Can science really disprove somethings existence?

[achilles12604]

Usually the argument goes something like this . . .

Theist: God exists.

Science: How do you know?

Theist: 1) origin of the universe, biblical history, personal experience, origin of life, etc

Science: And how do you know that the universe didn't just pop into being without God. Your personal experience doesn't count as evidence, and history can be wrong.

Theist: Well what makes you think God doesn't exist.

science: I am totally unable to detect any sign of him at all and science is the best method we have for detecting and studying things in the universe.

You don't need to answer. My point is very simply that bible thumpers and science thumpers sometimes have similar issues regarding their claims of total knowledge. Neither can truly get the whole picture alone.

But what picture is this? Lets say there is more to this world than science knows. How do we know this? What methodology do we deploy? And the point I’ve been banging on about over several threads the last few days is the only correct method for addressing reality is naturalism because only naturalism can meet the full set of criteria: prediction, verification, falsification and assigns a clear definition to all the signs it deploys in its answers. Any explanation that fails to meet this benchmark is intellectually vacuous. Regardless of the depth of conviction of any given non naturalistic belief.

However I detect that this point is not lost on you achilles because you make great attempts to rationalise your belief system, and I know you think that what is supernatural is only what science does not yet understand. That is easy for a full blown naturalist to admit. What we cannot admit is that the theist can fill in the gaps.

I guess this is where some degree of theistic faith comes in. Hey that gives me a thought. Is faith provable by science? For example, would science be able to determine someone's beliefs? If science is unable to determine someone's beliefs and faith, does that mean that the person's faith does not exist?

My questions for discussion.

Is science able to determine someone's beliefs without being told? Another possible question to clarify this point is can science prove that someone who is now dead, had beliefs while alive?

If silence is maintained and a person's beliefs can not be determined, does this mean the beliefs do not exist?

[muhammad rasullah]

This is your evidence!
http://www.youtubeislam.com/view_video. ... 4cff571fbb

This is the problem with religions that are in the habit of MURDERING people who disagree with them. You end up with believers with an inablitity to debate. I'm not sure how they do thinks in West Durkastan, Ackbar, but here we make arguments in our own words and then offer links to support our arguments. We also shy away from horrifically biased sources.

What are you talking about this is support for my arguement that scientist after reading the quran have accepted Islam when seeing that it was true. Just because the video was produced by someone who is muslim does not take from the credibility of the scientist accepting Islam. Apparently you haven't read any of my post so go and check back before you jump in and make false claims. How is this source biased? what arguement do you have ? Bring your proof!!

muhammad rasullah, you present claims that have the consistency of Emmental. It's full of holes !

Firstly answer my question (You claimed that the Sura that says "river" means "ocean" and then spin a long story about Muhammad never actually seeing an ocean and then retract your claims about Muslim Scientists who are not actually Muslim.

Answer my question first. It should be simple. I expect you to show where it says "ocean" when it says "river" and why you think it means "ocean". If it is shown that it says "river" then I expect you to retract your claims about Muhammad and oceans. The beauty of science is that when it finds things that are wrong it corrects the mistakes. We're not going to chop your hands off, hang you or burn you at the stake; science is NOT religion. We'll just knock a few sizes of your ego; totally metaphysical.

Firsty if you would've read the verses closely you would see that when it talks about the separation between the waters it is not talking about a river.
27:61 Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in;made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, most of them know not. You can see that he rivers and flowing water are not mentioned in the same instance but separately. Allah makes the distinction between rivers and two bodies of flowing water meaning oceans. These are the only two bodies of flowing water.
55:19 He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together 55:20 Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress: The technology was not available to the people at that time to know what scientist have in the past fifty years have discovered. Again Muhammad was never exposed to any bodies of water just examine the area which he lived. In the desert there are no flowing bodies of water, how could he have known this?

[muhammad rasullah]

http://creation.miracle-quran.com/image ... n3Eng2.jpg

[McCulloch]

There are some scientist[s] who have used the quran as a source and after finding what the quran has said to be true turned and accepted Islam.

Really? Name a few.

To name a few,

1. Jacque Iv Cousteau
2. Professor of geology Dr. Alfred Kronier
3. Professor Milan from Czech republic
4. Professor Tejatat Tejasen is the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

This maybe one that may not be true. Nevertheless the rest of them are still true. And that is still evidence that scientist have accepted Islam after reading the quran and seeing the miracles in it.

Your assertion does not carry much weight. You present four examples. The first one has been shown to have been a hoax perpetrated by dishonest apologists for Islam. But you still claim that the remaining three are legitimate. You should be able to provide some evidence to support your claim.

Let's look at the second one. I have not been able to find a professor of geology with the name of Alfred Kronier. However, Professor Alfred Kröner is a professor of Geology at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz in Mainz, Germany specializing in the pre-Cambrian geology of Africa. Is that who you mean? Are we supposed to take your word that he has accepted Islam after you have been fooled by a hoax about Cousteau and you cannot even research the correct name of your examples?


Alfred Kröner does not look to me as if he has embraced Islamic dress and custom. His own short biography and his research interests all seem to exclude this eye opening revelation of Qu'ranic truth. In fact, the only sources of information about his alleged conversion are from the same kind of Islamic sources that made the false claim about Cousteau. Please present some documentation from the professor himself or from a disinterested third party.

[Goat]

http://creation.miracle-quran.com/image ... n3Eng2.jpg

So, some person who does not understand evolution makes a straw man out of their misunderstanding of it, then makes a claim about DNA, and thinks that 'destroys' the cornerstone of evolution. Furthermore, it's from a religious site that obviously thinks that if evolution is 'destroyed' by their misunderstanding of it, the only alternative solution is their particular creation myth?

Somehow, I don't think so. There are several very strong mistakes in the 'line of reasoning'. The assumption about dna, and the assumption how collagen is formed is two errors.

I noticed you still have not retracted the statement by Jacques Cousteau about his 'converting to Islam.'

[muhammad rasullah]

There are some scientist[s] who have used the quran as a source and after finding what the quran has said to be true turned and accepted Islam.

Really? Name a few.

To name a few,

1. Jacque Iv Cousteau
2. Professor of geology Dr. Alfred Kronier
3. Professor Milan from Czech republic
4. Professor Tejatat Tejasen is the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

This maybe one that may not be true. Nevertheless the rest of them are still true. And that is still evidence that scientist have accepted Islam after reading the quran and seeing the miracles in it.

Your assertion does not carry much weight. You present four examples. The first one has been shown to have been a hoax perpetrated by dishonest apologists for Islam. But you still claim that the remaining three are legitimate. You should be able to provide some evidence to support your claim.

Let's look at the second one. I have not been able to find a professor of geology with the name of Alfred Kronier. However, Professor Alfred Kröner is a professor of Geology at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz in Mainz, Germany specializing in the pre-Cambrian geology of Africa. Is that who you mean? Are we supposed to take your word that he has accepted Islam after you have been fooled by a hoax about Cousteau and you cannot even research the correct name of your examples?


Alfred Kröner does not look to me as if he has embraced Islamic dress and custom. His own short biography and his research interests all seem to exclude this eye opening revelation of Qu'ranic truth. In fact, the only sources of information about his alleged conversion are from the same kind of Islamic sources that made the false claim about Cousteau. Please present some documentation from the professor himself or from a disinterested third party.

http://muslimconverts.com/science/it-is ... Earth.html

Just because this man doesn't look the typical type of a muslim doesn't that he isn't a muslim. the site above and others contain statements by Dr. Kronier himself proving what the quran states is true know if I were a jew or christian or someone of any other faith there would be now way I would come on television and say these things proving the miracles in the quran. Even if I believed in the theory of evolution I couldn't say these things because saying it would negate my belief and proclaim the quran to be true.

[muhammad rasullah]

http://creation.miracle-quran.com/image ... n3Eng2.jpg

So, some person who does not understand evolution makes a straw man out of their misunderstanding of it, then makes a claim about DNA, and thinks that 'destroys' the cornerstone of evolution. Furthermore, it's from a religious site that obviously thinks that if evolution is 'destroyed' by their misunderstanding of it, the only alternative solution is their particular creation myth?

Somehow, I don't think so. There are several very strong mistakes in the 'line of reasoning'. The assumption about dna, and the assumption how collagen is formed is two errors.

I noticed you still have not retracted the statement by Jacques Cousteau about his 'converting to Islam.'

read my last post on that topic carefully because whether Cousteau accepted Islam or not still does not take from the credibility of his statement about the science and knowledge of the quran!!
So are you saying that those statements about DNA in the evolution theory are wrong? If so then what is the basic hypothesis or fundamental aspect of the evolution theory if it is not DNA?

[Fallibleone]

Tiny point -

We can see the signs of this in the snow blizzards striking the northern parts of Europe and America every winter.

I live in northern Europe and we had about 10 flakes of snow this year. Last year we had none. The year before that we had one snowy weekend...round here, that means approximately 2 inches of snowfall.

But anyway, what you have posted here is a handful of comments from the man. I see nothing which supports your claim that he 'turned and accepted Islam'. The source seems to assume that because he comments that Mohammed was unlikely to have known certain things, they therefore must have come from God.

[Goat]

http://creation.miracle-quran.com/image ... n3Eng2.jpg

So, some person who does not understand evolution makes a straw man out of their misunderstanding of it, then makes a claim about DNA, and thinks that 'destroys' the cornerstone of evolution. Furthermore, it's from a religious site that obviously thinks that if evolution is 'destroyed' by their misunderstanding of it, the only alternative solution is their particular creation myth?

Somehow, I don't think so. There are several very strong mistakes in the 'line of reasoning'. The assumption about dna, and the assumption how collagen is formed is two errors.

I noticed you still have not retracted the statement by Jacques Cousteau about his 'converting to Islam.'

read my last post on that topic carefully because whether Cousteau accepted Islam or not still does not take from the credibility of his statement about the science and knowledge of the quran!!
So are you saying that those statements about DNA in the evolution theory are wrong? If so then what is the basic hypothesis or fundamental aspect of the evolution theory if it is not DNA?

It is wrong in several declarations. First of all, all the TOE requires is that there is a mechanism for inheritance. It does not specify that it ALWAYS has to be DNA. Therefore, that statement is wrong. Second of all, it assume that the presence of DNA in the nucleolus of a cell does not influence such materials at collagen, since it is outside the cell.However, what DOES influence the creation of Collagen is proteins, and where are the specific proteins encoded?? By the DNA! Therefore, the assertion that DNA can not effect chemical reactions outside the cell is incorrect.

So , the sources you are using to proclaim the 'TRUTH' of the Qu'ran lie about Cousteau. They provide misinformation about the TOE. Yet, you want us to trust those sources, and you, for saying the Quran is the truth? Forgive me, when someone lies to me about things when trying to convince me of the truth, I am more than a little bit skeptical. If someone wants to convince me of the 'truth', they had better speak from knowledge and truth themselves, otherwise, I am not buying their bill of goods.

[McCulloch]

Please present some documentation from the professor himself or from a disinterested third party.

http://muslimconverts.com/science/it-is ... Earth.html

Does anyone else see a problem? Do you even understand the concept of bias?

Just because this man doesn't look the typical type of a muslim doesn't that he isn't a muslim.

Granted. But it has been my experience so far that those who convert to Islam, have a greater tendency to follow the dress code than those who were raised with it. But his manor of dress is not conclusive evidence.

the site above and others contain statements by Dr. Kronier himself proving what the quran states is true know if I were a jew or christian or someone of any other faith there would be now way I would come on television and say these things proving the miracles in the quran. Even if I believed in the theory of evolution I couldn't say these things because saying it would negate my belief and proclaim the quran to be true.

The site that you link to is probably a lie. Firstly, it has been provided to me by someone who has already been posting untruths about other scientists. Secondly, it refers to Professor Alfred Kroner. His name is Alfred Kröner, not Kronier or Kroner. You would think that you might just get the name right. Thirdly, this is an admittedly Islamic apologist site. That does not mean that it is wrong, but in order to convince those of us who are skeptical, you must provide cooberating evidence. Do you know what that means? Do you understand why I am asking?

Let me remind you that

There are some scientist[s] who have used the quran as a source and after finding what the quran has said to be true turned and accepted Islam.

The somewhat biased evidence you have provided, did not even claim that Kröner became a Muslim. You still have not provided any evidence from the professor himself. From his own web site, there is no indication that he has given up any of his non-Islamic beliefs.

[byofrcs]

Firsty if you would've read the verses closely you would see that when it talks about the separation between the waters it is not talking about a river.
27:61 Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in;made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, most of them know not. You can see that he rivers and flowing water are not mentioned in the same instance but separately. Allah makes the distinction between rivers and two bodies of flowing water meaning oceans. These are the only two bodies of flowing water.
55:19 He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together 55:20 Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress: The technology was not available to the people at that time to know what scientist have in the past fifty years have discovered. Again Muhammad was never exposed to any bodies of water just examine the area which he lived. In the desert there are no flowing bodies of water, how could he have known this?

Nope - I think you've lost this argument.

It says "river". You use semantics and sentence structures to try and turn a river into an ocean. This looks to be dishonest attempt by somebody to read more than it says.

It is a river. It is probably the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates. These alluvial salt marshs have a complex ecology that is very important in the history of humanity. Muhammad would easily have known about those.

But lets use logic against your claims. Maybe you forgot where Quran originated from ?. It is claimed to be revealed from God. It doesn't matter what Muhammad knew as it matters what God knew. If it was to say ocean it would say "ocean" unless God is as disingenuous as Islamic apologists.

So either you believe the Quran was invented by Muhammad (and his friends or scribes) or it comes from God. Either way it either says river and means river or it would say ocean and mean ocean.

It cannot say river but mean ocean. That is not a book for all of humanity but for apologists, cryptologists and lawyers. Unless this is one of those Hadiths that the Turkish government is gong to cull in the "Quran - Modern Edition".