Wow, I cannot in my right mind put forth the effort to explain how much is wrong with this thread. the very fact that almost 40% of people said God did it has me scared for the future generations and furthers my worries for the education level of people in the world.

Seriously people, faith is not science, get over yourself and the whole wide world will be better for it.

I am appalled by your collective ignorance.

Care to elaborate?

1) Correction: There are a lot of loose ends in Science today that just can't be explained yet!

2) The term big bang is misleading because it implies that something exploded whereas the theory is that if the universe is expanding and has been expanding in the past then it must have started as much smaller than it is today. So the Big Bang theory is not here because scientists couldn't explain things (like saying that the lightning came from Zeus because we don't know its origin) but was the logical conclusion of the observations made by Hubble that the Universe is expanding. Further experiments like measuring the background radiation of the Universe confirmed it.

The term Big Bang was actually a pejorative term used by the theory's detractors to ridicule it, it just happened to capture the public's imagination.

3) And there never will be because the theory of Evolution does not claim that humans evolved from monkeys. It would be like claiming that you evolved from you cousin (as opposed to both of you evolving from your grandparent, though of course two generations is not long enough for natural selection forces to have any meaningful impact but you get the idea I hope).

Humans did not evolve from monkeys and monkeys did not evolve from humans but rather they both evolved from a common ancestor.

Also, there is no loose end connecting humans to primates because humans are primates. look at the scientific classification of genus homo.

4) It is more correct to say that various religions claim to have the answer to a lot of questions that science cannot answer today (including questions that are outside of science's domain). Whether these various religions do have those answers (or rather whether their answers are accurate) is another matter.

5) Looks like the opposite to me. Science has done a far better job to explain the physical world than religion ever has but religion does not want to admit defeat and so they keep changing their beliefs and reinterpreting their holy texts when they realise that a particular battle is lost.

6) Actually, scientists (or their closest contemporary equivalents) have known that the earth was round since about 1000 years before the writing of the koran. Those that did believe in a flat earth did so on a religious basis. However, while they knew that the earth was round, they did believe that it was at the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around it and did so until about 900-1000 years after the Koran.

7) Even if they do not admit it, any religion that posits an earth created by a sentient entity (like a god) is by definition asserting the existence of extraterrestrial life as the entity creating the earth is a form of life and, as it creates the earth it cannot come from it and is thus an extraterrestrial form of life.

Also, even assuming arguando that what is stated in your link is totally true it still doesn't mean that the koran is a scientific book. For it to be scientific it would need to be both explanatory and allow to make predictions. It is not explanatory in that it only states how things supposedly are but without trying to explain how things work but simply saying that they do it because allah causes them to do it (which is the same as claiming"a wizard did it" is a scientific explanation). And it does not allow to make predictions because there is not enough explanations to do so. So at best in such a case it would be an esoteric revelation of scientific facts but it certainly wouldn't be a scientific book.

But the biggest problem with all those claims that the koran (or the bible for christians making similar arguments) described so and so scientific discovery hundreds of years before science and is thus a scientific book and is thus proof that it is the true religion is that most of those so called predictions are not made by followers of the koran/bible before the scientific discovery but rather, after the discovery is made and is widely accepted in scientific circles, you have people combing through their favourite holy texts and looking if there is any poetic description that can be reinterpreted to conform to our scientific understanding of the world whilst ignoring any passage that would contradict it.

For example, your link interprets the koran saying "Each one [the sun and the moon] is travelling in an orbit with its own motion" as meaning the moon's orbit around the earth and the sun's orbit around the galaxy and then claiming that the koran predicted the scientific discovery of the sun orbiting the galactic centre. But what is more likely, that the koran meant that the moon is orbiting the earth and the sun is orbiting the galaxy, while forgetting to mention the orbit of the earth around the sun; or is it more likely that the koran meant that both the sun and the moon have an orbit around the earth.

And even if the koran was written to mean the former, what use is it as a scientific text if it did not help muslim scientists to discover the orbiting of the sun around the galaxy and we had to wait until science built up enough discoveries one upon the other to finally arrive at that conclusion?

There is also the problem that if the understanding of those "scientific" passages was improper prior to the corresponding scientific discovery, does it not imply the possibility that passages dealing with morality might also be improperly interpreted?

It also ignores passages that contradict it, like this one:

"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water"

The only way this can work is if the sun orbits around the earth and that there is a physical point on the earth where the sun sets (the spring of murky water) which implies both a geocentric model and a flat earth, as anybody who understood the concept of a spherical(ish) earth would also understand that the setting of the sun is jsut an optical illusion caused by the curvature of the earth and thus there is no point on earth that you can reach where the sun set as if you go to the point where it appears to set and wait until it sets again it will not set where you are but will now appear to set further away.

If the koran was a (partly) scientific book I would expect to have overwhelmingly more muslim scientists than non-muslim scientists (and same with bible and christian scientists) as they would be able to use the koran as a cheat sheet to formulate their theories.

I really wish that religious people of all religion would change their stance to "this is not a scientific/historical text but a poetic text about a moral system given by god to us and thus any description of the world found therein is nothing but a poetical allegory not to be taken liberally".

Of course the reason they do not do that is because they realise that if you can't trust its accuracy with respect to things you can check then how can you trust its accuracy with respect to things that you cannot check at all (the supernatural and moral guide parts of holy texts).

1) With no matter there is no gravity so it cannot attract itself there is no pool of gravity for its nonexistent self to attract.

2) You occupy a place in space, if your assertion was true you wouldn't age or do anything as time would not be meeting the space that you occupy and thus you (and all matter in the universe) would be outside of time. You also have gravity occupying the same space-time occupied by your body as your body, being composed of matter, has a gravitational field, and said field does not start outside your body but also inside it (if that wasn't the case you could easily jump out of a 100m deep well as there would be no gravity under the surface of the earth).

So at this precise moment (and every moment before or since) you have space, time and gravity together everywhere where there is matter, yet we do not have continuous big bangs all across the universe.

Also, a singularity is not a big bang, and it would be closer to the opposite as a big crunch could be described as a singularity encompassing a whole universe.

No not really.  why?  becuase it doesn't matter what kind of person you are (whether you agree with me or not), I won't be changing anyone's mind or making some deep meaningful statement worth quoting.  

Science is good for you, that is all :P

Religion (most of them) do define god as a higher power that nobody can explain, i.e. an ineffable being.

As for your last sentence it is flat out wrong as you are claiming that most scientists buy the cosmological argument (that there must be a first cause and that first cause is what we call god) whereas most scientist believe the first cause to be the big bang (unless you want to call the big bang god but it doesn't make sense as it doesn't have a motive) as saying that the universe was created by god simply pushes the question to what created god.

Of course, proponents of the cosmological argument claim that god is somehow different in that it did not need to have a first cause, but without ever substantiating why. Current scientific understanding of the big bang also includes that not only was it the event where matter was created but also so were space and time. If that particular big bang theory is correct then the question "what was before the big bang" makes no sense for there was no time before the big bang and thus no before. Like one scientist said, it would be like asking what is north of the north pole.

If that theory is true then you would have a "prime mover", an "initial cause", but given that the big bang is not sentient then it cannot even remotely be called god.

now i am scared for future generation cause of your ignorance and blind belief

Wrong, prophecies are a subset of predictions so all prophecies are predictions but not all predictions are prophecies.

For example, I predict that Modern Warfare 3 will sell more than 1 million copies. It is an extremely safe prediction but I cannot claim any divine origin for it and thus it is not a prophecy.

And the scientific method does not rely on prophecy as if a person called themselves a scientist and claimed to predict the outcome of an experiment by following a theory not based on earlier observations but thanks to divine inspiration he would soon find himself shunned by other scientist as while believing in god is no problem, letting said belief taint one's scientific work is (if he think he got his idea for his theory thanks to divine inspiration but can back it up with prior experimental results then it is fine as the source if inspiration is irrelevant as long as the theory itself is founded on solid scientific principles).

@Runa216: If you believe in God, you're an idiot.  There, I said it. 

I disagree with you. While there are plenty of idiots believing in god there are also plenty of intelligent people believing in various gods too. Conversely while there are plenty of intelligent people believing in god there also are idiots  that do not believe in it.

yes religion does define GOD as that higher power but most people following it don't.even the people at top right now may or may not.the people who created it did but as i said the next generation doesn't carry on the same mindset,they imagine and live in a different world

as for the scientist argument,i did actually mean that scientist believe in big bang and not higher power.and they believe that big bang is explainable and hence thing of it as the correct but many actually stop at that and thing that is where it all started which i disagree with

yeah cosmological argument seems to prove it when it talks about time and space but if that is the truth then science fails.It would have to be another dimension which we cannot comprehend.

religion was created to control the masses. and Jesus was the greatest magician that ever lived.