Talk:Qur'anic scientific errors

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. 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)

Facing the Ka'aba while praying - in space
Wikipedia shortly explores the difficulties of praying facing the Ka'aba while flying 400 km above the planet with a velocity of more than 7 km/s. Is it worth adding that scenario to add further confusion? --134.76.88.49 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you would think praying in space is hard. How about praying to the Ka'aba on Mars? Alexandros des Børgus (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Geocentrism
I wonder why the debate on geocentrism is not here? It's one of main articles on wikiIslam and some materials here seem to be from wikiIslam as well, so is geocentrism omitted for some (or any valid) reasons? Dogeatsdog (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WikiIslam does indeed talk abut this, but there are some things you should know. Due to Earth's curvature, it's hard to acutally face the Kaaba, unless light can be altered by gravity. Light can indeed be bent from gravity, but only ever so slightly, so actually facing the Kaaba is still notoriously difficult if you don't live in the Middle East. — Jeh2ow Damn son!  15:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Round earth
how do "the day and the night coiling around" suggest the round Earth? it's just the Sun and the Moon rotating around (flat) Earth - the prevalent Babylonian cosmology. it doesn't say that the Earth's crust is coiling around its core, after all. and the quran saying "day of judgement coming either during the day or night" has an invalid reference to wikiislam, which doesn't talk about that. it says the opposite: "notion of a common time-of-day taking place worldwide" Rvinowise (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You should probably delete the Milk argument
Not only is it very obvious what the point is (all the verse says is that milk comes from the belly, which is another word for udder, not intestines that's an entirely different word. that's objectively true), but the claim about pasteurization is so stupid since pasteurization wasn't even invented till about 300-400 years ago. Also, you should probably source the argument that "most people of Arab descent are lactose intolerant" from my recollection that is false and a non-sequitur since the verse never said everyone should drink it.

Read before reverting
@User:Edger Halogen (repost of my earlier post to your talk page) Why did you revert my edits to Qur'anic scientific errors? They were clearly constructive. I tell you to read a definition of زَيَّنَّا in a lexicon, dictionary, or even wiktionary, and to actually read my additions before you remove them. Really? Would you mind to tell me what was wrong with them? GreenlandGneiss (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Unfortunately, I read them. This will be addressed on the article's talk page; not here."
 * Sure. Your edits changed the section heading from "formed after Earth" to "protect Earth" which is a change in semantics not covered by the existing text in the section (and the author(s) of the section would have used that heading if they wanted; but they didn't). If you want to write something about "protect Earth", then why not just create a new section and see how it stands up to scrutiny by the other editors of this established article? Edger Halogen (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)