Did you get that the ratio of the age of Earth to the age of the universe isn't constant? If you could somehow make the 2 days to 6 days thing work, the ratio isn't always 1/3. I've seen you in the math forums- you probably know more about this than I do. The ratio as a function of the age of Earth is f:
R to
R, f(x) = x/(x + c), with c constant > 0 (about 9 billion years). Right? Or maybe you want to restrict f to an interval, but f is still not a constant function.
whozum said:
Ok, this is what I'm asking and getting:
Child claims that parents act like monkeys
Biology claims people were once monkeys long ago
False conclusion: Child is referring to evolution
Quran states there are some differences in timespans.
ToR claims that time is relative to mass/speed.
false conclusion: Quran's author was referring to ToR
Sure, but to be clear, the conclusion isn't necessarily false. The problem is with the
argument, not with the conclusion. An argument can only prove that its conclusion is true. If the argument fails, the argument just fails to prove the conclusion is true. A failed argument doesn't prove that its conclusion is false; A failed argument doesn't prove anything.
BTW, you can't directly prove that a statement is false. You can only indirectly prove that a statement is false by 1) proving that its negation is true, or 2) using it to prove a contradiction.
Anywho, I see two arguments that need to be made here:
1) The Koran means x. That is, you need to argue that your interpretation is correct. How difficult this is depends on how ambiguous the actual text is and whether you know if the author actually meant what they said.
For instance, consider a math textbook, a secret message, a foreign speaker, and a poem. Most math textbooks are very precise, and the authors usually mean exactly what they say; They aren't trying to be cryptic. So interpreting a math textbook is pretty easy. A secret message (i.e. written in code) would usually be precise but not mean what it says. So even if the words have one clear meaning, it doesn't tell you what the message actually means. A foreign speaker may not communicate clearly but isn't trying to be cryptic. So you can use their sincerity to figure out if they're trying to say that they were bitten by a dog or they bit a dog. The wording and intended meaning of a poem are usually both ambiguous, so it's hard to argue for any single interpretation.
I don't know where the Koran falls in this. Do you have an idea?
2) The author of the Koran believed (or whatever you want to prove about the author) x. I think you would need to consider the author's motives, the context, human behavior in general, and probably some other things I can't think of now.
Note the difference between what the author meant and what the author believed. Consider Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." The wording is clear, his intended meaning is (almost certainly) clear, but he (almost certainly) knew he was lying. Heh, I guess Clinton also shows you how to exploit the problems with interpretation: "It depends on what you mean by 'alone'."
BTW, if you already know this, just let me know.
. 
) and I also hope to contribute where I can as well.
