Yes, I don't think it's miracle.
It's been great debating with you.

Well seeing as this could go on forever (it DOES look like it, no it DOESN'T!), I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.. :P

I think it's reasonable to say that there is a certain visual similarity to a leech, and that the embryo might be reasonably stated to resemble one to some extent - sufficient to justify 'leech-like' perhaps. Accepting that point, though, it is not obvious that people in ancient times (we have covered Galen in this context before) would have been aware of what an embryo looked because some of them had seen one?!

The embryo resembles (sort of) a leech well into the stage of development where it is easily visible to the unaided human eye. Without being too unpleasant about it, women had miscarriages and early doctors cut up corpses. Surely the appearance (if only by second hand account) of an embryo would have widely known if not 'common knowledge'? What is so 'miraculous'?

From the forward of "The Developing Human: Clinically oriented Embryology," third edition, by Dr. Keith L. Moore.

The Qur'an and the Sunnah of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) provide a very detailed description of the microscopic development of the human embryo from a mere sperm drop up to the stage of a completely formed human being. It is well known that microscopes were not developed until the sixteenth century AD, and even at that were very crude in design.

It doesn't really give adetailed description, it talks of chewed substances and leeches..

A microscope is not needed to see an embryo in the form pictured above that has been described as 'leech-like', at 24 days the embryo is between 2mm and 5mm long - perfectly visible with the naked eye (if not easily found). It actually remains looking 'leech-like' rather longer than that.

The Qur'an simply doesn't provide "a very detailed description of the microscopic development of the human embryo from a mere sperm drop up to the stage of a completely formed human being", or anything like it. It might be said to contain a vague description, but even then only with a liberal dose of 'interpretation'. Dr Moore's expertise is undoubted but, as is well known, his motives for writing that are highly questionable in view of who was paying him at the time. It never appeared in Western editions of the book and Moore has spent the last decade trying to evade questions on the subject.

And who said that the Quran must get pages of a very detailed description of the microscopic development of the human embryo ?!!!!

just enough to see small lines of a unique description ,cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century


You forgot that (alqah) means basically (suspended thing)

Don't tell me Mohamed(pbuh) could have seen with his naked eyes the suspension of an embryo during the alaqah stage in the womb, and kept his naked eyes watching how such suspended thing which looks like a leech how obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others.

Mohamed(pbuh) kept on watching with his naked eyes the 2mm embryo untill it grew to the mudghah stage and so on !!!!!

my friend ,Try to sell your guessing work,arguments from silence ,away from here

It is crystal clear ,the descriptions of the human embryo in the Quran cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century

They probably weren't. Much more likely it was the scientific knowledge of the second century... there is nothing in the Qur'an that was not known to Galen, a Greek, some five centuries earlier. I'm not saying Mohammed had read Galen of course, but (relatively speaking) an awful lot of people had by then.

[quote=Trumble;935716]there is nothing in the Qur'an that was not known to Galen, a Greek, some five centuries earlier. QUOTE]



If so then ,

Where does the work of Galen mention the embryo being a suspended thing which obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother?

where Where does the work of Galen mention the embryo in the next stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance?


what Galen mentioned in details regarding embryology is found here...


http://www.quranicstudies.com/articl...yology.html#4a

This has already been covered. The Qur'an does not say that. It is just 'interpreted' that way by those with a religious need to believe it does. I would also suggest that, even if not easily visible in the first three weeks this set up is clearly visible in later pregnancy!

Again, already covered. The 'chewed substance' description is so vague it's utterly meaningless. Again, it could also be applied to embryos at a stage clearly visible with the naked eye.

Where that has been covered?!!

again my Question


Where is the similarities between the work of Galen and the Quran?



It is just 'interpreted' the way it has to be...


all the meanings of alaqa
1-suspended thing
2-leech which get nourishment from sucking blood.
3-blood clot.

there is not a word exists on earth that can acurately and amazingly describes the embryo in such stage.......
by using such word and no other words the Quran proves itself ,not only contains scientific miracles but linguestic miracles as well...

you ask why?

cause no other Arabic or non-Arabic word can do the job!!! ,

3 exact meanings in one shot

(the position)suspended thing

(the function) leech

(the appearance) blood clot.


Now a simple challenge for you and those alike ,

just to insert other words in Arabic or non-Arabic(if you wish) ,clearer and more accurate than those used in the Quran to describe such stages ......

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an (..............), then We made the (.............) into (.............)


believe me when I tell you,you can search Arabic and non Arabic languages till day of judgment,and you will never find more accurate word than (Alaqa) to describe such stage.....


but anyway I'm waiting someone to fill in the brackets and clear the so -called Quranic vagueness......



Professor Moore also studied the embryo at the mudghah (chewed-like substance) stage. He took a piece of raw clay and chewed it in his mouth, then compared it with a picture of the embryo at the mudghah stage. Professor Moore concluded that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the exact appearance of a chewed-like substance...



One can read your assertion and easily find out where the utterly meaningless
comes from .......

Galen

1. 'Two sperms'
2. .. plus menstrual blood
3. unshaped flesh
4. bones
5. flesh grows around the bones

Qur'an

1. sperm (singular. No ovum?.. rather an omission, don't you think?)
2. alaqa. clot (and/or suspended thing and bloodsucking leech if you like. That is heavily disputed but as I don't know Arabic I'll concede the point)
3. lump of flesh
4. bones
5. flesh grows on bones.

Galen scores on 1. The Qur'an, debatably, scores on 2 (clot? what clot?). Both are pretty much wrong when judged against 20th century rather than 2nd century science (without a liberal dose of 'interpretation') on 3. to 5.

If he did he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. That conclusion is absurd, hence I will be charitable and assume it is a misrepresentation of what he actually might have concluded. The "exact appearance"? Take a piece of raw clay (or something more palatable, say chewing gum), chew it and spit it out. Do it another ten times. Do any of them have the 'exact appearance' of any of the others, let alone an embryo? Is the form or shape of any of the bits of clay/gum the same or even an approximation of the same? Of course not. They may be vaguely spherical. They might be mostly flat. Round. Or Oval. Thicker at one end than at the other or approximately even. In short, it's only the presence of tooth-marks that would lead to any common factor at all. And the embryo doesn't have the tooth marks!

If you are really interested it ultimately comes from our differing beliefs as to the the existence of God and the authorship of the Qur'an. It's pretty much inevitable both that a) from differing sets of opening assumptions we will never agree and b) neither of us can present a case remotely capable of convincing the other those assumptions are wrong. In short, such arguments are generally futile.. which doesn't prevent them (from both sides) from cropping up all overe the internet, of course.

the meanings of the word Alaqa are heavily disputed only in the land of fantasy , where you and those alike, who don't know Arabic are living.....

The word Alaqa is the crux of the matter and the most crucial in determining whether the verse miracelous or not.....

any primary school kid can gusess the Galen concept

1. 'Two sperms'
2. .. plus menstrual blood
3. unshaped flesh
4. bones
5. flesh grows around the bones


and if the Quran claims the same ,sperm then blood then unshaped flesh then bone .....I assure you that I never think it to be miracelous book...

if the word alaqa only means blood ,then nothing in the verse miracelous.........

but as long as it has meanings that conform typically and accurately with the

1-appearance
2-location
3-function

in such stage , and you can't provide a better word to describe such stage, then the verse is miracelous and not based on the work of Galen...

you can do better if you provide us Academic work showing what you call ,the(suspended thing and bloodsucking leech ,That is heavily disputed thing .........

the meanings of the word alaqa according to the the most important Arabic dictionaries . eg,The Qamus-al-Muheet,mokhtaar alsahhah,lesaan alarab


Anything that sticks to or hangs with something else,
Suspended thing’ .
Clay that sticks to hands.
Blood .
Emotions stick to one's heart.
An insect of water that sucks blood.
A part of the tree, which is in the reach of grazing animals, because the animals stick to that part of it.



here is the miracle,my friend ,all the meanings that can be applied accurately to such stage, are shot with only one word (alaqah)


till you provide a clue that the word only means a clot of blood (which will not prove the Quran to be in error as long as one of the characteristics of such stage that the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage) the miracle stands......


again , what word will be more comprehensive and accurate than (alaqa) to describe such stage?

imagine yourself writing a description of Embryonic Development and ,would like to use a WORD to convey all the characteristics of such stage, what will be you choice? what word would you use instead of (alaqa)?


We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an (..............),



and who said that the the embryo should have The "exact 100 % appearance" of a the gum you have chewed ???

the verse says simply,the the embryo unlike the other stages eg, in alaqa stage,has the appearance of chewed flesh...

the embryo ,does indeed have somites at its back that look like teeth marks.
verify any medical reference with photos...

such as (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 79.)

The meanings of the word may or may not be. Which was intended in this context is. But as I said, not knowing Arabic let alone in a Qur'anic context I have to concede that point.

In what way? All it demonstrates is that Arabic may have a word that is appropriate. Good writers pick the right word, and it could have been picked here to mean one thing just as easily as all of them. No 'miracle', except perhaps in the existence and use of language itself. 'Clot' is wrong. And it can be observed easily during pregnancy (although perhaps in rather unpleasant circumstances) that the embryo is 'suspended' within the womb.

Except the duality of gametes, maybe. Oddly, the Qur'an couldn't 'guess' that, either.

Nobody said it. Something is either exact or it is not, the "100%" is superflous. You claim Dr Moore concluded it had "the exact appearance of a chewed-like substance". As a showed in my previous post, such a 'conclusion' is nonsensical. The best you could realistically claim is that the embryo resembles a 'chewed-like substance'. I'll concede that, as I will the resemblance to a leech (maybe somebody chewed a leech?), but in both cases the embryo is observable with the naked eye at