Moore is an authority on both anatomy and embryology and the Drs recommend us to use his books as reference.

yup... people often think that every scientific term has to sound like this dysdiadokinesia
..
well in fact we have these terms and use them daily,
Nutmeg liver
strawberry gallbladder
chocolate cyst
Orphan Annie eye nucleus
fried egg appearance
anchovy paste (Amebic abscess of the liver)

these are a few of the winded lists we use daily in medicine to describe organs and their pathologies, and anyone is free to google to verify for themselves.. bottom line is for something to be described as a leech that clings (grossly) or a blastocyst attaching to the endometrium is very similar and very sound way to use language to transcend... the board of pathologists convenes every so often to re-define the terms.. what they deem synciotrophoblast might end up being placental trophoblast tomorrow.. if simple language is used to describe, it will be accurate and transcendent...


I am sickened by this topic and this constant back and forth...

please before you decide to 'debunk' or have an all out expose acquaint yourselves in both science, Arabic, and religion and then step back, have a look at the entire picture...

cheers

As I said, he may be, it seems he is.
Being an authority doesn't make everything he says true though!
His work associated to the Quran is about simple morphology, you don't have to be an embriology expert to chew a gum in a special way and coclude it resembles an embryo. Or a leech. Muslims could do that without him, perhaps they did. It's just that they needed a big name. So they invited Moore to Saudi Arabia, most probably payed him big money and gave him some time to make the verse appear scientifically correct. It's possible he was genuinely impressed with it. He doesn't seem to aprticulary proud of his work though. In one interview he was aksed about his work on the islamic holy book and he replied that he was involved with the quran over ten years ago...

When is one an authority in their field? when their views appeal to a western majority?
You can't speak for his work unless you were controverting with the same scientific basis, in which case we all fervently await the day you defend your thesis.. nor can you assess him as a person psychologically.

I suggest you hold on to your views, as I am not sure on what ground you are contesting his short of simply to be disagreeable?

cheers

I'm not an embryologist, I don't know whether Moore is an authority in his field, I'm saying he might be. It's true I'd expect an authority to produce other things than text books though. Perhaps he's an authority in the field of medical textbooks..
So I'm not quite sure how western majority fits in this conversation..
I'm speaking against the work he did about the quran. It only deals with a couple of (simple) issues and words which you reallydon't have to be a medical doctor to understand.
Of course I can asses him as a person, everyone assesses other people, especially on message boards like this one. I won't claim my assessments are accuarte though.

I don't understand what you mean by produce other things than textbooks? having interest in Islamic texts seems like outside interest?

It is only as simple as you want to break it down to.. a person is only as smart as they are educated!

as for western majority, meaning what agrees with views of non-muslims, the same way Dawkins or watsons and the likes are exalted in opinion simply for stating very private views banking on their prior works, for instance that 'black people are, in general, less intelligent than whites' because of their genetics!


I'll agree with the very last statement..

cheers

Well, I was thinking more like original research on embryology or some groundbreaking method of removing this and that from the uterus..
It is simple. It's reading verses and ascribing them medical phenomena that hold certain similarities. It's only a couple of verses and a couple of medical terms and phenomena which you don't have to be a medical doctor to understand. It's not like the Quran contains a 45 pages long essay explaining what the chances of a random formation of a cell are..
And I strongly disagree with your second notion.

that was Watson and his claims were denounced by practically everyone, he was even stripped off his academic positions. The west, Western Europe in particular, is the worst place to make racist or phobic comments. There's much more racism in the arab world than there is in the west.

bad reasoning !!!!

If the Quran intended only the meaning of blood it would have used the basic word for it (Damm)

and the Quran would have described such stage the same as Galen,and the verse would have been as

Then We made the drop into damm (means only blood), then We made the blood into ........... (Quran, 23:12-14)

again what is the Arabic word which would be more accurate than (alaqa) to describe
the appearance,
the position,
the function,
of the embryo in such stage?

oh I forgot that you don't know Arabic...

but even those professionals in Arabic can never do it.

but it can't be observed how it obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech,let alone the absurdity of your guessing work,Mohamed been able to watch with his naked eyes the sequence of the stages.....



to easily refute that ,let's reverse the quranic words

Then We made the drop of semen into a mudghah (chewed substance) , then We made the alaqah into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot)

in other words ,the first stage the embryo looks like a chewed substance (but not yet suspended) and then it develope to a leech in function and appearance and that of a blood clot,This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo,and all of a sudden suspend to the womb of the mother !!!!!!!

that is for sure absured and not Quranic neither scientific

the quranic description is in order

in other words in the first stage the embryo does not look like a “chewed substance.” for the sake of argument,even if the the embryo at the first stage looks like a “chewed substance.” the word mudghah “chewed substance.” would not be impressive , as it doesn't convey the meaning of a suspended thing neither the leech which sucks blood for nourishment.....

your reasoning fells short.....



you'd better concede the whole thread due to your lack of its study tools.

lol.. ok.. I am not sure how to comment on that!

Again.. if you are looking for poetry, numerology, science, history in the Quran, then you'll have missed the point... it is meant as a guidance and an admonition to man kind not to prepare you for your board exams.. unlike previous scriptures be they of those that we Muslims consider divine revelations or just mere mythology, the Quran isn't wrought with error, so that in the heart of the believer there can be no doubt.. in the heart of an atheist or agnostic or whatever, I don't think it will mean anything, you can explain it away like most orientalists and live a perfectly happy life..

I still stand by my statement.. a person is as smart as they are educated, and education is an expansive thing, not just a telescopic window from some book, it is an on going process!

Again, it depends on whom the comments are made of to spark an outrage.. the west in general is very racist amongst the entire world and I have done a bit of traveling.. They have this amazing sense of entitlement, and a false authority to pass random unfounded comments as if of biblical importance -- which is to say very little on how much of the world they have dismantled and monopolized....


cheers

[quote]I hope lol's for the silly comment about the uterus? I'm not quite sure if embryologists ever go there, but I think you got the picture anyway.
So, give me a reason why Moore is considered an authority in embryology?

I don't think the quran is free from error, as I've already told you. My inability to read or write Arabic prevents me from explaining it away just like that, however I do have my theories and I don't think the book is a word of god or anything. And so far, no one has convinced me into thinking otherwise.

so funny lol.. you claim you dno arabic, so you can't find 'flaws' in the Qur'an, yet the exact same Qur'an - whose language you don't know - has errors in it.


how ironic.

I didn't say that. My lack of understanding Arabic prevents me from seeing and understanding the so called literary miracles that muslims speak of. So without that I cannot dismiss the Quran to be a work of Muhammad just like that. Nit knowing Arabic doesn't prevent me from finding flaws though. There are over 17 English transaltions of the Quran, tafseers, hadiths and countless written claims, comments, translations etc of Arabic spaking muslims, including ones on boards like LI.

1) You HAVE to know the arabic language to attempt to understand the Qur'an properly. Since the difference in languages and the meanings of words causes translations to be unaccurate, especially when it comes to the arabic language (due to its triple letter root system which many other languages don't have.)


2) It may be that if you understand the Arabic, then you realise how there aren't any flaws within it. But it can't just be basic arabic, you need to know Arabic in depth to find any 'flaws' within it. You cant use your own opinions or present day scientific theories, which can change over time and aren't always constant.


3) If someone interprets a verse to have a certain meaning - and that interpretation is wrong, it doesn't mean that the verse is false. What it may imply is that the person who interpreted the verse in that certain manner has interpreted it the wrong way. However, if there is something which matches with authentic science - then that interpretation of the verse may be true.


4) The challenge of the Qur'an is quite clear, if you really doubt it is from God - then bring forth something similar to it. No-one has been able to do so in history, if they did - they would boast about it. And no - it isn't because they fear the Muslim ruler, rather, its because they're afraid to get humiliated because they cannot bring anything similar to it [not even 3 verses!], even the Arabs who knew the truthfulness of Muhammad (peace be upon him) - who were at the peak of arabic eloquence were unable to, yet an illiterate man who had no experience in poetry surpassed them all throughout all of history?



If you really want to attempt to answer any of these points, address the last one (point no.4) - because you can't, and you know you can't. So you'll deny it or you may choose the guidance, and that is what the people before you did, and look where they are now - they are dead, in the earth, turned into dust, and they will be ressurected back like Allah gave you life when you were nothing.

Since you believe in a God, why isn't this God able to send a Messenger who is a human like we are? Why isn't this God able to create us and then send us guidance between truth and falsehood? If this God created us - why won't we return to Him? Why won't He judge us based on what we did? Why won't He reward the good-doers for their good, and punish the evil-doers for their evil?