User talk:Lightyears: Difference between revisions

Since you agreed with my take on constellations, how about going ahead with an article on that claim? Will you clear my edits in it when its ready? Saggy (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

I do agree on it as a theological issue, so I'd have no issue with an article on that (I think it should mention that it is also a general problem like with continents, mountains taking a long time to form, plants that we eat to evolve etc.). But I've never actually created a new article on here (people have copied a couple of my articles onto here since I made them under the Creative Commons license) so I don't know how or what the protocols are for doing so. I'm sure someone who runs the site (Axius?) could help.Lightyears (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

I asked because you check your own edits. First there's a sandbox , then when finished it will be a article and we will link it.Saggy (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

Just in case you mean to link to the new article from the scientific errors page, I don't think the link to the article should be put on there (as it's not a scientific error). I just meant that it's fine as a new article. Maybe there are more suitable places to link to it from. If you were to recreate a section on the scientific errors page to put your link to the new article, I'll leave it to others to decide whether to remove it, but I think you'd have to at least write in such a recreated section that this is not strictly a scientific error, but is a theological absurdity/difficulty.Lightyears (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

hi Lightyears, a new page can be made through the help page [1] although I believe the Constellation article is a lower priority. A higher priority for us should be to review the Scientific errors page so we can remove the under review template. Thanks for some of your edits in trying to fix some of these errors in that article.

In addition if you have any suggestions for the site of any kind, anything which you think should be done differently, anything you think would be beneficial for the site let me know. You have as much authority on this site as I do. I like for all of us to make decisions as a team. --Axius (talk | contribs) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

OK, thanks. I'll let you know if I think of anything Lightyears (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

I have something I need to do as of today, so won't be able to do any more editing for the foreseeable future in case any one wonders. Lightyears (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2014 (PDT)

Geocentral Quran documents

Someone emailed us a zip file that contained documents relating to the Geocentral Quran. If you're interested in looking at them let me know through our email and I can forward that link to you. --Axius (talk | contribs) 16:25, 27 May 2014 (PDT)

Your Dhul-Qarnayn article helped a former Muslim

Your article was linked here (post #22). Starts from #16 here, saying:

Once again great job on the Dhul-Qarnayn articles. --Axius (talk | contribs) 13:57, 4 August 2014 (PDT)

Iconoclasm

Appparently, Wikiislam doesn't cover iconoclasm (especially Muhammad's) or say vandalism, in any dedicated page. Can you correct me if wrong? Saggy (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2016 (EDT)

I think you're right. It could make for an interesting and very topical page given events of recent years if there's a decent amount of material to be found in sahih hadiths, maybe also sirat, tafsirs etc. I've no idea how to approve pages or what the processes are for new pages. The best thing for you to do would be to contact the exmna, who I believe have taken over running the site. It looks like Axius and Sahab might have retired as they've been inactive for quite a while now after an immense effort for some years.

You have another interesting sandbox page on claims of evolution that would be worthwhile if it's not already covered. In the first section you should probably also quote 24:45 as it implies that not just the earliest life, but 2 and 4 legged animals (such as birds or cattle) were created from water too, which has no resemblance to sciencific theories. The repeating creation verses are probably resurrection (Muhammad faced a lot of skepticism about resurrection, as the Qur'an records). Jalalayn and ibn Kathir tafsirs for these verses confirm this, though the flood stuff is still worth mentioning too. The article would also benefit from a brief section on the explicit mentions of special creation of Adam that foil attempts to fit human evolution into the Qur'an regardless of how other verses might seem compatible with it. But before going to much more effort it'd be a good idea to get in contact with whoever is running the site now as I don't really want to take on the committment of doing admin such as reviewing and approving stuff and I imagine they probably have a plan for resuming the performance of such tasks in future.Lightyears (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2016 (EDT)

Most of them are busy with their other work. But you can approve changes right? Then we might take the evolution article further. @ Iconoclasm, i have expanded this topic with some hadith. @scientific errors: what do you think about the mountains created in 4 days error [2]? Saggy (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2016 (EDT)

I approved the Iconoclasm hadiths (except one of them for brevity), good stuff. I don't think the mountains one is a strong enough error because the verse talks about a bunch of things, not just the mountains as happening in 4 days.