Quote:
Originally Posted by JazibRoomi
In my opinion Zakir Naik is not at all a scholar./QUOTE]
Download his book The Quran and Modern Science.(Download link is
http://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&so...3Z43-g&cad=rja I ll point mistakes in the first 6 pages of this book, ie, from pg 9 to pg 15. I left one mistake on page number 12 because it requires much detailed explanation |
Quote:
1- On page no 9, Zakir Naik wrote “According to the Big Bang, the whole universe was initially ONE BIG MASS (PRIMARY NEBULA). Then there was a Big Bang (secondry separation) which resulted in THE FORMATION OF GALAXIES. THESE THEN DIVIDED TO FORM STARS, PLANETS, THE SUN, THE MOON, ETC." (mistakes in capital)
But according to big bang, initially all the matter, energy and space of the universe was concentrated at a MATHEMATICAL POINT. Mathematical point has no mass and no volume and infinite density. So according to big bang universe was created from NOTHINGNESS and not from ONE BIG MASS. ( In fact no one has still able to calculate what happened at zero time T = 0)
|
He is right! You can say that earth was one big mass before big bang. For when you say it had infinite density it means either it had infinite mass(a very big mass) or (almost)zero volume.
As Density=mass/volume, Density=infinity if and only if mass=infinity or volume=zero. If mass=0 and volume too=0 then density=undefined(indeterminate).
Quote:
2- As already stated, Naik said that after big bang first Galaxies were created followed by stars, planets, sun and moon.
Now this is wrong because after big bang first atomic particles (electron, proton, neutron ) came into being which join to form hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen atoms then came together to form stars and stars came together due to gravitation to form galaxies.
|
He is just a molvi, he is not supposed to teach us quantum mechanics. If he starts talking in terms of quarks and things like that no one will understand. By the way what's wrong with his statement? Did these atomic particles not ultimately join together to form stars and planets?
Quote:
3- In the same book pg no 10, Naik wrote: “ in early times people believed that the earth is flat. For centuries, men were afraid to venture out too far, lest they should fall off the edge. SIR FRANCIS DRAKE WAS THE FIRST PERSON WHO PROVED THAT THE EARTH IS SPHERICAL WHEN HE SAILED AROUND IN 1597.
It is wrong to say that people in 15th century believed that earth is flat. Aristotle (340 BC) told that “earth is not flat like a plate but spherical like ball” and he also gave logics to support his argument.
|
Of course Aristotle knew but how many of the lay men knew of that? If every one knew that, why did uncle Copernicus take pains to prove in 16th century that earth is round?
Quote:
4- Same book pg no 11, Naik wrote, “IT WAS BELIEVED BY EARLY CIVILIZATION THAT THE MOON EMANATES ITS OWN LIGHT”.
This is also not right … Aristotle knew that moon does not have its on light but reflects sunlight.
|
Only Aristotle knew of that!
Quote:
5- Same book same pg (no 11) Naik wrote, "The Arabic word for the sun in the Quran is Shams. It is referred to as Siraaj, which means a torch, or as Wahhaaj which means a blazing lamp or as diya which means shining glory. All three descriptions are appropriate to the sun, since it generates intense heat and light by its INTERNAL COMBUSTION".
Even a 10th grade student knows that the sun owes its heat and light not to combustion but fusion.
|
10th grade student must also know that Zakir naik is not a nuclear scientist.