Aargh!

[Yaya]

I find it even harder to believe that this God would make the same mistakes as the Greeks in terms of embryology.

Not sure where you are saying the mistakes are embryologically.

"Then We placed him [i.e man/woman] as a drop in a safe lodging. Then We made the drop into a leech like structure. Then out of the leech like structure, a chewed lump . Then out of the chewed lump bones, and We clothed the bones in flesh. Then we developed out of it another creature. therefore, blessed be Allah [God], the best of those that create" (Koran 23: 13-14)

This follows exactly the pattern of human embryology. The 'chewed lump' is the developing fetus, inside of which bones form and the soft tissues undergo further differentiation into the flesh that covers it.
Obviously, the Koran is not going to go into massive detail regarding the intricacies of each step. Again, the purpose is reflection, not a didactic course on human development.

[Best First]

MV - no need for that fatality crap.

Oh all right then.

I think you're being oversensitive though.

whatever.

[Guest]

Just for clarity.

There are no scientific contradictions to what we know today in the Koran, and that was 1400 year ago.

Unless you can deomstrate this for all scenarios exampled in the Koran, this has yet to be proven.

In fact, it's quite amazing. The Koran details the growth of the embryo through its gestational phases, impossible to know without the use of a microscope which, of course, did not exist then. My textbook from college on Embryology began with those particular descriptive passages quoted from the Koran.

The theory/idea of an individual developing from a ball-shaped objectis not something that was born from microscopic studies, but has been bounced through different philosphies for some time. Not the exclusive domain of the Koran.

There are other instances where things in nature are described, in simple words, that completely jive with what we know today. For example, the sky is described in the Koran as "a canopy". Now, most who were not learned in science would think the sky as being open, not the opposite, as a protective covering. We now know about the ozone layer and the Van Allen radiation belts protecting us from things that would kill us. The sky is like a protective canopy.

It's as protective as a paper towel umbrella in a downpour.

We only think of it as being so protective due to the relatively quiet period that we live in. Move a few billion years either side of now and you'll soon see how protective the atmosphere isn't. Whether it be due to the busy solar system flinging primoridal sub-planets about, or the ageing Sun throwing off its outer layers in response to neighbouring supernovae.

And the Koran says things in nature were created in pairs, some seen and some unseen. "Glory be to God, who created in pairs all things, of what the earth produces, of themselves, and of which they have no knowledge. (36:36) " Of what they have no knowledge....positive and negative poles, proton and neutrons, and likely numerous other things.

Just need to straighten this schoolboy error out.

The proton is a positively charged nucleon (expected to be composed of two up (+2/3e each) quarks and one down (-1/3e) ).

The neutron, on the other hand, is not a negatively charged nucleon, but a neutrally charged one (two down (-1/3e each) quarks and one up (+2/3e)).

About evolution? "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earths were joined together (as a single mass), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:30) " Before Darwin said anything about crawling out of the sea, the Koran states that water was the source.

Darwin didn't mention the sea as a possible origin point for all life. In The Origin of Species, all he does is demonstrate that all life could have come into being through a process of evolution and natural selection, using a "survival of the fittest" strategy.

There is nothing about whether the initial life was aquatic or not, any mention of the sea would only have been through later scientific research showing that throughout history, life has many times returned to the sea, having been terrestrial, arboreal and capable of flight. This can be inferred as implying that life may have begun in the sea, but does not mean that the implication is intentional.

"Water being the source" can also be inferred as being meant in different ways.

1. A possible origin point for life.

2. The chemical present in all living cells, without which the cells would not be capable of life.

The current knowledge of the expanding universe? "And the firmament: We constructed it with power and skill, and We are spreading it. (51:47) "

Who is "We"?

The French scientist Jacques Cousteeu has discovered that the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean differ in terms of their chemical and biological constitution. Captain Cousteau conducted various undersea investigations at the Straits of Gibraltar in order to explain this phenomenon, concluding that "unexpected fresh water springs issue from the Southern and Northern coasts of the Gibraltar. These water sprouts gush forth towards each other at angle of 45°, forming a reciprocal dam like the teeth of a comb. Due to this fact, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean cannot intermingle." Subsequent to this assessment, Cousteau was amazed upon being shown the Koranic verse "He has let forth the two seas, that meet together. Between them a barrier, they do not overpass" (55:19-20).

This can be shown to be the case in many places where two large bodies of water meet.

This is a weak argument anyway, as it implies that the reason the two underwater springs act as they do is due to supernature, when a combination of any number of other natural conditions, e.g. tectonic activity, latitudinal currents, etc. could result in such long-lived fluidic behaviour.

[Metal Vendetta]

"Then We placed him [i.e man/woman] as a drop in a safe lodging. Then We made the drop into a leech like structure. Then out of the leech like structure, a chewed lump . Then out of the chewed lump bones, and We clothed the bones in flesh. Then we developed out of it another creature. therefore, blessed be Allah [God], the best of those that create" (Koran 23: 13-14)

This follows exactly the pattern of human embryology. The 'chewed lump' is the developing fetus, inside of which bones form and the soft tissues undergo further differentiation into the flesh that covers it.
Obviously, the Koran is not going to go into massive detail regarding the intricacies of each step. Again, the purpose is reflection, not a didactic course on human development.

This does not fit the pattern of human embryology. Bones form after muscle, not before. I notice you haven't addressed any of my earlier points about the "clot" either.

Is menstrual blood part of human embryology too?

And to be honest, any book that is not capable of going into the intricacies of life is not one I'd like to rule my life by.

I'd hope that my God could write something better.

[Yaya]

The theory/idea of an individual developing from a ball-shaped object is not something that was born from microscopic studies, but has been bounced through different philosphies for some time. Not the exclusive domain of the Koran.

Yes, but the verse differentiates human development in the womb in its various stages, something that was not known at the time.

This does not fit the pattern of human embryology. Bones form after muscle, not before.

The Koran does not specifically mention muscle development in relation to skeletal development, only that out of a "chewed lump"(of note, if you look at the developing human embryo under the microscope, it does look like a bite has been taken of it in describing the indentations of the brachial arches) bones developed. Note that the translation does not read "Then out of the chewed lump bone, THEN We clothed the bones in flesh", it reads "Then out of the chewed lump formed bones, AND We clothed the bones in flesh". "And", not "then". And even if is was translated as "then", the bones are not the last structure to form, as flesh is continually made over the bones before delivery.

We're talking nitpicky semantics about something that does not go into the detail of an embryology text. Simply is not the purpose.

Regarding the "clot", not sure what point you are referring to. I think you may be thinking in terms of blood clot, referring to menstrual blood. I don't think that is what it means. It is described specifically as a "leech-like clot". What do leeches do? They latch onto a food source. In this case, the female uterine lining, which provides the developing embryo its sustenence.

But am I to take the word of Metal Vendetta or Rebis in regards to embryology, or the following esteemed embryologists and scientists:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ ... tists.html

If after years of detailed study these embryologists can find these verses miraculous, most of them of European origin, how is it that you can label them as laughably inaccurate?

Just need to straighten this schoolboy error out.

The proton is a positively charged nucleon (expected to be composed of two up (+2/3e each) quarks and one down (-1/3e) ).

The neutron, on the other hand, is not a negatively charged nucleon, but a neutrally charged one (two down (-1/3e each) quarks and one up (+2/3e)).

Oops, I meant electron. And yeah, I understand that further research has discovered even smaller particles, and the field continues to unveal quite amazing stuff in the field of subatomic discovery. I just threw proton and electron out there as perhaps one of the things "unknown" to mankind of the pairs in nature. At that time of the Qurans revelation, even atoms themselves were not known.

Who is "We"?

"We" refers to God. It is not meant to signify plurality. The direct Arabic translation of the Arabic word is "We", but in the Arabic language this word is used to describe someone of singular grandeur. Much like in old English a king would refer to himself as "We", meaning "Me".

This is a weak argument anyway, as it implies that the reason the two underwater springs act as they do is due to supernature, when a combination of any number of other natural conditions, e.g. tectonic activity, latitudinal currents, etc. could result in such long-lived fluidic behaviour.

No, I'm not implying its meant to reveal something supernatural. Everything in nature, no matter how magnificent, has some scientific basis, so we believe. Jacques Cousteau was impressed only because of this being described so well so many years ago.

My point was only that there are things the Koran refers to that were not known then, as they are today.

[Guest]

The theory/idea of an individual developing from a ball-shaped object is not something that was born from microscopic studies, but has been bounced through different philosphies for some time. Not the exclusive domain of the Koran.

Yes, but the verse differentiates human development in the womb in its various stages, something that was not known at the time.

But could have been guessed at through simple studies of, say, frogspawn, bird's eggs, premature births, etc.

But am I to take the word of Metal Vendetta or Rebis in regards to embryology, or the following esteemed embryologists and scientists:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ ... tists.html

If after years of detailed study these embryologists can find these verses miraculous, most of them of European origin, how is it that you can label them as laughably inaccurate?

Probably in the same manner as we can label flat earth theories as laughably innacurate.

Who is "We"?

"We" refers to God. It is not meant to signify plurality. The direct Arabic translation of the Arabic word is "We", but in the Arabic language this word is used to describe someone of singular grandeur. Much like in old English a king would refer to himself as "We", meaning "Me".

Not 'Me', 'I'.

First form nominative case, not first form accusative case.

This is a weak argument anyway, as it implies that the reason the two underwater springs act as they do is due to supernature, when a combination of any number of other natural conditions, e.g. tectonic activity, latitudinal currents, etc. could result in such long-lived fluidic behaviour.

No, I'm not implying its meant to reveal something supernatural. Everything in nature, no matter how magnificent, has some scientific basis, so we believe. Jacques Cousteau was impressed only because of this being described so well so many years ago.

My point was only that there are things the Koran refers to that were not known then, as they are today.

You mean like Arthur C Clarke dreaming up the geostationary orbit years before the first man-made satellites were even designed.

[Yaya]

But could have been guessed at through simple studies of, say, frogspawn, bird's eggs, premature births, etc.

Simple studies? For a man whose life was spent teaching Islam, a man who came from the desert, I doubt he had the time to undergo scientific study.

Probably in the same manner as we can label flat earth theories as laughably innacurate. http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ ... tists.html

Um, these are modern scientists we're talking about here, as in mine and your lifetime.

Not 'Me', 'I'.

First form nominative case, not first form accusative case.

Impressive. Learned in both the natural and literary sciences.

[Metal Vendetta]

The theory/idea of an individual developing from a ball-shaped object is not something that was born from microscopic studies, but has been bounced through different philosphies for some time. Not the exclusive domain of the Koran.

Yes, but the verse differentiates human development in the womb in its various stages, something that was not known at the time.

Um, see again, Galen, Hippocrates, Aristotle...didn't we do this bit already?

Galen proposed 5 stages of development, which by coincidence are exactly the same stages in the Koran.

But am I to take the word of Metal Vendetta or Rebis in regards to embryology, or the following esteemed embryologists and scientists:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ ... tists.html

If after years of detailed study these embryologists can find these verses miraculous, most of them of European origin, how is it that you can label them as laughably inaccurate?

"In the last three years, I became interested in the Qur'an... From my studies and what I have learned throughout this conference, I believe that everything that has been recorded in the Qur'an fourteen hundred years ago must be the truth, that can be proved by the scientific means.

Since the Prophet Muhammad could neither read nor write, Muhammad must be a messenger who relayed this truth which was revealed to him as an enlightenment by the one who is eligible creator. This creator must be God, or Allah.

I think this is the time to say La ilaha illa Allah, there is no god to worship except Allah (God), Muhammad rasoolu Allah, Muhammad is Messenger of Allah...

The most precious thing I have gained from coming to this conference is La ilaha illa Allah, and to have become Muslim."

What a great scientific viewpoint there. I'd take Rebis's opinion over his 100 times out of 100.

[Yaya]

What a great scientific viewpoint there. I'd take Rebis's opinion over his 100 times out of 100.

And the others? 100 out of 100?

Despite their being scientists, i.e. those who spend their life seeking knowledge of the sciences, you choose to hold you hand up only because they accept that there is a God that makes science possible.

To the atheist, intelligence and insight vanish in those who come to believe in God, despite whatever intellectual achievements they have accomplished.

[Guest]

But could have been guessed at through simple studies of, say, frogspawn, bird's eggs, premature births, etc.

Simple studies? For a man whose life was spent teaching Islam, a man who came from the desert, I doubt he had the time to undergo scientific study.

So, you're saying that aside from this man, there was no life in the desert, nothing that he could've at any time ever looked at and with childlike curiosity gone "oh, I wonder what that is/how it does that/why it's like that"?

To the atheist, intelligence and insight vanish in those who come to believe in God, despite whatever intellectual achievements they have accomplished.

That's right. Einstein, Newton, Sun Tsu, Zoroaster, etc. - all their works are diminished due to their being of non-atheist belief.

Oh, wait...

[Metal Vendetta]

What a great scientific viewpoint there. I'd take Rebis's opinion over his 100 times out of 100.

And the others? 100 out of 100?

Despite their being scientists, i.e. those who spend their life seeking knowledge of the sciences, you choose to hold you hand up only because they accept that there is a God that makes science possible.

To the atheist, intelligence and insight vanish in those who come to believe in God, despite whatever intellectual achievements they have accomplished.

Okay, let's do this. The most important one is Keith L. Moore, former anatomist at the University of Toronto. In the sixth edition of his university textbook The Developing Human, he directs readers to an essay by Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge, entitled The human embryo in Arabic scientific and religious thought. In his essay, Musallam concludes:

The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account....There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages.

Seems Keith's had a bit of a change of heart since he made that speech in Cairo.

This is a very shaky website by the way, these pictures of the participants do not have me brimming with confidence:


You'd imagine that if they wanted to get the message out there they might have supplied this Islamic propaganda site with better pictures...Googling their names only brings up more Islamic websites with exactly the same quotes on and many of them seem to be responding to heavily loaded questions while attending medical and scientific conferences in Saudi Arabia, which I would guess is not the best place in the world to denounce Islam. Far easier to agree with your host, Sheikh cAbdul-Majeed A. Zindani, otherwise he might stop paying for your accomodation, food, and have you thrown out of the country. The Sheikh, incidentally, is noteworthy for throwing a newspaper editor in prison over the Mohammed cartoons and he's the leader of a major Islamist political party, so he's obviously not going to be biased in any way.

If these scientists *had* found proof or incontrovertible evidence that the Koran was directly inspired by God do you not think they might have written some more about it? Just saying "I think the information came from a supernatural source" isn't enough to satisfy any argument because it explains nothing and ignores any evidence to the contrary. In short, a few quotes on an Islamic propaganda site does not constitute proof.