Talk:Scientific Errors in the Quran: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 37: Line 37:
::::::::::::You're right, some Muslims will laugh at any error claim so I take that back, though he thought this particularly bad. Re your previous point, yes it is absurd (as theology generally is), but it doesn't belong on the scientific errors page since it is a question of theology, how Allah behaves. It's not a statement about the world that can be proven false. No-one could prove scientifically that Allah wouldn't set things in motion at an early stage with today in mind. If there was something in the verse suggesting a time scale that would be potential for a scientific error. Rather, the verse implies a theological absurdity (given that we know the stars have been moving a long time), and one that would apply to all sorts of things like continental drift, not just consellations. It is good content as a theological point, so maybe there is / someone will make a page on this subject. Anyway, maybe we'll just have to disagree on this one. It's for someone else to decide whether the entry is put back on the scientific errors page or not. And the 2 part sun muddy spring article is mine (copied across by someone who runs this site from the quranspotlight blog I used to maintain) - I'm glad you like it :) [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 11:54, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
::::::::::::You're right, some Muslims will laugh at any error claim so I take that back, though he thought this particularly bad. Re your previous point, yes it is absurd (as theology generally is), but it doesn't belong on the scientific errors page since it is a question of theology, how Allah behaves. It's not a statement about the world that can be proven false. No-one could prove scientifically that Allah wouldn't set things in motion at an early stage with today in mind. If there was something in the verse suggesting a time scale that would be potential for a scientific error. Rather, the verse implies a theological absurdity (given that we know the stars have been moving a long time), and one that would apply to all sorts of things like continental drift, not just consellations. It is good content as a theological point, so maybe there is / someone will make a page on this subject. Anyway, maybe we'll just have to disagree on this one. It's for someone else to decide whether the entry is put back on the scientific errors page or not. And the 2 part sun muddy spring article is mine (copied across by someone who runs this site from the quranspotlight blog I used to maintain) - I'm glad you like it :) [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 11:54, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::How Allah behaves will easily go into the new article whose scope is not limited to errors.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 13:08, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::::::How Allah behaves will easily go into the new article whose scope is not limited to errors.[[User:Saggy|Saggy]] ([[User talk:Saggy|talk]]) 13:08, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
:::::::::hi Lightyears, I agree with you when you say: ''"but there are a couple of reasons why Muslims would still be very unmoved by the claim that there is an error here''".
:::::::::This is the problem with some of Saggy's additions to this page. Some of the additions can be justified and it creates a problem for whoever links this page. Sometimes he has problems understanding what a verse or hadith is saying ([http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Forum#Womb_sentence another example] where there was no issue but he thought there was).
:::::::::The word "constellation" is a translation issue. Some translations use "big stars". The Quran is just saying "See how we arranged the stars" - which is what it looks like to humans. So I think it includes the meaning 'constellation' but is not limited to it (''"The word "burooj" in the first verse is translated to constellations, stars, and Zodiacal signs."'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Burooj])
:::::::::Here is something that you said and I agree with it 100% but Saggy refuses to understand this and keeps adding "non errors" or weak errors (at one point he said ''"there is no such thing as a weak error"'', not true) to this page and weakening it:
::::::::::''What originally triggered me to question the quality of this entry was when I saw a Muslim saying they laughed when they saw this one. '''It shouldn't be easy for anyone to pick what they see as a weak example to dismiss the whole page'''.''
:::::::::(bold is mine) I myself have seen another location where Saggy's addition was being mocked and things like that concern me greatly. One bad addition can lead to someone mocking the whole website. I have asked him not to add any verses to this page until the review template is gone. I have also told him to do what he wants in his own Sandbox page where he has more freedom to do what he wants. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] <span style="font-size:88%">([[User_talk:Axius|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Axius|contribs]])</span> 16:25, 23 May 2014 (PDT)
Autochecked users, Bureaucrats, Editors, oversight, recentchangescleanup, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
19,746

edits

Navigation menu