Frozen Brains Tell No Tales

RSS

what are some scientific inaccuracies you found in Quran?

Anonymous

iranianatheist:

How much time do you have, because there are LOTS! We should focus on one scientific topic first, such as biology, or geology.

It is not so much the scientific errors of the Quran that I find ridiculous, I mean that’s just the product of people not knowing the discoveries that were made later on, I mean if we fast forward 400 years from now people would look at some of our theories about the earth and the universe as ridiculous. But my main issues is the whole “scientific miracles in the Qur’an” as proof of its divine origins, which is not just hilarious but complete nonsense. There’s more wrong than right, and what is right is nothing that was, or could have been, unknown to the typical 7th CE person.  If Allah had really wanted to wow the world, surely he could have come up with something a little bit more accurate than “sperm originates between the backbone and ribs” (Qur’an 86:6-7) or that bones are formed before flesh in the womb (Qur’an 23:14).

Only the deluded/brainwashed/indoctrinated still cling to this claim.  Muslims do much hoop jumping and hand waiving, interpreting words to mean what they want them to mean to support their claim.

As far as your question, I’d be happy to elaborate, but please pick a specific topic of science because there are so many inaccuracies! But as I mentioned before, that’s just the product of people not knowing the discoveries that were made later on, since all these “holy” books are just man’s ideas put together, nothing divine about it.

For a fairly comprehensive list of the many scientific inaccuracies in the Qur’an, WikiIslam is a good place to start.

My personal favourites include a geocentric Earth, and sperm originating between the backbone and ribs (as IA mentioned). Oh, and the time Mohammad split the moon. I guess Allah crazy glued that shit back together.

Reblog if you think it’s okay to be homosexual

badbrokenbarbie:

beautiful4allmybigmistakes:

tips0888:

the-perks-0f-being-a-cactus:

makeitearlgrey:

pro-anarchy:

andrysb24:

fumareta-hana:

fumareta-hana:

I need to prove a point to my homophobic friend.

I’m writing down the urls of everyone who reblogs this in a notebook, and will present it to my friend when it is sufficiently full.
image

You’re gonna need a bigger book

No you’re gonna need a new friend

Or both

deffinetly both

rebloging everytime

LET’S BREAK THE NOTES

i’m hungry

the-life-im-meant-to-live:

skinnysexysmile:

Thought you guys might find this interesting as well, here is Cosmo’s plus size model, Robyn Lawley. You can find the photo here, and see how enraged everyone else is at the idea of “plus size”

My favourite comment was: "Dear Cosmo, Kindly take your ideas of “plus size” and shove them up your ass sideways. Sincerely, Every man on the planet who has had to reassure his perfectly healthy and proportioned woman she’s not fat because assholes like you perpetuate this idea in her head that she’s “plus size”

the-life-im-meant-to-live:

skinnysexysmile:

Thought you guys might find this interesting as well, here is Cosmo’s plus size model, Robyn Lawley. You can find the photo here, and see how enraged everyone else is at the idea of “plus size”

My favourite comment was:
"Dear Cosmo,
Kindly take your ideas of “plus size” and shove them up your ass sideways.

Sincerely,
Every man on the planet who has had to reassure his perfectly healthy and proportioned woman she’s not fat because assholes like you perpetuate this idea in her head that she’s “plus size”

(Source: ladyandthetrack)

memewhore:

But it definitely is something you feel, too.

(Source: leahmurphys)

Science is a way to call the bluff of those who pretend to have knowledge. It is a bulwark against mysticism, against superstition, against religion misapplied where it has no business being.

- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (via thechapterfourblog)

slushiebear:

bobzenub:

Charles and Erik finally reconciles

Alright, everyone go home, this is the best thing ever.

slushiebear:

bobzenub:

Charles and Erik finally reconciles

Alright, everyone go home, this is the best thing ever.

hotsuburbandad:

This is fake. They haven’t been sat on that rock for 50 years. If you look closely you can clearly see her swimsuit is different in the second photo, it has stripes on it. And the guy’s shorts seem to have a more floral pattern in the latter photo.Also, if someone sat on a rock for 50 years, it would have made the news. My theory is, they simply returned to the same location 50 years later, and recreated the original photo.

hotsuburbandad:

This is fake. They haven’t been sat on that rock for 50 years. If you look closely you can clearly see her swimsuit is different in the second photo, it has stripes on it. And the guy’s shorts seem to have a more floral pattern in the latter photo.Also, if someone sat on a rock for 50 years, it would have made the news. My theory is, they simply returned to the same location 50 years later, and recreated the original photo.

(Source: heyfunniest)

the-abandoned-13:

*ping*

I’m not much of a gun person, but if there was one rifle I wouldn’t mind owning, it would have to be an M1 Garand. Such an iconic firearm.

the-abandoned-13:

*ping*

I’m not much of a gun person, but if there was one rifle I wouldn’t mind owning, it would have to be an M1 Garand. Such an iconic firearm.

(Source: hoplite-operator)

(Source: alyssalipgloss)

Biologists Confirm God Evolved From Chimpanzee Deity

thefrogman:

I just had this installed. 
Don’t click this unless you really want to see a giant gross hole. If you write in saying you were grossed out and died and that I didn’t warn you… I will slap your ghost in the face. 

I am glad you are okay, Frogman.
I shouldn’t have clicked, though.

thefrogman:

I just had this installed. 

Don’t click this unless you really want to see a giant gross hole. If you write in saying you were grossed out and died and that I didn’t warn you… I will slap your ghost in the face

I am glad you are okay, Frogman.

I shouldn’t have clicked, though.

outrageauxbonnesmoeurs:

Also: Despite want pro-lifers want you to think, a six week fetus is smaller than a raisin and bears no human resemblance whatsoever. (To the left: what they want you to think a zygote looks like at six weeks. To the right: what it actually looks like. Don’t ever let anyone guilt you into ANYTHING, you hear me? Ever.)

Chain email part 1 - Lame-ass christian revenge-fantasy, refuted

theraginghottruth:

eloyekim:

Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?
Student : Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent.)
Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is Satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does Satan come from ?
Student : From … GOD …
Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn’t.
(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)

Just going to interrupt you here and ask, seriously? You thought a dumb chain email was worth posting in this tag? I was was going to write up a lengthy response, but it turns out someone else already did, three years ago. I’ve decided to post an excerpt here of the most relevant part of that reply.

Refuting the atheist professor vs. Christian student, written by Craig A. James:

…This is so ridiculous it’s embarrassing. No professor of philosophy would be tricked by a stupid word game like this.

Words like “heat” and “cold” are not scientific or precise. We use them for brevity because we don’t want to talk about molecular motion and energy in ordinary human conversations, and because they describe sensations that our nerves transmit to our brains.

To a scientist, “heat” is an imprecise word that describes the human perception of the amount of molecular energy that our bodies are absorbing at a given moment. “Cold” merely means that the amount of molecular energy is low enoungh to cause discomfort.

So it’s stupid to say there is no such thing as cold. Everyone knows that “cold” is defined as the lack of heat, and is a subjective term.

Whoever wrote this essay wanted this to be the “shot across the bow” of the professor’s ship. It was supposed to be the startling moment that wakes us up, where we say, “Hey, what’s going on here? Maybe this professor doesn’t know everything after all!”

But in fact, it looks like the author of this essay simply never took a class in philosophy or linguistics.

When an eight-year-old does a simple magic trick in front of a bunch of professional magicians, they admire his pluck and encourage him. But if a grown man tries the same trick and thinks he’s actually fooling everyone, it’s embarrassing.

Student : What about Darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as Darkness?

Professor: Yes. What is Night if there isn’t Darkness?

Student : You’re wrong again, sir.

Darkness is the Absence of Something. You can have Low Light, Normal Light, Bright Light, Flashing Light … But if you have No Light constantly, you have nothing and its called Darkness, isn’t it? In reality, Darkness isn’t. If it is, were you would be able to make Darkness Darker, wouldn’t you?

Again, this is the same silly word trick. The author is claiming there is no such thing as darkness. Darkness is merely a subjective, relative term that says, “Insufficient photons are stimulating the retina for this human’s present needs.”

Replace “darkness” with “emptiness” and see how it sounds. Suppose your coffee cup is empty. Would you say there’s no such thing as emptiness because you can’t make your coffee cup any emptier than it already is?

The author of this essay has portrayed a “professor,” but hasn’t given him a high-school education. Any real professor of philosophy would make mincemeat of this argument. But real professors (especially in philosophy) are faced with smart-alec kids like this in every freshman Philosophy 101 class. Most of them learn to gently correct these young hotheads so that they can get on to important lessons.

Professor: So what is the point you are making, Young Man ?

Student : Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is flawed.

Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?

A real professor would have cut this student off by now and suggested some reading and a writing assignment to force the student to defend his position. And while writing the essay, the student would probably discover his errors.

Student : Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality. You argue there is Life and then there is Death, a Good GOD and a Bad GOD. You are viewing the Concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a Thought. It uses Electricity and Magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view Death as the Opposite of Life is to be ignorant of the fact that Death cannot exist as a Substantive Thing. Death is Not the Opposite of Life: just the Absence of it.

This is so dense with errors it’s hard refute in just a paragraph or two.

The Premise of Duality is a religious concept, not a scientific one. The author of this essay is trying to put religious logic into an atheist’s argument. The professor would never do that.

Science has a deep and detailed understanding of the electrochemical mechanisms of the brain.

Saying that science doesn’t understand “Electricity and Magnetism” shows glaring ignorance. The correct name is “electromagnetism,” and there is no duality at all. It’s a single thing that exhibits different physical effects in different situations. And electromagnetism is probably the best understood science of all.

Now we get to the heart of this paragraph: “Death as the opposite of Life” thing is just another manifestation of the silly “duality” arguments presented above regarding heat/cold and light/dark. No philosophy professor would fall for this trick.

Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your Students that they evolved from a Monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the Natural Evolutionary Process, yes, of course, I do.

This is a nonsequitur designed to trick the reader. By this time, the reader is supposed be thinking the student is really clever and has the professor “on the ropes.” By introducing the controversial “e” word (“evolution”), the Christian readers get positively gleeful. The student is going to make mincemeat of evolution too!

Student : Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir? (The Professor shook his head with a Smile, beginning to realize where the Argument was going )

Another subtle trick: the student says, “with your own eyes.” Scientists use all sorts of instruments to extend our senses. You can’t see sunspots “with your own eyes” because your eyes can’t look at the sun. But does anyone not believe in sunspots? Or bacteria, viruses, supernova, radio waves, protons and electrons? It’s ridiculous.

More importantly, scientists have observed evolution at every level. We’ve seen it at the microscopic level – it’s the key to all modern medicine. And we’ve seen it at the macroscopic level, with plants and animals that continue to evolve as we watch. That’s just a plain, irrefutable fact.

What the professor would really do is say, “Scientists see evolution in action every day. It’s been proved over and over. Go take your biology, physics, chemistry and botany classes, and then come back to argue with me.” Only the student wouldn’t, because after taking those classes he’d realize he didn’t have an argument.

Evolution is the best-proved theory in the history of the world. No other science can touch it.

Student : Since no one has ever observed the Process of Evolution at work and cannot even prove that this Process is an On-Going Endeavor, are you not teaching your Opinion, sir? Are you not a Scientist but a Preacher?

(The Class was in Uproar )

In a real classroom, by this time the student would have been respectfully corrected and would have shut up in embarrassment.

Student : Is there anyone in the Class who has ever seen the Professor’s Brain?

(The Class broke out into Laughter )

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s Brain, Felt it, touched or Smelt it? … No one appears to have done so. So, according to the Established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that You have No Brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then Trust your Lectures, sir?

(The Room was Silent. The Professor stared at the Student, his face unfathomable)

Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on Faith, son.

Student : That is it sir … Exactly! The Link between Man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that Keeps Things Alive and Moving.

OMG. This is embarrassing.

Does the author of this essay really want to claim that we have to take the existence of our brains on faith alone? Do I have to state the obvious, that neurosurgeons operate on humans every day, and they’ve never found a walking, talking human who didn’t have one? Or that coroners will tell you that a bullet through your brain will make you dead?…