3 examples of scientifique facts explained by the Quran [Moon/Iron/Big bang], page 2

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Really, you want me to prove the parts of your extensive post that were plagarised? OK so be it;

Our Sun is a … "Giant Plasma Weapon" - You can further research "Coronal Mass Ejections" or CME's on Youtube for ample information. Stars can emit Solar X-Rays that eject extremely powerful energy and trillions of particles traveling at 8 million kilometres per hour deep into space. These emissions can be seen as constant ‘missiles’ that will take out various objects that are in space such as Satellites – If I want to interpret these ejections as possible weapon or missiles that can affect or event destroy other exotic objects/ particles in space who are you to disagree? If you do then it shows that you are being closed minded and disproving things just for the sake of it. And so it becomes an issue of what you deem is the correct interpretation in your eyes.

Taken from this website nearly word for word Tad shocked at the "Infidel Connotations" from this site....

Gamma-ray bursts are short-lived bursts of gamma-ray photons, the most energetic form of light. At least some of them are associated with a special type of supernovae, the explosions marking the deaths of especially massive stars.
Lasting anywhere from a few milliseconds to several minutes, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) shine hundreds of times brighter than a typical supernova and about a million trillion times as bright as the Sun, making them briefly the brightest source of cosmic gamma-ray photons in the observable Universe. GRBs are detected roughly once per day from wholly random directions of the sky.

Taken from this website

Until recently, GRBs were arguably the biggest mystery in high-energy astronomy. They were discovered serendipitously in the late 1960s by U.S. military satellites which were on the look out for Soviet nuclear testing in violation of the atmospheric nuclear test ban treaty. These satellites carried gamma ray detectors since a nuclear explosion produces gamma rays. As recently as the early 1990s, astronomers didn't even know if GRBs originated at the edge of our solar system, in our Milky Way Galaxy or incredibly far away near the edge of the observable Universe. (That is, they didn't know how far away GRBs were to within a factor of a few billion light years!) But now a slew of satellite observations, follow-up ground-based observations, and theoretical work have allowed astronomers to link GRBs to supernovae in distant galaxies.

Taken from this website

However, the Quran does contain verses that distinguish between the nature of the sunlight and moonlight. The Quran mentions the sun and moon in the context of their 'light' in the following verses:
- "It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory (Diya'a) and the moon to be a light (Nur)" [Younus 10:5].
- "And made the moon a light (Nur) in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp (Siraj)" [Nuh 71:16].
- "Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp (Siraj) and a Moon giving light (Muneer)" [Al-Furqan 25:61].
- "And We made a glowing lamp (Siraj Wahhaj)" [Al-Naba'a 78:13].

Taken from this website

In the above verses, Allah SWT uses different terms to describe moonlight and sunlight, the former referred to as 'nur' and latter as 'diya'a' or 'siraj'. Consulting a dictionary on those terms shows that 'nur' and 'daw'' (origin of 'diya'a') both mean 'light'. However, the Quran never uses both terms interchangeably. Here we should ponder: if both lights were identical in nature, why were different Arabic terms used to describe each light source? In addition, why is it that only the sun, and not the moon, is described as a 'siraj', or a lamp?

Taken from this wesbite

Quick test for all of you here

In the Quran it says something along the lines of - 'When you die, we can bring you back to life putting you back together in perfect Order - even the tips of your fingers''

Now can anyone here please tell me what the significance of those last few words are in relation to what is being conveyed through that sentence?

Let's see who is really being open -minded here.

Taken from this website

I actually put a great deal of time and effort in forming my posts in this thread, by researching the information, understanding it and pulling it together into an argument. Can you say the same for the content of your post? Where you simply posted links to other works, and excerpts?

Not much effort at all as it took me less than 5 mins to prove you plagiarised over 90% of your post!

I find it insulting that you accuse me of being lazy, yet you don't even respond to my arguments.

I find it insulting that you called me a liar when I caught you plagiarising and then asked me to prove it!

Very weak response from you as you could not even address the points I made, but then again you proved the point I was making just try to discredit, disprove, silence, evade the real knowledge just for the sake of not listening or understanding.

You made no points, you just copied other peoples thoughts from the internet and took the credit yourself, a very weak argument from you on all counts!

edit on 30.7.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)