Is there a contradiction in the Qur'an?

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh, is it? LOL..well I guess that's just another way that this silly god could have improved his asinine scheme.

I guess I might have spoken too soon with the bit about it being no more difficult than informing you. Not only is the minutiae of carbon the accurate explanation of human origins, you can't tell the difference between it..and the idea that a wizard played in the mud.

Here's a q for either of you. If "allah" came down and personally corrected the book that men wrote in his name...would you reject god and continue to worship a magic book? What can we learn about gods from a couple of idolaters?

[The Architect Of Fate]

You're not worth my time, frankly speaking, taking god's name in vain in an Islam topic.

Clay/dust components and the human body's have a lot in common. That's what the Qur'an relays to the layman back then, people  who have zero chemistry knowledge.

https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/alaqa.html


https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sc...mbryo.html

https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sc...alaqa.html

https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sc...ryo_ra.htm

---

Oh, is it?  LOL..well I guess that's just another way that this silly god could have improved his asinine scheme.

I guess I might have spoken too soon with the bit about it being no more difficult than informing you.  Not only is the minutiae of carbon the accurate explanation of human origins, you can't tell the difference between it..and the idea that a wizard played in the mud.

Here's a q for either of you.  If "allah" came down and personally corrected the book that men wrote in his name...would you reject god and continue to worship a magic book?  What can we learn about gods from a couple of idolaters?

It's awe inspiring the mental gymnastics this guy can conjure

---

So anyway, resolve these claims

"Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2).
"We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59).
"But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).
"He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).

Did allah the shit create man from a blood clot, clay, dust, nothing or sperm?

ETA: Not to mention that we know no Adam ever existed anyway.

His response his hilarious

---

LOL, here he goes with Good Reasons™.

What are those, again?  Are they in any way connected to..well..reason?  Or is this the other kind of Good Reason™?

It wouldn't have been any more difficult to explain chemistry to those people, who had no knowledge..than it was to you.  I'm pretty sure that it didn't even take a god to get you informed...some lowly ape managed it without a gods considerable abilities, and in spite of your own clear shortcomings.

Another demonstration of you asking, receiving, and never having given a shit to begin with.

Yeah but god needed to spend that space for twaddle instead of something actually impressive

[R00tKiT]

I guess I might have spoken too soon with the bit about it being no more difficult than informing you.  Not only is the minutiae of carbon the accurate explanation of human origins, you can't tell the difference between it..and the idea that a wizard played in the mud.

Did you read what I wrote? Accurate explanations belong to science, they are stuff we can do, and did. It clearly didn't take God to come up with these. But resurrection, afterlife, not much we can say about that.

Here's a q for either of you.  If "allah" came down and personally corrected the book that men wrote in his name...would you reject god and continue to worship a magic book?  What can we learn about gods from a couple of idolaters?

If this actually happens, of course I would reject what I thought was a holy book. It doesn't even take that to happen, all it takes is someone to point out a mistake. Not modern understanding of nature explained in layman's terms, maybe simplistic, but not wrong, which is what happens with [clot of blood], [made from clay] expressions;

[Abaddon_ire]

So anyway, resolve these claims

"Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2).
"We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59).
"But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).
"He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).

Did allah the shit create man from a blood clot, clay, dust, nothing or sperm?

ETA: Not to mention that we know no Adam ever existed anyway.

You're not worth my time, frankly speaking, taking god's name in vain in an Islam topic.

So you cannot resolve them. I accept your defeat.

Clay/dust components and the human body's have a lot in common. That's what the Qur'an relays to the layman back then, people  who have zero chemistry knowledge.

And there is a scientific reason for that which requires no allah the shit.

According to the picture above, what would be the best way to explain our carbon/silicon based origins fourteen centuries ago ... in layman's terms?

Life evolved on Earth which had those chemical elements. It was inevitable that life would contain the same elements in roughy similar proportions. Still no need for allah the shit.

The verses you're mentioning are really good reasons to believe.

Nope. They are directly contradictory and you cannot resolve them.

And there are plenty more where they came from. (Hint: The stupid magic book you worship.)

Your inability to do so demonstrates that you are also full of it. You issue a challenge which, when met, causes you to run away in fear.

You also failed to respond to your BS about the Council of Nicea, which means you are wrong and you know it.

You also failed to respond to the fact that we already know that there was never an Adam. Because you were wrong and you know it.

That is known as intellectual cowardice.

You also have a problem with my use of the term "allah the shit". Why shouldn't I use that term. I know allah is not real so I can call him/her/it/housecat whatever I like and it matters not a whit.

Perhaps that offends you and your religious sensibilities? Tough. You do not have a right to be not offended. By anything.

I do believe in the right to free speech, which is why I am even responding to you. But clearly, you do not believe in free speech or the free exchange of ideas because you take offense at my use of the term "allah the shit". Free speech should not be allowed in your mad system. You take offence at the term "allah the shit". Why should I give a flying fuck about your offended sensibility about an imaginary sky fairy? Really. I am seriously asking the question. Why should I care about someone else's delusional magic friend?

And why exactly did you lie about "You're not worth my time, frankly speaking," and proceed to respond with pointless text and fucking graphs? Clearly you DID feel a need to respond, but lied about it.

Without doubt, you are one of the most dishonest god-botherers I have ever encountered. (Although Sye-ten would give you a run for your money)

I have had plenty of civilised discussion, both online and in real life, about their faith and my lack of it. You are merely a religious thug. And you need to own that fact.

Tell me What respect should I have for a god, just one among many thousands that I do not believe? What respect should I have for a delusion?
Sure, I can respect the victims of that delusion and maybe try to help them find their way out of it. But religious thugs? Not so much.

So it boils down to this simple question.

Can you demonstrate that your mad god exists? If "Yes" then do so. If "No" then fuck right off.

[R00tKiT]

You're not worth my time, frankly speaking, taking god's name in vain in an Islam topic.

Clay/dust components and the human body's have a lot in common. That's what the Qur'an relays to the layman back then, people  who have zero chemistry knowledge.

[/url][url=https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/alaqa.html]https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/alaqa.html


https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sc...mbryo.html

https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sc...alaqa.html

https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sc...ryo_ra.htm

Excellent job, kid. You destroyed Islam by your unmatched copy-paste links' skills.

---

Life evolved on Earth which had those chemical elements. It was inevitable that life would contain the same elements in roughy similar proportions.

Are you stupid or what.? How did the Qur'an get this detail straight..? Huh..? How did Muhammad foresee the chemical similarities between earth and life..?

[Abaddon_ire]

Are you stupid or what.? How did the Qur'an get this detail straight..? Huh..? How did Muhammad foresee the chemical similarities between earth and life..?

It didn't.

Can't you read?

And why are you avoiding the other points? Still afraid?

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess I might have spoken too soon with the bit about it being no more difficult than informing you.  Not only is the minutiae of carbon the accurate explanation of human origins, you can't tell the difference between it..and the idea that a wizard played in the mud.

Did you read what I wrote? Accurate explanations belong to science, they are stuff we can do, and did. It clearly didn't take God to come up with these. But resurrection, afterlife, not much we can say about that.

Cool story, but we're discussing your contention of a scientific miracle in magic book about carbon..because dust.  Not zombies or cosmic theme parks.

Here's a q for either of you.  If "allah" came down and personally corrected the book that men wrote in his name...would you reject god and continue to worship a magic book?  What can we learn about gods from a couple of idolaters?

If this actually happens, of course I would reject what I thought was a holy book. It doesn't even take that to happen, all it takes is someone to point out a mistake. Not modern understanding of nature explained in layman's terms, maybe simplistic, but not wrong, which is what happens with [clot of blood], [made from clay] expressions;

That's clearly not the case, as any number of examples being pointed out to you haven't had that effect.  At least a god telling you the exact same things that anyone else has told you would work...but even there you have to wonder why it would take a god.

It didn't take god telling you anything to believe what you do.

[ignoramus]

redacted

[R00tKiT]

Nope. They are directly contradictory and you cannot resolve them.

They're not, you didn't even point to a contradiction. Creating man from nothing, from blood of clot, from sperm, are just different aspects of creation. It's really moronic to think describing stuff in different, complementary ways is somewhat contradictory.

You also failed to respond to your BS about the Council of Nicea, which means you are wrong and you know it.

The trinity doctrine was implemented and adopted in the council. The latter, as a result, clearly had a decisive impact on the present-day christian doctrine.

Of course christian literature doesn't acknowledge this, they treat the origin of their gospels as a problem though. There are literally dozens of theories explaining their origin, attempting to solve what they refer to as the synoptic problem. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels#Theories

This is enough for me to conclude there is no comparison between the reliability of the Qur'an and that of the O/NT. The former began virtually as an audio book, mouth to ear recitation of hundreds of companions of Muhammad. They heard every word of the Qur'an verbatim from their prophet. This is very very different from what christians face to back up the historicity of their holy book.

You also failed to respond to the fact that we already know that there was never an Adam. Because you were wrong and you know it.

How do you know that.. exactly?

I know allah is not real so I can call him/her/it/housecat whatever I like and it matters not a whit.

It's really retarded to claim you know some god isn't real. At least say no evidence convinced you.

Perhaps that offends you and your religious sensibilities? Tough. You do not have a right to be not offended. By anything.

I do believe in the right to free speech, which is why I am even responding to you. But clearly, you do not believe in free speech or the free exchange of ideas because you take offense at my use of the term "allah the shit". Free speech should not be allowed in your mad system. You take offence at the term "allah the shit". Why should I give a flying fuck about your offended sensibility about an imaginary sky fairy? Really. I am seriously asking the question. Why should I care about someone else's delusional magic friend?

Free speech isn't equivalent to being a provocative, impolite ass when discussing with a believer. You can express your disagreement without resorting to insults we regard as blasphemy.

Cool story, but we're discussing your contention of a scientific miracle in magic book about carbon..because dust.  Not zombies or cosmic theme parks.

I didn't claim mentioning dust is a scientific miracle per se, it's just a more accurate description than it sounds, and certainly not a mistake. If you come up with stuff that might amount to a "miracle" when asked to provide inconsistencies.. it really means there are none..
And claiming there is a contradiction between saying man is created "from nothing", and "from sperm", is really moronic. It's just different, complementary aspects of creation.

That's clearly not the case, as any number of examples being pointed out to you haven't had that effect.  At least a god telling you the exact same things that anyone else has told you would work...but even there you have to wonder why it would take a god.

It didn't take god telling you anything to believe what you do.

You saw what the last example turned out to be; an accurate description of creation. Don't want to consider it prophetic foreknoweldge ? fine. It certainly isn't a mistake.

[The Grand Nudger]

I didn't claim mentioning dust is a scientific miracle per se, it's just a more accurate description than it sounds, and certainly not a mistake. If you come up with stuff that might amount to a "miracle" when asked to provide inconsistencies.. it really means there are none..
And claiming there is a contradiction between saying man is created "from nothing", and "from sperm", is really moronic. It's just different, complementary aspects of creation.


You saw what the last example turned out to be; an accurate description of creation. Don't want to consider it prophetic foreknoweldge ? fine. It certainly isn't a mistake.

I saw that the last example turned out to be yet another example of you doing exactly what you were expected to do, exactly what I've described between each example, exactly what reduces these conversations to inanity, and your arguments to bad faith.  

Magic book either contains accurate information 1400 years prior to any explanation of why that information would or even could be included, or it doesn't.  

As I have repeatedly explained, there is no point in bickering over whether mistakes are mistakes.  You ask for them, people hand them to you, and you repeatedly demonstrate that you never wanted them and do not give a shit when they're presented.  

That it doesn't matter...to you.

(by the way, no one gives a shit what you or your pedo prophet consider blasphemy - you came to the worst possible place to insist on deference for that horseshit, lol)