Modern Science

[keyplus90]

We have spoken about so many things, Embryology, astronomy, geology, water cycle, earth, and so many more things. I believe Quran talked about these things before scientists found out in modern time. Then I am told by few that everything Quran talks about was already known to Greeks, Hindus, Chinese and even Pagan Arabs before Muhammad (pbuh).

Now my question is that regardless of who knew before scientists in the modern age but the point is that someone already knew about all these things or had some sort of idea. So what did the modern science do? Apart from verifying what others already knew? I am not a scientist and I know this website has few big names in that field so can anyone list few things that earlier people did not know before the modern science. And I don’t want technical stuff but day to day things that all of us know.

[jake-the-peg]

Do you think Waldo your disappointment might be really because you aspire to a world story of continuous progress.

In reality there have been many civilisations, many goldern ages and many declines.

From the perspective of what is probably a western Golden Age that's an obvious aspiration but one that's certainly been not much longer than countless other civilisations have seen

[naomi24]

I agree Waldo. Sad.

[sherminator]

Also everyone!!!!!!
Ive just spotted a Keyplus logic fail!!!!!!(I know i'm getting good at these!)

Keyplus you have argued the 'truth' of the quran based on its science(and have even used this to beat christians if memory is correct?)

well you freely admit that the greeks were even earlier pioneers than muslims yes?....

well guess what!? They were religious too! therefore THEIR religion must carry more weight than yours! Since their science was 'greater' then you need to start trying to appease Zeus!

[mibn2cweus]

Well, in spite of protest, I think my answer was quite APROPOS. I believe my example brings to bare many proven facts that to my knowledge are not mentioned anywhere in the Quran. For example:

There's a ring around Uranus . . . in fact several, very dark rings.
http://upload.wikimed...e4/Uranusandrings.jpg

You'd only weigh 89% as much if you sat on Uranus.

Uranus has an atmosphere of methane gas breaking wind speeds up to 250m/s

Uranus can be seen with the naked eye, honest to god . . . try it! In addition, a suitably shaped and properly positioned mirror can be used to magnify the image many times over . . . or should I say under. OH YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Visibility

We've taken literally THOUSANDS of pictures of Uranus . . . and moons.

Uranus is bigger than the whole Earth!
http://upload.wikimed...h_size_comparison.jpg

But in all fairness, given its reputation, its miraculous that not a single one of these facts is mentioned in the Bible either. After all, Uranus LITERALLY means, 'GOD OF THE HEAVENS' for Christ's sake!

http://www.google.com...NYrS6LwL&ved=0CBYQkAE

[Nadis]

mibn2cweus; I'm glad you got to the bottom of that enigma.

[society]

A knife is a simple tool and was invented in the beginner, and will be use forever and will never go out of style.

[chakka35]

Ironically, that fundamental science that explains why modern complex life exists, evolution, would not have been allowed to surface even if it had been thought of in earlier times. The religious authorities would have suppressed it and persecuted its adherents.

[WaldoMcFroog]

@J-t-P - yes, to some extent you're right; it seems a shame that humanity can't keep building on the advances of previous generations. Although I'd agree that civilisations naturally wax and wane, I would hold some hope that global information systems mean that the current state of knowledge couldn't be lost in the way that they might in less connected eras.

My main thought, however, was simply that it's a shame that religious conservatism is so stiffling. One could make similar observations about the effects on modern science of fundie Christians in the US (and wider).

[jake-the-peg]

It's not just religious conservatism that stifles science.

There's also apathy, education, social attitudes and economics.

Science is constantly having to justify itself in the "what do you get for your money" economic argument which makes funding for fundamental research difficult.

Especially when it's not understood by most of the population

Few politicians have a scientific background and for them long term is a couple of years.

The result is that many of our best people end up going abroad

I do like the (probably apocrphal ) story about Faraday demonstrating the first electric motor to the PM of the day

A small needle going around a bowl of mercury

"Very good Mr Faraday - but what use is it?"
"I have no idea sir, but I feel certain that one day you will tax it"

Although even that story conveys the notion that Science must have a "Use"

Nobody asks Anthony Gormley what is the Use of the Angel of the North

[WaldoMcFroog]

Of course; I wasn't trying to cover the gamut of possible reasons for why science is stiffled. :-)

[naomi24]

Shermi, ha ha! Yes, you are getting good at them. I love your logic. :o)

Jake and Waldo, I think there's a huge difference between stifling science for various reasons and denying it's veracity because an ancient books tells us it isn't so.

[naomi24]

*its

[jake-the-peg]

Tue but it's not limited to religion

Physicians spent 1500 years teaching and believing what Galen had said despite the fact that some of it should have been obvious to them as rubbish.

[naomi24]

I don't actually know what you're referring to Jake, but in this instance religion can be in no doubt that what it is teaching is absolutely wrong - and yet it continues to teach it because if it doesn't, it knows it's on very shaky ground. There is a very definite method in its very definite madness!

[keyplus90]

Ohh so many posts. One can’t even enjoy few days of holidays. But lets see,
First of all as few blamed me there but honestly I did not have any hidden agenda behind this question. And I had no intention to imply anything towards Quran. As I said before that although Quran speaks about science (it has more than 1000 verses out of more than 6000 total relating science) but it is not a book of science. It gives signs. But as I always say “if questions are asked then answers must be given” otherwise people take these as excuses to propagate. They might still do even if you answer the question.

Mollykins – You talked about germs and you said you need technology to see them. You are right. But someone talked not only about bad germs long before technology, but also about good germs aka antidote.

Narrated Abu Huraira: "Allah's Apostle said, "If a fly falls in the vessel of any of you, let him dip all of it (into the vessel) and then throw it away, for in one of its wings there is a disease and in the other there is healing (antidote for it) i e. the treatment for that disease."

Anyone can see fly doing its job and think about germs, but no one knew about antidotes until very recently.

http://abc.gov.au/sci...2002/10/01/689400.htm

[keyplus90]

Birdie – Can you give me a single book of SCIENCE where all of the things mentioned have been talked about in detail. No you can’t although Chemistry and biology are parts of science but what you said in your first post you would not find there as most of these things relate to physics.

Waldo – I can understand your point. But did you ever think why Muslims contributed so much towards science after Quran was revealed. Because that is where they got the guidance. When they gave that up or started looking here and there then look at them now. How many well known scientists are Muslims?

Naomi – you did not answer my question, that where did you believe it was leading us. And by the way his father believed that he was old enough to know the consequences if he wanted to jump of the cliff.

http://www.dailymail....dian-hippy-trail.html

For others, here we have huge detail of scientific miracles mentioned in Quran. So help yourself and read with open mind.

http://www.answering-...ty.com/ac20.htm#links

Birdie – I have ordered the book you said and I will read that. Thanks.

[LazyGun]

As predicted, and despite Keyplus's protestations to the contrary, what do we get in his last post? A link to the "The glorious, overwhelming and stunning scientific achievements as predicted by the Quran blah blah blah."

This is exactly what i thought the original post was leading up to. Link after link of selective quotation, event selection and manipulation to match the alleged statement, hindsight adjustment and subsequent bias.

Then Keyplus once again offers the ridiculous and oft- repeated all or nothing strawman argument - "show me a contemporary science book that covers all the subjects in detail". No one has ever claimed that western culture had a contemporary " big book of science" that covered all those areas. Rather, Science and the knowledge gained through the application of rational thinking is an evolutionary process, that builds on proven foundations and discarded hypotheses to arrive at a theory that best fits the observable facts. All of those founding cultures contributed to the overall knowledge base, but since the Enlightenment, the Muslim world has contributed very little.

Religious fundamentalism and conservatism has proven to be a huge drag on progress.And a supposed allegory of a fly with a good wing and a bad wing that links into research of antibiotic activity of a fly is a meaningless irrelevance.

Show me a Semmelweiss, deducing a causative agent like germs purely from observation and experiment, then implementing effective hygiene measures to combat excessive deaths in childbirth, or John Snow, the founding father of epidemiology, who deduced something akin to germs in combating a cholera outbreak in London, in advance of the Germ Theory being published.

[keyplus90]

Lazy - I never claimed or demanded that why there is not a single book that contains every aspect of science as I know it is impossible. But you are not aware of the history here as when ever we had any talk about this topic (willingly or unwillingly), my friend Birdie always talked about Quran not having this or that. When I talked about "single book" then that was to emphasize the point that if books of science can't gather everything in one unit or volume then you can't expect Quran to say what you want to see. Instead you should analyse what already is there.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, You haven't read the posts. I answered your question. Here's what I said:

//Why, to the science of the Koran, Keyplus. No?//

And, surprise, surprise - here we are. How did I know that?

Now answer mine. Did you google the baby gender issue?