Talk:Qur'anic scientific errors
From RationalWiki
[edit] This article is bad and you should feel bad
Could someone explain why this article doesn't just read "They thought the earth was flat?" Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Because argument by assertion doesn't work? If the holy text says so, it backs up the assertion. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 15:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- If the only scientific error in the Qur'an is that they thought the earth was flat, they are FUCKING SCIENTIFIC GENIUSES. There has to be more. Hipocrite (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's a WIP, and I've been busy. (Sorry.) Feel free to add some; there are many, many others. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- A section on embryology would be worthwhile since there are a number of apologists who cite that area as an example of the Qur'an demonstrating knowledge superior to the science of the time. Most of it could be cribbed from PZ Myers. :) However, my recollection is that when compared with the Bible, the Qur'an makes far fewer statements that could be interpreted as scientific claims.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, the Qur'an mostly focuses on God's Rules. I have made a small section on embryology at Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge#Embryology. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- If I wrote "The sky is orange" it'd have fewer errors than if I wrote an encyclapedia about every color and each disease it 'causes and/or cures'. The Quran is about 1/10th the size of the Bible (something like 80,000 words vs 800,000).CorruptUser (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, the Qur'an mostly focuses on God's Rules. I have made a small section on embryology at Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge#Embryology. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- If the only scientific error in the Qur'an is that they thought the earth was flat, they are FUCKING SCIENTIFIC GENIUSES. There has to be more. Hipocrite (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)