have managed to interpret THE sun RISE is literally on the faces of people. it is fail
great video.. and you are absolutely right in your argument.. however you fail to explain what the quran means..with this salt/fresh water verse.. to find that out we need to take a look at the 10 commandments.. check out the 4 commandment..
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the WATER UNDER THE EARTH..
actually i made a mistake, quran does not say the stars were finished off...it says the heaven was finished off. it doesnt mention creation of stars which was the whole point, it doenst matter when their light reached earth thats irrelevant
also the word used to describe the stars is "adorned", it doesnt say when the stars were created either in the versus 41.9-12. they were just made to adorn the lowest heaven at that time..to beautify the heaven at that time. it doesnt say when they were created in the quran...just the stars were beautified at this stage
truth is, i would be opposed if it was real...after all genesis is one of the 5 books of the OT which the quran confirms was sent to prophet moses. however we know genesis today is not the gensis of then...there are too many errors. and it does not say anything you claim it does either. the quran versus are clear.
and you dont acknowledge how would muhammad be able cherrypick correct info and disregard incorrect from genesis? genesis is filled with holes. it makes no sense
You know, if I were a Greek...A particularly curious, scientific Greek..I would have a special pot/kettle made where I can have the original reservoir of water heated, the steam being piped to another part to be cooled. One can then check the salinity of the water pre-steamed and post-steamed. Heck, the Greeks even came up with similar-to-hydraulics operated things using steam.
I google the qoute by aristotle, and it had to be a muslim who provided the entire text of what aristotle said. There is no mention of any barrier. The context is about the different natures, no barrier.
@TheRationalizer Its NOT about the two waters not mixing, It is about the water cycle and rain formation.
''It seems to belong to the sea because the weight of the salt water makes it remain there, while the sweet, drinkable water which is light is carried up.''
THIS is the context. One evaporates, and the other stays behind.
Better remove this video, or I am gonna make a video response and you gonna be embarassed. : )
I'm a bit tired at the moment due to a lack of sleep. Are you saying that Aristotle's statement is about why rain is fresh...because the fresh water is drawn up and the salt water is left behind?
This video does not make sense. God seperated two kinds of waters with the sky according to the bible, but read the quran in context:
19 He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together: 20 Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress: 21 Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? 22 Out of THEM come Pearls and Coral: 23 Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Pearls and corals don't come from the sky, do they?
Your mistake is in assuming that Muhammad didn't make a mistake. He's clearly talking about the creation story of genesis. Is there such a thing as fresh water coral?
@TheRationalizer So make up your mind. Is the verse taken from the bible which has nothing to do with actual seas, or did mohammed pbuh make a mistake about coral in fresh water, according to you?
I'm too knackered. Make your video if you wish and I will approve it. If I am not convinced with your rebuttal and the fancy takes me then I will respond.
Yes, that was my favourite verse as I read the Quran. I was nearly converted to Islam because of it. But then I read 25, wufta tvnfnmfnm fifoo and realised it didn't mean what I thought it did.
*arctic halocline* - nuff said. its even confirmed by sir david attenborough. RATIONALISE THAT!!
Mak47sud 1 month ago
The difference in temperature, salinity and CO2 concentrations in seas cause water to separate into layers; this was only known recently. But 1400 years ago the Quran referred specifically to the sea water separating. In the Bible the story was about separating the water in the sky from the water in the seas; so it is not the same story as in the Quran as this video falsely claims.
speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/seas
wormhole199 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@wormhole199 No there is no barrier, the term layers is used to describe small differences in salinity and temperature, so stop grabbing at straws you dumbass, the quran even fails in embryology and never mentions the egg, even a high school kid could do better!,,,retard.
ZukefliJohan 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZukefliJohan
The difference in temperature, salinity and CO2 concentrations in seas cause water to separate into layers; This is true whether you like it or not.
speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/seas
wormhole199 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheLagunaSunrise 3 months ago
I thought there was something better. Anyway even if it says that in the Bible, u do realise that muslims believe the Bible was the word of God but changed by man. So we believe that the bible does have truth in it.
shiney94 4 months ago
@shiney94
It's a rewording of a false creation story. What more do I need to tell you?
TheRationalizer 4 months ago
The fact that he needs to explain the quran, is prof that Allah is a loser when it comes to writing. he cant even explain himself to people. how perfect allah must be.
chrstilen5 5 months ago in playlist Fler videoklipp från TheRationalizer
The aristotle text sealed the deal.
TheZachary86 5 months ago
@TheZachary86
Aristotle was actually talking about fresh water being lighter than salt water, so it rises up to the top of the sea and is then lifted into the air (evaporation.)
He was pondering why the two waters meet (rain/rivers into the sea) but they never mix (the sea stays salty.)
TheRationalizer 5 months ago
Your genesis story doesn't explain anythign about salty and fresh water barrier? What are you talking about? I misunderstand or you're wrong?
MuslimRationalizer 5 months ago
@MuslimRationalizer
1: There was water
2: A barrier was put between two waters
3: One was lifted up
4: The upper one was "the heavens"
5: The lower one was "the seas"
The lowest heaven is where the clouds are that provide fresh water to form rivers etc. These meet when rivers run into the sea but the sea never becomes less salty - it was a phenomenon that Aristotle himself pondered in one of his ancient writings.
TheRationalizer 5 months ago
@TheRationalizer Why would the upper one be called the heavens?
MuslimRationalizer 5 months ago
@MuslimRationalizer
It was called the heaven, why should I explain WHY it was called that?
TheRationalizer 5 months ago
@TheRationalizer He means, if the firmament was INDEED the same barier that the Quran speaks of, why is it called the sky? The Quran never mentions the barier as a firmament...it calls it a "partition" and a "barrier"...so i dont understand how you could equate the two...the verses in genesis say God separated the seas from the seas by the sky, and the ground...meaning it was all water until God created the sky and the land, hence making "and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas"
wesamalshaif 2 months ago
@TheRationalizer secondly, the verse from proverbs is extremely ambiguous and does not say anything about the division of the sea water and fresh water by a physical barrier...it just says the waters should not pass his commandment.
wesamalshaif 2 months ago
@wesamalshaif
To be a miracle there should be no possible alternative explanation, it can ONLY have come via divine revelation.
The fact is that
1: The old testament creates the heavens/earth by putting a barrier between 2 waters
2: Fresh water comes from the heavens
3: Aristotle explains people of the past wondered why fresh and sea water meet but do not seem to mix (the sea remains salty)
TheRationalizer 2 months ago
@TheRationalizer there's no point in debating you...those references are in no way shape or form like the Quranic ayaat...but you are just dead set on remaining true to your point of views no matter the evidence...to you is your way and to me mine...
wesamalshaif 2 months ago
@wesamalshaif
So, you think it is ABSOLUTELY impossible that the Quran is referring to the barrier between the two waters in Genesis, and far more likely that a supernatural entity wan't to impress mankind by telling us about something any sailor can see with their own eyes?
You seem a bit desperate to see miracles.
TheRationalizer 2 months ago
@TheRationalizer based on the verses in Genesis, yes, I think they are completely different...and any unbiased person can see that...especially the verses in proverbs...Im not desperate my friend lol...the literary beauty of the Quran is enough to convince any rational being that it is from the divine...the first muslims never needed to know about the origins of the Universe in the Quran, or anything else to accept islam...but fact is fact, and the genesis account is not the same as the Quran
wesamalshaif 2 months ago
@TheRationalizer and besides, why cant it be that you are desperate to disprove the miracles? you have just as much contempt for religion as I do for atheism...so that's a possibility...but then again I dont know whats in your heart only God does...you could be genuinely sincere...It would do you well, God Willing, to remind yourself, my friend, that the two fastest rising belief systems are Islam and Atheism...there is a reason for that I am sure
wesamalshaif 2 months ago
@TheRationalizer How do you know your interpretation is correct? From what authority?
MuslimRationalizer 5 months ago
@MuslimRationalizer
My interpretation of what?
TheRationalizer 5 months ago
Come and learn about scientific miracles in Qur'an - w w w. answering-christianity. com/ac20.htm#links
letsknow 6 months ago
@notes2468 You believe a man lived in a whales belly for days? Think about that! Your dumb shit religion says a man lived inside the belly of a whale for days on end! *lol WTF Don't you people feel any sense of shame promoting this bullshit?
BusinessEdgeRadio 7 months ago
@notes2468 please tell me you're joking.
MrBrational 7 months ago
@notes2468
In Genesis god puts a barrier between two waters, the fresh water (the sky) and the salty water (the sea.)
TheRationalizer 7 months ago
@notes2468
The definition of a miracle is that there is NO other explanation other than divine intervention. If another human has postulated the same idea in the past then it immediately rules out all possibilities of a miracle - because it shows that a mere human mind CAN reach that conclusion.
However, it is just a regurgitation of genesis anyway.
TheRationalizer 7 months ago
I would rather study science to understand more about Universe
v2talk 8 months ago
The tafsirs say isthmus.
lehman 8 months ago
@lehman
Which tafsir, which verse, and in relation to what?
TheRationalizer 8 months ago
@TheRationalizer Tafsir al-Jalalayn for 25:53 "...and He set between the two an isthmus, so that the one does not mix with the other, and a forbidding ban, a shield that prevents the two from becoming mixed."
lehman 8 months ago
@lehman
Okay, and what's your point?
TheRationalizer 8 months ago
@TheRationalizer It doesn't sound so miraculous if a tafsir says it's a land barrier.
lehman 8 months ago
@lehman
I am not familiar with the word isthmus :)
TheRationalizer 8 months ago
@TheRationalizer It's a strip of land between two waters
lehman 8 months ago
he rephrased and the word barrier just appeared. oh you forgot to mention the creation of the earth before the sun in genesis 1. or are you reading from the jimmy swaggart version of the bible.
momoqass 9 months ago
@momoqass
The word "barrier" is in the Torah too. Rakeeyah = firmament / barrier.
TheRationalizer 9 months ago
Now what you've then quoted from proverbs 8 is also totally misleading. You've quoted half a sentence, the rest of it being '... should not pass his commandment'. This simply means God gave the sea it's boundaries once he marked out the earth's foundations. It's got nothing to do with the difference in waters lol Come on, be honest, you've just tried your best to come up with an argument and searched for random things on the net that could help you build a feable one.
whiteboyrighty 9 months ago
Secondly, where in genesis that you've quoted does it mention about the difference in water or the barrier?? What you've quoted is God simply saying for some of the water to become sky - 'God called the expanse sky'. And if you want to use the word Rakeeeya, it still makes sense that God wanted a barrier between the sea and the sky. Your translation is completey different of what is said in Genesis.
whiteboyrighty 9 months ago
Ok, this is where I blow your argument to bits. Anyone could simply taste water and tell which is sweet and which is salty. This however, is not the point which is emphasised by God in the Quran. The outright point is, is that there is an invisible barrier between the two types of water. NO ONE knew this until recent times with the help of technology. Aristotle stated the obvious. It's a bit like tasting cheese and onion crisps and salt and vingear and saying they're different.
whiteboyrighty 9 months ago
@whiteboyrighty
1: The big bang
2: All life from water
3: Two waters that do not mix
All separate (and obscurely worded) miracles, or all three a simple rewording of genesis 1?
My point wasn't to show that these other sources explain the phenomenon claimed, it was to show that the Quran could just as easily be talking about the same things.
TheRationalizer 9 months ago
@whiteboyrighty Aristotle didn't only describe the difference but the fact that they kept from mixing... How arrogant to start your sentence with "I blow your argument to bits" when you're about to quote mine it. Speaks volume about you.
Acrimonator 9 months ago
I just saw a video of Niak talking about circumcision. I thought to my self that has got to be one of the most ignored yet strongest arguments against religion or a Aberamic God.
Why would a merciful, logical or sane God wish for you to cut of the tips of your babies penis right after they are born ? Hey you have a new born baby boy now go cut off the tip of its penis cause God made it unclean cause he is odd like that *lol
BusinessEdgeRadio 10 months ago
@BusinessEdgeRadio
As far as I recall the purpose of cutting off your sons' foreskins was merely to prove that you believed in Yahweh, it was never claimed to be of any benefit. Any claimed benefits have been retrofit in order to try to make the procedure seem justified, which is silly considering Yahweh could have just made us without them.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer See that alone is reason enough to disregard all Abrahamic religions at bat shit crazy cults as if an all merciful all loving God wants the very first sensation your baby feels to be that of his foreskin being cut off.. freaking sickos. Also do you know Muslims have to do something called wudo before they pray and if they pass gas they have to do wudo all over again yet wudo has nothing to do with washing your bum, its just washing your face, hands, arms and feet *lol
BusinessEdgeRadio 10 months ago
stupid video by an idiot like you Zakir rules
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786
Facts are facts, and the fact is that Naik claimed to answer the question but didn't. If you think I am wrong then show which verse he quoted describes evaporation and show me up for the idiot you claim I am.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer bullshit fact
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786
That is your conclusion, so now present the evidence on which you based your conclusion. Show me where I am wrong, show me the verse that Naik quoted which DOES describe the evaporation of water.
Shall I tell you why you won't? Because I know you cannot, because unlike yourself I did my research before reaching my conclusion.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer My proof is a waste as you dont believe or understand it neather can u understand zakir which is why you came up with this sick idea of posting this stupid pointless brain fucking video bye retard
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786
Yeah, people who follow religions usually mistakenly believe that others "cannot understand" their proof. The fact is that I will understand your proof sufficiently, it's just that I will understand it for what it REALLY is.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@Angles786 Why are you so angry and evil in your manner of speech? I thought Muslims are supposed to talk to the people in the best of manner at least according to the Koran. Could it be that you know the Koran is untrue in your heart which is why you dont give a damn about how Allah tells you to address people?
BusinessEdgeRadio 10 months ago
@BusinessEdgeRadio I am a converted Muslim :]
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786 Converted from what? BTW I dont care if you are a Muslim most Muslims I know are kind helpful people. They are just gullible when it comes to outrageous claims.
BusinessEdgeRadio 10 months ago
@BusinessEdgeRadio christianity
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786 Okay so you were a Christian and now you believe that Christianity is wrong. In other words you admit to the fact that you were at least at one point in your life tricked to believing something you now know to be wrong. I'm sure when you were a Christian you had a Christian hero type speaker like Dr.Niak is to you now as a Muslim that you dont think that highly of anymore once you did your research and found him to be wrong. (cont)
BusinessEdgeRadio 10 months ago
(CONT) The Rationalizer love him or hate him has put in allot of hard work researching his point of view. He is one of the very few people here who challenges Islam with logic, reason and a high level of respect towards believing Muslims. Tell me if I proved to you 100% that Islam was untrue would you go crazy?
BusinessEdgeRadio 10 months ago
@BusinessEdgeRadio christianity is boring and some part of that religion make no sence Jesus is son of god why is a son of god white? why not black god cant be so unfair to his people and even if Jesus was a son of god why would he die? if god is for ever so is his son :[
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786 Right see if you are going to judge with logic you should judge with logic all around. For example Islam teaches that it is your duty to circumcise your child after they are born. Why would God think like that? The min you have a baby boy you must torment this poor baby by cutting of his foreskin? That is so cruel and pointless. A God of reason would make the baby be born with all the parts the way the needed to be from the start.
BusinessEdgeRadio 10 months ago
@Angles786
Apply the same logic to Islam!
If the Quran is the word of god why would it say that god decorated the sky with stars to act as missiles to shoot down evil ones? The closest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri which would take 4.2 years to reach us if it travelled at the speed of light, and is 70,000 times larger than the Earth. The idea that stars are shooting stars is ridiculous.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer why does bible say that if you are a christian you should drink poison and you wont die every stupid person know that drinking poison will cause death
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786
Because it is man made, why does the author of the Quran think that shooting stars are really stars?
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer its because you think it is
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786
I didn't author the Quran, one or more bronze age Arabs did.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer If they can why cant you make your own koran and prove Islam and koran fake many tried and failed :D
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786
I don't need to write a whole Quran I only need to show a single improvement. I have already done this, see TheBetterQuran com
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer failed :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786
Provide details.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer of what?
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786
A failure on TheBetterQuran
Take one example and explain to me why it is not better than the original text.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer because its fake
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786
Fake in what way?
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer oh come on no one is gonna read thebetterkoran the words are messed up
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786
You keep presenting your conclusions without any evidence of how you reached them.
1: I failed
2: It's fake
3: The words are messed up
Please provide some substance to your claims.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer never mind you dont understand
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786
It's not that I don't understand, it's that you haven't actually said anything other than completely unqualified conclusions.
I know why you are not qualifying your conclusions though, it's because you cannot. You believe you are right without knowing why you believe you are right.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer lol thats not true why you say such thing
Angles786 10 months ago
@Angles786
In that case, present your evidence. Show me why TheBetterQuran failed, is fake, or "is messed up." Back up your claims.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer why change teeny tiny words in the koran?
Angles786 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer nononono wait a min are you telling me to read a man made koran so that you can brain wash people am i correct because you completely changed the words of koran on that site wow I dont have much knowledge about Islam but i am not stupid
Angles786 10 months ago
@TheRationalizer I must use the word FAILED again
Angles786 10 months ago
Comment removed
Angles786 10 months ago
@darklightening100
> im saying their light is within
71:16 doesn't sunlight, it only mentions the Sun.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
>I know after chattin to u for an hour ur not educated ur a google person
The name of that logical fallacy is Ad Hominem. The argument is wrong because the person is X. Address my argument. For approximately the 7th time now
PLEASE NAME THE 7 LAYERS OF THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE.
If you don't name them now you are really going to look like a right dick.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
I'm not twisting anything. If you didn't concede the Moon itself was in the 7 heavens then I simply misunderstood you.
Again, name the 7 layers of the Earth's atmosphere. Why are you avoiding this question? What are the names of the 7 layers of the Earth's atmosphere? Please name them.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
And for probably the 4th time - What are the names of the 7 layers of the Earth's atmosphere?
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
To which does the word "fīhinna" apply, the Moon or the light?
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
>it dosnt say they were PLACED those versus only say LIGHT is therein.
Actually it says
wajaʿala = And Made
Al-qamara = The Moon
fīhinna = Therein
nūran = A light
Made "the Moon therein" a light, and the sun a lamp. The Moon is "therein" as a light, and the sun as a lamp.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
The *Moon* is a light therein the 7 heavens and the *Sun* is a lamp. It also says that the NEAREST heaven is beautified by stars.
It's pretty clear, I have no idea why you are so adamant to hold onto this idea that 7 heavens is the 7 layers of the Earth's atmosphere - Which you STILL have not named.
Please name "The seven layers of the Earth's atmosphere".
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
You missed the caps on *A* light therein. The Moon is "A LIGHT" the Sun is "A LAMP" - the 7 heavens were created and they were placed therein. It explicitly says so.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
>i never said they r made within im saying their light is within
The Quran DOES say that.
71:15-16 See ye not how Allah hath created SEVEN HEAVENS in harmony - And hath made the MOON a light THEREIN
It doesn't say "made the moonlight therein" it says that the Moon was made *A* light therein.
Ibn Kathir: Agrees
Jalalayn: Agrees
You are wrong.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
You just conceded that the verse says the Moon + Sun were made within the 7 heavens and yet you still cling to the false claim that 7 heavens means "7 layers of the atmosphere"? Please explain that to me.
You also have not yet named the 7 "layers" of Earth's atmosphere.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
Name me the 7 "layers" of the Earth's atmosphere.
>it says the lowest heaven has been beautified it means we get light all the way to the lowes
Rubbish.
71:15-16 says Allah made 7 heavens and "made therein a light, and made the sun a lamp"
The Moon + Sun are not within the layers of the Earth's atmosphere yet here the Quran explicitly says they are within the 7 heavens.
Time for you to accept your mistake, it's no big deal, I won't gloat.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
I am not being stubborn at all.
You are arguing that the 7 heavens are the layers of the atmosphere (of which there are actually 5, not 7 by the way.) But the Quran says the LOWEST heaven has been "beautified" with stars. That would be incorrect because you can see the stars from all of the layers of the Earth's atmosphere.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
>wats the nearest heaven? is it our nearest sky cos if it is then yeah we can see the beauty of stars.
If the 7 heavens were the layers of the sky then that would place stars less than 18km away.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
The Quran says god created 7 heavens, it says he adorned the NEAREST heaven with stars.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
@darklightening100
>ur a bigger idiot then i thought lol, dont u know the 7 heavens are the 7 atmospheres of the earth?
The first layer of the Earth (Troposphere) ends at 18km.
41:12 and We decked the nether heaven with lamps (stars)
67:5 we have adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps
37:6 Lo! We have adorned the lowest heaven with an ornament, the planets
So stars and planets are all within 18km of Earth? I think you are mistaken.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
great video mr. rationalizer.. and you are absolutely right in your argument.. however you fail to explain what the quran means.. to find that out we need to take a look at the 10 commandments.. check out the 4 commandment..
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the WATER UNDER THE EARTH..
the people back then thought that earth was flat and floated on an ocean of water..
benthansen 11 months ago
@benthansen
I don't see the link with the subject of my video
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
wrote you a letter here on youtube.. check your inbox..
benthansen 11 months ago
im not sure about this video. The aristotle reference was interesting, and i was not aware of that. But I think you are missing the bigger point. The two waters DO mix. what do these people think estuaries are?
different density waters (due to heat, or salinity etc) simply slow down the mixing. it doesnt present an 'intrangressible barrier'.
its very amusing that zakir describes the zone where they MIX as the barrier itself.
1RothMan 11 months ago
@1RothMan
I saw a BBC documentary where it would appear there are circumstances under which fresh water merges with salt water via under-sea springs in caves where the fresh water rises to the top due to having a lower density.
But anyway, this is just a vague rewording of genesis which has had its meaning bastardised to be a miracle. Dawahgandists will even quote mine the Quran :)
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
it doesnt make sense...if the bible claimed this then why has not a single christian or jew ever claimed it, or why have no translations come about where we can read it for ourselves
also just for arguments sake even if true..then how would muhammad know what verse to pick that is correct and what is incorrect..theres many errors in the bible so how could he know a correct one...where the verse doesnt exist in the bible anyway
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
Did you not even watch the video?
I didn't once say that the bible makes this claim. What I said is that the Quran doesn't make this claim either - it is simply people deliberately misinterpreting the true meaning of the verse, which is simply a rewording of the creation story of Genesis in which two waters are separated by a barrier in order to create the heavens and the Earth.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
i think the quran is self explanitory, just like the other comment you posted me you seem to have problems with interpreting it
"He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition. (Quran, 25:53)"
"He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress. (Quran, 55:19-20)"
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
Yes. The salt water of the seas and the fresh water of the heavens, as per Genesis.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
show me the verse of genesis please?
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
1min 10 seconds in the video, didn't you watch it before deciding it was wrong?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
yes but you claim that the bible didnt make the claim, then you tell me it did...
"I didn't once say that the bible makes this claim"
"Yes. The salt water of the seas and the fresh water of the heavens, as per Genesis."
i cant see anywhere it makes the claim, it doesnt exist
prototype00000 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
the quran does not say the earth was all water. so if this is what genesis says then the quran has not ripped off the bible. also, ive never ever heard a bible scholar make this claim. & considering the number of errors in genesis, there is no way muhammad could cherry pick correct info (which is not there anyway) and ignore the false. it it illogical to assume this
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
I didn't say that the Quran says the whole world was water. I said that the verses in the Quran fit perfectly with the story of Genesis, and considering Muhammad was claiming to be a messenger for the people of the area (including Jews and Christians) it makes sense he would make references to the Torah and Bible.
No miracle here, easily explained, please move along...
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
why are you saying the quran fitted perfectly with the story of genesis when genesis says that the whoel world was water (at 1.23 you say "according to genesis the world was all water"). but if the quran story fit perfectly with the bible which is what you just said...it would have to say this...and it does not. there is a miracle and you are using deceptive tactics
prototype00000 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
there is a reason your sitting unemployed answering at daytime while naik is in oxford. you cannot interpret anything correctly, or are lying. which is it?
prototype00000 11 months ago
"I didn't once say that the bible makes this claim"
then you wrote
"Yes. The salt water of the seas and the fresh water of the heavens, as per Genesis."
so which is it? did genesis make the claim or not?
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
I refuse to believe that you are this stupid.
The verse in the Quran is talking about the separation of two waters via a barrier/firmament as per Genesis. The Quran is not talking about water density.
Therefore, Genesis did not make a claim about water density, but neither did the Quran when it referenced the creation event of Genesis.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
your going off topic...you said the story of genesis fits perfectly with the quran...but you dont even show the versus of the genesis story...then you claim genesis says the whole world was water. but the quran does not say this...so it doesnt fit perfectly. density or no density it fails and i have never seen anyone try to make such a dubious claim in a debate as it would fail
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
I show the Genesis verses in the video, and even told you what time in the video you needed so that you could watch them AGAIN.
The Quran doesn't have to relay every detail of Genesis (everything was water) in order to talk about it. For example
"God separated two waters with a barrier" - am I talking about the Quran, or Genesis?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
show me an error from genesis muhammad copied? if you cant it means he never, and according to you he would have to have cherrypicked this water info from genesis(im still waiting for you to show me versus where in genesis it says this).
so why didnt he get any false info from genesis?
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
Genesis has the Earth created before the stars. Now read Quran 41:9-12
God turned to the Earth + the heavens (while they were still smoke)
He decked the lower heavens with stars
Just like Genesis it talks about the creation of the stars after it talks about the creation of the Earth.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
you said god turned to the earth while it was still smoke in the quran...but the quran says
41.11 Then He Istawâ (rose over) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come, willingly."
it doesnt say the earth was smoke...you are once again unable to interpret basic versus
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
Sorry I just typed it up wrong, I meant to write "while IT was still smoke" - the Earth was not "smoke" at this stage and that is the entire basis of my claim.
1: The Earth was already a solid
2: The Heavens were still a gas
3: The stars were created
Same error as in Genesis.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
there are 7 heavens of paradise....they are not in the universe. so they may well have been in form of gas or "smoke". it doesnt mean the universe was not created
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
It still talks about the creation of the stars after the creation of the Earth, just like Genesis.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
this is the verse from genesis i just looked at
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
the verse claims god made seperate lights for the sun..AND the moon which is obviously an error. the quran has not copied this verse or info, it mentions the creation of stars but there is nothing to suggest it is copied, all this does is prove the bible alterations.
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
Stars formed billions of years before the Earth did, yet Genesis and the Quran describe the creation of the Earth before the stars.
You asked me to show you an error copied from Genesis and I did, so why try to move the goal posts? Just accept it, it is wrong.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
you say stars "formed" before the earth. but the quran never says they dont, these versus mention allah moved the heavens and the earth. and then the stars were "ADORNED" in the lowest heven at this stage. it doesnt say they formed. you are misinterpreting once again
and genesis also says in the same verse there were 2 lights created (sun and moon), so once again one would ask hoe could muhammad cherry pick the stars but not the 2 lights?
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
So what, you are claiming the stars were made elsewhere, and then Allah moved them so that we could see them from the Earth?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
im not claiming that at, the quran says the stars were ADORNED at this stage. it does not say they were formed at this stage which is what you claimed it says
definition of adorned: To lend beauty to/To enhance or decorate with or as if with ornaments
so you can see the quran says the stars beautified the heaven at this stage. there is no mention of making the stars unlike genesis
41.12 "And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment "
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
Light from many stars in the universe would have been passing through our area of space long before the Earth existed, in fact long before the supernova of a nearby star which resulted in our solar system forming.
The "adornment" also occurred before the Earth was created. It's wrong no matter how you try to warp it in your mind to make it right.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer your interpretation just like on the other vids comments (which was an absurd interpretaion) is the error. you claimed it was copied brom genesis...but we can clearly see it is not. again you choose your interpretations..just like you claimed this was a scientefic verse
"18.90"90. Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun."
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
Well you explain it to me then. Here is a correct chronological order of stars and Earth
1: Stars formed
2: Light from the stars reached the area where Earth would later form
3: A near here exploded
4: The debris from this star formed our sun + Earth
So, with the adorning light from these stars already passing through our space billions of years before the Earth even formed....in what way did the adornment occur after the creation of the Earth?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
firstly you explain to me why you think 18.90 is a scientefic verse? you choose what to answer and what not. it can only be an error if its scientefic..so you must be implying its a scientefic verse
chapter 41 does not mention when light reached the earth, its all irrelevant. it mentions the earth was created, and the stars of the lowest heaven were "finished off" as an adornment during this phase...so its not referring to our sun either its reffering to the stars of adornment
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
I didn't say it is a scientific verse, I said the contents of the verse are scientifically inaccurate.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
then you have to tell me why you claimed this was copied from genesis, as its obviously not. genesis claims the stars were CREATED (quran says the heaven was adorned with stars). also, you still have not shown me the verses where genesis says what the quran does about water, and please explain why you said the quran story fits perfectly with genesis about water, even though genesis says the whole world was water according to you (the quran does not)
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
The adornment of the sky with stars IS the creation of the stars. Unless of course you care to explain how light emitting stars can exist for billions of years without adorning the heavens with light, and how exactly the creation of the Earth would make them start?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
when it comes down to everything your interpretations are off as verse 18.90 shows. you even said yourself how you would have written the quran in different ENGLISH terminology, but it is not english to begin with, it is arabic which is an older and stronger language then modern english. so when a direct translation is made you misinterpret it. this is why when you say quran 41.9-12 is an error on creation of stars, creation of stars is not mentioned in arabic nor english.
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
You avoided my question completely, because you know I am right but your mental programming won't allow you to think about it.
Adorning the sky with stars means they were created. If you think this is incorrect then explain to me what changed in the universe as we switched from a state of the Earth WITHOUT a sky adorned with stars over to a state of having the Earth WITH a sky adorned with stars.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
off course you are not right & you shouldnt be brigning up avoiding questions because you have avoided many and im still waiting. the defintion of adornment is to beatify, you falsly claimed the quran says stars were created when it doesnt, it doesnt say when they were created so your claims have no bearing, science is still discovering all the time so maybe you will have your answer one day, until then you are continiously making false claims of what the quran says
prototype00000 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
it is such a vage verse that you cant claim it reffers to light emitting, it doesnt say that. theres many "theories" we can go through, but nothing in the quran if kept in context can be shown untrue. some people scientists do not believe in the big bang so its all theories. add to that the definition of adornment and ask why did it not say forming of star, but the finishing of the heaven? it cannot be disproven if kept in context, argued...maybe, but all theories are argued.
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
Okay, I have had enough. Here is my summary of my experience.
1: You challenged me to show incorrect info in the Quran taken from genesis, I did.
2: You make up some crap in your mind that convinces you that to "adorn the sky with stars" had nothing to do with light.
Either someone has brainwashed you, or you have done it to yourself. You ignore basic scientific facts in order to continue your belief in something just because you WANT it to be true.
We have nothing to discuss
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRationalizer
then you have to understand how flawed you intrpretation are. you claimed this is an error, it can only be an error if you imply its a scientefic verse
18.90". Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allah) had provided no shelter against the sun."
that is obviously a story of a mans POV, i am still waiting to hear how you have managed to interpret THE sun RISE is literally on the faces of people. it is fail
prototype00000 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
great video.. and you are absolutely right in your argument.. however you fail to explain what the quran means..with this salt/fresh water verse.. to find that out we need to take a look at the 10 commandments.. check out the 4 commandment..
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the WATER UNDER THE EARTH..
to be continued..
benthansen 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
actually i made a mistake, quran does not say the stars were finished off...it says the heaven was finished off. it doesnt mention creation of stars which was the whole point, it doenst matter when their light reached earth thats irrelevant
prototype00000 11 months ago
Whoever is marking prototype00000's comments as spam, please stop it.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
also the word used to describe the stars is "adorned", it doesnt say when the stars were created either in the versus 41.9-12. they were just made to adorn the lowest heaven at that time..to beautify the heaven at that time. it doesnt say when they were created in the quran...just the stars were beautified at this stage
prototype00000 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer
truth is, i would be opposed if it was real...after all genesis is one of the 5 books of the OT which the quran confirms was sent to prophet moses. however we know genesis today is not the gensis of then...there are too many errors. and it does not say anything you claim it does either. the quran versus are clear.
and you dont acknowledge how would muhammad be able cherrypick correct info and disregard incorrect from genesis? genesis is filled with holes. it makes no sense
prototype00000 11 months ago
@prototype00000
Mo didn't cherry pick the right information. He took wrong information too but people simply re-interpret it to mean something else.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
You know, if I were a Greek...A particularly curious, scientific Greek..I would have a special pot/kettle made where I can have the original reservoir of water heated, the steam being piped to another part to be cooled. One can then check the salinity of the water pre-steamed and post-steamed. Heck, the Greeks even came up with similar-to-hydraulics operated things using steam.
TurboDally 11 months ago
I google the qoute by aristotle, and it had to be a muslim who provided the entire text of what aristotle said. There is no mention of any barrier. The context is about the different natures, no barrier.
Good try tho.
Nebulous1982 11 months ago
@Nebulous1982
If the miracle claim is about salt and fresh water not mixing then Aristotle already revealed it, his wording is irrelevant.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer Its NOT about the two waters not mixing, It is about the water cycle and rain formation.
''It seems to belong to the sea because the weight of the salt water makes it remain there, while the sweet, drinkable water which is light is carried up.''
THIS is the context. One evaporates, and the other stays behind.
Better remove this video, or I am gonna make a video response and you gonna be embarassed. : )
Nebulous1982 11 months ago
@Nebulous1982
I'm a bit tired at the moment due to a lack of sleep. Are you saying that Aristotle's statement is about why rain is fresh...because the fresh water is drawn up and the salt water is left behind?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
This video does not make sense. God seperated two kinds of waters with the sky according to the bible, but read the quran in context:
19 He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together: 20 Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress: 21 Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? 22 Out of THEM come Pearls and Coral: 23 Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Pearls and corals don't come from the sky, do they?
(continued)
Nebulous1982 11 months ago
Respond to this video...
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
Your mistake is in assuming that Muhammad didn't make a mistake. He's clearly talking about the creation story of genesis. Is there such a thing as fresh water coral?
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
@TheRationalizer So make up your mind. Is the verse taken from the bible which has nothing to do with actual seas, or did mohammed pbuh make a mistake about coral in fresh water, according to you?
Nebulous1982 11 months ago
@Nebulous1982
I'm too knackered. Make your video if you wish and I will approve it. If I am not convinced with your rebuttal and the fancy takes me then I will respond.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
"25, wufta tvnfnmfnm fifif"
sensur1 11 months ago
@sensur1
Yes, that was my favourite verse as I read the Quran. I was nearly converted to Islam because of it. But then I read 25, wufta tvnfnmfnm fifoo and realised it didn't mean what I thought it did.
TheRationalizer 11 months ago
Zakir Naik preaching shit to the ignorant flock.
LAnonHubbard 11 months ago
0:16 - 0:17. Click repeatedly for best results.
mosquitoe4 11 months ago
@mosquitoe4
I get
25
25
25
TheRationalizer 11 months ago