Editors, em-bypass-2
4,744
edits
User talk:Saggy: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Prekladator (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Prekladator (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
hi Saggy, this Science error/Quran page is popular and is often linked to by people so its important for this page to be as strong as possible. Some errors are more obvious than others. Some only appear in one translation and so on. For example the Golden Calf statue verse that you added was great. It obviously goes against science and is a glaring error while some others are not that obvious. | hi Saggy, this Science error/Quran page is popular and is often linked to by people so its important for this page to be as strong as possible. Some errors are more obvious than others. Some only appear in one translation and so on. For example the Golden Calf statue verse that you added was great. It obviously goes against science and is a glaring error while some others are not that obvious. | ||
One idea I have is to keep the strongest errors at the top and the less obvious ones (or the ones that can be explained in some way by apologists) near the bottom in another section. I tried making some rules here: [[Talk:Scientific Errors in the | One idea I have is to keep the strongest errors at the top and the less obvious ones (or the ones that can be explained in some way by apologists) near the bottom in another section. I tried making some rules here: [[Talk:Scientific Errors in the Quran]] (draft). Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 08:19, 1 February 2014 (PST) | ||
:How can we judge weakness? Its is everyones POV. EG Every claim about the sky is weak on its own. But when put together its a huge blunder. We already have sections for the branchs of science. At most we'll put weak claims at bottom of each section. of course we mustnt say - xyz is a weaker claim , we can try to explian it or justifiy it as much as possible..[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:52, 1 February 2014 (PST) | :How can we judge weakness? Its is everyones POV. EG Every claim about the sky is weak on its own. But when put together its a huge blunder. We already have sections for the branchs of science. At most we'll put weak claims at bottom of each section. of course we mustnt say - xyz is a weaker claim , we can try to explian it or justifiy it as much as possible..[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 12:52, 1 February 2014 (PST) | ||
::Hi, I moved your comment back to keep it in one place. Some errors are present in Arabic and the translations, while others are present only in the translations. For example Constellations. Apologetist might say the Quran just means "collections of light" and yes these were made by Allah for humans (for example) and he was just talking in a general sense. A more glaring error is the Golden statue or mathematics of inheritance. So some are more obvious, the others are a little iffy and have some conditions. | ::Hi, I moved your comment back to keep it in one place. Some errors are present in Arabic and the translations, while others are present only in the translations. For example Constellations. Apologetist might say the Quran just means "collections of light" and yes these were made by Allah for humans (for example) and he was just talking in a general sense. A more glaring error is the Golden statue or mathematics of inheritance. So some are more obvious, the others are a little iffy and have some conditions. | ||