 everybody today we're debating whether or not the Quran is scientific and we are starting right now with finding truths opening statement thanks so much for being with us finding truth the floor is all yours all right so uh thank you so thank you James um for those who don't know me so my name is Ahmed Ashra and um I have my finding truth channel and it's about uh science, religion and uh philosophy and uh thank you James for having me and thank you Tom for for being here and the subject is uh whether the Quran is scientific so um I would like to to start by saying this the Quran is not a book of science the Quran is a book of guidance so the primary objective of the Quran is to guide people through their life uh by adopting the proper behavior that will uh cause them to um have the proper result of this life which is essentially going to paradise rather than going to hell um however for them to do that they will need first to accept that the Quran is a book uh from God the name of God in Arabic is Allah so they have to they need to accept that the Quran is a book from Allah which means that Prophet Muhammad is a prophet from Allah it's uh if you accept one you accept the other one so the Quran has many objectives to achieve one of them is to prove its own authenticity and then after you have accepted the Quran as an authentic message um then it has the objective of guiding you through your life connecting your behavior purifying your uh self and um pushing you to be a better person um having said that the Quran is is not a book of science the Quran has been revealed in the time of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him in an environment where he was calling people to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala who are not interested in science so the the the Arabs in Mecca and the Arabs in the um jazeera in the Arab Peninsula uh where it was not one of their virtues that at that point of time they were uh specifically versed uh in science uh they were specifically versed in uh language so they cherished their language they cherished poetry they used it as their uh medium for spreading news and for recording their history and for many other things so the Quran directly head-to-head challenged them in the best thing that they um uh uh held pride in which is linguistics um it it challenged them to produce a book like the Quran um which they submitted that they couldn't yet the Quran is not a book that is revealed to uh certain people at a certain place at a certain point in time so having said that and the Quran being sent from Allah who is the all-knowing all-powerful um in the design of the Quran uh the Quran is designed to be able to address people any place any time since the time of the message until judgment date which includes this time of ours so now the author of the Quran has has this problem that he needs to solve uh let's let's give this parable you need to be Einstein you need to go into a class where people are in I don't know primary stage third grade and give them the one speech that will explain natural philosophy to them or that will explain physics to them or that will relate their life to science and they're taking notes but you have the problem that you need to give them this one speech that will be of benefit to them at third grade at fourth grade at high school in university and in postgraduate and to the extent that they have understood understood later in their life special and general relativity the can still relate to the notes that they took 20 or 30 or 40 years ago so the Quran was a book that was revealed to humanity in its infancy in relevant to science however it it does strange things so number one the Quran makes a specific claim uh at the very outset of the Quran in the order of recitation that it has no mistakes in surah al-Baqarah which is the second surah after al-Fatiha which is the open which is the small surah seven ayahs the second one is a big one it says alif lam mean this book uh there is no doubt in it the Quran starts almost at its very outset by saying there is no there are no mistakes in this book when somebody when an author says that and the Quran within its text addresses issues that can really be related to nature or to science it is essentially a claim that you cannot find a scientific error in the Quran the Quran also within its text um uses this I have tried to frame it in my own words in English it says this um was from anybody but Allah we would have found many differences in it and it's referring to contradictions if this book as big as it is addressing the so many vast topics that it is addressing um it is essentially laying down the following inference so premise one human work has mistakes and contradictions but God's work doesn't premise two the Quran does not have such mistakes and mistakes and contradictions and hence the conclusion it wants to wants you to reach that if you can go through the Quran which is in the modern print is like 600 and something pages and you cannot find a mistake or a contradiction then you should reach the conclusion that this book can only be from Allah SWT now to achieve this mission the Quran uses language that is sophisticated language it uses different layers of meaning so it gives the audience who can be at third grade and listen to it meanings that can relate to their life and to their level of understanding of science and they can make benefit of it and when they refer back to their notes when they are in high school they can see further meaning in it and when they see their notes in college and in post grad and in their general life and when the space new space telescope returns images to earth they can still relate to their notes and understand more and more every time and this is when Muslims refer to the scientific miracle of the Quran they are not referring to science having miracles we are referring to the fact that the Quran addresses issues of nature and issues that can be uncovered by science through time in a way where statements that are made can be understood to be consistent with science as science advances another thing that the Quran does is that it pushes Muslims to research and to look into issues of nature to look into the complex issues of nature to look into the hidden and far away and minute issues of nature because it challenges them that when they do that it will show them that the message of Islam is true through showing them that the Quran is true so it says that there are topics in nature that when you are going to research you will either resolve that this universe cannot be there except by a creator or that the creator is indeed the one who has sent the message of Islam or actually both having said all of that my personal experience is so just a little bit about me so I'm an electronics and communications engineer with a major in computer and control I did my master's courses in computer control and I also did a master's of business and I studied Islamic Dawa so as a person I spent also 30 plus years career in in computer systems implementing complex computer systems so in my personal career and what I see in the careers of fellow Muslims is that when you are deep in a specific branch of science and while you are reciting the Quran the typical reaction is you will stop at this air and you will find an insight that you can relate to your specific field and so to me since a child since being a child where I was like a science enthusiast sometimes a nerd actually I found the scientific consistency and beauty of the Quran and Islam one of the appealing things that made me really look deeper and deeper into it and this feeling have not gone anywhere but deeper and stronger as I grew up and I understood more about science and I have seen the same with people who are specialists in their field that I know and I think this is one of the strongest reasons that Muslims generally are proud of the religion being consistent with modernity in terms of not asking them to believe things that are not consistent with scientific fact or observation so according to all of that I would say that I conclude without going into specific examples maybe we can go that into that later in the debate that the Quran and Islam has elevated Muslim society and hence the global society into a completely different level in wanting to do scientific research indeed the Muslim civilization did have great successes in doing that when Muslims got exposed to science it did not repel them from the religion and on the individual level the scientific consistency and beauty of the Quran has and remains something that keeps Muslims attached to the religion not the other way around and so to the question is the Quran scientific my answer is the Quran is consistent with science and pushes you to look into science and uses science to enforce your faith thank you very much for that opening statement from finding truth and with that want to let you know if it's your first time here at modern day debate we are a neutral channel hosting debates on science religion and politics we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from and don't forget to hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up for example David Wood and Nadir collide next Saturday that's going to be a juicy one you don't want to miss it and with that thanks so much Tom the floor is all yours for your opening as well all right so the topic today is is the Quran scientifically accurate the answer is no we can just go to any basic list of facts so geocentrism is false that's advocated in the Quran seven earths is false that's advocated in the Quran earth was created by the star earth was created before the stars that's false earth and heaven were torn apart earth has never been torn apart heaven was created from smoke i guess we can't technically prove that one false but i know i doubt it similar size and distance of the sun and moon that's false moons split in two that's been proven false nasa specifically said that has not happened nature of the moon's light the moon's light is reflected with the sun not what the Quran says meteors as stars fired at devils that's false the sky in heaven is a ceiling that's false the sky is a guarded ceiling that's false the sky is something that can fall that's false heavens to be rolled up that's false stars is something that can fall that's false uh the cause of shadows changing lengths they got that one wrong disregard of the north and south poles they got that one wrong they're wrong about biology and evolution humans created from clay i was actually kind of close i'm okay with that we'll grab that one from the RNA on clay thing close enough embryology sperm or aging between the backbone of the ribs that's false embryo forming from semen that's false disregard female ovum human is created from a blood clot false gender decided at clot stage false bore bones formed before flesh falls or all organisms created in pairs false fetus three layers of darkness false functions of the heart that got wrong uh source of source and purity of milk they got wrong they also got uh geology and meteorology wrong so flat earth wrong facing towards mecca wrong uh fasting and prayer requirements near the poles wrong uh earth is spread out and flat wrong earth is like a carpet wrong earth is like a couch we'll grant that one that was kind of funny earth is like a bed wrong earth is stretched out not really earth is a level plane wrong permanent barrier between fresh and salt water that's false uh definitely obviously false uh mountains prevent the earth from shaking that's definitely false uh mountains are the result of the earth's shaking uh mountains cast upon the earth definitely false chess contracts with altitude that's false uh earthquakes is punishment clearly false disregard of evaporation and water cycles we got that one wrong mountains of hail in the sky that one's wrong all us mites with thunderbolts well i don't think so unless these mites trees zoology ants converse and recognize humans nope uh four types of cattle nope and just biology beats you uh horses created as transportation nope the evolution got you on that one all animals live in communities nope jaguars pwned bird flight as a miracle like no it's it's not that's like the be how to how to bees fly like silly history they have a master and i they got history wrong too so massive iron wall didn't happen in history mary is a part of the trinity nope never a thing taught in christianity so they got christianity wrong mary as mary and they got that one wrong heirs as the son of god in jewish doctrine that was never taught david invented coals uh coats of mail and nope definitely not crucifixions in egypt didn't happen the singular pharaoh i don't know what that one first do the newbie and rock tombs at i'll hear as homes and places for before the time of the pharaoh nope uh Noah's worldwide flood didn't happen flood waters boiled from an oven didn't happen Noah's ark holding every species didn't happen uh i also got linguistics wrong and a bunch of claims of miracles humans lots of different claims of miracles that they got wrong so yeah lots of errors just take your pick karan is wrong about pretty much most things and the only claims that are made that it's consistent with science or ambiguity fallacy to say oh look we can ambiguous a sentence in the karan to make it fit current data it's literally like no different than what every single religious text does which is not an anyway evidence of anything all it does is say that oh you look you can ambiguous statement so there is no evidence that the karan sells us anything accurate today and we can move on with that we're going to jump into open conversation and as i mentioned folks we have any more juicy debates coming up so don't forget to hit that subscribe button and we're going to jump into open conversation so gentlemen giving each other plenty of time to respond let's start with the open conversation all right so uh so i'm uh i stopped i stopped at number 11 and i i didn't write any more so um you're essentially reading from a list uh so let's let's let's let's pick your favorite and um take as much as time can can take with us i can do the um i can do the reverse and tell you about some of the things for example that the karan i see that they are inspiring in terms of relaying as a scientific fact that was not actually could not be known at the time of the prophet but let's let's do it since you started your statement by stating things that are mistakes go ahead pick one and i give a response it's within my area is a part of the trinity and this has nothing to do with science we're specifically discussing you know it's scientific yeah it's a claim about a different religion which was objectively false so that's a claim about reality that it got wrong that's a mistake yeah but if you already uh want to make this if the Quran is historically correct or the Quran is theologically correct with the reference to other religions it's a different debate so if you can just pick one of those things that are no no no i did it so so you said the Quran has no mistakes here is a mistake um correct this is this is actually a general statement but this debate about whether the Quran is scientifically correct or not i'm not a theologian and i do not want to change this into islam versus christianity i do do debates with christians and some of them are evangelists where i'm completely okay to set another debate whether the Quran represents christianity or Judaism or any other religion that's mentioned in the Quran properly so you're admitting it has a mistake so you're admitting it has a mistake i'm i'm i'm i'm just i just want to keep within the scope of this uh debate which is well you said any mistake in your opening any mistake this is a mistake so you're admitting it has a mistake yeah i said the Quran in general uh challenges that you cannot find a mistake in it and that this would also add to science uh which is the topic of this debate so as far as whether the Quran is scientifically accurate or scientifically correct if you can point out a mistake in the Quran that relates to science then you have won this debate if you cannot then the Quran is scientifically correct you can't you can argue that it is not theologically you're deflecting you're deflecting so i brought up a point this is a point that is a mistake in the Quran one of the points that many muslims ring up and you brought up in the openers that there are no mistakes in the Quran here is an obvious example of a mistake that we can historically prove is a mistake in the Quran so it sets up further mistakes in the Quran because you're going to try to plead it away just like you do the other one so i can demonstrate that your mistaken methodology for trying to claim this isn't a mistake also applies to all the scientific ones it's a very relevant case here so here is a provable mistake in the Quran that we can guarantee is they just made a mistake because they don't understand many things and we can apply the same methodology to the first one so do you do you disagree that this is a mistake that Mary was never treated as a part of the trinity in christianity it's not not a thing so so do you concede that the Quran is scientifically correct and you want to discuss whether it represents or mr presents Christianity or not or would you like to discuss whether the the Quran is scientifically correct what are we talking about a different thing that was brought up sorry what if we talk about a different thing that was brought up from either of your openings yeah this is why i'm suggesting so the doctor no i'm not going to do that we're not going to play that game so i get to bring up a criticism i do think he's i do sympathize where he does say that he wants to talk about scientific issues are there any others like i'm assuming you think that some of your other points were just as sound tom like those yeah we can go to those after so i want to know is this a mistake it is not a mistake but it is not related to the scope of this discussion how is it not a mistake to be fair like i have answered your question but hold on whether or not the Quran is infallible like is a different topic from whether or not it's scientific so in terms of whether or not it's scientific is a different claim than whether or not it's fallible yeah i was going to grant this wrong so it's made a mistake and we can move on to the next topic that's fine well it's to be fair it is it's something it looks like it's pretty clear he's not going to grant that and he doesn't consider this a scientific claim so in terms of the scientific claims of the Quran what is it is a claim that is made in the Quran that is scientific it is a historical claim made in the client which is a claim about science so history is a claim of science this is a historically error it is a scientific claim i hate to take sides on this but it's a seems like that's something that would be in terms of the peer reviewed literature at least i don't know what scientific papers would discuss this issue of that you brought up tom it seems like it'd be more history papers history is a part of science james holy shit so in terms of academic departments this seems like it'd be more of a history department that in the peer reviewed literature would talk about this which is science history is science i mean you could you could claim everything is science so like you could say like look i found a contradiction in the Quran and it it's science and it's like i have to say i do think we should go to one of the other points you brought up if it makes a claim that some event happened in the past and it didn't happen in the past that is a scientific error this is not hard i nonetheless i do think that i mean so like you could say it's a it's scientific in the sense that it's an empirical claim is that what you mean yes like this is this is they claimed that this is the way it was viewed by this culture at this time that is a factual falsehood it is factually wrong that it was viewed by this culture in this way at this time it's like saying the world flooded it literally didn't happen this is a thing that was claimed to have happened by a group which did not happen yeah i i just don't think it's what people in the normal convention consider like the science topics i think they mean like whether or not mohammed split the moon like that's i think what they usually think of as like more of a science topic whether or not the earth is flat like those are more conventional rather than so like whether or not jesus died and resurrected like people are usually like i don't know if that's as much of like a like a science topic like people usually would say it's like a religion or history topic it's true it's an empirical claim but i think that conventionally most people think of the science claims is like what did mohammed split the moon like is that something we could talk about sure next i want to get an answer on this one because it's so obvious like he just has to grant these wrong pretty obvious he's not going to do that tom so for the sake of like the productivity of the conversation i think that we might as well move to something different okay then he grants he's wrong by default i win and we can talk about the moon i'm happy with that okay tom so i i think it is pretty obvious that whether christians believe something or don't is it has nothing to do with science it has to do something with theology and the and history of religion and this is a discussion about science and and the Quran so i will not grant you anything here i'm just granting you that this is outside of the scope of the discussion well you're just evading the topic it's clearly science it's agreed upon to be a scientific fact by the scientific community which includes historians so you just want to yeah the scientific you can expand the definition of science as much as you want no but we are talking about we are talking about religion no we are not talking about all literal scientists include history as and and by and and by the way your very question is incorrect because the Quran does not say that Mary is part of the Trinity anyway yes it does no it doesn't but i am not going to go into this so say nasa no current scientific evidence reports the moon is split in two all right Quran debunked okay no moon split in two okay so um nice one so when the Quran refers to miracles um the Quran does refer in surat al-qamar to the matter of splitting of the moon it says the last hour or judgment day has come close or doomsday has come close and the moon has split and the exeges of the Quran look at this verse they have they have two opinions one opinion that this is related to a historical event that happened during the life of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him where the infidels in maca challenged him for a miracle and the challenge related to splitting of the moon and he did split the moon and he called him out for it and he said do you see the moon split and they did not accept it so this is one opinion the second opinion is that this is actually not related to a historical event and that it is related to something that will happen to the moon before doomsday so according to the second opinion we should we this matter is not is not an issue now according to the first opinion because the first opinion is actually in hadith and not in the Quran when Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala makes a miracle that is to a specific group of people and then he removes the miracle it is not part of the proof of this miracle that you it is not necessary that you will do an investigation and find evidence for the miracle so for example if moses turns his stick into a snake and somebody who was not there didn't witness it he cannot ask moses for the snake to test if the there are marks on the stick that it has turned into a snake or not what has been miraculously converted into something or exhibited as specific or a certain behavior as in the context of a miracle remains in the context of a miracle and this includes that after the miracle is done you cannot verify it and the miracle of the Quran is not something that you will go the miracle of Islam Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala has chosen that he is not going to make people will not be attracted to Islam through physical miracles like Jesus used to raise the dead or moses changed his stick into a snake or split the sea or whatever also if somebody comes and says a similar claim about Judaism I will not accept that moses split the red sea unless I find the location where it was split and I find physical evidence that the sea was split in that place sorry if God splits the sea he can also return the sea in a way that you will not find evidence and if he splits the moon he can also miraculously now you can he will also return the moon to the extent that you will not be able to know whether it was split or not it was a visual miracle that is related to specific people who challenged prophet Muhammad into this and those people by the way some of them became Muslims later so in terms this is something that you can trace back through witnesses it has nothing miracles are not under the investigation of this they are not under the scope of investigation of science so when you ask me is the Quran scientifically accurate that the challenge is that you will tell me so the Quran mentions this thing which contradicts with the scientific observation and if you can find something in the Quran that contradicts with the scientific observation you have essentially won I hate to disagree finding truth but it's like kind of like eh I can kind of give you the benefit of the doubt on the history one to say this one is into science claim is like geez like what is a science claim then because I there's an argument to be had in terms of where Tom came from the historical perspective saying it is a science where it's an empirical claim it's you know it's science you could say scientifically you can investigate it and I I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one because but in this case I'm like eh it's like I I don't want to move topics from this one because it's like if this one isn't a science like I don't know if we're gonna find anything that is okay so now let me tell you this is splitting the moon a miracle as described in the Islamic discourse or is it a scientific observation that you can observe today now my answer to that yeah it was just to clarify so you agree all the scientific evidence says this doesn't happen there is no scientific evidence it did happen therefore the most rational conclusion is it's a made-up story like all the other ones that don't have any scientific evidence right no I don't agree because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so literally no it is not one second one second so if I say there is no water in my cup and I look in my cup and I don't see any water the absence of evidence of water is evidence of the absence of water yes it is yeah because your cup is something where you can do an exhaustive search for water okay no but you cannot you cannot do an exhaustive search in the moon at the time where the miracle happened to verify or not verify that it happened it is a miracle that happened at a specific point of time you cannot disprove it this way so the cup the cup the cup analogy was just to refute your claim that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence yes yeah so because you're putting a claim in a generic sense no no no I'm literally addressing that so if a claim is made that something occurred and there is no evidence of that thing that itself is evidence it's something that was made up in a human mind so it applies to anything essentially not just cups or moons if you have no evidence of something occurring then it's that is evidence that it was probably made up by a human in their imagination which is the consensus among science is that this story is a thing that it's made up by a human in their imagination so if you agree there is no scientific evidence that the moon was split in half that is evidence this was made up by a human in their imagination now I already told you I disagree about that because it is a well known correct statement that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence I just I literally just proved that false so yes it is you have not proved that false you have selected an example that is of a specific construction that will lend itself in that specific case but if I tell you for example I there is no water in in the United States for example and then I use the and then I give you a challenge within the to run as fast as you can and find water and you can't it doesn't mean that there is no water actually it means that just you could not find yeah that's how induction works so induction is also evidence so you could say if I if I think there's no water in this cup and I only look into like 30 percent of the cup and see no water that's still evidence there's no water the absence of evidence there is still evidence of absence there is still there is there is no evidence that you did not find water in 30 percent of the cup but since you have not investigated the other 70 percent you cannot make an affirmative statement yes you can it's just induction like this is still evidence it's still evidence but it's only partial evidence it's still absolute yeah I would agree it is partial evidence to the extent of your knowledge so now what I'm saying right so absence of evidence is evidence of absence like it's it's still evidence your statement is literally false absence of evidence can and is evidence of absence in many many cases absence of evidence in a scope that you have exhausted is evidence of absence in that okay but once once you once you make a general statement okay about something okay so there is no there is no life in the universe okay and your evidence is we did not find life in the universe yet I'm sorry this is not evidence for absence of life in the universe this is evidence that you have not found in life in the universe yet only full stop okay so you can you can say to the extent of my research I did not find life in the universe but you can literally have all science works all science is by the extent of our research this is the conclusion we've found we can infer things in the future there is no such thing as a complete system so you are you are comfortable doing your very specifically focused scope of an example but then according to my example why are scientists still looking to looking looking for alien life in space they can say we have looked we didn't find the absence of evidence is evidence of absence and we have looked and I don't know we have sent telescopes and we have looked for a signature okay yes you can see it's a good it's a good question so the reason we continue to look for life is because there's other directions of evidence that anything could be life namely the fact that how life evolved was a biogenesis so because we have a different line of evidence than the case there is or might be something there independent of the lack of finding any gives us reason to look there is no independent evidence to make us think that the moon actually split in half there is good evidence I think it didn't split in half so the evidence the absence of evidence is evidence of absence and that is the consensus position no one's really researching that because there's no evidence to look for it there is good reason to think life might be out there there's no reason to think moon might have been split in half sorry Tom you insist on committing a logical fallacy and the only reason that science scientists would stop looking for alien life in space is once they know that they have exhausted scanning space if space was just the solar system it only had the seven planets and we did go there and we were sure there is nothing there we can make a statement that we have not found any evidence in the whole scope that we're searching we've existed our search scope at full stop now back to our to our example no that you know you cannot you cannot you can number one miracles do not fall under the the the investigative scope of no they don't literally do because once there are studies on interrupt but finding truth I do I have to at some point say it's like there's gonna be at this point I don't know if this isn't a scientific claim I don't know what would be because like I said I I gave you the benefit of the doubt in the first case in terms of like the history you know saying you know arguing that well that's history but I mean this is one where it is it certainly seems like it falls into the natural sciences bucket more clearly than the last case right like it's more more obviously just by the convention of like the you know the moon and whether or not it was split at some point and rather than you know usually that you could say it's more clearly natural history how about that because there's natural history usually referring to like the natural sciences biology chemistry so this one is I just so we don't spin our wheels too much I've got to side with Tom on this one that I do think this is more obviously a scientific topic I don't we might have to move to another topic again because this is I would like to ask Tom very very specific questions and then we can call it a day because if we're not willing to change our positions it makes no sense to just keep going round and round do you accept that in the islamic context splitting the moon is a miracle or or not I have no idea I don't have a position yeah so I'm telling you I have one sec one sec one sec let me finish the answer let me finish the answer so many people said there are no miracles in the Quran like they've said that to me so it depends on your interpretation okay so I have already told you that the event of the historical splitting of the moon is already not in the Quran is it in the hadith it is one of the interpretations of the aya in surat al-qamar and those who say this is a historical event have to refer to hadith others who would stop at the Quran say that this is a sign of doomsday so as far as the Quran is concerned this is one of the signs of judgment day however people who would adjoin the hadith to that will have to refer to the narration in the hadith and the narration in the hadith is that the infidels I told you that already the infidels of mecca challenged the prophet if you are a prophet we need you to make a miracle and we need the miracle to be splitting of the moon and one night the moon was split by Allah not by him prophets don't do miracles Allah does the miracles and he called he called he had a shout out at those who challenged him and he told them do you see the moon split and they said you have this is magic you have a trick our eyes okay so the context if you want to challenge something you have to challenge it in its context in this context it is a direct miracle that is a response to a challenge okay that's nice and spider men climb the Eiffel tower it's not okay that's fine I don't care about the context I care for the scientific evidence and there is none so let's move on to the other one all animals live in communities so so just to finish that when God does a miracle to a specific number of people and the objective of the miracle ends there is nothing there is no necessity that this miracle will be under the investigation of Panjampur Ahmadur chains it was for specific people at a specific time they accepted it or they did not accept it the stick will return from a snake back to a stick and nobody will be able through investigating the stick to find any evidence that it turned into a snake and the same applies to the moon and the same applies to the sea and the same applies to anything that changes miraculously its miraculously its state so what I'm telling you is oh you cannot use this example for scientific veracity or not because it is a miracle and miracles have a supernatural element and supernatural elements are outside the vicinity of science all right so yeah so spider men definitely definitely exist and we can't find his webs because they're biodegradable and no one can see them so his magical webs just disintegrate before anybody can find them and that's why spider man is real great so all animals live in communities Koran 638 there is not an animal that lives on earth nor the being that flies in the air but forms a part of the communities like you wrong I'm sorry what is exactly that you are stating to be wrong here that all animals live in communities no not all animals live in communities okay I I just would like to interact with you because I said I'll take one from you and I'll present to you something that is a positive scientific sign in the Koran if you would like so it was not just like you're you're presenting a challenge and I'm responding I'll actually like also to the other way around how about that okay okay so in the Koran for example because I've told you in my personal story the scientific consistency and the scientific signs in the Koran is something that has um attracted me personally to to to to adherence let's say so in the Koran for example Allah SWT says and the sky we have built with hands and hands in the Koran refer to power and we are indeed expanding or we are indeed its expanders okay and I don't think anybody at the time of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him in the Arabian Peninsula or somewhere else as far as I know had a concept of the the universe expansion actually until the early last early last century early 20th century the scientific community was advocating a static universe it was only later in the previous century that the expansion of the universe was observed by Hubble and very late in the 90s that it was reconfirmed as a scientific fact so how why would you think the Koran puts this statement in this way and then applying the same method that I said it uses language that can be easily accepted linguistically from the people that it has addressed at the time of the Prophet Muhammad for 300 years ago but today somebody who is interested in cosmology and who is following the scientific discourse and who is following the scientific observations and discoveries would look into this aya and wow and it says that and in another aya in the Koran that would complete the picture it says this it says we will show them our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it is ever into them that it is the truth and it here refers to the Koran or to Islam so the horizons is the extent of your vision and in this modern day we invent telescopes and our horizon of vision just extends very deep into very deep space and when we look into very deep space we find that the universe is expanding and when we look at a comment that the Koran is making about the universe it says that Allah is indeed it's it's expander and he uses an noun rather than a verb which means that it's a perpetual state and then our big bang cosmology says that the universe has been expanding since the big bang it continues to expand until this day and then we find that even its expansion is accelerating would something like this not draw your attention in your opinion no because it's copied from dozens of other religions that are just using the expanding cosmic egg myths like this is a really common thing there's essentially four basic structures of most origin stories in most religious backgrounds one is that it's eternal one is that it's expanding one is that it's contracting and some other strange one those are essentially the options you got one of four they just copied it from other religions it's just the basic cosmic egg myth it's it predates Muhammad so so our our our topic is not there is not whether some other religion what it's right or not because in the Islamic concept Islam is not the first religion that has come down from Allah's kanada and the Quran is not the first message Muslims actually do believe that the Torah and the gospel and other books have come to humanity and it's the same God and he might as well say some similar signs the question is would this draw your attention or not to the end saying a scientifically accurate statement about the cosmos so if there's 30 000 religions and there's only three possibilities expand contract and stay the same about a third of them are going to get it right by random chance this is not a mythical option it's just oh look they guessed one of the three options congratulations except that the typical naked eye observation does not lend itself to anybody believing that the universe is expanding it will lend itself to the universe being static actually so somebody putting his stakes on universe expansion looks like somebody who knows something more in my opinion however if this is your position I rest my case no there's lots of different hindu's that say that the world is expanding and contracting in all kinds of things the fact that you don't see it is irrelevant like literally you couldn't see most things scientifically back then so this is again irrelevant so if you're saying that oh it's evidence that they guessed the world was expanding well then there's also evidence of hinduism where there's multiple gods congratulations it's not evidence great so so my comment to that because I just I just I think I just proved the point that I am actually interested to prove here which which comes in three folds so I'm going to summarize number one even hindu's every every nation or every community on earth was not left to say by Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala he sent to them their messengers and at the root of the hindu religion there is a message from god hindu's at the end of the day believe in brahman who is the one almighty god whether they have added to that later or not is irrelevant the same goes for Jews the same goes for Christians if you talk to a Christian and I have talked to on my channel to very prominent Christian cosmologists and professors of astronomy they would tell you for example in the bible there is a mention of stretching the skies for example and they would they would they would go to the same direction so I have no problem with that my question is whether as a Muslim who reads the Quran when I open the news when I open nature or science or science daily or listen to a news piece or a news bite about a new scientific discovery or cnn and it tells me a new a new scientific news I would go to the Quran even talking for like 10 minutes can I like to get some get some so yeah I do want to take the quote finding truth if you if you're able to wrap it up maybe just in about 10 seconds and then I don't want to make sure tom goes gets plenty of this is my ending statement when I hear this news bite and I go back to the Quran I still feel comfortable that I believe in this book and that it is from Allah SWT and it is a series of hundreds of such coincidences to the extent I cannot believe it's a coincidence anymore it is an intentional entrenchment of science in this book gotcha and then go ahead tom all right so yeah so these are actually about the 10 different quotes of the Quran here that mention this that are all show errors in the Quran Quran 21 30 do not unbeliever see that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation before we clothe them asunder we made from water every living thing will they not then believe so the expansion they were not ever joined together that's not a thing they weren't created the same time period it created billions of years later from different parts there was not water was not everything so that was false and barely the heavens and earth and that between them in six days and not of weariness touched us uh six days false um see what's another one the separation of the heavens can be read in the context of the verse mentioning something between their fully formed states Quran 2 1 6 4 and the birds mentioning in Quran 24 41 they were not in a separate state in those contexts so that's something that got wrong so all these ones that mention that the world universe expanding also mentioned things that are just literally false the very next verse Quran 21 31 speaks of mountains being placed here on earth here the earth must mean an actual world yet modern interpretations of the previous verse hold that earth refers to merely atomic particles and the time being the big bang which shows a contradiction so all of these things he's mentioning show the contradictions and the errors and he simply cherry picking one of the most ambiguous statements possible expansion and seeing that that word and word can be applied to one possible thing that happened as the forming of the universe while pretty much every one of the other verses show it's wrong okay um thank you so you started with with with the separation uh or that the heavens and the earth were adjoined and actually i would like to respond to this one i can actually go one by one to everything that you have said but i but you mentioned this two or three times so i'll pick that one up and the first one that you mentioned too so this is actually one of what we consider as muslims another sign in the Quran of scientific accuracy and consistency in the opinion of many people including myself because i happen to be a communications engineer and studying things like microwave background radiation cmb and other topics is interesting to me and the that my my personal opinion about the ayah and this would be so many people would agree with me and the ayah in arabic says um haven't the disbelievers seen that the heavens and the earth uh where uh collapse together or adjoin together or um generally together and we rip them apart okay and this is essentially a very elegant linguistic description of uh what we call today big bang in my opinion um the way the Quran uses the term heavens and earth in many parts of the Quran is that heavens relates to space and the different dimensions of space because it really refers also to the seven heavens and it refers to those seven heavens one of them is our universe and the rest is unseen to us so what the Quran is saying here and you can also trace this through the genesis story in the Quran which later on in other places in the Quran talks about the proportionment of the other seven heavens and of this universe what the Quran is saying is that the universe space time and matter where at a point of time a single thing adjoined together collapsed together and then it was in the Quranic term ripped apart we ripped them violently this is as good a translation I can give and this is very very consistent with big bang cosmology so actually you are mentioning something you are mentioning something that is we pride we take pride in it once again what was clove disunder in the big bang because nothing was clove disunder there's no separation they're all still parts of the same thing where what's what's the clove disunder the word separation is your term actually um that's fine you can use whatever whatever word you want there's no separation of two things they're all still the same thing what do you mean so the Quran the Quran the Quran describes a situation where the universe is coming from a what you can call what we call today a singularity or a very high density adjoinment of space and matter space time and matter the heavens are everything that is heavens and the earth were joined together right there's no separation the singularity all the parts of it are still exactly there they're just expanded so there's no separation of any of that stuff absolutely and this is what so it describes this state as the initial state and then it goes we rip them apart so this is what we call the big bang what apart what did they rip apart because they're everything is still the same connected in the same way nothing's been separated or ripped apart I don't think I don't think this is at any by any means a good description of what the big bang means so what big bang cosmology means is that the whole matter energy space and time of the universe at a point of time at t0 where together in one place that we tend to call the singularity we cannot examine the singularity but we have access to what happened at least from the point of the cosmic background radiation and we know that prior to that we had very high density material and energy together and at a specific point of time it blew apart okay this is what this is why it is called a big bang for a reason by the way okay and at a point of time for some reason this thing just blew apart and the expression of the quran we rip them apart is we took them away from each other by force so I don't think that you can if you want to use language that means that says that so like this is a very eloquent way of saying it actually no no it's not so like the word joined together is rat kwan I don't know probably not pronounced that right meaning closed up or sewn up that is usually metaphorically used to recognize only people but does not imply a homogenous mass or state the separation of the heavens and the earth can be read in context of the verse that mentioned something between their fully formed state which is occupied by the clouds in karan 2 1 6 4 and birds karan 20 24 41 I'm not sure what you mean by clouds and birds now so we are talking about the genesis of the universe the heavens and the earth are like two objects that are separated by things the clouds and the birds and they were ripped asunder by god there is there is no mention to clouds and birds at all there okay karan 2 1 6 4 I'm referring to the aya of rat kwan that you are talking about okay and by the way I memorized the quran so I'm so if you aren't a specific aya with once you get out of the aya I immediately know so rat kwan here this aya talks about the heavens and the quran does not never refers to the earth's atmosphere around us that has the clouds and the birds as the heavens by plural never refers to that as a semawad it refers to it sometimes as a sema and sometimes with other names but with refers to the heavens a semawad it's referring to the different dimensions of space and time and sometimes it qualifies it by saving the seven heavens a semawad the sema for example so this aya specifically is talking about the genesis of the universe and it is obviously challenging humanity that at a point of time those who do not believe will make a discovery that is consistent with this aya and it starts by saying haven't the disbelievers seen okay and it is a fact actually that also people who have discovered big bang or have theorized big bang cosmology and then reinforced by scientific measurements are not muslims so the aya actually is true in many perspectives and once again according to my just referring to my introduction the quran is revealed in the arabic language to humanity at its infancy it is there as a standing evidence for humanity that it has come from Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala so people at the time of prophet muhammad for 1400 years until the 1920s or 30s or until people believe Hubble need to look into this aya and accept it in a way that is understandable to them so Allah tells them tells them still in the very old past you do not know it now but sometime the infidels will confirm it to you that in this aya he says the universe is not static it started collapsed together and i differentiated it i needed what it is today and then another aya it says it's expanding if this does not draw your attention that the quran has scientific signs that are unmistakable i will just rest my face well yeah it's provable that it doesn't so they're so like and verily we created the heavens and the earth and that between them in six days not we're just touched us there is no scientific theory in which the earth and heavens were torn apart from each other the verse states that we clove them not we clove it everything is it thereby indicating that the earth and the heavens were distinct after cloving if one holds the quran 2130 describes the big bang the atomic particles would later that would later form the earth would at the beginning have to be separated from those that would form everything else in the universe this is however false and bears no resemblance to scientific cosmology we're in the material that forms the earth passed through at least one earlier generation of stars and more recently was part of a various asteroid comets and uh plantismals orbiting the sun which could all be described as being in the heavens that sometimes collided and merged with others sometimes split apart and gradually coalesced under gravity to form the earth and the planets so if the heavens and the earth were cloven apart at some point that means the particles or whatever constitutes the earth has to be separated from whatever constitutes the heavens which never happened until like four billion years ago yeah so there is no issue with about the quran about that because the quran then tells us nothing was clothed the quran then tells the quran then tells the story just as you have rightfully said now that the process of transforming the universe from that point where it was collapsed together the rut point until the point where you have the earth in its final state has gone through six eons or six epochs or what the quran describes as six days and through that it actually describes in also again great beautiful eloquent language some stages that we can actually relate to given our current cosmology so it describes in one of the states okay that the heaven at a point was smoke and according to our big bang cosmology we know that after the big bang after there was a chance for energy to form photons and my question was hydrogen yeah you're going away from the question the question is is what was cloven what was this what thingies were split what was object a and object b that were separated what is the cloven thingy referring to because it can't be referring to earth in the heavens because it definitely wasn't those two things so what does it mean when it says the things the earth in the heaven were cloven apart what was taken apart okay so um earth and heavens are not two things earth is matter because earth does not necessarily mean planet earth in the quran earth can also mean like earth does not mean planet earth earth does not mean earth earth earth does not mean planet earth okay so if i tell you i am going to bury i i'm i'm having a little earth in my hand it essentially means dust okay so i'm about the english language now so in the quran one second clarification so it seems like in the quran like quran 2131 it speaks of mountains being placed on the earth you're saying that doesn't refer to our earth it refers to rocks and stuff okay so you cut me off so i is making a point that like the word earth in english can mean earth like dust that can mean a piece of land and can mean what we have called later planet earth okay in the arabic language it is the same so i have started by explaining this first to you by saying that in my opinion the heavens are the seven heavens which includes our dimension and other dimensions our three dimensions of space and time plus of space plus time plus the other dimensions that we do not see and there is at least seven of them according to the quran plus all the material in the current cosmos okay um and we are interested in if you if you accept this interpretation it's up to you it's not it's not it's not saying uh there was one object called planet earth and there was another object called the heavens and we split these two objects apart and we can falsify and test for that actually by going through the rest of the narrative because right after that not right right after that chronologically actually but in a different place in the quran it is referring to the whole um the whole cosmos in a state of smoke okay and it is referring to that while in the same aya Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is talking about talking um uh to the cosmos including the heavens and the earth okay including the um he uses here a sama which typically can be fair also to our universe is talking to it and he is saying that it is in a state of smoke and then he says after he talked to it and it gave a specific response i can refer to the aya in full at that point he then formed the stars he started by forming the stars now i am what i'm telling you is that this narrative everything together a big bang a state of smoky cosmos and then the formation of the first generation of stars and then the rest of it including the generation the formation of planet earth all narrated in in the quran in different places is very consistent with what we call big bang cosmology is all what we know about cosmology and astronomy in this current day but it doesn't it doesn't say that like the smoke thing you mentioned quran 41 11 and 12 it says then he turned to the heavens when it was smoke and said onto it and onto the earth a separate thing that is not smoke come both of you willing or lost they said we come obedience then he ordained them seven heavens in two days and inspired each heaven its mandate and we deck blah blah blah so so the heavens were smoke and he said onto it and onto the earth which was not smoke a different thing come both of you so this specifically says the the verse indicates the time when heaven alone but not the earth was smoke this is especially challenging when it considers the earth and its mountains are described as already existing in the previous two verses so the heavens and the mountains both already exists and are like the mountains were placed on the earth prior to this state where the heavens were made of smoke this is a problem because it didn't exist okay good so let me let me now turn to this area so when i explained the air to you i told you that in my opinion i can be wrong but in my opinion and the opinion of so many Muslims who have looked into this area for the last 100 years or since big bank cosmology was a thing in my opinion that when the Quran refers to heavens okay he is referring as i told you to our dimension and to the other dimensions and when he refers to earth in the context of Genesis of creation of the universe he is referring to material and then later he refers to our planet earth when he is talking about placing mountains on it and this and that okay so he is talking to heavens in the check question so if you if let's say we take what you're saying to be true and he refers to matter where were the mountains placed when the heavens were smoke because if by smoke i assume you mean the primordial plasma that everything was presumably made out of how were the mountains placed on the earth when everything was plasma okay so so now you have you have no now two topics okay so the first topic is Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala talking to the whole of the cosmos in a smoke state it has energy it has particles that constitute matter and he is telling them obey willingfully or unwillingly and they say we obey willingfully and when he does that he says then I turn my attention to the heavens and I proportion them into seven heavens okay so this is one context okay there is another context okay prior to that where he is describing he is telling he is telling humanity that he has given us gifts and he has shaped the earth and he has put mountains on it etc etc and those are two separate contexts actually so you you you might want to say that since he started by talking to us about what is close to us and then he is talking to us about what is far away from us in time that you would like to imply chronology but it is not necessary that this is what is implied okay so you're saying it's just not chronologically just kind of made up the order yeah this is this is this is what I'm saying so in the Quran there is so many places in the Quran where Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala will talk to you about something that is close to you that you can directly see and relate and then he will tell you about something that is historical because guess what what you can see and relate to around you this universe that is now that has all this natural order and you know things are living and you know there is what the cycle and what have you was at a point of time just a smoky place and I have made it this way because I ordained that it becomes this way this is this is what the story is from my perspective and from the perspectives of many others actually yeah it seems like you're just interpreting it in a way that can fit the current science in a data in order to save your own belief when it's clearly wrong I think that's a more rational interpretation here let's go on to a different one though now now I want to take a moral out of this term really so if you look at a book that is telling you that at a point of time all that was there was smoke okay doesn't that you know like grab your attention that it is a good description at the primordial state of the universe at a point of time and that there is no reason for an author of a book who is challenging humanity to its towards its veracity will make such a statement unless he's coming from somewhere it still doesn't grab your attention whatsoever no because smoke is literally wrong so your best guess here is to try to say it's making an analogy to try to analogously represent the plasma that was there but in the analogy it could literally just represent anything so they could literally think it's actually smoke so if you if you're using an analogy to try to represent some fact of previously to the universe there's infinitely many ways it could be and say ah the analogy still works because it's analogous it's not meant to be literally correct because it's not literally smoke and so saying that it's it's analogous doesn't isn't a prediction it's just making up a vague ambiguous statement that can be interpreted in many ways and you're picking up on that one sentence instead of the dozens of other sentences that are wrong this is a good this is a good this is a good point that you're making however I would like to point out to you that there is no word for plasma in the Arabic language there was no word for plasma also in the English language in the way we are using it today because plasma is an invented term that is you know borrowed from another word that now has a meaning that is an ionized state of protons for example which is not there in 1400 years ago so the Qur'an cannot say he turned his attention to the world when it was plasma he will have to use a word that people can relate to the second thing I will send you I will send you I would like to share my screen if you can enable me please once I once I want to address that one first point first so like if I said there's no word for plasma therefore in my holy book it says in the beginning there was stuff and stuff was there the fact that the word stuff can refer to plasma because it's ambiguous it can refer to many different things and that there was no word for plasma it doesn't mean it's an accurate description it means I've just put in a word that's vague and ambiguous that can be interpreted if I ignore all of the other words in the Qur'an then I can interpret this one word to ambiguously mean the thing I'm happy to answer to that that's why I asked to share my screen can I do that Tom? Screens here is ready for you yeah okay so here is an article here is an article from science if you don't like science journal I have a problem but it says this how the early universe cleared away the fog and it says about 300 000 years after the big bank very early in the universe indeed the universe was like a smoke filled chamber from which life could not escape so if you don't if if science journal is happy to use the word smoke and fog 300 000 years after the big bank which was nothing was there other than this okay I would rest my case then so my point is and you can see the link it is www.science.org okay so it's not a scientific journal that's that's an opinion piece so a scientific journal is a peer-reviewed academic source this is a this is an opinion piece yeah and and what I want to tell you my friend is the Qur'an is not a scientific book it talks to people I agree to guide them okay it's not a book of science not the physics not about biology now the issue is when it uses terms to describe cosmic events biological events physics events whatever okay does it use terms that are understandable to people over the ages that will then in the 20th and the 21st and the 22nd century will remain consistent with observation or not this is the answer actually to the question so when I am actually looking at again at a national geographic or discovery channel or something or listening to I don't know Serpent Rose or to Eddington or to Neil deGrasse Tyson or to whoever who is describing something about the big bank and he says after the big bank the universe was full of I don't know protons okay that were you know like very thick smoke very thick very thick gas okay that was not even permeable to light and then it became permeable to light and he uses the word smoke or very thick gas okay and I then I returned to the Qur'an and he says and then he turned his attention to the heavens when they were smoke what I'm telling you is it will make me as a Muslim who believes in the Qur'an a better believer in the Qur'an this is what it means when we say as Muslims the Qur'an is scientifically accurate it is scientifically accurate within its context when it was revealed and until today it remains scientifically accurate and relevant it does not contradict science well so again what I said earlier was using a word that is ambiguous and poetic so so it's not accurate it's just ambiguous and poetic that could be understood by the people in many different ways to mean many different things is not an accurate prediction especially as I demonstrated there are so many mistakes earlier on that are incorrect and like placing the mountains on the earths that are not the correct earths but the other earths even though it's the same word earths it refers metaphorically to the earths that you want it to in the context you want it to even though it doesn't say that so so cherry picking the one thing that seems to work while ignoring all of the mistakes that don't seem to work because it's ambiguous enough to fit the data is what all mythical texts do is the same thing with harry potter it was a metaphorical time that the empire state building collapsed so it wasn't the real time didn't didn't really happen therefore spider-man is real it seems like your argument okay I think my arguments clear enough now the issue is are there any of what you have mentioned which is actually a mistake because I'm I told you I'm happy to take them one by one and show you that they are either not what you think they are or that they are actually scientific signs in the Quran that are actually consistent with the science and as far as the discipline of science is something that I can relate to I can even show you scientific uh pieces opinion pieces journals articles peer-reviewed papers as much as it takes okay because yeah if you go to a peer-reviewed paper it will tell you plasma it will tell you another term but if you want to talk to the general public and this is what scripture does it will not say plasma especially that the word does not exist in the language it has to use a word that is as close as possible because it will not invent a language just to place the book that remains relevant for 1400 years and for 1400 years to come from now this is this is this is the the thing that I described to you as the big problem that will be a scientist and Einstein will face if he wants to go into third graders and give them a speech about science that they can take down notes and relate to 50 years later okay so I hope my point is made you can still continue trying to give me places where the Quran has made mistakes and I can actually keep on showing you that um um it is not I think you showed that you're wrong so I think you did a very good job of showing that you use ambiguity fallacies so I didn't let's move on to the next one. The next one is my third. The next one is my third. This was yours. No my mind was the expansion of the universe now you said that. Yeah so so so those are all the same that was my response to yours I was showing that in your example here's why it's wrong so I wanted my example I don't mind I don't mind. A law created everything in pairs that's false Ah wait I actually love it that you picked that one okay what is your objection to this? Everything is not created in pairs like literally just most organisms are single celled organisms they are not created in pairs origin of life came from a single cell there's no pairs there um pairs are a very modern thing of certain kinds of multi cellular organisms they're literally not a thing. Wow okay so number one thank you for bringing up of the time okay so number one thanking you for thanking you for bringing up this specific example now the ayah is not talking about living things it's talking about things okay um um and it's making this this this very strong claim that everything has a pair okay and it occurs it occurs that now the simple lay person and everybody 1400 years ago relevant to us was a lay person in terms of science they said okay so what things can we think of night and day I don't know dark and whatever up and down you know they they started thinking of what would that mean but now we learn and we know that actually our universe is is based on an aspect of duality if there is an electron then there is a positron if there is a um if there is a quark there is an antique quark if there is this there is that the standard model of physics um is based on the concept that every particle has an antiparticle and to me as a person who is a communication engineer who who who learns those theories academically I really I relate to that in my context okay so is this statement true at large that every thing in this universe has its dual pair yes it is now you can you can have your objections to that now what I'm telling you that this statement is the most generic way to describe the fundamental physics that we know about today according to our best knowledge which is the standard model of physics okay the standard model of particle physics says that you have symmetry that's how I read it now if you want to read it to ask you can make up your own interpretation that's fine but different thing so you can make up your own interpretation that's fine but that means the Quran is actually wrong and you're making up your own interpretation okay but Quran 51 49 says glory to Allah who created all things and pairs that the earth produces that the earth produces so we're talking about life here I don't I don't know if he counts mountains as things earth produce but this means life this literally means life all things that the earth produces it doesn't mean particles earth does not produce particles as well as their own humankind and other things so I I don't know how you're getting this magical interpretation that things the earth produces equates to particles because that's the earth doesn't produce particles the earth produces animals presumably that's what he that's the rational interpretation here and animals do not all have pairs like the whip whip tail lizard in the u.s doesn't do it there's all female species and reproduces by parthenogenesis like viruses aren't even necessarily a life form they're produced by the earth and they reproduce using a host dna and are neither male nor female bacteria reproduced by cell division fungus reproduced by asexual reproduction um it's literally false to say that he created all things in pairs that are produced that the earth produces that is false that is objectively false statement tom can you please tell me which ayah are you referring to in the Quran because this text that you are referring to I'm sorry 51 49 does not say anything like from what the earth produces it says in arabic and from everything we have created a pair so that you might remember this is what it says there's no mention of anything else in the ayah so if you're reading from a false source I will advise you to change your source because miss quoting the Quran is that okay all things are created two mates perhaps you will remember yeah not two mates I'm sorry when we say in Khadakhna Zawjain uh uh Zawj is a couple okay it can also it can also mean it can also mean a spouse but things do not have spouses now I will show you that uh number one you have miss quoted the Quran so this is not your sources are not very good but I will show you when the Quran wants to refer to to living things okay for example like male and female he says this he says exalted is he who created all pairs from what the earth grows and from themselves and from that which they do not know okay glory to be him who created all the sexual this is now now this is a different ayah now so so it is not earth growth okay good end of themselves glory to Allah who created in all pairs all things that the earth produces as well as their own humankind so all the interpretations say in this one it's uh this which one is this 36 36 glory to Allah who created all in pairs all things that the earth produces so my apologies it wasn't the other one it was the 36 36 so good so now so the first ayah we're done with it now what is your problem with this ayah so he says everything that is a pair I have created he doesn't say that every living thing has to be male and female he didn't say that glory to Allah who created in pairs all things that the earth produces so created in pairs can you tell me please can you tell me again can you tell me please exactly which ayah is you are you preferring give me the number of the 36 36 all right all right so 36 36 so 36 36 yeah so he says okay this is what subhanah that he has created all all the pairs okay so it doesn't say that everything is a pair okay wait a minute wait a minute that interpreting I'm continuing the ayah just let me read it apologies for interrupting but that interpretation you just read is the one I read of 51 that you said was wrong so the interpretation your reading is from the same document you just said was wrong about 51 my friend you have just cut me off without finishing the sentence okay so he says subhanah that he created yeah yeah subhanah that he created from what the earth so exalted be he who has created all the pairs from what the the earth germinates women and pussy him and from themselves themselves and from what they do not know so he is telling you everything that germinates um like he's talking about plants obviously tombit is you know become a plant is a plant okay i'm sorry sorry what again either still wrong plants plants also don't necessarily have plans that's still wrong yeah they don't necessarily have pairs but he didn't say that plants necessarily I didn't say that this is not an exclusive statement at all the other one was an exclusive statement it says women could the other one said women couldn't be saying as a giant and of everything we have created pairs and he's talking about things here he's talking about plants and he is saying the plants that come from the earth in pairs and you human beings who are male and female I have created and I have created other things also that are in pairs that you do not know about okay so he's not saying that every living creature is male and female he didn't say that now look that's exactly like what he said you're just magically interpreting to mean all things which happen to be pairs are the things I created did he not create the other things what however did they come from is this is he's just like some other thing created those other things I'm only referring to these for no particular reason just to ambiguous my sentence I only created the pair thingies and the other ones let's ignore them not mention them okay so so let me let me take you to because you need to you cannot just take an air in in the middle of a surah so the ayah was talking already about plants if you go three or four ayahs back he is talking about and assign to them is the dead earth to which we bring to life and bring out of it seeds or grains from which they eat and we make in it gardens of palm trees and of grapes and we extract spring water out of it or make springs come out of it so that we can eat from its fruits and from what their hands have worked so he's talking about plants like palm trees like grapes that are you know that people implant and he is saying I have made all of this for you so that you can work it and you can eat from it wouldn't to be thankful and then he says this ayah exalted be he who has created all the pairs from what the land germinates it's not an ayah in the middle of the you know of outer space where you can take out of its context it's talking about people who are farming who are farming palm trees who are farming grapes who are farming other things that we eat that are essentially things that are in male and female as far as the as far as the context of the ayah is concerned and then he says not only have I created those plants I have also created you and pineapples yeah pineapples reproduce asexually so pineapples are there is no pineapples in the ayah he's talking about palm trees and grapes in this ayah and he is talking then about plants that come in male and female so you can you can you can tell me for example but also protozoa do not come or fungi do not come in means and females I don't care it's talking about plants that people are farming and it's specifically talking about two types of plants and other plants that pineapples are things people farm so so literally he's just ignoring like most of the world is like just literally in this one he has made a statement about about things that come in pairs and then he went into the human being at the end of the ayah and then he said I have also created what we do not do do not know whether it is anything else so he did not say he did if you can give me an ayah that says all plants must be in male and female this will be a scientific error if it contradicts with science and the Qur'an is false simple but if I tell you every everything that is in male and female I have created there is no issue in that exalted the one you literally exalted he created all pairs from what the earth grows and from themselves which is false I also wanted to mention your physics thing so a lot is saying a lot is saying a lot is saying one second one second one second so you mentioned fundamental particles and things fields which are the most fundamental thing in the universe don't come in pairs either so if you mentioned the fields thing that would also be false yeah okay so so in this ayah there is nothing there is nothing false there he is saying that every pair of what the land grows he has created so if you if you can mention to me a plant that comes in pairs then I can tell you according to this ayah Allah has created it and then he says and I have also created you and I have also created what you do not know about so this is what the ayah says it does not say plants have to be male and female does not say that okay so you can magically interpret it any way you want I'm just reading to you the text and I'm showing you according to the context and the scope of the text there is no scientific issue yeah I'm telling you that the other magically reinterpret it but if the other ayah if the other ayatom was saying this every living thing okay or every plant I have created in pair it would have been false but it didn't say that it is false no it doesn't but let's I do want you to address the other thing so quantum fields don't come in pairs quantum fields don't come in pairs so the the other one where you says all things come in pairs quantum fields don't come in pairs okay so I can argue against that in so many ways okay but when you want go for it I can tell you that the field is not a thing okay if I want with this live guess they are they're literal however I'll ever talk when you represent a field by its particle then the particle will have an antiparticle okay what would you represent you don't represent fields by their particles fields exist even if there are no particles it doesn't make are you aware of what is a particle wave duality or you are not aware of it particle wave dualities are fluctuations in fields the field doesn't have a duality is light is light a wave or a particle it's both but what does that have to do with the field like it doesn't matter yeah it actually matters and please note the time of communications engineer who has learned fields as part of my study so a light is a field it's an electromagnetic field but in quantum I am not in quantum I'm sorry light is a field light is an electromagnetic wave goes through a field light light is a thing that goes through a light is an electromagnetic wave and this electromagnetic wave can be represented either by a wave or by a particle okay so every every every thing that we are dealing with whether it is energy or whether it is a material thing can at the end of the day be represented by a particle that has an antiparticle so everything that exists in the in this universe does have a dual nature of a particle and no yes so yes you're not addressing what I said okay do the fields if there's no light does the field still exist I'm sorry you need to tell me what field you're talking about the electromagnetic field does the electromagnetic field exist if there is no particles in it the answer is yes you could say yes here because the field exists even if there's no particles that's how field work okay so so if something is a thing is a thing okay then it has a dual nature okay now if you want to talk to me about the exact field what is the dual nature of fields if something is a thing which means it's it's it's there is an energy disturbance at that point okay where does it say that where does it say that in the crown must have it only if it has an energy disturbance no I'm explaining I'm explaining the science to you I'm not explaining the Quran so if something is a thing it needs to exist and for it to exist it needs to have a certain amount of energy and once it has a certain amount of energy then it has both a wave and a particle nature and once it's I mean God doesn't exist because God doesn't have any energy I'm sorry does I mean God doesn't exist because I'm talking about the material I'm talking about obviously I'm talking about the material universe so the Quran says all things Quran says all things which include fields fields do not have a duality therefore I'm wrong good good good good good this is a good try but the if you read the verse it says that from everything except all things except quadri-fields no it says it says from the things that he has created okay so he's not talking about himself he's talking about his creation so this is it excludes him did he create quantum field did God create quantum field God created everything okay what is the duality but a passive but a passive field okay is not a thing okay it only becomes it only becomes it only becomes a thing it will only have an ontological meaning when it has a level of energy if it doesn't have any energy it doesn't exist as far as what we call things okay now we can talk whether vacuum is really a vacuum if there is philosophical vacuum or not okay but even vacuum in our perspective there is something called virtual particles and we know that even when virtual particles pop up in vacuum they are produced in pairs a particle and a particle antiparticle and then they would self-annihilate okay so once a that literally has nothing to do with physics so in physics every field is an actual existing thing they are literal things that literally exist okay face time is a literal field that literally exists what is that ontological existence in your opinion what does what does exist mean what does exist mean in your opinion what does a field mean field is a possibility okay I think there's a possibility of occurring this is what a field means now it's not a field is a possibility this is what this is what the whole what physics is built over a field is a possibility that it is presented by a possibility of existence of something there is a field here okay so an electromagnetic wave okay an electromagnetic wave if you say that the wave exists you mean that it has it must have a certain amount of energy if it has zero energy doesn't exist okay do you accept that or you don't? Well a wave is measured by a perturbation in a field the field still exists even if there's no perturbation. What does a perturbation mean? Just a fluctuation in the field it could be a different. What does a fluctuation mean? That there is a level of energy that there is a level of energy this is what it means. No no no no no no because like space and time are themselves emergent kinds of fields and so it doesn't necessarily mean like there's an energy transfer to cause that that's not what it necessarily means like. Are you aware of a concept called energy density of space? Yes energy is a thing in the space that we operated. So if you if you can fathom space that has zero energy then it doesn't exist okay if there is space if there is space there is a specific amount of energy no so there are virtual fields that literally have no energy but they still exist so that's no they don't exist once they have virtual energy that is zero they don't exist okay no that's not that's not how virtual fields work so again in physics one sec one sec in physics a field is a physical quantity represented by a scalar vector or tensor that has a value for each point in space and time does not mean energy nowhere in there is energy energy is not referenced there at all zero times is energy managed in there so if a field has zero energy then the scalar value at any point of that space and time that it is in will have to be zero otherwise. No if it's zero it doesn't exist. The only way that it will be zero. Wait wait wait you're not understanding you're not understanding at all here so if you have a field with a value of zero at every point the field still exists there is still a value at each point the field is still there even if the value is zero. So gravity imagine if there were no particles that have any gravitational effect at all zero particles of gravity gravity would still be there the field that represents gravity even though it has zero at every points the field would still exist fields influence how things interact the field is literally there even if nothing is there to interact with them this is basic basic physics the field exists regardless of whether or not any particles are in it. This is not basic physics this is science fiction. Wait a second this is complete fiction that you're talking about. Gravity stops existing if particles stopped existing. It will exist as a mathematical construct in this case. It has a potential to exist when there is something that will cause it now and I don't know what kind of gravity you are talking about because gravity is essentially curvature of space time in relativity. Right so does the space time field exist if nothing is curving it? Does space and time exist if nothing is curving it? It has nothing to do now with gravity now. So if there is if there is completely nothing and there is space time but it's not curved there is space time there is no gravity. So the field this field is there the field is there. Gravity conceptually is there now conceptually is something and it becomes a thing. Okay so the concept of gravity exists it means that if a material if a massive object exists it will warp space time around it okay but until this massive object exists nothing is warped nothing is gravitating towards anything. So how does it warp something that isn't there? How does it warp something that isn't there? If there's nothing there to warp how could potentially warp the nothing that is there to not warp? Are you confirming my point or what? No I'm debunking you so if if you're saying that it can only be there if something is there to warp it well then something must be there first to be warped doesn't it? Something has to exist in some location that can potentially be warped doesn't just magically pop into existence and start warping it has to be there first and then once it's there then it can be warped which means there has to be something there which can be warped right? So Tom I think I have just made my point and I think I think what you are saying yeah I'm answering you I think what you are saying is just repeating what I am saying of what you are saying you are saying that something exists when it exists which is what I'm saying when it doesn't exist when it doesn't exist it has no ontological meaning okay it only has a concept alright okay let's go let's go let's go space time so space time exists right we agree space time exists obviously great great so space time is a field we wait space time is a field you agree space time is a field right? Space is not defined and time is not defined as a field I'm sorry I'm challenging you now to get me out any any peer-reviewed paper or anything that describes time as a field I'm sorry you don't know physics and it is obviously not your field and it happens to be mine and you are saying statements that are false scientifically we are in a discussion where we are discussing whether the Qur'an is scientifically. The space time geometry is nothing but a manifestation of a physical field but gravitational field. No you are saying that time is a you have just said now that time is a field and I'm challenging you to produce any respectable scientific article that says time is a field. Time is a scalar value. I said gravity was a field the field gravity you said oh no no it's just the curvature of space time so I'm going with your words here. The discovery that space time geometry is nothing but a manifestation of a particular physical field the gravitational field right so if you want to call it space time you want to call gravity I don't care there is a field that exists and it exists and for it to be able to bend it has to exist that means even if nothing is there to bend it it still exists doesn't it there is a field there you want to call it space time gravity I don't care there's a field. What is it there that you are describing as a field exactly I don't understand what are you describing as a field. Gravity according to Einstein is an effect that happens due to the existence of massive objects on space time. He calls it the fabric of space time it doesn't call it the field of space time okay oh my god what do you oh my god what produce I'm telling you produce to me any scientific article that is describing time as a field it doesn't exist space is not a field time is not a field okay gravity is an effect that emerges when space time is warped or bent around a massive object that is how Einstein describes it now Newton describes it in a different way he talks about gravitational forces that are manifestations in gravitational fields this is not the way the general relativity works now space is not a field time is not a field period now if you are talking about any other field that electromagnetic field where an electromagnetic wave is traveling okay now what I'm telling you now we have a thing that is happening this thing can be described as a wave and it can be described as a particle and there is duality between wave and particle and particles also come in pairs okay which is the description of the field a particle and an antiparticle so according to our standard model of physics of particle physics everything in this cosmos works in pairs and the statement of the Quran is absolutely scientifically correct according to our own theories now our theories might be wrong and this duality that is explained in the Quran can be referring to another kind of duality that we are going to discover a hundred years later but guess what my belief is when this is discovered a hundred years later it will still become consistent with the Quran because guess what Allah revealed this Quran 1400 years ago knowing the path that we are going to go through in in science we only need to have patience we have have good understanding of science and to have good understanding of the language of the Quran and that's why Muslims are not leaving Islam you the ones who understand both the language and the science find the science as an enforcement to their religion and this is the answer to the question of the saying nothing you just repeatedly saying nothing I just found like 50 different articles that say space-time is the result of a gravitational field where where does the gravitational field exist your statement is space and time are a field space and time I don't know that's yours I said gravity is a field I literally said gravity is a field you said they're a result of spacetime I don't care what you call it I don't care about your ignorance of the field the field exists it can't be bent if it doesn't exist therefore to bend it it must exist right yes no once once there is one no it's not right once there is gravity there is an object there is a mass that is bending spacetime around it how are you going to know that it is bending spacetime around it there is something there is something the thing that is causing the warping of space time is a thing here the question is is for the field to be bent does it have to exist what field are you talking about what field are you talking about you can any field any field that for any field specific does it have to exist first please be specific what field are you talking about any field for because when you are talking about when you are talking about massive object it is according to relativity warping spacetime it's okay because we're without any object without any object nothing without anything is bent without the object at all yeah go ahead for a field to possibly bend for any field to bend does it have to exist first I'm sorry the fields do not bend okay please be specific which field are you talking about because then when you are going to tell me space and time space and time are not fields okay okay and and and if you don't if you don't if you just want to say oh my god and not believe me please find me a scientific journal that describes time as a field or space as a field okay fields and waves and particles exist in space and time okay what is the container I'm sorry what is a gravitational wave a gravitational wave is a propagation of the warping state of space and time only should it does but it bends oh my god so to bend this is the definition this is the definition of a gravitational wave not a gravitational field okay and the result that they can be the result of a gravitational wave the result of a gravitational wave is two huge massive objects that are interacting together okay like two black holes to bend doesn't if anything bends if there are any perturbations in anything does the thing have to exist first and if it does so it doesn't have a pair you are once again going back to the using the term perturbation which means that there is energy which means that it can be represented into waves that have a particle duality which means that there are particles and there is anti particles this is how the universe is constructed simple what what what to the waves exist in those particles any particles what what are they in what is the thing that they are inside of they are inside space and time which is which is space and time what what is what does what created space and time what are they God created that I don't know what's the meaning of this question what created space and time this is metaphysics now this is not physics what is God the metaphysical question Google emergent space time space time is perturbations in a gravitational field basic physics oh man perturbations mean that now again what what again we go back to the same point once there is a perturbation there is either mass or energy okay mass and energy are dual themselves there is something that exists this something that exists that is causing the perturbation energy is a dual I'm sorry what is the negative in what is the opposite of energy okay so energy exists in packets and quantum packets that are represented in particles and it is a scientific it is our best scientific theory that those particles exist in pairs they are the next about energy itself what is the pair to energy itself what kind of energy any kind pick any kind of energy any kind of energy is represented in the particle standard model of physics when I'm answering your question any kind of what kind of what kind of electromagnetic spectrum what is the opposite what is its pair what is the opposite of the strong force what is the opposite of the weak force what is the opposite of the gravitational force so so the strong force and the weak force are represented by particles called gluons and they exist in pairs okay I'm sorry Tom you are not a particle physicist and you are just in my discipline this is not a fair conversation so I am just telling you that the standard model of particle physics is based on particle duality and the standard model of understanding our universe is based on duality between waves and particles and the standard model of understanding material is that material and energy are two phases of the same point everything that we know about physics is that the one constant thing about this universe is it comes in pairs so the statement of the Quran that everything everything that Allah has created is in pairs is absolutely correct this is the it's a very simple thing that I'm stating now you can you can just Google the physics I just Google the physics document you can prepare more for this A little fields vector fields still they are there they are real they use abstractions to model them they exist again fields are possibilities of existence of things no they are real they are there yeah they become no possibility it's not a thing here they become they they they they become something when they are when there is energy no this is how it works no and and you know you know something you know something now I'm telling you something that is very simple that there is no I'm sorry if you if you if you misrepresent science it doesn't mean I'm going against it I'm telling you that there is duality between mass and energy there is duality between a wave and a particle and the particles comes in pairs now those are things that are the fundamentals of our current understanding the current theories that governing physics okay so now you are going to getting out of things okay I'm telling me okay what's a field so I'm telling you a field of something here's a direct quote from a scientific journal these quantum fields really do exist throughout space and experiments not only show that they do exist but show that there's a magnitude of their effects as well good contributions of no quantum fields I cannot be particularly cognitive today oh no they exist how good how are those field how are those fields okay what is the manifestation of their existence that's how they're measured not what they are so whether you measure their effect they're there even if you don't measure their effect you're confusing epistemology and ontology you don't understand the difference wait let me finish let me finish let me finish you are confusing the effect that we can measure the field with which we use particles and waves to measure the effect of the field with the existence of the field itself the field is there even if we're not measuring any effects of it the field still exists that's how we can measure the effects if the field didn't exist we wouldn't be able to measure any effects of it because it wouldn't exist so dumb I think I've crushed you enough on this point basic you have not crushed me at anything actually you have not crushed me at anything okay an electromagnetic wave an electromagnetic wave exists an electromagnetic field the wave is the perturbation of the field all right I don't know I don't know how to explain it to you more than this for for for the field to be anything there needs to be a change in the energy of the field so that we can measure a wave or a particle in that sense all right I'm this is this is the reality of how things are I'm sorry no this is your delusion that you don't understand basic physics I literally talked to physicists like on a daily basis like no they all agree the field literally exists you don't need perturbations in it that's just how we measure it that's how we see it but we don't need to see it for it to exist it's still there even if we don't see it oh my god like every physicist agrees if we got rid of all particles gravity would still be there okay so would so so pick pick one kind of wave okay and go and find what its field is and go and find what is the particle okay sorry okay good okay and then go and find whether this field can be when it's manifested in a wave or even not if you would like to look at the the the the nonperturbed state let's say and go and please look if this the particle that can represent the field has an antiparticle or not okay in the standard model doesn't matter the field is what oh god so I'm telling you that everything in our standard model of physics at the end of the day is represented by a particle and according to the model there needs to be an antiparticle to respect something called symmetry okay so even if you refer to fields I don't I don't really I don't I don't I don't mind okay let's say you would like to refer to fields for some peculiar reason okay and then go back okay look into very recently discovered fields okay and find what is the particle that represents them and whether it has an antiparticle or not and then tell me and then tell me and then tell me does it or not reconfirm that even that example will have a particle antiparticle okay what's the antiparticle of the Higgs please do your research I'm not I do not memorize the answer is no one no it doesn't have an antiparticle go google it does the Higgs have an antiparticle does it have an antiparticle or not is something and that the standard model is based that there is an antiparticle for it is something else okay what is it what is the antiparticle of the Higgs boson go maybe good time for me to tell you folks we're gonna jump into the Q&A soon but I want to let you know in the meantime both of our okay are linked in the description at the elemental particle level bosons do not have an antiparticles so if you'd like to hear more from our guests whether you're listening via the podcast or YouTube you can find our guests linked below in the description box highly encourage you to check out our guest links as we really do appreciate the guests thanks so much finding truth go home would you like to go closing statements if you'd like to yeah I would actually like sure so yeah so number one thank you for having me number two the question of the scientific accuracy of the Quran is actually one of the abuse topics on social media and on YouTube the Quran is there to guide humanity and to prove its ferocity as a period with it to guide humanity Muslims are very distinguished in terms of having a harmony between what they hear about science and what they hear as instruction and guidance from the religion the Quran makes references to the natural world all the time as part us drawing human attention to the magnificence of the creation and to the wisdom of the creative it is a condition that while doing those references and those signs especially when the Quran sometimes in some occasions uses them to draw our attention to God's wisdom and that he is putting science in his book to say that this world is beautiful I have created it in a magnificent way I know the way I have created it that those statements will not contradict with science there is three possibilities in this case number one that the Quran is talking about something that we have no idea about at all for example things that the Quran has referred to at the time of revelation for even now because we know that we only know a little bit about science what the more we learn the more we know that there is much more out there to learn in this case the Quran is eloquent enough to put the statements in a way that makes them understandable to the layperson in a way that will relate to the apparent and direct observation around and there are so so so many examples like that like for example if he tells you look at how the earth is made easy for you to live on okay but then he might use a term that relates to making it in a specific spherical way but the same word has a meaning that it is spread so when the time is people knew nothing about the spherical nature of the earth they will appreciate that it is easy to walk on it is spread in front of them when they understand now they will it will draw their attention why did he use this word that has a dual nature and two meanings the other possibility is we know something about science but our science is wrong our science for example up to the early 1900s just this last century that's 100 just 100 minute years ago was referring to a static universe so Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la in the Quran makes a statement that he is the expander of the universe that the universe started as collapsed together and that he ripped it apart but a static you model for the universe does not lend itself to the universe being small and then ripped apart or blown up it doesn't even lend itself to the universe expanding so he actually uses a word where inna lamoose own that can be understood in a different subtle meaning that makes people pass away pass on it and not think that it has a scientific meaning and then the third and this is part of the eloquence of the order it is the parallel that I have said that relates to the scientists who wants to give a speech to three graders three two people in grade three in school the third possibility is that we have science that is correct that is not theoretical models that is not imaginations or mathematical constructs that are direct observations and direct measurements and it is falsifiable and it's provable and it's repeatable and it satisfies everything in the scientific method that makes it good science now this kind of third category cannot will not and have not ever had any collision with the Quran and that's why there are still Muslims that's why there are still Muslims who are standing tight and very sure that the Quran does not only describe their guidance in life but also gives them the signs that Allah exists and that he is the creator of the cosmos and of life and of humanity and of our consciousness and souls and he is going to take it away and we are going to stand in front of him now this position of Islam is consistent whether with the Quran or with other religions that have been brought down from God except that Islam sees itself as the final revelation and it's good as the preserved one so if there are other religions that have some of that features it's okay with Islam however if some religion or some other sacred scripture that Islam acknowledges has an issue we attribute that issue whether to translation of the people who conveyed it or to human opinions who have interpreted it at the end of the day to answer the question whether the Quran is scientifically accurate the answer is yes and time thank you very much we'll kick it over a tea jump for his closing statement as well time the floor is all yours so as I gave my introduction there are just dozens and dozens of scientific errors as demonstrated in the debate today that show that it is definitely not scientifically accurate beyond that it's just a fixational document that people ambiguous to try and fit current scientific data as always it's science that makes the progress and religion tries to catch up by making itself fit the science as always nowhere in the Quran doesn't give us any insights into anything valuable about the world whatsoever it only all just tries to catch up with the scientific progress that we have it is morally abhorrent it is scientifically inaccurate it is pretty much useless as a doctor to do for anything today and science is for sure the way to go as I demonstrated it is wrong and no matter how much ambiguous thinking you use it's still gonna be wrong I'll conclude there you got it and with that we're gonna jump into the Q&A so we're gonna go through these quick and that way we can let the speakers out of here on time no guarantees on whether or not we're gonna get to every single question so folks we're gonna try though and this one coming in first from Kwani Upstate says a split moon means someone pulled their pants down and split never mind that thanks for that Molly a tat says eight ayahs call humans quote Banny Adam unquote offsprings of Adam in surah to it talks about Adam created in heaven and sent down to earth in surah for it says we came from one man is that scientifically correct if so explain evolution please yeah so I am not actually a proponent of proponent of unguided evolution I think unguided evolution is false even Muslims who accept unguided evolution they accept it because God is in control of the universe they accept the accept evolution but they do not accept the unguided part so even those who accept that evolution is there do not accept the unguidedness and believe in something called Adamic exceptionalism that even if God has chosen to create life through guiding chemistry into biochemistry into life and then he guided evolution of creatures into higher order primates he actually did create humans diet now the whole issue is a matter of your ontological beliefs or metaphysical beliefs if you believe that God has created the universe there is no issue that he chooses to create humans in a separate or a special way it starts from your worldview you got it Dave Dahlia for thanks for your super jazz says James is the best moderator appreciate your support Dave and Matthew and says James thanks for these debates and I have to give all credit to the speakers who are linked in the description you can find both t-jump and finding truths link down in the description box including if you're listening to the podcast my dear friends we're on podcast and if you're listening there right now I have both t-jumps and finding truths link in the description box there to this one again from me on live streaming to a podcast no no no but for when people are listening to it it'll be current and then neon your thanks for your questions that finding truth thoughts on Nintendo being a Jesuit company that had the Islamic moon symbol in Zelda 64 I don't know about that Nintendo can choose whatever it wants as it's simple juicy this one's from Tyler 3978 says Buddhism teaches that the universe has always existed similar to some of the ideas about the existence of the singularity before the big bang does this make Buddhism scientific to finding truth Buddhism does not posit as a religion Buddhism is a philosophy and a path for self purification there are some people that I'm aware of that they call themselves Christian Buddhists for example so I think the Buddha the Buddha himself might have identified or not identified as a Hindu but he is known for his philosophy not for his not not as I read it and not as a separate religion you got this one coming in from stupid whore energy strikes again says no 7715 through 16 says there are seven heavens and the moon is a light this contradicts scientific consensus though finding truth okay so the science is only concerned with one heaven which is our observable universe so whether there are more or not is not something that the science actually talks about however it is one of the scientific speculations that there are more than one universe the one more convincing theory I don't buy this nonsense 10 to the power 500 universes but I think that the M theory has something to it which postulates 11 dimensions and if the moon was light that was the moon being a light I was responding to the seven heavens part I come to the moon so if the M theory is correct then we have 11 dimensions which is three of time that we know about three of space that we know about one of time that makes four and then seven additional which would be the seven heavens I don't think that there is good reason to believe M theory or not I'm just saying now the part of the moon so the moon does show us light at night and this is one of what Muslims one of the things that Muslims like to refer to a scientific accuracy of the Quran because when the moon is referred to it is typically in many ayat many verses of the Quran mentioned in contrast to the sun where the sun would be a reference to a siraaj which means a lamp that is lit that has fire in it it has both heat and light while the moon will be referred to as just noor only light so Muslims like to refer to that that the Quran is giving a sign that the light of the sun comes with heat because the sun is burning its old fuel through nuclear fusion while the moon just has light because it's just reflecting what the sun is producing so actually the ayat that you have referred to is used by Muslims as evidence for the scientific accuracy of the language of the Quran you got it and thank you very much for this question coming in from brandy becket says did god make bayel be a posthumory point a l and if they maybe it's pronounced bayel is and if bayel is made and not a thing then why is this god talked about in the bible okay i think you are referring to the ashur and god ban i think so this was a false god that is worship in i think in assyria or currently bond god made everything god made everything but he didn't tell people to create a statue and call it anything and worship it okay so people in that region of the world they used to worship baal and ashtar and this is the male and female god and goddess and they are just false gods why does god permit people to worship false gods because we are here to do this these choices either we worship the one god who will give us guidance and will put constraints on our life and morality to our life or we will just create statues that we will worship and even create statues of ourselves and worship our desires and we live our lives by giving you know altars to those statues whether fulfilling our desires or paying tribute to others to control us it is our choice so why does god permit it because this is the whole point of this life this one coming in from anton gomez appreciate it says finding truth said quote alif lam mim unquote at the beginning can he explain that please so the straight direct explanation is the quran starts by saying this alif alif lam im dalikal kitab al arabifi he mentions three letters of the quran says dalikal kitab this book has no doubts in it so he says out of those letters of the alphabet because in other surahs he uses other letters of the alphabet so he and he typically then refers to the book so the direct understanding of the muslim scholarship and exegesis is that he's saying here are your letters here are the letters that you use to construct your text and your rhetoric i'm using the same letters and i'm creating this book that has no doubt in it has no mistakes in it or it has no something else or it has something else in another surah and it's so it's a kind of challenge i'm using your same letters what i'm doing something that is completely unique why because i am the creator and you really created there are other other more complex and sometimes esoteric explanations of why those specific letters in that specific surah some have done some research about statistical analysis of the occurrence of those specific letters and those specific surahs some others have done some either more analysis of whether those surahs relate to the those letters relate to the rhyme of the surahs some have done some new numerical studies about the letters um what those three main opinions the general you know top of your head thing i'm using the same letters but you cannot do something like this you got it and this one coming in from do appreciate your question want to let you know folks if you happen to be a muslim question or muslim guest with a question for tom let us know as we don't purposely set it up so that the muslim guest in this case gets all the questions although some sometimes the speaker considers that an advantage because they they want to be able to speak more but i do want to let you know if you are a muslim with a question for tom let me know as uh they're just aren't there aren't any there haven't been any and it's not like we're trying to do it that way we do want to encourage you if you're a muslim please help share this debate click that share button below as we do want to have a more well balanced channel with a lot of muslims in attendance in the audience and so we hope you feel welcome no wonder what welcome life you are from url or your says oh just just clever i need to go to the bathroom real quick so thank you for telling me that be back no problem your says question for finding truth could not a demon put science into a book who is more likely to torture sentient beings for eternity with fire a good god or a vile demon yeah so a demon can put science in a book but then you will expect that the book will not take you to the path of righteousness would you so to verify that this book has those science and what is the source you might if you would like to go into a more complex path of saying that this book has something that is superhuman in it okay but then by investigating the book itself and what it teaches then you would you can be solved whether this book has a divine or a devious source the matter of the fact is that the Quran and Islam has elevated people who were living a savage life killing each other for nothing battling each other slaughtering each other cutting the roads attacking each other this was the status of the Arabian Peninsula when the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him upon him came to that maybe the one city that had a relative peace was back because they respected the existence of the holy Kaaba there so if you look at that and what Islam did to Muslims and the Islamic civilization that continued for hundreds or more than a thousand years and how it elevated not only Muslims but humanity and how it even integrated other civilizations Romans Persians Greeks how it resurrected Greek philosophy and Greek sciences and Persian sciences and Roman sciences and Egyptian sciences how it created a great civilization in Andalusia and Iberia and current Spain and Portugal you cannot easily resolve that this is from any source other than a divine source you got it and thank you very much for your question this one coming in from do appreciate it fluffy says are you aware that scientific texts or writings avoid interpretations and use the most scientifically correct terminology or otherwise make clear and unique what they are describing yes you are right about scientific texts and this is why I mentioned in the beginning of my comments the Quran is not a scientific paper it's primary intention is guidance its primary intention is talking to the general population however it says there in Nama Yashallah and Iberia here surely those who fear Allah from his servants are the scientists or people of knowledge so it has something there for scientists it has something there for historians it has something there for archaeologists it has something there for linguists it has something there for theologians it has something there for biologists it has something there for physicists and mathematicians and philosophers it is addressing the different facets of knowledge because when it refers to people of knowledge it refers at large it has something to cosmologists and astronomers. It is not a small book and however it is squeezing there so much that it's amazing that it can, for people of legal mentality and people of jurisprudence and law. So yes, if you are writing, if you can fathom in your mind that you want to write a book that addresses the general public and is primarily a book of guidance and behavior and preaching and you still want to have signs, you will not use complex language that is not understandable by the book, otherwise it will be rejected. But you can have subtle language that people who are specialists in fields will find them as consolidation and as reconformation that they are relying on a book that is coming from the creator of the universe. You got it, Anton Gomez strikes again says, Mr. Moderne debates, props for elevating the discourse. I hope you guys get more support. Thanks for that support. We really do appreciate that. And when I again pass on the credit to the speakers who are linked in the description, they're the lifeblood of the channel. And so we do appreciate both your support and the speaker support as well as iron chariots here with the last question. Thanks for your question says, is your religion or if your religion is true, why did Muhammad say he has the sexual stamina of 30 men? So what's the problem with that? Prophet Solomon had like 100 wives. Got you. He is just stating a fact. And want to say, folks, I'll be back with a post credit scene in just a second. We want to let these guys go as they have got a lot going on. We really do appreciate they've already been with us for two and a half hours. So thank you very much, T-Jump, as well as finding truth. It has been a true pleasure to have you guys here today. Thank you, James. It's been a pleasure too. Thanks, Tom. Thanks, Tom, for being here. Yep. Shout out to Ahmed was fun talking to you. You are a pleasant guy to chat with. Same here. And please don't take any offense from anything that I've said. I enjoyed talking to you like you're a lot more fun than Nadir. You're awesome. Thank you. I'm here just finding truth. I hope, I hope, I hope I have properly represented my religion and please note that what I say is my opinion. It is not necessarily true. What I consider true is the text itself. I can be wrong on some things, but there can be people who would correct me later and science is not fixed. It's changing and it's getting better. So thank God for that. Juicy to say the least. And folks, I've got to tell you both of our guests are linked in the description. If you haven't yet, you can click on those links and I'll be right back in just a moment with updates about upcoming debates. So thanks so much one last time to T jump and finding truth. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here. Let me just fix up the old screen here. Want to say thanks for your support, you guys. We're excited about the future and we've got some big updates about upcoming debates. So for example, at the bottom right of your screen, Nadir returns next week, exactly one week from right now. He will be taking on David Wood. You don't want to miss that debate and you don't want to miss any of the juicy debates coming up. So if you haven't already hit that subscribe button, my dear friends, we're going to have a lot of epic debates coming up. You don't want to miss them. And so, hey, make it easier on yourself. If you subscribe and you hit that notification bell, YouTube will let you know. It'll say, Hey, you probably like this. Check this out. And that way you don't miss it live. As it's always fun when it's live, my dear friends. And so I want to say hi to you in the old live chat, RB 47. Glad to have you with us. Indigenous black man. Glad you're here. Travis Statham. Glad to have you with us. Travis Pratt. Glad you're with us. Clinton Roche and Nikki. Thanks for being here. I enjoy you guys. And Ben Holden. Thanks for dropping in. Jesus is king. Glad you were with us as well as Eximuzik. Long time viewer. Thanks for being back. And Mono Jeans. Glad you're here. Axel Folly. Thanks for coming by. And thanks for your kind words. Elzomo. Thanks for your kind words. Thank you, James. You're a good moderator. I really do appreciate that. Seriously, that means a lot. We really do try as we want to be as fair as possible. And I don't claim to be perfect at that, but we do want to try our best as we really do want to be as welcoming as possible to atheists, to Muslims, to Christians. You name it, whether you be black, white, gay, straight, Christian, maybe you're a naturalist, an atheist. Maybe you're a conservative Christian or conservative Muslim, or maybe you're a Trump supporter, a Biden backer, a Bernie bro, whatever you are. We hope you feel you're welcome. And I am excited though. I've got to tell you, it's been a busy one. I am, I don't know if I look poop, but I am pooped. And we want to say huge credit to our guests. They really are the lifeblood of the channel. So T-Jump is linked in the description, as well as Finding Truth. And my dear friends, I've got to tell you, we really do appreciate them. They make these debates epic. And you guys, I've got to say, seriously, I'm not just saying this. You might think I'm just saying it. I'm not. Here are some ways that you guys help the channel immensely. So one is, hey, we're at 156 likes. Only four more likes and we will crush the 160 mark for 160 likes during our live session. But also want to say, my dear friends, that helps. Yeah, it's one way. But also when you submit questions during the Q&A, that helps a ton. As that way, we have that, you could say, entertaining segment where we actually have questions from you. And thanks, Chris G, for being with us. Good to see you. It says, thanks, James. Great job. Thanks for your support. Seriously, Chris. It's good to see you again. And Darth Revan, glad to see you as well. Jeff M, glad to have you here. It says, glad to see you again, James. Thanks, Jeff M. Appreciate that. And Agent Black, glad to have you, as well as WhatUpJeffro, glad to have you here, as well as Jen Wallace. Thanks for dropping in. We're happy you are here, as well as Bruce Six and Manic Panda, his longtime viewer. But yeah, I've got to tell you, here's another way. A lot of people, thanks, Chris G, says, I hit like. And we just crushed that 160 mark. We're at 165 now. So only five more, actually 166. Only four more likes, and we'll get to 170. And so that really does help the channel. Jesus is king. Thanks so much for your support in the live chat. It says, hit that like. We do appreciate it that this is a non-partisan platform. So we have atheists that support us and we appreciate it. We have Christians who support us. We appreciate it. We have Muslims that support us. We appreciate it. And we want to say absolutely we want to give everybody their fair shot. That's our vision. That's something that we think everybody can rally around because our vision is based on these values that we all share no matter what walk of life we're from, namely that it's good that everybody gets a fair shot. A level playing field to make their case to the world. And that's what modern day debate is doing. We're close, you guys. This is pretty, I'm like pumped. This is exciting. It's encouraging. It's a milestone for the channel. So modern day debate, I'm like thankful for your guys' support. I've got to tell you, this is, it's encouraging that this influence though of a fair platform and in a way it puts pressure on platforms that are not fair. So if there are like channels out there that claim that they're fair and they're not treating people fair, modern day debate is kind of a response to that where people can say, Hey, you know what, if you're not going to be fair, I'll go on modern day debate because they'll give me a fair shot. And I've got to tell you, here's the milestone I was talking about. We just hit 9,160,000 views. So we're not far. We're not far from 10 million views for the modern day debate YouTube channel. That's pretty big. We've had a huge influence and it's thanks to you guys, as we've already crushed the 170 goal for likes as well. We're at 173. Clinton Rosch says caress the like button as creepily as possible. It's true, only seven more likes with 180 for our live stream. And that really does help. We appreciate that. And then thanks for being with us. Let's see, Christian Prince Ears, glad you are here as well as 777 metaphysics. And Toby, glad to have you with us. It's a great show, James. Thanks for that. All credit to the guests. They're linked in the description. And that's something I've got to say. When I see debate channels and they don't even link their guests, I'm like, geez, it's like, you're not going to do that? It's like, your guests, they're the reason that you're able to put out content. And we're thankful for that. And that's why we link our guests every time. And so when I see some channels are like, oh, we're not going to link them. And it's like, maybe it's because they disagree with the person's position even. And it's like, wow, that's fair. Is I'm like, hey, you know, we really do owe it to our guests that moderated bait has grown as well as it has. We're thankful for that. And we, you know, I got to say thank you for our moderators as well. Brooke, Saichu Nav, thank you for the viewers. Thanks for your support. I see there really so much positivity in the chat. Bobby cost average. Thanks for being with us as love this channel, one of the best on YouTube. Thanks for that, Bobby. Seriously, that means more than you know. Thanks. Redface Gaming says love you, James. Thank you so much. Thanks, Redface Gaming. That means a lot. Nikki says, yeah, congrats, James. Thanks for that, Nikki. Clinton, Ross says, James, you deserve more followers. I appreciate that. And we're excited. You guys, here's a way you can help us in terms of our influence expanding throughout YouTube. That share button down below, right below this video is a way that you can click share. You can share this with people who have not heard about the channel and they'll say, Oh, it's like, this is cool. If you say, Hey, this is a fun channel to hang out at, you should come here and check it out. That has a lot more credibility than if it's me, let's say on Twitter saying, Hey, come hang out at modern day debate. It's fun here. Because people are like, Well, of course you'd say that. That's, you know, the channel that you run, James. But if you say it, you're a third party, it's more credible. It's more objective and people say, Oh, okay, if a third party says so, let me check it out. Like word of mouth is seriously, it's a very real way that we grow. So that does help a ton. And we want to encourage you to help us in terms of our influence on YouTube. Anton Gomez says they support you even though I'm a post-afarian. I hope you don't dislike my religion here. Have a banana. Thanks for your support and your super chat and the banana. And but yeah, we really do. We hope you feel welcome no matter who you are. No matter what walk of life you were from this channel, I've got to give you a heads up. One, sometimes people are surprised because they don't realize we host science debates, we hold politics debates, we hope we host religion debates. So you might be like, I'm really into religion debates. And then you see like, Oh, it's like they came out with a politics debate. That's weird is don't be surprised by that. It's in like an a la carte type of YouTube channel. It's like a buffet. You pick what you like. And you know, there's going to be some topics, even broadly speaking, like maybe you don't like political debates and that's okay. But you at least know what to expect. And that way you're not surprised when you see that we do have a huge variety of content that comes from this channel. And also got to say though, thanks for your guys support Declan R. Krabby. Thanks for being with us. See there in the little chat as well as let's see here. Who have I not said hello to neo the one glad you're with us as I always share my topics with friends and family. We appreciate that. Seriously, word of mouth. It's like it's legit. It really is a very real way that we grow and we've seen the amount of shares on our videos go up. Significantly when we've asked people when we've just said, Hey, would you be willing to share word of mouth helps a ton. And I've seen that like it actually does make an impact. And so we've we've got to say thank you for that growth though that helps us you guys. We're at 182 likes we've crushed that goal. First we crushed we crushed the 160 goal then the 170 goal now we're at 100 and as we hit the 180 goal with eight more likes will be at 190. That's huge. And so thank you guys for your support that does that YouTube it's kind of factored into the algorithm is that YouTube will show our video. That's another way a major way that we grow is that YouTube shows our video to people in their recommended videos for real. And so when you like the button that helps us as well. But thanks for your support. Let's see here. Let me take a chug of water. Yakeem the submitter. Thanks for coming by says how does one become a debater or a guest on the platform. So for one thing, we make an exception for Tom his camera didn't work today and it's like not a big deal. Tom has been on 100 times we're really thankful and I've got to say Tom has helped the channel immensely. So I want to give a huge credit to Tom. But to answer your question, Yakeem, I'm going to put it in the old live chat here. I'm at modern day debate at gmail.com. I would copy and paste that email address. If you email me at modern day debate at gmail.com. We will work on getting you set up. Now, if you are a Muslim in particular, we really want to get new Muslim guests on. And so it's important we do say hey we want you to be able to use your camera. We made an exception for Tom today because Tom has used his camera a billion times and he had one malfunction ever before this camera, which is today. So that's really important to us. We do push pretty hard for that and we'll let some people get away with it. Like I said, Nephilim free is another one where Nephilim free is come on without using a camera because he's helped us a ton time when we used to be like when we used to have like 200 subscribers 300 subscribers and we asked Nephilim free to come on the channel. Oh my gosh, you guys, I don't know what it is. I slept decent last night, but I'm pooped. But at the point is this Nephilim free used to come on the channel. He had 8,000 subs and we had like 300 subs. And so we were like and so he has always helped us a ton. I think he might have retired from debating. No joke. I haven't seen him debate for a long time. But the point is this. So we will let, you know, we let there be exceptions and stuff like that. But anyway, want to say thanks for your support, you guys. We really do appreciate it. I've got to get up and move around. I've been sitting for, it's been almost, it's been about three hours now that have been sitting just straight. So I want to say thanks to you guys. I'm excited about the future. In terms of future upcoming debates, we already talked about David Wood versus Nadir. That's coming up in about a week. That's going to be does science prove Muhammad is the true prophet. So that's a lot like this topic. So, you know, set your clocks for that one. I think you'll really enjoy it. And also though, this Monday and Tuesday we have tag team debates. One on Monday does science give evidence for God and then Tuesday creationism on trial. That's going to be juicy. And then we have LGBT race and gender debate. That's coming up on June 1st, June 2nd is this one. Let me show you this. I think I have it loaded up here as one of our debates for promoting. And I've got to tell you guys, we have a lot coming up. So, yep, it is. Vosh versus Dr. Bogartis. I think I'm saying it right. I hope. But we're welcoming Dr. Bogartis for the first time. We're welcoming Vosh back at the bottom right of your screen. You can see that debates thumbnail are trans women women. And yeah, that reminds me, you will have debates here that are going to disturb you. Like there are going to be subcontroversial ones. We have had, for example, let's see, you know, debates on gay adoption. We're going to have this upcoming debate on our trans women women we've had debates on is Christianity a hate cult? We have had one on is atheism a hate cult? Nothing's really off off. That's the word I'm looking for. Nothing is sacred here in a way and that we're willing to debate anything that for some people is a lot to handle. And so I got to warn you, you probably will be offended at some point by this channel. It's not that we're trying to offend people, but we want to be open to those controversial topics. And a lot of people are like, well, I'm offended. And I'm not, you know, I don't like modern day debate anymore. So, wow, it's why it might not be a channel for you. This is not your grandma's debate channel. Like it is going to offend you. Sometimes the Christians will be offended with topics like is Christianity a hate cult? We've never done is LGBT a hate cult? Who I think that I'd get that probably get us a strike? There's some groups that you just can't but we have done is Christianity a hate cult? And we have done is atheism a hate cult? And I've got to tell you there will be people that we also host that will offend you for real. And so there are a lot of people that we have hosted even two years ago, we hosted, I don't know if you guys know who Enoch and Striker are, but they're frankly more controversial than Richard Spencer. They're frankly, they're I think their ideology is more extreme. And we've hosted Richard Spencer recently in the last month. We have hosted a lot of people where it's very controversial. And so heads up. This is it's very authentic here. It's very raw. Like we will host controversial people and topics and one of you've been warned, but want to say thanks for coming by Muslim Stalinist, Sunni hater. Glad you're with us as well as Red Face Gaming and Alika. Thanks for coming by. And thanks for your support. We're at 184 likes you guys. Seriously, that makes a huge difference. And so thanks for all the ways you support this channel. I love you guys. I'm looking forward to seeing you at the next debate Monday night. You don't want to miss it. It's going to be fun. So I'm excited to see you then keeps up to go the reasonable from the unreasonable. I will see you at that next one, folks. I hope you have a great rest of your day or night depending on where you're viewing from. And as I mentioned, thanks for joining us in pursuing the vision as we were absolutely determined to carry out this vision of providing a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field. Thanks, everybody. We love you guys. And we hope to see you see you back here at modern day debate. Hope you have a great rest of your day or night.