Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 38

Quran and Modern Science Debate

Nadir Ahmed vs. Denis Giron

www.ExamineTheTruth.com

"Is there evidence in the Quran, which would lead to the conclusion that the Quran
has come from a higher power than man?"

Written text version:

Ahmed’s opening presentation for 60 minutes

Giron’s opening presentation for 60 minutes

Ahmed’s 1st rebuttal for 25 minutes

Giron’s 1st rebuttal for 25 minutes

Ahmed’s 2nd rebuttal for 10 minutes

Giron’s 2nd rebuttal for 10 minutes

Ahmed’s opening presentation for 60 minutes.

[Introduction]

Okay, thank you. Insha'llaah, you can go ahead and start clocking me now. Well,
let me first start out tonight by welcoming everyone for today's debate on the
Qur'an and modern science. I would also like to extend a warm welcome to Denis
Giron for coming for tonight's debate. In fact, me and Denis have debated this on
Google Groups for the last, I believe, nine months, so we are very familiar with
the topic and of course Denis has written many papers regarding Islam.

Let me start off by saying today that the Qur'an is a book which Muslims believe
to be the literal word of God, and this book was revealed one thousand four
hundred years ago to the Prophet Muhammad (salallaahu alayhee wa's-Salaam), who
lived in the Arabian city of Makkah. Now I believe that if anyone were to analyze
the Qur'an, they will find that the Qur'an contains many statements - many correct
scientific statements which were not discovered only until recently. Therefore,
the question I would like to raise for tonight's discussion is: how could a man in
the Arabian desert, fourteen hundred years ago, have this kind of scientific
knowledge? The technology and the means to get this kind of scientific information
simply did not exist at that time. Advanced equipment and sophisticated methods
were not developed at that time. Therefore, the only conclusion a person can make
is that there had to have been a greater power other than man who was the author
of the Qur'an. Man could not have been the author of the Qur'an because there is
no way a man could attain that type of scientific knowledge.

[ Logical reasoning explained ]

Tonight is going to be kind of a very mentally intensive exercise, so I would


recommend people to take notes and if you get the opportunity to listen to this
debate, maybe two or three times if you can. So let me start off by saying that I
think one of the difficulties we have in doing these types of discussions is that
we tend to import many of our biases and our own personal opinions in this matter,
and we tend to come to the table with a lot of emotional baggage. And that tends
to blow our judgement. Even Denis himself, as an Atheist, of course, admits that
he has a lot of bias too. But my issue is that being biased is not the problem. We
cannot allow our biases and our prejudices to affect our judgement, and that is
where the real problem comes in.

Therefore, what I would like to do tonight, I would like to bring some standard
procedures that will sort of keep all of us in line tonight. Therefore, what I
would like to present for you today is an algorithm which will provide a
systematic method of analysis without personal opinion or bias. I'm going to cut
and paste this algorithm to you inside the link which you can click on and you
will be able to follow along with me. I'm going to send that to you right there –
click here - okay. You're going to have to remove the digits "555" from the link;
so if you do that, the link should work pretty good.

Okay, anyways, this is an algorithm which I think will provide a systematic method
of analysis without personal opinion or bias. It will provide a logical analysis
of statements concerning science - modern science - in any ancient text, whether
it is the Qur'an, the Bible, or any other book. You're going to need to refer to
this pretty often for the debate tonight. So, for those of you who don't have it
in front of them, perhaps you might want to write it down very quickly - I'm going
to go through it very quickly here. It says basically this:

if a statement in a book, whether it is the Qur'an or any other book, agrees with
modern scientific fact, then it can be one or more of the eight following
possibilities:

1. Perhaps the author of the Qur'an was a genius - he was like Albert Einstein
or something, and he discovered these scientific statements.
2. Perhaps the author of the Qur'an guessed; he just guessed "I wonder what
this could be" and he got it right.
3. The author of the statement was a great scientist; so basically he had a
laboratory in his backyard, he conducted experiments and that is how he came to
the conclusion of these modern scientific facts.
4. Maybe it is just a coincidence, like a poetic statement which just happens
to match up with science. Now let me look at this option (D). What that means is
that the author had no intention of talking about modern science. He had no
intention, and it was a pure accident, and out of accident the statement agrees
with modern science.
5. Let's look at (F,(this is mistake,should be E)) here. If the link doesn't
work, please write something inside the box so I can manually cut and paste all
this stuff. Anyway,
6. Perhaps the scientific fact is observable, like for example to say 'bees
have a leader'. Well I think if you observe the bee hive, you will see that it is
something observable; there is nothing really miraculous about that. Let's look at
7. Information already pre-existed in history. So what this basically says
right over here is that the author of the Qur'an basically plagiarized from
another source, maybe Aristotle or something like that. So that is another
possibility. And then finally…
8. Which is a source greater than man the author of these statements.

So these are your eight logical possibilities of how we could explain the Qur'an
and modern science. So the very important point over here is that, therefore just
because you have a statement in a book,which matches up with modern science, that
does not automatically make it miraculous. It can be any one of these eight
possibilities. Let me pause for a second so I can cut and paste all this
information to you, for those who cannot open the link or something like that.
Okay, there we go, these are all the possible scenarios and we will be referring
to them

often.

[ Atheists Logical fallacies #1: Reinterpretation ]

Okay, so now I want to just briefly talk about some logical fallacies which
Atheists have made and other critics in their study of the Qur'an and modern
science. These are three main logical errors. The first error is called The
Fallacy of Multiple Interpretations. Basically what this means is that they think
"if we can create another new interpretation, then we can dismiss that statement
of modern science as being evidence - if I can just create another
interpretation." And this is a very common mistake some people deal with. Let me
give you an example: this is what science today tells us about the origins of the
universe: science today tells us that the universe was created some time between
ten to twenty billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all
directions. Now let's say you read inside some arbitrary book that it said the
universe underwent a "big bang". Well, one person can correctly state that the
statement in that arbitrary book matches up with modern science on the origin of
the universe, and could therefore use this verse as an evidence, because it does
match up with science. Science says there was this huge explosion and this book
says there was a big bang. So yes, the statements do match up. But now an
antagonist - he can create an equally valid interpretation saying that "no, no,
no, you see what 'big bang' here means is actually a big surprise, you know like a
big surprise that any big bang would cause for anyone, therefore the statement in
that book is not talking about the origin of the universe - the author of the book
had no intention of referring to the origin of the universe, therefore you cannot
use this as evidence." But this is a logical fallacy I'm pointing out here - that
just because you can spin more than one interpretation does not disprove that
piece of evidence. Now of course we all know that when someone says this statement
he is clearly referring to the scientific origins of the universe - about the Big
Bang - so there is not question about that. So basically, the rule of thumb here
is that so long as one feasible, logical interpretation matches up with science,
that is all it takes to be used as evidence.

[ Atheist logical fallacy #2: Science pre-existing in other books ]

Let's look at the second fallacy which many Atheists have made. They said "well,
the science pre-existed in other books." Basically they're talking about - I
believe what we're looking at - is (G) the information already pre-existed in
history. Therefore, what the author of the Qur'an simply did - or of any book -
they just copied from that other source. That is one of the greatest
misconceptions among Atheists; which is just because something has been mentioned
in a book before hand, this automatically dismisses the case for the verse in the
book, therefore you can't use it as evidence, and this is wrong. Let me explain to
you why. Let's say that the Big Bang theory was mentioned in Aristotle's book, and
it was also mentioned in the Qur'an - now this is all hypothetical - and someone
brings up that verse of the Big Bang mentioned in the Qur'an and they use it as
evidence showing that man could not have been the author of the Qur'an. Now
someone can say "wait a second, wait a second, hold on - look, this statement that
you are talking about of the Big Bang mentioned in the Qur'an cannot be used as
evidence because it was already used in Aristotle's book, therefore what the
author of the Qur'an simply did - he just copied from Aristotle's work." But there
is a very, very big problem with this type of argument, which is: how did the
author of the Qur'an know to select this explanation versus the several wrong
ideas of how the universe was created which existed at that time? We all know what
if you read the books of history, whether it is the Hindu scriptures, Bible, or
whatever, there are several wrong and incorrect understandings of how the universe
was created. How did the author of the Qur'an know to select this particular
concept? That's the first question. How was he able to detect truth in an ocean of
falsehood and myths? How did he know this is the right one? Therefore, my
conclusion on this is that the argument that the Qur'an was just a copy job from
previous books because of the fact that it mentions scientific information that
was also present in those earlier books, that argument does not work because logic
dictates to us that we better find five times as many clear scientific errors,
right? Let me give you an example: you see when I was in high school, I never
studied. In fact, what I would do, I would copy from my neighbor when it came on
test day. But you know what happened? My neighbor didn't study either, so I wound
up flunking. What basically happened was yes, I did copy some correct answers off
his page, but I also copied some wrong answers from his page and I also
incorporated that on my test exam, therefore I flunked. Likewise, doing a copy job
in the year 600 AD was an even more dangerous job. It is literally a recipe for
disaster, because the books available to the author of the Qur'an are filled with
myths and legends and are filled with scientific errors and blunders. In fact
there are much more scientific errors and blunders than there are any true
statements, probably at least a thousand times, and even Denis, my opponent
tonight, will verify that for you. Therefore, my conclusion on this point is that
when we see a scientifically correct statement in the Qur'an, whether it was
mentioned in other books or whether it was not, that does not matter, because what
matters is how did the author of the Qur'an know this was the correct answer in an
ocean of falsehood and myths. So that is another illogical argument used against
the Qur'an or any book for that matter.

[ Atheist logical fallacy #3:Issue of scientific errors ]

Now let me talk about the last part. If you study the Qur'an you will see that the
Qur'an does not contradict any established modern scientific fact. This is a true
statement. That's really not what is going to be debated tonight, but I just
wanted to bring up that point. Anyway, many have tried to find scientific errors
in the Qur'an, but they have failed. On person in particular was Richard Carrier,
who is also Denis' I guess friend or colleague, and he is also a writer for
infidels.org, and he basically could not really find any scientific errors in the
Qur'an. But my point is this here: scientific errors really are not germane to the
topic tonight - they're really irrelevant. Let me explain to you why. Let's
hypothetically say again that there is this book we found - an ancient book - two
thousand years ago - I'm just giving you a hypothetical. And in that book you
found every single concept of modern day chemistry that scientists have only
discovered today. I don't think anyone would hesitate in concluding that man could
not have been the author of this book - nobody would hesitate on that conclusion.
Now let me throw this in this equation also: what if there were two pages filled
with scientific errors also in that book? What does that mean? Does it change the
fact that there are statements in that book which a human being could not have
known two thousand years ago? Of course not, it does not change that fact. So
again I'm talking logically here. Logically, scientific errors are irrelevant.
Whether a book contains scientific errors or not is really irrelevant. It does not
prove or disprove anything. These are all emotional arguments. They're basically
used to capture a shock effect, but it doesn't prove or disporve the fact that
this book cannot have been written by a man - it had to have been a greater
source. I hope everyone understands it - I can repeat that point again in case
anyone needs to. But as I said, if you look in the Qur'an, there is nothing in the
Qur'an which disagrees with established modern scientific fact, though that is not
being debated to night and I understand.

Okay, having said all of that, I spent sixteen minutes pretty much laying down the
ground rules and basically laying down the logic which we are going to use
tonight. So let me start with the first piece of evidence of the Qur'an. I'm going
to give you eight pieces of evidence, and these are eight statements in the Qur'an
which agree with modern scientific fact which scientists have only discovered
recently. Let me go ahead and start right here. Now what I'm going to do is I'm
going to break up my talk into two different parts. I'm going to first tell you
what science says, and then I'm going to tell you what the Qur'an says and then we
can go from there.

[ Evidence #1: Quran on Bee’s role in nature ]

This is what modern science has to say on the topic of zoology, in particular
bees. We're going to be talking about bees over here. Today science tells us that
the male bee has only one purpose, and that is to reproduce with the female -
there's really no other purpose for a male bee. Now here's the important point -
however, the worker bee or the soldier bee is a female bee. She is the one that
builds the nest, leaves her home, and goes out in search of food. This what modern
science tells us - that we have discovered only recently. Now it takes a
specialist in the field to detect the sex of the bee - you cannot look at it from
the naked eye - it is impossible, there is no way you can look at it that way. Now
let me show you what the Qur'an says about bees. Now, keep one thing in mind here.
In the Arabic language, animals are either male or female. Like in English we have
the word cow - "the cow in the pasture" - that does not tell us if the cow is male
or female. But in Arabic animals are either male or female. There is no gender
neutral term for animals. Let's look inside chapter sixteen verse sixty-eight. It
says over there:

"and thy Lord taught the bee" (here it is specified a female bee) "to build its
cells in hills, on trees, and in men's habitations, then to eat of all the produce
and find with skill the spacious paths of its Lord."

This is exactly what modern science today tell us - that the bee that goes out and
builds the nest, that goes out looking for food, as what the Qur'an has mentioned,
is indeed the female bee.

So anyway, I'll have to raise a question now. How did the author of the Qur'an
know this scientific statement, that the bee that leaves the nest in search of
food is the female bee? Let's go back to the algorithm. If you can look at that
link which I have just sent you, let's look at that algorithm. Perhaps the author
of the Qur'an was a genius or a scientist, which is (A) and (C). Well, I don't
think that could be a possibility, becuase no matter smart you are, you'll never
be able to detect the sex of a bee, unless you had these modern scientific methods
which did not exist one thousand four hundred years ago, so those could not be a
possibility. Let's look at (F). Perhaps the scientific fact is observable. Well,
this is not true either, because you cannot look at the bees and tell which one is
a male or female. Let's look at (B). Perhaps it was a very good guess. Well, it is
a possibility. If it was a good guess then we'll say it was a fifty-fifty chance,
one half chance if that was the case - or coincidence, we can look at it that way.
Now let's look at (G) here, I want to pause on this one for a second. The
information already pre-existed in history, therefore the author of the Qur'an
simply plagiarized from another source. Let's analyze this for just a second here.

Learn more about it here.

[ Aristotle’s work on Bee research ]

I want to bring up one of the books which were written much before the time the
Qur'an was revealed, and that is the works of Aristotle. Because I think when you
look at Aristotle's works here, it's going to give us some insight, because he did
some research on bees, which a lot of people don't know. Anyway, when you go to
his books on meteorology you will find that he has done studies on bees. This is
what Aristotle had to say - and actually Aristotle did make some scientifically
correct statements regarding bees - Aristotle discovered that there were three
categories of bees, and he discovered that there was such a thing as a leader bee,
which today we know are queen bees, as well as drones and workers. So he did make
some correct discoveries inside modern science when it comes to bees. But that can
very easily fall under the category of (F), that this is something which is
observable. Meaning, if you study the bee hive, you're going to see the same
thing.

Anyway, here's an important point on Aristotle. Aristotle also made many


scientific errors regarding bee study. I'm going to give you seven scientific
errors, which Aristotle made.

1. Aristotle first of all thought the queen bee was actually a male, which is
wrong, it is female.
2. Number two: he thought bees do not give birth to young, but they fetch their
young from flowers, which is actually false. We know that bees are actually
hatched from eggs.
3. Number three: Aristotle thought bees come from olives[?], which of course we
know is not true.
4. He said the honey comb of the bee is actually made from flowers. This is
false - the honey comb is made from wax.
5. He knew of bee's wax though, but he thought the bee's wax comes from the gum
of trees, which is completely scientifically inaccurate - it comes from the wax
glands of the bees.
6. He said female bees do not sting because nature does not provide females
with weapons, but this is also false, because female bees are the ones that are
stinging you. They are the ones with the stingers. The male bees don't have
stingers.
7. And he basically thought that the worker bees were basically sexless,
meaning they had no male or female parts to them.

So these are basically seven scientific errors which Aristotle made. Now I want to
ask a question - I want to raise a point here. What is the scientific truth over
scientific error ratio for Aristotle? Well, I believe it is one over seven(1:7).
For one scientifically correct statement he made seven errors, and that's
reasonable. There's nothing wrong with that, because that's how scientists learn
and make discoveries. They make these discoveries by a trial and error method.

[ Borrowing material from pre Islamic sources revisited ]

Anyway, let's say the author of the Qur'an really like Aristotle's work, he
thought it was incredible, "wow, this is great stuff." If he was going to copy
from Aristotle's book, you know what is going to happen? The same thing which
happened to me in high school: he's going to copy many of the wrong and false
statements into his book. Am I right? If you're going to use this book to copy
from, you're in big trouble, because there is a lot of scientific errors in there.
So, that is why the point I would like to raise here is that if we are going to
entertain - going back to this point which I raised - if we are going to entertain
this possible scenario which is (G) the information already pre-existed in history
and the author of the Qur'an simply plagiarized from another source, well then
what we are going to have to find - you'll have to also show us many of the
scientific fallacies that the author of the Qur'an also copied. Because how did he
know what to copy and what not to? So that's my point here; that's the only way we
can entertain this particular objection or this particular possible scenario. If
you going to say he copied from the book, then show us other things that he copied
from that book. And if you cannot show that, then we cannot entertain this
possible scenario, logically. Anyway, let me ask another question: what is the
ratio of the scientific error over scientific truth for the Qur'an in relation to
bee study? Who can tell me? Well, it is one over zero. Aristotle's was one over
seven, the Qur'an's is one over zero. Which means that the author of the Qur'an
could not have plagiarized this from any source, because if you're copying from a
source, believe me man, I know this [from] first hand experience: you're going to
copy some of the wrong answers too.

[Evidence #2: Lost city of Iram]

Anyway, let me move on to the second piece of evidence here. Evidence


[...inaudible...]. If you look in the Qur'an it talks about a city named Iram
inside chapter eighty-nine, verse seven. Now, there's something very unique about
the city Iram, which is that nobody has ever heard of a city called Iram before.
You can look through all the pre-Arabic or Arabic literature, none of the
companions of Muhammad (salallaahu alayhee wa's-Salaam), or Aristotle's work, or
the Hindu scriptures, nobody has ever heard of a city called Iram yet this is a
city mentioned in the Qur'an. And for this point many people have actually
ridiculed the Qur'an and made fun of it because it is talking about cities which
nobody has ever heard of. And even one of the most famous critics of the Qur'an,
his name was Wellhausen, he stated that Iram was actually a fictional place - it
didn't exist - whoever wrote the Qur'an just made up some corny city and then put
it in the Qur'an. This is basically what many people thought, especially
Wellhausen. Some Muslims also, they felt very ashamed of this fact and so they
said "okay, okay, Iram is not the name of a city, actually Iram is the name of a
person, yeah, yeah it is the name of a person," because they felt ashamed on this
point. Well, anyway, all of this changed in 1978, because there was an
archeological dig and they discovered a city named Ebla. Now in this city Ebla,
they looked in the library and there they discovered a city that Ebla used to do
business with, and low and behold, that city was named Iram. The very same exact
city as mentioned in Surah eighty-nine, verse seven of the Qur'an. And that was
done in 1978. Now, how was the author of the Qur'an able to have knowledge of this
city? This is a question I would like to raise. And even the person who wrote the
article from National Geographic in 1978 - I believe it was the December edition,
I'm not sure - but he even makes specific reference to this. He says "Iram, this
is that strange or obscure city that was mentioned in the Qur'an." That is even
mentioned in the National Geographic article. So how did the author of the Qur'an
know that such a city existed?

Well again, we would look at the algorithm and we could see that it is any one of
those eight possibilities, perhaps. Now, actually Denis made kind of a very
strange statement in the Google Group -I just want to raise it right now for just
a second. He said - well first of all, let me back up a little bit here. Some
people have guessed or basically made a hypothesis that Iram is a city in Southern
Arabia. There's really no proof for that, but some people have basically guessed
at that - but anyway, let's go along with that. Denis made a statement - he said
"oh what's so big about an Arab talking about a statement in Arabia? There's
nothing really strange about that or something miraculous." I would ask Denis to
really look at that argument a little bit more carefully, because the point is, it
does not really matter if it is in Europe or China or Malaysia. The point is that
no one in history - in ten thousand pages of hadith literature as well as all
history - has ever heard this city named Iram. And how is it mentioned in the
Qur'an, this city? That is like me coming saying that let's say in Montana there
was an archeological dig, and there we discovered a city named - I'll just make up
some name, Montezuma, no not Monetzuma - Bohemia! I'm just going to think up some
name here. And Bohemia is actually a city, which is five thousand years old. Now
if somebody in Florida was talking about a city called Bohemia, that would be
something very profound. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. How was
that person in Florida talking about a city named Bohemia? Would there be anyone
who would come up tonight and say "oh, no, no, no, that means nothing, that could
be nothing - it is simply an American talking about a city in America." Well of
course that would be foolish. So, there's really no basis for that argument.
Learn more about it here.

[ Evidence #3: Quran on barriers between different seas ]

Anyway, let me move on to proof number three here. We are now going to move away
from archeology and we are going to talk about oceanography. Today, scientists
tell us that there is actually a barrier between the bodies of water, and that
this information has only been discovered recently, using advanced equipment. Now
let me give you an example: there is actually a physical barrier between the
Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. This barrier - the two seas basically
differ in, number one, temperature, salinity, and density, and between these two
seas there is an actual physical barrier. Now there is a diagram of this barrier
which I'm going to give everyone right now. It is on this link - you can click on
this link and you will see the diagram of that barrier between the seas. And of
course, this barrier between the seas which we are talking about is not visible to
the naked eye.
Let's see what the Qur'an has to say on this topic. Inside chapter fifty-five,
verse nineteen it says over there:

"He it is how has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier
between them. They do not transgress."

Now this is a statement which completely agrees with modern science. Scientists
have only recently discovered that there are barriers inside the ocean, between
the seas, and I gave an example between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. So
anyway, we see that this statement of the Qur'an agrees with modern science.

[ Quran does not speficy what type of barrier ]

Now I was looking and I saw that there tended to be a lot of useless debate in
[which] people were trying to define what type of barrier is being used - what
type of barrier is the Qur'an referring to? Because they cannot refute the idea
that the Qur'an clearly, clearly states that there is a barrier between the seas,
so they start to try to make a controversy out of what type of barrier.
Well, anyway, I can kind of settle the debate tonight by saying that the Qur'an
does not say anything as far as what type of barrier is being used - because you
know, there are many different types of barriers: there's multi-layered barriers,
there's radiating barriers. Basically, a barrier impedes movement of an object or
a substance - something which blocks the passage of a certain substance. Different
types of barriers perform different functions. Some act like an iron curtain,
which completely blocks off two substances, while some barriers do the same task
of blocking two substances but they do it in a more subtle fashion, by kind of
slowly bringing them to a halt. So anyway, my point is the Qur'an does not speak
about what type of barrier, and there is really no point in trying to guess and
trying to make a controversey out of that.
Learn more about it here.

[ Evidence #4: Quran on barriers between salt and fresh waters ]

Anyway, let me move on to the next piece of evidence. Proof or evidence number
four. We talked about barriers between the two different seas, which differed in
temperature, salinity, density, et cetera. But science today has also told us that
there is a barrier between fresh and salt water. In fact this barrier which the
scientists talk about - they call it the zone of partition. So basically, on one
side of the zone of partition you have salty water, and on the other part of the
partition you have fresh water. And this has been also clearly, explicitly stated
in the Qur'an. Let's look at chapter twenty-five, verse fifty-three:

"it is he who has let free the two bodies of flowing water, one palatable and
sweet - (referring to fresh water) - and the other salt and bitter…."

Now here is the important point I would like everyone to take heed to:

"yet he has made a barrier between them, a parition that is forbidden to be


passed."

Now again, many of the antagonists and Atheists can not refute the fact that the
Qur'an is clearly talking about a barrier between fresh and salt water. That is
unmistakable, and that completely agrees with modern science. But again they try
to make a controversey out of "what type of barrier? what type of barrier is the
Qur'an talking about?" which is really a red herring. But again, this partition
that is forbidden to be passed, that is something which is vague and ambiguous.
That does not still tell us what type of barrier, whether it is a radiating
barrier or et cetera. Anyway, I just wanted to make that one point.
Learn more about it here.

[ Aristotle’s faulty knowledege on salt and fresh water phenomenon ]

Let me refer back to Aristotle again. Aristotle did research on oceanography in


his books, in addition to bee study. And he tried to explain this phenomenon of
fresh water and salt water. He had no idea that there was an actual physical
barrier between them. This is what Aristotle thought: he says "the same thing
happens in animal bodies. Here, too, the food when it enters the body is sweet,
yet the residuum and dregs of liquid food are found to be bitter and salt." So
basically what Aristotle is saying is that when you eat a twinkie, it tastes nice
- yeah, it's great - but now, if you taste your own poop or your own feces, it is
very bitter and salty. Now, this is what I call a very dedicated scientist, you
know, who would taste his own feces. You have to give credit to the man.
Anyway, so Aristotle continues: "This is because the sweet and the drinkable part
of it has been drawn away and the natural animal heat has passed into the flesh
and other parts of the body according to their several natures." So basically he
is saying when you eat something by a process of evaporation - animal heat, he's
referring to evaporation - this is how fresh water becomes salty. Just like when
you eat a twinkie, and you go to the bathroom and you defecate that twinkie, that
is the same thing which happens when you see salt water and fresh water. So of
course, needless to say, this is a gross scientific error. We all know this does
not describe the relationship of salt and fresh water.

So my point here is, again, I do not think the author of the Qur'an was
plagiarizing from Aristotle, or else he would have copied this gross scientific
error in his book. Or let me ask the question again: out of all the scientific
statements I have been showing in the Qur'an, what is the scientific truth over
scientific error ratio? Who can tell me? It is one out of zero for every one -
every single one of them, one out of zero.

[Evidence #5: Quran on no light on the bottom of the seas]

Okay, let me continue. Now, we are still on the topic of oceanography. Let's look
at the fifth piece of evidence. Scientists have only recently discovered that at
the very bottom of the ocean it is completely dark. That is, you are going to have
to travel one thousand meters, and after you have traveled one thousand meters in
the ocean, it is complete pitch darkness. In fact, if you have ever seen the movie
Titanic, the Titanic is actually at the very bottom of the sea, and the Titanic
right now resides in complete total darkness. Now man, on the other hand, he could
probably swim about - at the most - forty meters down in the ocean without special
equipment. So he could only go about forty meters, but like I said, once you go
down one thousand meters, that is when you see that it is complete pitch darkness.
And scientists have only recenlty been able to discover these details - pieces of
information about the seas.

Now let's see what the Qur'an has to say about this. Chapter twenty-four, verse
forty of the Qur'an. It is talking about the disbeliever – that:

"the disbeliever is like the darkness in the vast deep sea,(and it goes on in a
later verse - I mean, in the same verse:)if a man were to stretch out his hand, he
can hardly see it; and for he whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is
no light."

It says in the Qur'an:

"there is no light for him"

and it is talking about the vastest deep ocean. So the Qur'an is saying at the
very deep, dark levels of the ocean it is complete darkness, and that is like the
analogy of a disbeliever - he lives in complete darkness. Again, this is exactly
what scientists today have told us - that the ocean, after one thousand meters, is
complete death[?] darkness. I would raise a question: how did the author of the
Qur'an know this type of scientific information?

Learn more about it here.


[ Evidence #6: Quran names the lowest point on Earth ]

Okay, let's look at evidence number six over here. We are going to get off the
topic of oceanography. I have produced for you three pieces of evidence of
oceanography. Basically, that the author of the Qur'an knew that there was a
barrier between the seas. Number two, he knew that there was a barrier between
salt and fresh water, and the author of the Qur'an also knew that at the very
depths levels of the ocean is complete darkness. Let me now move on to proof
number six here. We are going to talk about geology.

If you have a topographical globe - topographical globes show the elevations and
depressions of the earth - and if you look at where is the lowest point on the
earth, you will see that that is around the Jerusalem area. That is the lowest
point on the earth. Anyway, let me read to you this verse of the Qur'an. Again,
this is what scientists todat tell us: that the area around Jerusalem is the
lowest point on the face of the earth. Surah thirty, verse two of the Qur'an says
"the Romans have been defeated in the nearer land, and they, after their defeat,
will be victorious." Now, this word, "nearer land," that the Romans have been
defeated in a nearer land, the word is adnaa 'l-ard, and if you look in the
dictionary, they have two meanings for adnaa 'l-ard. One is "nearer land," which
many commentators used, because it is a lot easier for people to understand
"nearer land". But if you look for the other meaning of this verse, I'm sorry, for
this word, adnaa 'l-ard, you will find that it means the lowest part of the land.
So, the Romans were in fact defeated at Jerusalem, and that is the lowest point on
the earth. So let me read to you this verse again: "the Romans have been defeated
in the lowest part of the land." It can also be read that way, that is, any
scholar of Islam will tell you that is an equally fine interpretation, because the
word adnaa 'l-ard has two meanings: "nearer land" as well as "lowest part of the
land". And of course the Romans were defeated at Jerusalem. So here is a statement
which completely agrees with modern science. So we see here that the author of the
Qur'an used a word in which one of the meanings was lowest land. Could that be a
coincidence? This is my question.

Learn more about it here.

[Evidence #7: Quran correctly states Iron is not from Earth]

Anyway, let's now jump over to the topic of astronomy. Now, we know that there are
many elements in the universe today, or in our planet today - I'm sorry.
Scientists today tell us that after studying the element of iron, that iron could
not have been created on earth. And not only that, they say iron could not have
been even created in our universe. They say that in calculating the energy
required to form one atom of iron, it was found to be about four times as much
energy of the entire solar system, just to create one atom of energy. Scientists
go on to tell us that this kind of energy is not observable in our sun, our
planets, in our solar system combined. So, what they are telling us is that iron
could not have been formed on earth, neither in our solar system; rather, it
should have come from some external source. That is the only place where iron
could have come from.

Now, if we look in the Qur'an, we see that the Qur'an actually talks about things
which were created on earth. Like, for example, inside chapter thirty-six, verse
thirty-six, it says:
"glory be to Him Who has created all the pairs of that which the earth produces,"

and then it goes on to say that the human beings were also created from the earth:

"and Allah has brought you forth from the dust of the earth."

That is chapter seventy-one, verse seventeen. So basically, someone would look at


the Qur'an and say "well, yeah, that's reasonable, I mean how else would a man one
thousand four hundred years ago - you know, he looks around his surroundings he
sees that everything produced comes from the earth: grass grows from the earth,
pairs come from the earth, so yeah, that's very natural." But now the Qur'an also
talked about where did iron come from. Now, we would assume that the Qur'an would
say that iron came from the earth, just like human beings, pairs, just like
everything else - like any man would.

Notice what the Qur'an says about iron. Surah seventy-one, verse seventeen:

"and Allah as brought you forth from the dust"

I'm sorry, wrong verse! Chapter fifty-seven, verse twenty-five. Let me read this
verse to you. Chapter fifty-seven, verse twenty-five, it says:

"We sent aforetime our apostles with Clear Signs and sent down with them the Book
and the balance that men may stand forth in justice."

Now here is the important part I want everyone to pay attention to:

"and We sent down iron."

It says in this verse that God sent down iron to the earth which the meaning is
when people study the Qur'an that iron could not be created by the earth; rather
God says We sent down iron from (I mispoke, I meant TO, not from)the earth. That
is exactly what modern scientists today are telling us - that iron could not be
produced by earth. The earth does not possess the type of energy, nor does our
solar system, and that is exactly what the Qur'an is stating. Okay, so the
question I would like to raise in regards to this is how did the author of the
Qur'an even know that certain elements are not from earth? What would ever make
him come to that conclusion? A man one thousand four hundred years ago in the
desert - if he was the author of the Qur'an, how would he have that type of
information?
Learn more about it here.

[Evidence #8: Quran states Sun and Moon have Orbits]

Okay, let me move on to the next piece of evidence. And this is going to be my
last piece of evidence here, and then I am going to give a summary. Today, we all
know, and I think this is not a surprise for anyone, that the moon actually moves
in an orbit - a circular path, we all know that. But the scientists also tell us
today that the sun also has an orbit, which many people do not know. Yes, all the
planets are revolving around the sun, but the sun has an orbit in which is
revolves around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. So both the sun and the moon
have an orbit. This is what scientists have only recently discovered.

Let me now point you to chapter twenty-one, verse thirty-three of the Qur'an. It
says over there:

"and He it is Who has created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each in
an orbit floating."

The Qur'an clearly states that the sun and the moon have an orbit, and that word,
falak, if you look in the Hans-Wehr dictionary, that word refers to a woman's
chest, a round woman's chest. So it talks about that the sun and moon have a
circular orbit. So this is a statement which clearly agrees with modern science.
Now, someone may say "maybe the author of the Qur'an was referring to the sun and
moon orbiting around the earth, like geocentricism - ah ha - that is what is [the]
meaning."My response to that is, but why didn't he say that? Why did not the
author of the Qur'an clearly and explicitly state - not according to your
interpretation, but clearly state that the sun and the moon orbit around the
earth? It does not state that. Anyway, so you would say "well, that is a
coincidence, just an amazing coincidence that the author did not state that."

Okay, but let me show you how that coincidence keeps happening in the Qur'an. Look
at this verse over here, it says, inside chapter thirty-nine, verse five:

"He coils the night upon the day and coils the day upon the night."

Now, it is a little bit hard to visualize this, I understand. That word "coils,"
basically, you could think of it as "donut" the night upon the day and the day
upon the night. Again we are seeing that there is this roundness about the night
and the day, you see? And basically the point over here you can see that anyone
who walks away from this verse, they are going to come up with a conclusion: "hey,
you know what? there is something very circular about the earth." That is okay -
that is not the point I am trying to make.

My point here, is why didn't he say that the sun revolves around the earth, or the
sun and the moon revolve around the earth, or something like that? Someone will
say "well, that is another coincidence that he did not mention geocentricism." And
you will find that there are like six to seven verses in which the author of the
Qur'an was talking about the sun and the moon and its revolutions, but yet it
never stated that they revolve around the earth. That is all coincidence I
suppose? Anyway, my point is that this verse clearly agrees with modern science.
The Qur'an says that the sun and the moon have an orbit - full stop, do not add
anything more to that - and that is exactly what we know about science today. The
sun and moon have an orbit.
Learn more about it here.

Okay, I am all done over here, and I just want to review, very quickly, the eight
pieces of evidence which I have mentioned in tonight's debate:

1. Number one, I talked about bees: how the Qur'an correctly said that it is
the female bee which leaves the house.
2. Number two, I talked about a city named Iram, which no one has heard [of]
until 1978, and this city was mentioned in the Qur'an and archeologists dug up the
city. I'm sorry, the archeologists dug up a city named Ebla, and they found out
that a city named Iram did exist.
3. Number three, barriers between the seas: this was clearly stated in the
Qur'an.
4. Number four, barriers between salt and fresh water.
5. Number five, that at the bottom of the ocean, it is complete deep darkness
after, of course, one thousand meters.
6. Number six, the Qur'an clearly pointed [to] the lowest point on earth by
using a word adnaa 'l-ard, which one of the meanings is "lowest point."
7. Number seven, the Qur'an clearly stated that iron did not come from earth,
rather God said "we sent down iron," meaning it came from some external source,
which is exactly what scientists today tell us.
8. And number eight, the Qur'an clearly stated that the sun and the moon have
an orbit, and that is exactly what scientists today tell us.

So, okay, I am all done over here. I would like to invite Denis Giron to
come and take the microphone, and then I will summarize my conclusion on this
evidence in my next thirty minutes. Thank you.

Giron’s opening presentation for 60 minutes

It is okay for me to just grab the mic, so I am taking it now. I would like to say
thank you to Nadir for the introduction. Before I begin, Nadir mentioned the
debate we had over usenet - via a text debate over the last roughly nine months. I
am going to give the URL that has the entire debate over the nine months. If you
could see it there, it is "joes.com" - J, O, E, S dot com - slash, "home," slash,
and then our last two names: "Ahmed," for Nadir, and "Giron" for me - G, I, R, O,
N. So that is actually where you can find all the text.

To begin, I actually should lay down exactly what my debate is - the points that I
am going to be bringing up - since Nadir talked about the fallacies that are
committed by Atheists and, I guess, other non-Muslims who try and dispute the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an. So, to begin, first off, I would
like to give an analogy. This analogy will help express what my approach here is.
My approach here is not against the Qur'an; it is specifically against Nadir's
argument.

So, suppose you are sitting somewhere in a mall, or on campus or somewhere, and
you hear a Muslim and a non-Muslim having a debate. And the Muslim says "the
Qur'an is the word of God," or the word of Allah, and the non-Muslim says "well,
what is your proof? How do you know the Qur'an is the word of Allah?" And the
Muslim says "the Qur'an is the word of Allah because my father says so." Now, do
not get me wrong, do not think that I am trying to say that Nadir's argument is as
poor as this - I'm not, I am just using this as an example. So the Muslim in this
hypothetical situation claims the Qur'an is the word of God because his father
said so. Now of course that is a bad argument. We can all agree it is a bad
argument. Now here is the question. The fact that it is a bad argument, the fact
that the Muslim failed in this hypothetical situation to prove that the Qur'an is
the word of God, does not mean that it is not the word of God, and this is
important.

The reason I am brining this up is because I am not going to claim that the Qur'an
is not the word of God in this debate. I am not going to try and prove that it is
not the word of God. My position is that, in my opinion, Nadir's argument was
insufficient for proving that the Qur'an is the word of God, but of course this
does not mean that it is not. I could very well be the word of God, and Nadir just
did not prove it. Now maybe I am wrong about whether or not he proved it, but I am
going to explain why I think he did not prove it. But that is just a point that I
am trying to make: that my approach is not to discredit the Qur'an, but rather
just to explain why I feel that this particular form of apologia does not prove
that the Qur'an is the word of God. And if I today sincerely recited shahaada and
became a Muslim, my position on this issue would not change. So I could argue this
position from an Atheist standpoint or from a Muslim standpoint.

Okay, now, to begin with Nadir's argument, he got into the issue of the fallacies
that are committed by Atheists. And the first one he said was one of multiple
interpretation - where we can just create another interpretation. That is actually
not an argument that I am going to raise, but I am going to raise something mildly
similar. The issue that I am going to bring up is that I am going to ask the
question "is it possible for a man, for a mere mortal, to say the things that are
said in the verse that we are considering?" This could be with any verse, like for
example let's talk about the opening few verses of the Qur'an. You all know them:
bismillaahi 'r-Rahmani 'r-Raheem alhamdulillahi rabbi al-'alameen... I apologize
for saying it so flippantly, but you know the verses.

The question is, is it possible for a human being to say those verses? I think it
is very possible for a human being to say those verses- say those words. Does that
mean they are not from God? No. I am just saying that the fact that it is possible
for a human being to say such things means that we do not necessarily have to
assume that the verse, in itself, is evidence of a divine origin for the Qur'an.
So that is going to be my question that I am going ask each time with the eight
pieces of evidence that Nadir has brought up. The question is: is it possible that
a human being may have said these things, or could have said these things?

The second fallacy that Nadir brough up was the issue of if it pre-existed in
science, and certainly certain things that are mentioned in the Qur'an have been
mentioned by other people. Now the question that Nadir brought up is: well, why
should we assume that the Qur'an plagiarized from these sources? I am actually
going to say no, I have no proof that the Qur'an plagiarized from any source. That
is not anything that I am seeking to prove tonight. I am not going to make any
claims of plagiarism tonight. What I am going to say tonight is that, for example,
if the Qur'an makes a claim - a scientific claim - and a previous source made the
same claim, it is reasonable to believe that it is possible for a human being to
utter such things, especially if a previous source said it. So for example, if
Aristotle said something about embryology or about the cosmos, him saying that is
in itself proof that it is possible for a man to say such things. So, for example,
let us use the issue of bees. Aristotle actually did not believe that worker bees
were female. But, nonetheless, let us assume that he did for a second. If the
Qur'an says worker bees are female, and Aristotle said worker bees are female, it
would mean that it is possible for a human being to reach this conclusion.
Therefore, we do not have to conclude that the Qur'an saying such is proof in
itself that it is the word of God. Nonetheless, even if it is not something that
no one knew at the time, or if it is something that a human could say, that does
not mean it is not the word God. It is possible that the Qur'an is the word of God
nonetheless, even if a human could have said it.

So, with that I would like to get into the eight pieces of evidence. I hope that
was clear. I hope I did not run through it too fast. I am going to get to the
eight pieces of evidence that Nadir went through, and if I am correct they were
the issue of the bee, the issue of the city of Iram, the issue of the oceans -
which he broke down into three different sections, the issue of the near land in
Soorat ar-Room, and then the issue of iron, and finally the issue of the heavenly
bodies. I think I can run through these relatively quick so that I do not have to
waste anybody's time.

First, with the issue of the bee, what Aristotle actually said was that others...
Now he came to dispute - excuse me - he tried to dispute the belief that bees were
females and drones male. And the issue, however, is that he started out by saying:
it is asserted by others that bees - worker bees - that these bees are female and
drones are male. This is what he said. He said also that they copulated. "It is
asserted by others that these insects copulate, and that the bees are female and
the drones male." So Aristotle starts out by saying that this is asserted by
others. This was said before he wrote his book and then he gave his reasons for
why he disagrees. Now, of course, as history bares out, Aristotle was wrong. But
nonetheless, he was debating with somebody - maybe someone who was not alive
anymore at his time, but nonetheless he was debating with somebody who claimed
that the worker bees were female and the drones were male. So this was said before
the Qur'an was written - the issue of the gender of worker bees. So that in itself
proves that it is possible for a mere human being to argue such.

Actually, I would like to also bring another piece of evidence with regard to
this, which is a lot more clear on this issue. And this is actually from the
Talmud, from tractate Bava Bratra, which is a tractate in the Babylonian Talmud -
it is section 18a. There is a verse where there is a debate about plants and bees
- if one man owns bees and another man owns plants - and at one point one of the
people in the debate says to another one - this is in the Talmud - I will give you
the Hebrew and the Aramaic first. He says: charcheq d'vorakh min chardla'ee, which
means "distance your bees from my mustard plant". Now the word that he used for
"your bees" is d'vorakh, and it is from the Hebrew word for bee and the Aramaic
word - well actually Aramaic has two words for bee, but this particular word for
bee is feminine. So starting right away they are saying keep your bees away from
my mustard plants, but he is using a feminine word for bee. So already bee is in
the female. And then he explains why he wants the bees to be kept away from his
plant, and he says: she-ba'ot v'okhlot lighlooghei chardla'ee - which means "they
are coming and eating the flowers," or "coming and gnawing on the flowers of my
mustard plant."

Now here is where it gets even more interesting. The first part, "they are
coming," is she-ba'ot - ba'ot is actually conjugated in the female plural. "They
are coming". And this is an interesting point about Hebrew grammar: "they are
coming," being plural femine is interesting because it is stating - well let me
explain something about Hebrew grammar. In Hebrew grammar, if you have a group
that is plural - let us say you have all boys - if you have all boys you refer to
them in the masculine plural. If you have a mixed group of boys and girls, males
and females, you refer to them, again, as masculine plural. So that means that if
you have one hundred women and one man, and you want to say something that the
group is doing, like let us say you want to say they are writing - that the group
is writing - if a hundred girls and one man, you will say kotevim. So even if the
males are out numbered a million to one, nonetheless you treat mixed groups as
masculine plural. The only time you use feminine plural, which is used here in the
Talmud, is if the entire group is feminine - there is not a single male in the
bunch. And again, in this verse in the Talmud it says: she-ba'ot - masculine
feminine, they come - v'okhlot - again, mascu... I'm sorry(!), feminine-plural. I
apologize, feminine plural, she-ba'ot, "they come," and then v'okhlot, again
feminine plural, "they gnaw on" or "they eat," and then it goes on to say "my
flowers". So what this verse is saying in the Talmud, which was written before the
Qur'an - it predates the Qur'an, it is essentially saying that it takes it for
granted that the bees that come to the flowers are all female. Now I have given
two points: One, before Aristotle, someone said that the bees are female and the
drones are male. Also, in the Talmud, it essentially treats bees, in this
particular tractate - there's another tractate that does it differently, but in
this particular tractate it takes it for granted that bees - the ones that comes
to the flowers and gnaw on the flowers - are feminine.

I hope everyone can hear me. Can everyone hear me? Okay, I'm sorry.

So, now the question is, am I arguing that the Qur'an has plagiarized either
Aristotle or the Talmud? No. I have no reason to believe that the author of the
Qur'an had any direct reference to either Aristotle or the Talmud. Maybe they did,
and even if they did, that still does not mean that they plagiarized from that
source. All I am saying is because the Talmud and Aristotle both hinted at the
fact that before the Qur'an knew that bees were female shows that it is possible
for a human being to say such things. And that is all that I am arguing. If it is
possible, then the verse in the Qur'an that treats bees as females is not a proof
in itself that it is the word of God. That does not mean that it is not the word
of God. I am just saying that this piece of evidence does not suffice as proof
that it is the word of God.

I hope that is clear, because now I am going to move on to the next piece of
evidence that Nadir brought up, which was Iram. And he actually gave roughly what
my argument against Iram is - is it so surprising that an Arab would know about an
Arabian city? Because it is assumed now, and actually Nova on PBS since the find
on the seventies did a special on how there has been a dig in the Arabian
peninsula at what they think was Iram, and they found the pillars and all this...
That is not exactly my argument. My argument is roughly: first, is it possible for
a human being, living on the Arabian peninsula to have some familiarity with a
city that used to be in the Arabian peninsula? And I think the answer is
absolutely yes, it is possible. So being that it is possible, that in itself says
that the verse is not itself proof that it is the word of God. Second, these Ebla
tablets that mention Iram also mention cities like Sodom and Gamorrah, which are
mentioned in the Bible. I do not think it suffices as proof that the Bible is the
word of God. It think it is just a fact that a Semitic text - excuse me, a text
written in a Semitic language mentions a city mentioned - or in the case of the
Bible, cities mentioned in a Semitic language. I do not think we find any other
reference before the Ebla tablets - maybe I am wrong - but I do not know of any
evidence before the Ebla tablets of Sodom and Gamorrah - that is written before
Genesis of course; that predates Genesis - of course there are sources afterwards.
So that in itself is the point: it is possible for a man living on the Arabian
peninsula that was previously on the... I am sorry, I hope I did not get cut off
there - someone sent me a private message. Anyway, that is why I do not agree with
Iram. I am sure Nadir will have a rebuttal.

Now regarding the issue of water, which was actually Nadir's third, fourth, and
fifth pieces of evidence. He actually gave the link to the Islamic Center of
Peoria site [http://www.islamiccenterofpeoria.org/miracles.html] which I actually
recommend people go to, because the question is the barrier, what is this barrier
a reference to? The site that Nadir actually invited people to go to claims it is
a reference to a phenomenon known as the pycnocline, and this is a phenomenon that
you can read about in oceanographic texts - texts on oceanography. The pycnocline
is a situation where if you have two bodies of water that are meeting, and they
are of different temperatures or of different salinities, i.e. different amounts
of salt in the water, there will be differences in density. The water that is more
dense, due to either temperature, salinity, or both, will sink and the water that
is less dense will rise.

First of all, Aristotle, and Nadir mentioned Aristotle of course who has made a
number of errors, did show some rough familiarity with this subject. In his second
book on Meteorologika, or meteorology, said the following - he said: "now the sun,
moving as it does, sets up..." actually, before I read this quote I want to say
that I am specifically only reading the accurate part of Aristotle - of course
this is, as Nadir put it, "in a sea of errors". He said: "now the sun, moving as
it does, sets up a process of change, and becoming and decay, and by its agency
the finest and sweetest is every day carried up and is dissolved into vapor and
rises to the upper region, where it is condensed again by the cold and so returns
to the earth. The drinkable sweet water then is light and all of it is drawn up to
the top. The salt water is heavy and remains behind."

He actually said this in the context of a sweet water river flowing into a salty
sea. Now the question is, if you have a salty sea, and Aristotle gets into this,
if you have a salty sea and fresh water is constantly flowing into it, why does it
remain salty? Don't you think that if there is a constant amount of fresh water
flowing in, that it would no longer remain salty, because eventually the fresh
water would overrun it? Aristotle explained that what happens is the water that is
less salty floats to the top and is the first to evaporate. The water that is more
salty sinks to the bottom and does not evaporate. Therefore you can have a
constant flow of fresh water into a salty sea, but this fresh water goes up
towards the top, is the first to evaporate, and this process helps salt water
remain salty.

So that in itself - this shows that Aristotle had a very loose familiarity with
the phenomenon of the pycnocline. Now the site that Nadir invited us to see claims
that when the Qur'an speaks of this barrier between seas as well as between salt a
fresh water, it is a reference to the phenomenon of the pycnocline. So what I'm
saying is that if the Qur'an is actually making a reference to the pycnocline,
Aristotle too made a reference to the pycnocline - the phenomenon of the
pycnocline. The fact that Aristotle made a reference to this shows that it is at
least possible for a human being to have some knowledge of the pycnocline. If it
is possible, then the verses of the Qur'an in and of themselves are not proof that
they are from a divine origin. Of course they could be the word of God - again I'm
not seeking to prove that they are not - I am just saying that Nadir has not
proven it just by citing these verses, or at least not in my opinion - no offense.

Now the issue that came up was what kind of barrier, and Nadir mentioned that some
people ask this question, and he insinuated that the question is insignificant,
and pointed out, however, that the Qur'an does not say what kind of barrier it is.
I would disagree. I think in Soorat ar-Rahman, when it talks about between the two
seas, it says that the water cannot transgress. This actually is not the case with
the pycnocline, nor is it the case with even the image is given in the Islamic
Center of Peoria site, which Nadir invited us to see. Actually the water can
transgress, and there is some mixing. If you read texts on the pycnocline and
oceanography, it is somewhat of a leaky barrier. The other verse that Nadir called
to witness was Soorat al-Furqaan - al-Furqaan - I'm sorry, I'm choking here, I
need to get a glass of water - it essentially says that the barrier is inviolable,
that it cannot be transgressed, it cannot be passed. And again, this is not the
case with the pycnocline. Am I claiming that the Qur'an is in error? No. Actually
I will not be making any claims of that sort today, and I will explain why right
before I close. What I am saying is that the phenomenon of the pycnocline does
allow some mixing; it does allow some transgression. The verses of the Qur'an that
Nadir called to witness state that there is no transgression of the water, there
is no passing, that the barrier is inviolable, that it cannot be violated, it
cannot be passed. So for these reasons I think it is reasonable to say that (a)
the Qur'an is not necessarily referring to the phenomenon of the pycnocline; (b)
if it is, Aristotle himself made reference to this, in a very minor way. So for
these reasons I think that the issue of the barrier between salt water, between
two seas, is not necessarily a proof in itself of the Qur'an being the word of
God.

Now his fifth piece of evidence was the issue of the bottom of a dark sea.
Actually a number of texts, pre-Islamic texts, mention dark seas. This is in
Soorat an-Noor and it mentions a dark sea; it does not necessarily say at a
thousand feet, which is something that Nadir said [is from] science, but you might
get the impression that he was saying that the Qur'an gives that depth. It
actually does not say anything about depth whatsoever. What the Qur'an says is
simply that, imagine yourself in a dark sea, with clouds overhead, layers upon
layers of darkness. There is no light, you could put your hand in front of your
face, and of course this is supposed to be, as he said, the analogy for what it is
like to be a disbeliever. And it goes on to say that for those who Allaah does not
provide light, there is no light, and so too for those who Allaah does not guide
there is no guidance is the analogy.
Now the question, first off, is: is this something that no human being at the time
could have known? I think the answer is no. I think it is quite possible. For
example, I used to go to Brighton Beach in New York City all the time, and by the
time I was four years old I knew that the deeper the water was at the beach, the
less visible my feet were. A number of pre-Islamic texts make vague reference to
dark seas, including Homer's Iliad. The lesson that water, that at certain depths
you cannot sea through water, if that is what the Qur'an is referring to, is not
something that no human being could know. In Aristotle's book, Sense and
Sensibilia, he made a number of errors, of course, but, he at one point called
water translucent and talked about how water can distort an image, like if an
artist is trying to depict what an image looks like under water. Already, by him
calling it (a) translucent, and (b) he compared something under water to being
like something in a haze, he is already conceding to the fact, or demonstrating
that he knows what even I knew at four years old: that water distorts light. By
him calling it translucent, he is automatically saying that water distorts light.
So that in itself is an admission that the deeper you are in the water, the less
light there is. I do not think the verse, in itself, is proof of a divine origin.
I think it is very possible for a man to almost take it for granted that in a deep
sea it can be dark, or even if you are on top of a deep sea with clouds overhead,
layers upon layers of darkness and large waves, that also that can be complete
darkness, and I am sure many sailors have experience that. So for his fifth piece
of evidence, I am not convinced that it ius proof that the Qur'an is the word of
God.

His sixth piece of evidence was from Soorat ar-Room, which talks about the near
land. He noted that it can also be translated the lowest land and asked if this is
a coincidence. He pointed out that Jerusalem is actually the lowest point on
earth. Of course, the Qur'an itself gives us no indication that it means this in
the sense of depth - excuse me - altitude with regards to sea level. The fact that
all the translations I have consulted translated [it] "near land" shows that it is
possible to understand that it is saying the near land. So now the question again
comes up, is it possible for a human being to have uttered this statement? I think
it is. I think it is very possible for a human being to refer to a near land as
"the near land". That in itself shows that it is possible - if it is possible that
a human to have uttered this, then the verse is not in itself proof that it is of
a divine origin.

Okay, moving quickly to his seventh piece of evidence, it was with regard to iron
in Soorat al-Hadeed. And in this verse what it says is, it does say that iron is
sent down, but the word it uses for "we sent down" is anzalnaa. It is from the
nun-zain-lam root, which of course means to descend, or in the way that it is
being used [here], to cause to descend. Now, also note that elsewhere in the
Qur'an this verbal root is used in many places in the Qur'an. I am only going to
give a couple. For example, in Soorat al-Baqara, that is the second chapter of the
Qur'an, the 176th verse, it talks about sending down the book, and again, the
exact same word is used, or the exact same verb is used, from the nun-zain-lam
root. And they talk about sending downt the book and the book is a reference to
the Qur'an. Now does this mean that the Qur'an actually fell out of the sky in the
form of a book? No. It is according to Islamic tradition, quite the contrary - it
was sent down by an angel not in book form, but through revelations and stuff like
that. A better example might be in Soorat al-Araf, the seventh chapter of the
Qur'an, the 26th verse, talks about sending down clothing to Adam and Eve. Was
clothing literally dropped out of the sky? I do not think that is what it is
saying.

Nadir mentioned Hans Wehr's dictionary, if you look up the nun-zain-lam root, we
will call it the NZL root, if you look up this root, it can also mean in a general
sense something that was given of God. So what Soorat al-Hadeed, the relevant
verse that Nadir brought up is saying, is look at iron, God sent down iron or God
gave us iron, and it has great strength and it has many uses. Now I do not think
this is necessarily something that no human being could have uttered. Actually, a
very pious monotheist man, and I am assuming that if - I am not claiming that the
Qur'an was written by a man, but if it was written by a man, it was clearly, based
on the way it is written, the way it reads, it was clearly written by a very pious
monotheist man, or men, plural. Whoever wrote the Qur'an was someone very
dedicated [to God], if it was not written by God. Is it possible for a person who
is passionate about his monotheism to believe that God gave us iron and that it
has great strength and many uses? Yes, it is absolutely possible, and as I have
pointed out with the two verses, the verb does not necessarily have to mean
literally sending down. It can also mean it just in a figurative sense. For
example, if you look at Arabic translations of the Bible, Arabic translations of
Luke 1:52, when it talks about God causing the mighty to fall from their thrones,
the word used is nazala, again from the same root. Now I do not think this means
he literally caused them to fall out of their thrones. It is being used in a
figurative sense, that being brought down.

Nonetheless, what the issue here is, is that iron, as Nadir pointed out, cannot be
produced on earth. What this has to do with is a process - I am not actually very
familiar with metalurgy and this sort of thing - but has to do with
nucleosynthesis and the binding energy of given elements. It turns out that the
binding energy of certain elements is so high that it cannot be produced on earth.
It has to be produced on a star, the sun or for most elements, stars outside of
our solar system. Our earth can only produce helium. So what is the case with iron
is actually the case with every element, with the exception of helium: it had to
have come down from off the earth. Is it possible that a human being who does not
know this could say something that could be correlated with that fact? Yes.

The issue of binding energy has only come up recently. Nonetheless, in the 19th
century, actually the very end of the first half of the 1800s, around 1850, Walt
Whitman wrote a poem called "Song of Myself." In that poem he said "I believe the
leaf of grass is no less than the journey work of the stars." I will repeat that
again: "I believe the leaf of grass is no less than the journey work of the
stars." That statement actually is true, because every element you will find in a
leaf, especially a leaf of grass and just about anything else on this earth, every
single element of it came from some star. It was not produced on earth. The
binding energy of all those elements is increasingly high. Now, did Walt Whitman
know about binding energy? No. Did he say a statement that could be correlated
with that aspect of science? Yes. So the question is, is it possible for a person
to say something that can be correlated with science? I think the answer is yes.
Does the fact that we can later correlate a statement with science mean that the
author originally intended it to be a reference to that? No. And that is what we
have to keep in mind here. I think that with what I have talked about here, it is
possible for someone, particularly someone very pious, to say what was said in
Soorat al-Hadeed.

Finally, the very last issue is uhh... I'm sorry, I actually forgot... oh wait, it
was falak, it was the orbits - I apologize for losing my train of thought there.
The final piece of evidence that Nadir brought up was the issue of orbits. And he
points out that there is a verse that the [sun] and the moon each have an orbit.
Now he pointed out that it does not say that they orbit around the earth. I agree
a hundred percent. Of course it does not say that they do not specifically. What
the issue is here is falak means circular, so what it is saying - he pulled it out
of the verse in Soorat al-Anbiyya, the twenty-first Soora - what the verse is
saying is simply that the earth and the moon have an orbit. It does not give us
any more on that. Did people before the Qur'an believe that the sun and the moon
followed each their own orbit? Yes. Ptolemy believed this, Artistotle believe this
- a number of people believed this.

Of course what they believed, for example Ptolemy believed they went around the
earth or around some other ball of fire, at the center of the universe or
something like that. Nonetheless a number of people prior to the Qur'an believed
that the sun and the moon each had an orbit. And that is all the Qur'an says. Did
people believe that before the Qur'an? Yes. Am I claiming that the Qur'an
plagiarized this from them? Absolutely not. But I am saying that the simple
statement the sun and the moon each have an orbit, assuming that is what the
Qur'an is saying, has been uttered by people before the Qur'an. People who were
not divinely inspired, or at least I do not believe someone like Ptolemy was
divinely inspired - I could be wrong. So that statement, is it possible, that is
the question I keep having to ask, is it possible that a human being could have
uttered this statement? Yes, it is absolutely possible. Therefore, I think, we can
conclude this verses does not necessarily, in itself, serve as proof that the
Qur'an is the word of God.

So I have covered his eight pieces of evidence, and now I just want to get to one
last point. Nadir asked the question, how is it that if the Qur'an was copying
from people, and of course I am not claiming that it was copying from anybody,
that it could get all the things right from the sea of error, pulled out all the
right things, but did not pull any of the errors. I think this is an unfortunate
question, or, excuse me, an unfair question, because I actually vowed not to make
any claims about the Qur'an being in error, nor am I going to make any claims
about the Qur'an being in error in any part. The reason is because I do not really
believe that in a religious text you can have errors.

A fine example of this is the Bible. If you look at Genesis, the way a literal
reading of Genesis compares with what scientists believe about the origins of the
universe seems strikingly different. So differenly, in fact, that a number of
people have sided with science, and have lost their faith and abandoned
Christianity, and on the other side there have been a number of fundamentalist
Christians who have actually tried to deny what science claims about the Big Bang,
et cetera. So, is the book of Genesis in error if science is true? No, not
necessarily. Why? Because a number of physicists in Israel, Nathan Aviezer comes
to mind and there are a couple others - if people email me, I will give my email
before I close, or you can go to the web site that I mentioned - if people contact
me I can give the exact citations. There are a number of physicists in Israel who
have managed to come up with interpretations that make Genesis in harmony with
science. And I'm sure you could do that with a number of other books, especially
books written in Semitic languages.

So in order for a text, like the Qur'an or even the Bible, to be in error, it
boils down to a matter of interpretation. No text is alive without the reader. So
if I were to say the Qur'an is in error, or the Qur'an contradicts science, what I
would really be saying is my interpretation of this verse from the Qur'an
conflicts with science, and then all you have to do is give a different
interpretation. So therefore I do not believe there are any errors in a religious
text because a religious text is only alive in the mind of the reader who is
reading it. The errors are only in your interpretation. Claiming there are errors
in the Qur'an or the Bible tells you more about the person than it does about the
text. So I think it is an unfair point to ask how did the Qur'an manage to do this
without having any errors. I am already presupposing that it has no errors and I
am presupposing similar things about other texts. So I will not be responding to
that question tonight and I hope that does not upset Nadir, but that is actually
my position. I do not think it can be proven that there are errors in a religious
text, nor will I try.
With that I am going to close. I hope that I was not too incoherent here. But I am
going to give up the mic and I hope it was clear and I apologize if anyone was
offended or thought that was too rude or too quick. Nonetheless, I look forward to
Nadir's rebuttal. Thank you very much.

Ahmed’s first rebuttal for 25 minutes.

I would like to thank Denis Giron for his presentation, let me begin by stating
that Denis stated that there can be many human explanations, and he gave many
examples of how, you know, Aristotle could have done it this way, and stuff like
that, Here is the point to be noted, from the very beginning, I already stated
that, yes, just because you have a scientific statement in the book, that does not
automatically mean that it is the Word of God. In fact gave all the eight
different scenarios in the algorithm, I would like for everyone to turn to the
algorithm, and I cited.. I went one step beyond there, and I cited you all the of
the eight possible human explanations for each and every single one of these
verse.

Anyways, let me start of by commenting on what Denis has said. He said the thing
about bees, some people have mentioned male bees, some people have mentioned
female bees, and some people have mentioned sexless bees.. well.. there is a very
good reason for this. Because it is a 50/50 chance! It’s either male of

female! So some people got it right, some people got it wrong. That’s why you see
some books you will fine male bee, some books say female bee. But my point is,
that the Quran got it right. Again I also showed you, that it does not matter what
the other books state, and of course, I think Denis agreed with me on this point.
He was only saying, I’m just showing you that it can be done by human beings. He
is not saying the author of the Quran was plagiarizing, because of course we know
that is illogical, or else he would have copied a lot of the wrong information as
well in that book.. so … you know .. I think that point has been noted. Anyways,
that is my point on bee.

So, the probability of guessing the right bee is ½. It doesn’t matter what book
you find it in, the probability is ½ , soo that is very important as we continue…
it’s ½. Anyways lets talk about Iram. He said that, it is possible, first of all
he agrees with me, that if you look at any book or any historical books, there
never have been mentioned about any city named Iram. It was only mentioned in the
Quran. He was saying it was hypothetically possible, that maybe….. some way…… some
how……. the author of the Quran somehow knew of the city called Iram, I don’t know
how, but maybe some way he has done that. So , ok, he basically said, that
basically, that’s again, maybe it was a coincidence or or it was luck and I cited
that in my algorithm. So he did not agree that, but he said Sodom and Gomorrah
were also mentioned there. Bringing up the Old Testament is actually irrelevant in
tonight’s discussion. Because we as Muslims believe that the Old Testament was
revealed by God. We believe that. But, it has been changed, it has been altered to
basically suit man’s need. Also same thing goes with Talmud. Basically you will
find some of God’s Word in actually many of the books because the have corrupted
that book. And that is not just my view but it also the Christian, I’m sorry, it
is actually the Biblical view, read Jeremiah 8:8 in which it says, "how can you we
are wise, when we have the law of the Lord, when the LYING pen of the scribes have
handled it falsly". So, that’s even what the

Old Testament its selfs claims. So anyways, I don’t want to get too much on the
Bible here, again that could be another red herring.
Ok, let’s talk about barriers. He said that Aristotle had some familiarity with
it. I already mentioned that in my beginning. I told you how Aristotle believed
how.. how.. the salt and water… salt and fresh water gets mixed. Or, I’m sorry,
how you explain the phenomenon of salt and fresh water. He explained it like

eating a food, and then when you food… when you go to the bathroom, then you
know…. what comes out, he said that’s like how salt and fresh water. This is… I
have already explained all of that… that … Notice, this is the point to be noted:
That Aristotle, had NO clue, NO idea, that there was actually a physical barrier
between the salt and fresh water. He had no idea of this. And notice also another
thing, that the things which he did write about salt and fresh water, that is all
observable to man. Meaning if I were to conduct experiments on salt and fresh
water, and I had no, and a man 1400 years ago were able to do this he would be
able to also come to the same conclusions. So his observations were observable.
That’s a point to be noted also. So, yes, he talked about that pycnocline, but he
didn’t talk about the barrier.

As far as going back to the my issue of "waters can not transgress" in that ayat,
again I think agree with Denis or Denis Giron, this is all a matter of
interpretation. What do you mean by, "waters can not transgress"? What some people
will say, "because it is it self not a clear wall". Some people will say,

"look, what it means is that you have 2 bodies of water.. the salinity the
temperature on that side, and the salinity, temperature, density on that side is
something else…" so that shows that these 2 bodies of water do not mix. So some
people will explain it like that. Like I said, I agree that it is almost
impossible to try to find this type of scientific error, But I agreed with him
that we will not discuss that tonight. We can perhaps make a separate debate like
how I debated Richard Carrier, in which he unsuccessfully , basically tried to
show that there were scientific errors in the Quran. But anyways, let

me move on.

He also spoke about the darkness in the seas. Now let me pause here for one
second, because I want to make a very important note also. I forgot to make it in
the beginning. Denis Giron, is not saying that these verses do not agree with
modern science, he never made that claim on any of these. Basically what he said

was that there were possible human explanations for it. So, that’s also very
important which should be noted. He said, that, "well you know, the issues of the
darkness of the seas, well…..you know when I’m in a pool and I see less visible
water, you know, and I can see I can see my feet less visable, MAYBE the author of
the Quran saw the same thing and then he used his intellengence or something and
figured out that yes.. the deep dark seas, or in the dark deep ocean it is
complete darkness. Again, this is all conjecture. The point is, that the issue
about the depth and darkness of the deep dark seas you will not find in any book.
So basically, what Denis is basically saying here, is that this could have been a
coincidence or luck. Go back to the algorithm, which I have posted for you and
look at what is coincidence.. I think its "B" no, I’m sorry "C" that is luck. So
he is basically saying, what he is doing, is that he is

bouncing back and forth, he saying , "that’s luck" . .. I’m sorry, "that could be
a good guess"… "that could be a coincidence"….. "that could be a good guess"…
"that could be a coincidence……" he is bouncing back and forth between the two

options, because he agrees they do match up with modern science.

So anyways, let me go on to the issue of nearer land. He bought up an issue of,


you know, most commentators translate… I’m sorry, the lowest point on the earth is
near Jerusalum. And that is, so basically, the Quran used a word for that in which
you will find both "nearer land" as well as the lowest point. My question to him
was, " why did the author of the Quran USE a particular word which has both
meanings. This is my question number one. He said, "most people translate it as
nearer land". That is because, for the people who don’t know science, or lets say
for the person living 1000 years ago, that’s going to make more sense to him than
"lowest land". But my point stands, it does not matter you can use any one of the
meanings, "nearer land" or "lowest point", the word means BOTH. So basically, to
put it in a nut shell, what Denis is basically saying, is that, "it is an amazing
coincidence". It is an amazing coincidence that the author of the Quran used a
word which has both meanings.

Ok. He said about the issues of sent down Iron. He said God also sent down a book.
Again, these are all red herrings. That does not mean anything. He did not refute
the point, that this is a scientifically correct statement. Basically, what he is
saying about "sending down Iron", is that…. this could be a coincidence. Another
coincidence. "Maybe he was referring, like its God’s gift or something.." But even
in that interpretation, again, that does agree with modern science because it is
very clear, that the Quran is stating, that Iron could not be produced by earth.

Leaf of grass is from the stars, again this is something, he said, "well you know,
the elements, the basic elements of it, could have been, cold have been created
from outside of the universe". Read the verse, it says, "leaf of grass is from
stars". And of course, the person is referring to the stars up above. We know
that’s not scientific. This is a scientific error with you have pointed out in the
book. But perhaps, someone can look at it and say, "ok, there could be some
scientific bases for it". I’m going to give that to you, no problem.

About Orbits, he said, "Orbits.. you see Ptolemy also believed this and
Aristotle..". I pointed out before earlier, that it is IRRELEVANT. It is
completely irrelevant what people wrote about it before. The question is, "how did
was the author of the Quran able to decipfer what are the true statements in an
ocean of falsehood?" Therefore, the mere fact, that this is something

mentioned before does not disprove this as evidence. The verse which I gave you is
in complete agreement with modern science. The sun and the moon do indeed have
orbits. And of course, I don’t believe that Denis is here tonight to even suggest
the idea that maybe this was a plagiarization. Because of course, you would copy
man of the wrong errors. He was only trying to show, that, a human being could
have done it. Again, what Denis is basically saying on this point, is that it is
another COINCIDENCE, that the Quran is matching up with modern science.

Ok, having said all of that, I would just like to bring up another point here. I’m
going to kind of share with you a small little story here, and I think from this
small story its going to give us some valuable lessons. So I’m kinda gona get off
topic here, but it is very much directly related to what we are talking about.
Now, you know, I was watching TV, and I was watching a murder trial, I’m just
going to make it a mock murder trial. There was a man who was accused of killing
his girl friend. And there were many pieces of evidences, and there were may
pieces of evidences that the prosecutors had against him, there were 6 pieces of
evidence.

There was a man who was accused of killing his girl friend. And there were many
pieces of evidences, and there were may pieces of evidences that the prosecutors
had against him, there were 6 pieces of evidence. First, he claimed that he was
going to kill his girlfriend, number one. Number 2, he actually bought a knife

the same week that his girlfriend was stabbed, and it was the same type of knife.
Number 3, he was last seem with her one hour before her death in a fight,and he
was pushing her in the car. Number 4, blood was found in his car also. Number 5,
he claimed that he mysteriously lost the knife that he bought just a

couple of days before. Number 6, the very same day of the murder, he said to a
local friend that, "Im going to take care of her, so that she will never bother
anyone again".

Ok, so anyways, her is my point. There is no question in anyone’s mind, that this
man is clearly guilty of the murder of this this woman. And there is no court
around in the entire world who would not prosecute this man and send him to jail,
based upon this evidence. I don’t think there is any question about that inside
anyone’s mind. But, what if he tried to plead innocent… what if this man tried to
plead innocent? I don’t think this man who has done this will claim, that all of
the 6 pieces of evidence given, was ALL a coincidence. And that’s a fact. In fact
the explanation is soo silly, that even the defendant would not offer that nor
would the attorney in a court of law come up on court day and say, "Yes, ALL fo
those 6 pieces of evidence was all just an amazing coincidence!".

Anyways, let me move on to my point here. My point is that we could look at each
and every one of these pieces of evidences INDIVIDUALLY, remember this is a key
word, INDIVIDUALLY.And we look at this piece of evidence. Like, let’s take the
first example: "he claimed that he was going to kill his girlfriend". Well, you
know, that in itself is not conclusive evidence to prosecute him, right? To
convict him? Because you know, like I was saying, to my wife and my brother,"man,
if don’t get out of my room, I’m going to kill ya..!" Does that mean, that I
actually wanted to kill my wife and my brother? Well, of course not. So, this is
basically the same situation we are seeing with the Quranic verses. That, yes,
there could be, it may be from a higher source or it may not be. The same thing is
happening here with with each and every one of these pieces of evidences. May be
he is guilty may be is not. In both(science in the Quran and

murder trial) cases the evidence is inconclusive based on this one piece of
evidence alone. If we just looked at this evidence alone. Now of course, that
holds true for each and every one of these 6 pieces of evidences. Alone it will be
very hard to prosecute this man, and he would get away.

But now, here is what I would like to ask people to do. Let us take a look at the
evidences not individually, but COLLECTIVELY. Let us look at the evidence
COLLECTIVELY. So when we ask the question, "how do you explain ALL of these 6
pieces of evidence happening to you"? Then it becomes clear that this is not a

COINCIDENCE! Because.. because what you are doing is that youre saying
"ok..ok..fine… you claimed you were going to kill your girlfriend, ok, that in
itself is not proof. But, hey, you also bought a knife the same week! How do you
explain BOTH of these?!?! So what I am asking you to do tonight, is not look at
the evidence individually, but look at it colectively. And basically, if you were
to look at this evidence collectively which I just did, I don’t think there is any
question that this man is guilty. Because what your brain just basically did,

weather you realize it or not… You looked at #1 , that he claimed he was going to
kill his girlfriend, in your mind you came up with a probability, maybe 1/10 that
he is innocent, or 1/50.. whatever. And then you look at the second piece of
evidence, and then your brain basically did the same thing; well, that may be a
1/50 chance. So you multiplied the probability of the first one, and the
probability of the second piece of evidence and then you went down and did all 6
pieces of evidences, and you came up with a number like 1/10,000,000. The

chances are, that it is 1/10,000,000 that all of this was just done by chance, or
… or..by just pure luck, that it is clear that you are guilty, because the chances
the chances of you being innocent are soo low.

Anways, now what I am asking for people to do is put the same logic to the Quran!
Look at the evidence collectively, not just individually. Up to this point, Denis
and also myself, we were looking at the evidence collectively (ops I meant
individually). Now, lets look at the evidence collectively, and lets see what we
come up with. Ok, the Author of the Quran made 8 brilliant

scientifically correct statements, which of course I basically mentioned. So thus


far we have seen many versus in the Quran which foretell science and Archaeology
before it was discovered. So we are going to look at the 8 pieces of evidences
collectively. If everyone can turn to the algorithm, which I gave to you. Lets
look at E: Common Sense. What we are doing now, is we are asking the question:

"How do we account for ALL of these verses in the Quran which agree with Modern
Science?" Not individual verses. This is the question we are not beginning to
answer. Infact I’m going to cut and paste this question, because it is pretty
important.

How do you account for ALL of these verses which agree with modern science? Well,
look at "E", I don’t think it is "Common sense". So you can cross that out.
Perhaps the scientific fact was observable, as in the case of Aristotle? Ah, no.
Many of these things are not observable, like the issues of the bees, as

well as iron being sent down… none of that stuff is observable. "G: Perhaps the
information already preexisted in history?". And of course we know that is not
true, in the sense that the Author of the Quran plagiarized from some other
source. Well, I don’t think that is true either because in order to make this

claim, you will have to show other stuff which the which the author of the Quran
also copied from the book. Because, if you are coping from a corrupt source,
weather it be Aristotle, Bible, whatever, you’re also going to be coping the same

errors. So, on your little list, go ahead and cross out E,F,G.

Lets look at A and C now. Perhaps the author of the Quran was a great scientist or
great genius. And that is how he came up with these great conclusions! Which is of
course, what Denis tried to allude to with the issue of the darkness of the deep
ocean. That MAY BE the Quran was a very smart guy, and he figured it out from
looking at the hazy water on the feet. Lets take a look at these options here. We
all know, that scientists make discoveries by trial and error. That is how they
make discoveries. As we saw in the case of Aristotle, he made 7

scientific errors IN REGARDS to bee study, right? So my question is, "how many
scientific errors do we find in the Quran in relations to that subject he was
studying and it was 1/0. So we know, that the author of the Quran was not a
scientist. Again another point is, and … it dosent matter how good a scientist

you are, the statements in the Quran can only be discovered with the aid of modern
technology, and advanced equipment and sophisticated methods. Like, the lowest
point of the earth, Iron, bee orbits. No matter how good of a scientist you are,
you will never come to this conclusion. So, we know, that the Author
of the Quran, was not a scientist, or a genius. And another point, how was the
author of the Quran able to escape 1,000 pages of hadeeth literature? And even his
close friends like Abu Bakr, and Aisha his wife…. he(author of the Quran) hid his
true profession as a scientist to the whole world. How was he able to do so, in
light of the fact, in light of the fact, that the life of Muhammed(PBUH) was a
open book? We even know how he went to the bathroom. That’s how mudane issues we
recorded about him. So all I’m trying to say, is I don’t think he was a great
scientist, or basically he was a genius. And I think Denis is also saying

the samething, that is why he said.. be pretty much leaned towards the idea,that
this was a coincidence or pretty much a good guess. Coincidence or good guess. So
basically what you can do know, go ahead and cross out A and C.

Lets look at "coincidence". Now remember, coincidence means, that you had no
intentions of making these scientific statements, it was a complete accident.
Coincidence can also be ruled out. because we see here from the statements that
the Author of the Quran is making a concerted effort to speak about science. The
Author fo the Quran is WILLFULLY and INTENTIONALLY attempting to speak about
scientific principles and how our universe was created, and how things work in
their. One good example, was the verse on Embryology. First, there was an

Alaqah, then there was a Mudgah…. I’m sure Denis knows what I’m taking about. But,
coincidence means, that you had no intention of doing so! It was a complete
accident. So on that point I don’t think so. And with coincidence, we know luck is
involved. Lets look at what are the probabilities of making these kinds of

"coincidences". Let me ask you this question, "what do you think of the
possibilities, of if I claim to be a Prophet, and I wrote a book, and in that
book, I started writing my beliefs, and my views down. What do you think, are the
possibilities, that I will write something down by accident, that will agree, with
a scientifically correct statement, that people don’t know about

NOW… but, it will be discovered TOMORROW?". And this is all done by accident. I
had no intention of saying something scientific, I was just describing my dog! So,
what do you think of the chances of that happening? Lets make a probability here.
Anyways, let me add some more food for thought. Well, actually, before I do that,
let me tell you the number which I came up with. I came up with 1/500,000.
Actually I came up with 1/5,000,000 but I wanted to make things easy for Denis
here. Here is the reason how I came up with that number, 1/500,000. I

say that because, think of all the people in the world who have written something
in their life today. How many people do you know, that was writing something, I
don’t care what it was, it could have been an email to a girlfriend, a resume, a
spy novel, a horror novel.. and in that book, they wrote something they wrote
something which actually agreed with modern science, which

scientist have discovered later. And this was all done unintentionally and by
accident"? Well, I think that happens to 1 out of every 500,000. That is the
number I came up with.

Lets look at this last option. May be, it was a good guess. You know, a person
trying to guess in the year 600 as far as what these scientific probabilities (I
meant to say, principles) are… the probabilities are astronomical as far as what
it could be. Lets go ahead and see… lets say, the Author of the Quran was going to
GUESS at all of this stuff. The probability of the bee is ½. Right? Because the
bee could be either male of female. So, it is ½. But, what about Iram? What if the
author of the Quran GUESSED about the city which Archaeologists only discovered
later? So here is the question I’m asking. Lets say, everyone just sit here and
guess. Or lets say, I’m just going to sit here and guess. I’m going to guess about
a city…. Which no one knows about today… but…. It exists… but Archaeologists will
one day, discover this city…. And …. I’m going to try to guess the name of that
city!! So what do you think of the probabilities of me

actually being successful in doing that? Well, I put it at 1/1000. I’m sorry,
1/10,000. That is the probability of that guess. So basically, for all of the
scientific miracles, all 8, I made them 1/10,000, with the exception of bee, bee
is ½. So if we were to multiply 1/10,000 by 8 times:

1/10,000 X 1/10,000 X 1/10,000 X 1/10,000 X 1/10,000 X 1/10,000 X1/10,000 X


1/10,000 = 1/ 1 X 10^28

, we come with a number about 1/ 1 X 10^28. That is the probability that the
Author of the Quran made 8 guesses and on every guess he got it right, that is the
probability of him doing that. So… I don’t think guesswork or coincidence.

Coincidence, is really bad, you have to tack on a 1/500,000 number ratio for that.
So when you do the math, no matter how you dot it, it just doesn’t work. The
chances of all this being guesswork or coincidence as Denis was basically alluding
to, the numbers are soo ridiculously high, no one would ever assume

such a thing. 1/ 1 X 10^28, that’s the probability of it happening. Therefore, on


your list of possibilities, you can go ahead and cross out coincidence (D), and
you can go ahead and cross out guess work(B). What you should have on your paper
basically is that leaves ONE last alternative. ONE final alternative, which has
not been crossed out yet:

IF Quranic Statement = Scientific fact

THEN:

(it can be one or more of the following 8 possibilities)

A. Perhaps the author of the statement was a genius

B. A very good guess,luck

C. Perhaps the author of the statement was a great scientist

D. Coincidence (ex: a poetic statement which just happened to match up with


science),luck, and the author had no intention of talking about science; it was an
accident. No intention.

E. Common sense (ex: rain causes grass to grow)


F. The scientific fact is observable

G. The information already pre-existed in history (this can only be entertained

if we have historical errors)

H. A source greater than man was involved

And when you look at this alternative, you will see, that is it "a source greater
than man (H)". That is the only logical and reasonable expectation. So in
conclusion, we look at all these other possibilities (A-G) all these other "HUMAN
EXPLANATIONS", of all this stuff happening, and we did not look this(each
scientific statement) individually, we analyzed it collectively, and none of the
human explanations hammer out. T hey don’t make sense. We know that the author
of the Quran could not have been a scientist (C) , we know this is not guess
work(B), we know that it is not coincidence (D).

If we were just looking at one verse, and one verse by itself, ok… may be we can
come to that conclusion (human explanations A-G), but when we look at the evidence
COLLECTIVELY, then there is no question, that this book, this Quran could not have
been authored by a man. A force greater than man had to have been

the source and the author of the Quran (H). The Mathematics simply prove that. So
my question for Denis tonight is:

"if you do not accept this last alternative (H), then you provide us with a
logical rational human explanation not for each verse individually! The
collective.. look at the evidence collectively."

With that, I turn the mic over to Denis Giron.

Giron’s first rebuttal for 25 minutes.

Ok, I’m just going to go ahead and grab the mic. I would like to say thank you
very much to Nadir for his rebuttal. I’m gong to begin here, I hope everyone can
hear me and coherent, weather or not in the last one, the last speaking
engagement. Ok, first off, to begin right of the front, Nadir asked me, to, that
very end, look at the evidence collectively, and give another explanation, for how
these 8 verses can be correlated with science. And, I think I can sum up, not to
be abusive, I apologize if this offends people, but I think I can sum up an
explanation in 3 words:

"Miracle of reinterpretation"

And that is what this issue could boil down to. That can you do it with one verse
or eight verses or a hundred verses, can you take a verse in a religious scripture
and interpret it in a way, that it becomes harmonious, with beliefs currently held
by contemporary scientists? Yes. It is possible. Even with something that.. … like
the Bible for example, I already gave the example of Genesis which it soo.. the
literal reading of Genesis, at least a English translation, the literal reading of
any of the mainstream translations of Genesis, first chapter, is soo different,
from what scientists claim happened with the origins of the Universe, its soo
different that some Fundamentalist Christians have claimed that science is wrong,
and a number of Christians have actually lost their faith and become Atheist,
Agnostic or joined other religions. They actually abandoned Christianity,
precisely because the felt that there was too much conflict between Genesis and
science. None the less, a number of Physicists, I already gave one, Nathan
Avaeazhur, and Aveunder and I believe I can think of some others if I had more
time. A number of Physicists have written books, I can think of two in particular
have written books on why, on how Genesis can be correlated perfectly with the Big
Bang Theory, the coupling of light… etc and a number of other things. So is it
possible, for a human being can do it with one verse or a hundred verses or a
million verses, that they can correlate with science? Yes, it’s absolutely
possible. And that’s what I think is one explanation for how something like this
could happen.

With that I’m going to try and go back, and go over what Nadir said in the
beginning. Indeed he mentioned the algorithm and acknowledge his algorithm. The
issue is not that I’m saying all these verses are coincidences. The question which
I have up front, in some sense does fit mildly with his algorithm. But his … my
own question is, which is a question which I will bring to any verse or any
scripture that some one says is a proof in and of itself. That like, if some were
to bring you a verse, it doesn't have to be from the Quran, suppose he brings it
to you from the Bible, and says, "this verse can only be from God". If that is
what they are saying, then the question has to be asked, "is it possible, not is
it actually the word of man, but is it possible, that a man could utter something
like this?". If the answer is "Yes", the the verse is not in and of itself proof.
If it’s possible for one verse or a hundred verses it’s still the same deal.
That’s in my opinion.

Now, with regards to Iram, Nadir actually said, "what were the chances that
someone would actually guess a city, that no one no one else knew about?". The
point is, I would like to bring this up, I actually never claimed that it was a
luck guess. My question, is, "is it possible that a man, living on the Arabian
peninsula would know about a city on the Arabian Peninsula?". Yes. It’s possible.
Not is it possible that a man would just guess, you know, a word, a two-syllable
word, which out of just thin air, pulled Iram.. even associated it with pillars.
The question is, "that is it possible that a man living on the Arabian peninsula
would know something like that?". Yes. Its similar to the question, "is it
possible that today, a man would know about Sodom and Gomorrah?" Yes. It’s
possible. And if its possible, than its not proof in and of itself.

With regards to the Old Testament, and the Talmud, Nadir said this is actually a
red herring of sorts, because Muslims themselves believe that the Old Testament is
the Word of God. That’s fine, but in an objective debate that we can site as a
premise, that the Old Testament is the Word of God. I mean that is something that
defiantly hasn’t been proven. We will have to prove that, if we are going to use
that as a premise. And .. for example, the Old Testament mentioning Sodom and
Gomorrah, the reason I brought that up because, would objective thinkers,in an
objective argument, if they looked at the Ebla tablets, and noticed that the Ebla
Tablets mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah, something that was mentioned in Genesis. Is
that proof that Genesis the Word of God? No. The answer is No. It’s not proof. And
that’s why I bought that up, and no objective scholar would think that the Ebla
tablets is proof of some sort, or even hint that it’s a miracle in Genesis. I
mean, its .. its not something miraculous for a text written in a semitic language
to have some vague familiarity with the land in an area of, you know, semitic
speakers… weather be it Western Asia essentially, which is, you know, Palestine,
or the Arabian Peninsula, or those where abouts.

With regards to Aristotle, Nadir pointed out,that with the salt and the sweet
water, that he made an analogy to eating. Yes. He did. Right. He actually said a
number of other things. If you read on in his book on Meteorology, he knew about
the processes of water and how they condense and evaporate and despite that he
also thought it was possible for water to generate out of thin air! So did,
Aristotle make errors? Yes. He made many errors. I’m not disputing that. What I
was saying, that Aristotle showed some familiarity with the pycnocline, and this
is the cite that Nadir invited us to view, claim that when the Quran speaks of the
barrier it is a reference to the pycnocline. There isnt actually a barrier outside
of the pychnocline, the site is claiming that when it speaks of this barrier, it’s
a reference to the pychnocline. The phenomenon of the pycnocline, is a separation
of waters, of different densities, and they are at their different densities due
to a difference in salinity or… excuse me, temperature. So Aristotle also made a
reference to the pycnocline. But the barrier isn’t something separate from the
pycnocline. The pycnocline is what the site claimed is what the barrier is a
reference to.

Ok, quickly with the dark sea, again the Quran doesn't say anything about depth.
It doesn’t say anything about depth. What the Quran just says, imagine yourself in
a dark sea, with large waves and dark clouds over head…" and you know, darkness
upon darkness. It doesn't even say if you're even deeply in the water, or in the
water at all, may be it’s just your boat in the water. Dark seas are mentioned
actually mentioned a couple of times, the dark seas near samous are mentioned in
the Iliyad, and he speaks about that, you know there are dark seas with dark
clouds over head. Again is it possible for human being to be familiar with like
this? Absolutely.

Quickly to Iron, no I actually I apologize, I forgot about the near land. The
issue in Surah Ar-Rum, when it talks about near land. Is it possible.. I’m sorry,
nadir bought up a point, that the word means both, and why would they chose that
word? Again, … I think… well, let me give you an explanation on that. I’m going to
give an analogy in Genesis , ah not Genesis, in the Bible, in Isaiah, Isaiah 40:22
… chapter 40 verse 22 in the Old Testament. Talks about what most translations
would call the circle of the earth. Now, the Hebrew says, gung arait, and it can
translate to circle of the earth. Now, arait means the earth or the land. And
guung can me circle, sphere or orbe, orbe, like and orbe, like a ball or something
like that. So the question is, any Hebrew dictionary of the bible will tell you
that gung arait is actually a reference to the horizon, it’s not some sort of
scientific miracle. But the question would be asked, why did they use a word which
can also mean sphere? Therefore, it can also be translated ,"The sphere of the
earth" or "the orbe of the earth"? It doesn’t really matter, a lot of words has
many meanings. But it doesn't mean that the author of the verse intended those
numerous meanings. And, that’s the point which needs to be bought up here. If a
person uses a word which has multiple meanings, you can not assume that the author
intended a specific meaning, or, all of the multiple meanings. And I’m not
assuming, that with the issue of near land, that, the author intended near land,
I’m saying its possible. And if it’s possible, it’s possible for a human being to
utter the verse. Therefore, its, we don’t have to assume that it in itself, is the
Word of God.

With Iron, actually, Nadir made a slight error, he said, he actually interpreted
the verse in Surah Al-hadid as saying that, Iron can not be produced on earth. The
Quran doe not say that. All it says is "unzulna" , we sent down in Al Hadid. We
sent down Iron, it doesn’t say specifically that Iron can not be produced on
earth. That’s Nadir’s…. he’s importing that. No Offense. But, that’s all the Quran
says, is that, we sent down. And the issue of sent down, again, is it possible for
a human being to say that? And he actually said that, Walt Whitman was in error
when I gave you the verse from Walt Whitman’s poem, song of myself. Again, we need
to take this into context. The issue of Iron is that, Iron, like all other
elements, can not be produced, with the exception of Helium, can not be produced
on this earth. Every element with the exception of Helium and may be oxygen, has
come from outside this earth. It comes from stars. It has to do with binding
energy and nuclear synthesis. Because you know, the binding energy of all these
elements are to high to be forged on this planet. So it has to have come from else
where. So that means that everything, everything in your body with the exception
of Oxygen…err Helium, if there is any Helium in our bodies, I’m not sure, I’m not
a Biologist. But with anything, it is the result of things which came from stars.
And Walt Whitman, long before people could figure this out, said quote,"I believe
a leaf of grass is no less than the journey work of the stars". The journeywork of
the stars is what’s important. Walt Whitman said that. Which can easily be
correlated with the fact that, a leaf of grass, everything in it, unless theirs..
with the exception of Helium, I don’t think there’s any Helium in a leaf of grass.
But everything in a leaf of grass is an element which traveled from a star and
landed in the earth. According to common conceptions of binding.. err excuse me,
not common conceptions, the scientific understanding of the binding energy of the
elements. So in order for us to have that leaf of grass, we had to have all the
elements inside it, make a journey from a star, to the earth. Because none of
these elements can be forged on the earth. Therefore, Walt Whitman is absolutely
correct when he says in his poem song of myself, that, "I believe that a leaf of
grass is no more less the journey work of the stars". How could he say this if he
didn’t mean it to be a reference to binding energy? Well I think that, the point
is that because we can correlate it with science, doenst mean that he actually
intended it to be a reference to that. And that’s actually something which applies
to the Quran on all these issues.

Now, back to the issue of his murder trial, and Nadir’s murder trail analogy, and
the issue of probabilities. Quickly, with probabilities, I don’t like arguments
with probabilities, because they can be abused. And ill give a great example of
this right now. I just checked, and according to, now this could be wrong, but
according to the numbers in the list of this group, but there are 69 people in
this room right now. Now lets use that, because, Nadir gave an example of the
possibility that this would all be coincidence, even though I did not claim it was
coincidence, is 1/1 X 10^26. Well so, 1 out of,you know..divided by 26 zeros. So
I’m going to give an even greater number. There are 69 people in this room. Now
let’s take one person. It’s possible that a person, just to show how probability
arguments can be abused. It’s possible, that a person in this room, such as
myself, will have at least 9 pairs of socks. Now, are they wearing any of those
pairs? They could be wearing any one of those pairs, or they could be wearing no
socks at all. So the chances that they are wearing any of those socks or no socks
at all is 1/10. Now it is also possible that they could own 9 pairs of pants or
skirts or things that go around the legs. Now for the person in this room such as
Nadir and myself, could be wearing no pants at all, or one of those specific 9
pairs. And the chances of them wearing one of those pairs of shorts, or pants or
skirts or whatever, or none at all is again, 1/10. So the chance of them wearing
combination of the shirt and the pants and the socks, whatever combination they
are wearing, becomes 1/100. Now a person can own 9 different shirts, it could be
shirts, T-shirts, sweatshirts, sweaters and let’s assume that they own only 9. The
chances of them wearing any one of those garments that go over the chest, over the
torso, or none at all, is again 1/10, if we are assuming that they own 9 items
that go over the chest. So the chances that Nadir is dressed the way he is,
wearing either no socks or a specific pair, and a specific pair of pants or none
at all, and a specific shirt or none at all, is 1/1000. And the same it would be
for me. The chances that Nadir would be dressed the same way that I’m dressed,
excuse me dressed the same way he is, at the same time dressed the way I am
becomes 1/1,000,000. Now considering that there are 69 people with each person it
goes up 3 zeros. The chances that all of us would be dressed in the precise
combination were dressed in, this precise combination, not any other combination,
any other combination would be similar. But none the less, this precise
combination. The chances that it would reach this precise combination, would be 1
X 10^207 ie….. 1 divided by a 1 with 207 zeros next to it. I don’t think it’s a
miracle we are all dressed like this. I just think its proof that a probability
arguments can be abused.

And Nadir gave the murder trial analogy. Now, the issue with the murder trial
analogy is that I don’t think it really captures whats going on. Because with
these verses, if you are doing 2 verses, 8 verses, 1000 verses, we can go through
them one by one. Is it possible, that this first verse could be uttered by a human
being? Yes. Is it possible that the second verse could be uttered by a
human being? Yes. Is it possible that this third verse could be uttered by a human
being? Yes. And so on. If you go through a hundred verses like that, none the
less, you have a collection of a 100 hundred verses like that, and its possible
that each and everyone could have been uttered by a human being. I don’t see what
the problem here is. Then, none.. you could say that your one piece of evidence
doesn’t add up, but if you collect a group of pieces of evidences, that themselves
don’t add up, that some how it adds up to something collectively that does fit. I
really don’t agree I think you have 8 verses. And each one, it’s possible that a
human being could have said it. So if each one is possible, for a human being to
have say it, then its also possible for a human being, could have uttered all
eight verses. I’m not claiming its chance, you know, I’m not claiming Iram is
chance, I think… that’s not what I’m claiming that its guess work. I’m saying its
possible for a human being to be aware of a city that’s near where they live. With
regards to the pycnocline, it’s the same thing.. I mean with the bottom of the
deep, that an ocean is dark, it’s possible that a person would know this. And with
the others, its just a miracle of reinterpretation, such as Iron being a reference
to binding energy, nucleou synthesis, and other processes which the element comes
from off the stars. Or the issue with the Orbit and stuff like that. A number of
people believed that the sun and moon moved in Orbits. A lot of people believed
that.

So I hope this wasn’t too incoherent, I think I rushed right through it. Because I
didn’t know what Nadir was going to say tonight.. well I mean.. I did .. but… you
know, I didn’t prepare very well.. may be soo. I apologize if this wasn’t very
coherent, I look forward to Nadir’s rebuttal, and I hope I didn’t offend anybody
with this. With that, I would like to say, thank you very much, and I now yield
the mic.

Ahmed’s second rebuttal for 10 minutes.

Thank you. Basically, to put it in a nut shell, what Denis Giron is saying, he is
saying:

I don’t want to look at the evidence collectively.

That’s pretty much what he is saying. He saying, I don’t want to explore what are
the possibilities, or anything like that. You see, my job here, I’m not here to
make the blind to see, I’m not here to give life to the dead. You know, I’m not
here to force my views on anyone. Basically I’m here just to make what I
understand clear, and I used Mathematics, and I used it CORRECTLY and PRECISELY.
Which Denis Giron DID NOT future. He said, "well some people can misuse it
(probabilities). Even in his analogy, I’m not sure what was the misuse, but
anyways, maybe there was some misuse in his head.

Ok, he said, "I’ll tell how you explain all these verses…." . He tried one.. one
time he tried to explain the evidences collectively. He said, "I reinterpreted all
of the verses". I DID NO SUCH THING!! If I did this, then why didn’t you catch me
in your first 30 minutes or ( I mean ) your first one hour? Why didn’t you catch
me over there if I pulled some kind of stunt like that?

I said, that in the Quran it is clearly specifying that it is a female bee. I said
in the Quran in the Quran the word used in the Quran has a dual meaning of lowest
land. How do you explain that? I did not sit here and say, "oh, by the way, you
see this verse means … (for example) Jeff went up the hill, and actually when Jeff
went up the hill… what that means is that Jeff went to a higher a higher
understanding of knowledge". Man, I didn’t do none of that.

So he has to come and show me where I twisted the verse. And that goes ….actually
I refuted this argument in first one hour presentation. That this is a common
logical fallacy made by Atheists. I said that… look, so long as one logical valid
interpretation is valid, they it can be used as evidence. And I proved that in my
first one hour, I don’t have time to rehash all that information. Denis did NOT
refute what I said. He simply committed the same..… he repeated the same argument
which I already refuted! Rather, than refuting what I said… "No No No…" he should
have came back and said, "No Nadir, If I can spin another logical interpretation
which doesn’t agree with science (like he did with the Iron verse, even that was a
poor attempt), than that does disprove your evidence!".

He’s not actually putting anything. What Denis basically did tonight, is that he
said:

I don’t want to look at your evidence COLLECTIVELY and I’m going to go back and
look at each piece of evidence INDIVIDUALLY!

That’s pretty much his stance tonight. And as I said, I can not force people to
believe in things, that’s not my job here. So my point is, so long as what I told
you in the Quran, actually…. I just let the Quran read for itself. I did not twist
anything.

He said, "I was simply showing that it is possible for a human to make these
statements." But what I did, I said:

"Ok, here are the eight (human)possibilities Denis! And if it is possible, then
which one of these 8 are? (meaning, if it was humanly possible to make these
statements, what category would these scientific statements fall
under?Coincidence, guess, luck…etc.)
He doesn’t what to do that. He doesn’t want to touch the algorythm! I cited for
you 8 of the logical (human) possibilities. He’s basically, he’s dancing around
it. He will not commit and say… "oh no… no.. no it’s this" "oh no no , its that."
"or may be it is combination of this, this and this: A, B, C, D."

He wont do that! Because that is where he feels most comfortable. So long in his
heart, he can say for each verse INDIVIDUALLY, I can come up with a human
explanation. That’s where he feels most comfortable. Ok.That’s fine. I don’t have
a problem with that. But you are not refuting what I said.

Anyways, he said about deep dark seas, that, the Quran didn’t mention the level.
Who cares!?! The Quran mentions at the deep dark sea, there is NO LIGHT. That is
what is stated in the Quran.

He said basically, he did not even answer my question. He’s not answering my
question about the nearer land in the Quran. My question to him is, "how do you
explain, that the Author of the Quran used a word which one of the meanings is the
lowest point, and we know that is the lowest point." Science today tells us that
is the lowest point. He basically said, "its possible to have a human
explanation." Again, he is just looking at it individually.

The issue of Walt Wittman is a red herring. Weather if there is scientific


statements in any other book, "no problemo!". We will use our algorithm and we
will use it against ANY book, any place, anywhere. The statement about the journey
work of the stars, my response is this Denis:

"It could be one of 8 possibilities. Look at your algorythm, it could be one of


those 8: (D)coincidence, (B)luck, good guess, (C) scientist, (F)observable and the
list goes on. I already stated all of that.

But anyways, I already pointed out, that there are 8 statements in the Quran which
agree with modern science. Actually there is more that that. But I only had time
to go over 8. And I said, what are the probabilities of all of this being luck? He
admits that this stuff is not guess work! He admits that this stuff is not
coincidence! He admits,yes,the Author of the Quran is not a scientist! Then if you
admit all of this stuff, Denis, then, what is the source of ALL of this
information????? Again, I’m asking you to look at the information collectively,
but he doesn’t want to. "No problemo."

His analogy of the misuse of probabilities, I believe people can misuse a lot of
things, I believe people can dupe themselves in refusing to look at evidence.
People can misuse anything. There is really nothing worth refuting over there.

Anyways, so my point is, I’m just going to have to repeat myself. If we look in
the Quran, in fact, let me pull up my old presentation here, which I was just
pointing out, that in that murder trial, if we look at each piece of evidence
INDIVIDUALLY. Each piece of evidence individually, yes, it has a "human
explanation", as how Denis likes to put it. I’m using his words. Each piece of
evidence if we just look at it individually, may be may be not he is the murderer.
But, when you look at the evidence COLLECTIVELY,… you say, "ok… hold on a second…
first of all you wrote a letter that you were going to kill your girlfriend… AND
THEN you also bought a knife that same week." And in your mind what you are asking
is, "what is the probability of you doing ALL of these things?". And so, you mind
is making a probability and you are multiplying it. And then you add another piece
of evidence (to multiply).. and another piece of evidence.

What would you say about the defense attorney who came up on that court date and
said, "you know what? There is is a human explanation for each one of these! On
each one of thes pieces of evidence its very possible that, my defendant is
innocent!" (the attorney is refusing to look at the evidence collectively). People
would laugh at him!!!! J J J

Anyways, so the SAME logic, the same common sense, hate to even use the word
logic, if we use it to the Quran, and we ask the question:

"how do you explain ALL of the verses in the Quran, these scientific 8 statements
in the Quran which clearly speaks about modern science?"

you will never come up with any other logical alternative other than there has to
be a greater source than man who is the Author of the Quran. We know this is not
guess work, if we run the probabilities on guess work, it is IMPOSSIBLE. If you
run the probabilities on coincidence, it is IMPOSSIBLE. We know the author of the
Quran was not a scientist. There is no way you stare at a piece of Iron and say to
yourself, "it did not come to this earth". We know that is not the case. I pointed
out, that just because you can spin another interpretation, that does not prove my
evidence. I proved that with my analogy of the big bang. We know that this is not
observable. Then what other alternative is left? The only alternative that is
left, is that, this can be from only one source, and that is from a greater power
than man.

*Because no man can make 8 scientifically correct statements which is way before
its time.*

Even .. lets hypothetically say all of the 8 statements were inside books which
were written before. Lets say, everyone at verbatim was written before. Still, how
did the Author of the Quran know, "Hey, you know what, that’s the correct one! I’m
going to use this concept of how the universe was created, about Iron, versus all
the WRONG, false beliefs. That argument doesn’t work

And so, anyways, I only have 30 seconds, if you logically analyze the statements
in the Quran, there can be no other conclusion you can make, other than, that the
author of the Quran could not have been a man, it had to have been a greater
source. When you look at the evidence COLLECTIVELY. I did not spin my own false
interpretations on any of this stuff, so with that, I see my time is up, and my
last point is that:

No other book in the World, can demonstrate what the Quran has demonstrated today

And my time is up. Thanks.

Giron’s second rebuttal for 10 minutes.

Ok, I would like to say thank you to the moderator as well as to Nadir. It seems
that in 10 minutes we are not going to be able to bring this to a close, so
again,I would like to remind people, that if they would like to see out debate in
text, which is a much longer version of this debate, that we had over usenet over
the course of 9 months,it is http://www.joes.com/home/ahmedgiron/

Nadir said, if we look at the evidence collectively, there is no other logical


alternative then to assume that God is the source… or source higher than man. What
other alternative is there? Now I said that, I summed it up in 3 words, or I tried
to sum it up, lets say… and the term I used was miracle of reinterpretation. Nadir
supposed me as saying he’s been putting a false spin on these verses, or that he
twisted these verses. That’s actually not what I am saying. I’m not claiming that
at all. What I am saying, is that 8 verses have been taken, and after the fact,
correlated with science. Some of them are VERY clear. Indeed bees being female. Or
at least a feminine conjugation, or feminine word being used for bees. Indeed,
that’s pretty clear. But other things like, orbits of the sun and moon, I mean,
that’s not clear, I mean, a lot of people long before the Quran believed that the
sun and moon were orbits, and so, to correlate this with some scientific fact..
eah.. I don’t know. You know, it doesn’t say in what sense these orbits are.

Same thing with the dark seas. And issues like that. Is it possible to take 8
verses and correlate them after the fact with science? Yes. I mean I recited the
Nathan abviat does this. We have 8 verses from Genesis alone. He actually does
this with many. And Nadir, I’m sure, and I know for a fact, from out debates, can
do this with many verses. He actually had another 5 examples that he was nice
enough not to bring up in this debate, and I appreciate that, because helped us
focus a little more.

Ok, now he bought up this issue where he claimed that I committed this fallacy
where,that I claimed I can bring another interpretation to the verse, therefore,
its not evidence. He said so long as one interpretation can be correlated with
science, then it can be given as evidence. The problem here, is that, I’m not
claiming my interpretation is right, and Nadir’s is wrong. What I am saying, is
this other interpretation possible. And if its possible, well, then its possible
for a human being to say such,therefore, its possible for someone to do this,to
utter this statement. A mere mortal to utter this statement.

For example, the near land comes up, nadir asked me a directly, he put out a
direct challenge, "how do you explain that the author the verse used a word that
one of the meaning could be correlated with scientific fact?" I mean, I think this
happens all the time, many words, in many languages, have many meanings. It
doesn’t mean that the person who used this word intended the meaning. Am I
claiming that he didn’t intend this meaning? No not at all. What I am stating is
that……that, you know… its possible that one meaning was meant… you know… and that
meaning is very easily for a man to use, and then there you go. I mean, a lot of
words have multiple meanings, cleave in English is a great example, it could mean
to cling or to separate. It doesn’t mean, that when someone uses cling,that they
mean both cleave and separate, you know or, you know, it has to be taken in
context….etc…..etc….etc. So the fact that the word has multiple meanings does not
mean that the author intended all those meanings.

Now finally Nadir, said:

"what is the source of all of this information?"

That was another direct challenge that he gave me. And….uh… I’m not going to
answer that question because….. I think….. I cant. Nor, was it my objective. If I
say the source was Aristotle, then I’m positively asserting that the book is not
the Word of God. And I said at the outset that I’m not going to positively assert
that the Quran is not the Word of Allah. So I’m not going to do that. I mean,
that’s for another debate. What I’m saying is that you have 8 statements and you
can have many more that are being correlated with science, and you can do that
with many statements. The fact that you can correlate them with science doesn’t
necessarily mean that no human being could have uttered them. That the point I’m
making. The question is, is it possible that a human being could have uttered
these statements? Yes. Absolutely.
And I apologize to Nadir if he feels that I haven’t dealt with this issue
sufficiently. I think may be further discussion is going to be needed. And I
apologize to others who are offeneded. You can email me at my first name,
denis_giron@hotmail.com. Or you can go visit our thread and take part in it. The
link that I gave. You can go to that thread. So again I would like to thank Nadir
and I would like to thank the gentlemen ???? The Islamic Brother who moderated
this debate, and I hope there.. nobody was offended. So I would like to say thank
you very much, and I enjoyed this emmensly. Pax Vobis.

Вам также может понравиться