Quran and its scientific predictions

I have been having a friendly debate with a muslim friend who claims the Quran predicted some scientific discoveries and provided the link bellow

How do you debate this ?

1 Like

I don’t know that you can. I read some of what is on that site and it appears to me that the author is taking liberties with his/her interpretations. It’s possible to take one of those quotes and wring an entirely different meaning out of it. Try doing it yourself with him.

It also mentions “the Big Crunch.” The vast majority of evidence indicates that this is a bupkus hypothesis.


In what sense, what exactly is your friend claiming these alleged predictions mean? This is quite a common claim from Islamic apologists of course, and if you read the claims they are risible, tenuous and subjective “interpretations” of the texts. Though you could ask your friend why the creation myth in the Koran is entirely at odds with known scientific facts about the origins of the universe, and all living things, and there is nothing vague about that, nor does it require any subjective claims.

I have to admit that this (1) was pretty funny though: “in the deserts of Arabia, the last thing a man could guess is that all of life ultimately came from water.” I guess they hadn’t seen anyone sweat in the desert then?

Beyond that the texts are vague, and the interpretation they predict scientific facts so subjective as to be risible, (4) actually contradicts known scientific facts about the origins of life. You could also point out that since the creation myth in the Qur’an states that “Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days” (7:54) this directly contradicts scientific facts that (3) is claiming it predicts. (9) again contradicts science, since mountains were not created, they form at the meeting point between two tectonic plates, and no they don’t “stop the earth from quaking” as the Koran claims. (10) They are risibly equating the word heaven with universe, tenuous doesn’t seem strong enough for that. (11) Just flat out nonsense, they are claiming because the Koran gleefully depicts torturing non Muslims in Hell (this contradicts the notion of merciful deity of course) by burning away their flesh and then replacing it to “rinse and repeat” endlessly, this predicts pain receptors in the skin, so this is as hilarious as it is appalling. Both (12) and (13) are again risibly subjective and extremely tenuous interpretations.

You might ask your friend why the revelation of an infallible deity makes vague predictions that are open to subjective interpretation, instead of accurately and fully revealing scientific facts?

You could also ask him why he thinks any of those laughable claims represent evidence for a deity? Even if they did make accurate predictions in a way we couldn’t explain, this would not be evidence for a deity, to claim otherwise is simply an appeal to mystery, an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … Someone didn’t really just go there, Did they? I would not leave a link either after such an inane assertion.

Scientific Fact #1: “We made every living thing from water. Nothing is made ‘from water.’ Note the phrase “WE.” Who is this ‘we’ they speak of, Is there any demonstration this ‘We’ exists? Finally:
Does the Quran say that every living thing is made from water?

The people who love to point out the contradiction in the Quran often quotes 21:30 to say that Quran said human is created from mud in one place and water in another place. But verse 21:30 doesn’t say that human is created from water. It says everything was made alive using water. There is a huge difference between these 2 statements. I will give one example:

In the lab often bacteria and other molecules (nucleic Acid, protein etc) are converted into dried powder by taking away water from it by a process called lyophilization. This is done to store them for a long time or to transport them from one country to another without any refrigeration facility. When they are again rehydrated using appropriate liquid media, they are revived. If someone says that they were made alive by water, does that means they are primarily made of water?

Same way, In the Quran the water is expressed as a tool to make things alive, not as the primary building block. The Quran 21:30 use the word “hayya” it means “living”. In contrast to dead. “Hayya” is related to the word “Hayat” which means worldly life span. Hayat finishes when we are taken by death. We still have the body but there is no life. Quran’s commentators Zamashkari and Razi both said: this verse means “It is by water that We make things live” And, that gets a big “DUH!” Everyone knows water is essential to life, especially waterless sand dwellers. (DEBUNKED) [
Maha Rizma

#2. Big Bang. (Never mind that the theory is currently being challenged. Never mind that there are 12 Big Bang Theories. We will set all that aside as we would not know which one the Quaran was referencing.

You need to make the assertions one at a time. No one wants to read through the article. Why not pick the best one and see if it makes any sense? To get to the current scientific myth in the Quran, you must obviously misquote the Quran and ascribe meanings to the verse after the fact. That is in no way scientific or miraculous.


I scrolled more or less randomly and looked at a single one (#5):

If there was no protective layer [sky], life on earth would cease to exist as the temperature on earth would be freezing at -270.556°C, the same as the temperature in space.

That is the stupidest thing I’ve read today; and it has been a long day. Anyone who thinks an astronomical body exposed to solar radiation will have the same temperature as empty space doesn’t know the first thing about thermodynamics, the solar system, or temperature in general. They shouldn’t be allowed to use a stove unsupervised.


Oh geez, I glanced at the next one (#6):

According to M. E. Walrath, iron is not natural to the earth.

I had to look up who that was. This is someone who published in the 1860’s. This was before the discovery of stellar nucleosynthesis. This is before the discovery of the nuclear weak force. This is before the discovery of the nuclear strong force. We’ve known this is wrong for at least 60 years. I wonder when they will get around to removing this from their bullshit list. My guess: never. It seems the author is either totally dishonest, or an idiot. My guess: they are both.

0/2. This is garbage; there is nothing to debate.

ETA: apparently M. E. Walrath was a psychic medium who claimed to receive messages from god. Enjoy!

ETA2: here is a snippet from the intro:

When God commanded all the spiritual spheres to connect into one magnetical channel we were able to read the book of life that existed within the seven spheres. As soon as we gained the knowledge that was required for the progression of future generations we formed a battery containing twelve spirits of the same temperament and then were unable to write or give a communication until we could find a medium that was susceptible in temperament with the magnetical battery…And by magnetizing the natural organization we shall have power to use the spiritual organs in unison with the arm to communicate by writing the knowledge we have gained within the seven spheres…

Apparently 20th and 21st century crackpots on this subject weren’t good enough, they went with a crackpot from the 19th century.

ETA3: Oh by the way, iron is the MOST common element (by mass) on the Earth. So while this source says iron isn’t natural to the Earth, it is basically what the Earth is made of! Hard to be more wrong than that.


LOL… I was going to do the whole iron thing as well, but this was so lame. And, what a dishonest interocular. Post an article and run away., LOL…

I am not sure if it was aimed at me or not …but the article was sent to me and used as a point of a debate. I was seeking constructive inputs rather then ridicule. Everybody so far had made some amazing contributions to the debate at hand.

Well we’ve seen these claims and similar many times, and of course we have had many people pretend to want debate, even pretend to be atheists just to proselytise with posts then never acknowledge the responses. I am sure no offence was intended, and hope the responses on the whole help you out.

You should remember though that your friend is the one making the claims, so it is for him to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support all his claims, not for anyone else to disprove them. For instance if his claims here had merit, it would be hard to explain why atheism increases significantly among scientists, wouldn’t it? Prima facie I’d be prepared to bet he is simply parroting a woeful line of Islamic apologetics he has been taught, but does not fully understand. As fully understanding it would reveal the claims to be false.

1 Like

Rest assured i am an Atheist with a scientific mind and i understand the burden of proof …the issue lies when the other party doesn’t so a valid sound point is a must. Neverless reading through these comments warms my heart that i am not alone

1 Like

Then stick around, we are a small (but mighty :grin:), entertaining community. We welcome new members! And….we have cookies.

1 Like

Respectfully, you may be on a fool’s errand expecting an acknowledgement of even the most rational and sound “point” from someone who believes such blatant nonsense.
You are not alone and many here have experienced some version of the frustration you are having.
Edit to lead some horses to the trough


You might wonder: why there are so many nonsensical references to magnetism in this quote? Let me explain: they didn’t have quantum-flap-a-doodle back then; so the kooks of the day were making magical claims about magnetism (it was the hot new topic that the average person didn’t have a working knowledge of, so they could get away with making shit up).


Sadly, from my experience on here and in my personal life, it makes absolutely no difference how valid, reasonable, logical, or rational your points may be when dealing with those who are so deeply indoctrinated. You might as well be talking to a fence post in some (most) cases. My personal opinion is that those valid points and rational arguments would be better utilized on those who are starting to question their faith. It is a pathway you can provide to help them along the way to thinking for themselves. And those individuals will very likely eagerly seek any “lifeline” they can find to help pull themselves out of their religious mire.

On the other hand, those who NEVER question their faith will often actively seek opportunities to spread and defend that faith. As such, anything you tell them will fall upon closed deaf ears. And, if anything, the more rational and reasonable your arguments, the more determined they become to refute anything you say. Basically, they cannot afford to have their faith demonstrated to be wrong, so they will dig in their heels even deeper to defend what they believe. Personally, even IF I engage somebody like that, I KNOW that individual will never be convinced to question his/her faith. Just ain’t gonna happen. Therefore, the most I will typically do is allow him/her to spew their “pre-recorded” spiel, while maybe I drop a couple of “delayed reaction bomb” questions. Then bid them a good day with a smile on my face. No skin off my nose if they want to believe in their chosen god, as long as they don’t harm others with it. Just my two cents…


@Gab26 Don’t listen to her, Gab! There are no cookies! It’s a TRAP! “Come to The Dark Side,” they said. “We have cookies,” they said. :roll_eyes: Yeah, well, I fell for that shit over five years ago, and I STILL haven’t got my cookie yet! :sob:

(Edit for treatless remorse.)

What the HELL does any of that even MEAN??? Don’t know who wrote that, but I would love to know what drug(s) they were using at the time. That way I would know to AVOID that/those drug(s) at all cost. :dizzy_face:

I draw the line at cookies lol - thanks for the heads up @Tin-Man

Just an update we have had a really healthy debate and as many of you predicted it is sometimes hard to debate with someone uses FAITH as the basis of their understanding the universe around them …we have stuck at this point…“Sure I agree the universe can be ever expanding… but I need to know there was a beginning before the big bang before the rapid inflation. That’s the part I can’t wrap my head around. I don’t believe something came out of thin air and for no purpose only to expand and evolve” verbatim from my muslim friend

Most theists don’t understand the burden of proof, and many don’t want to, your friend likely isn’t looking for the truth, he thinks he’s already found it, and that it is immutable, and you can’t dent that kind of closed mind with scientific facts, but by all means explain why those claims are not accurate predictions of scientific discoveries. Also explain that an inexplicable prediction, even were it true, is not objective evidence for a deity, it’s just an appeal to mystery. You might also explain that the Koran contains claims that directly contradict scientific facts, and even in those claims, and that atheism is far higher among scientists generally, and even more so among elite scientific bodies.

1 Like

I’d let him know about the fallacy of incredulity. It is often seen doing the tango with the gawd of the gaps fallacy.

1 Like