Off Topic Piers Morgan v Tommy Robinson

Wikipeado?

 

Legal note: if it were to happen, but you're not proposing it.

 

Merely hypothetical, of course

 

If you read the passages that those claims apply to, then you'd understand.
Calling them a reach is generous, frankly.

 

No, answering Islam.org
Ps. sorry forgot the credit.

 

You keep saying this, but it's misleading, at best.
Various Persians did have a significant influence on scientific methods during the Islamic Golden Age.
That should be easily enough to make your point, without leaving people anything to argue over.

 

codified, to arrange into a systematic code. In other words, they took several different versions and made it into 1, just like the bible.
I started reading it, but after 4 or 5 pages of anti-jewish diatribe I stopped, I didn't think it worth reading after that as it made God look like a retard.

 

who denies they did? i keep saying because you boys keep banging on about science as if it proves something and non-believers came up with it to show up the believers...

Dont like facts thats something else...

 

There are far more intelligent people than me that would put your claim to bed in minutes and thats me beinh generous to you...

 

Nobody has said anything about atheists creating science to show up believers. That's nonsense.
Big Bang was first put on the page by the Bishop of Lincoln, FFS.

Saying that it doesn't prove anything is just silly, though.
That's the sort of attitude that makes a lot of people think that modern Muslims are anti-science.
There's clear evidence that this is true in predominantly Islamic countries in recent years, too.

Is science anti-theist or is Islam anti-science? No.
It appears that a lot of theists and Muslims are right now, though.

 

I am not sure what you were reading but there ever was on version, the written version is for second perservation, Qur'an as it was then it is now and relied on oral than written and even taught orally then then the written text...

 

No, there aren't. Sorry.
The claims are exceptionally vague and poetic and that's not including the ones that are just outright false.

 

Is it time for the stoning clip from the Life of Brian yet?

If not, just shout when ready

 

Really maybe selective reading on here then...

People on this forum are jumping from one sibject to another ( evolution theory, to metaphysics, cosmology and so on) with no real understanding to try and prove what? There is no God...you need to keep up mate..

 

Time for the balcony scene: 'You're all different. I'm not', for no better reason than the pure silliness of it.

 

Yes of course if you say so...which ones are false then and how did you come to that conclusion!

 

People keep bringing up these subject in response to theistic claims.
This couldn't have happened without god or that's impossible unless god did it.
None of those things could disprove the existence of god and nobody's saying that they could.

 

Have to give you a round of applause for your pure chutzpah there. I'll give you enough credit to assume you know what 180 degree horseshit you're talking.

 

so you are saying that for decades people said it to each other and then decided to write it down, and you think that it would be 100 percent accurate? Are you serious? I guess you never played Chinese whispers, if you had you'd know how ridiculous that is, people can't even pass a simple sentence between a small group of people accurately.

 

I'm not going to get into a row about sources, so just Google "Scientific errors in the Quran" or "in Islam".

The problem is that if you bring up Surah 18:86, for example, then Muslims will claim it's not saying what it actually says.
Everything inaccurate becomes a metaphor, analogy or something similarly poetic.
If it's accurate, then it's a miracle. If it's not, then it's poetry.