for the same reason Robin is the Authority in pathology, wheater's for histology, Sabiston for surgery or grey for anatomy... There is a history to science, just like there is a history to the world with some characters standing out as stars given their knowledge, pioneering and contributions!


No one having the ability to convince you has more to do with you than anyone else's ability... I can tell you that this

is kidney tissue, and you can disagree loaning it, your own understanding and interpretation, to which of course, you are entitled, but you wouldn't be correct!
Every discipline is an expansive art form all its own.. You've to have deep knowledge to challange it-- Many have dedicated 20 years or so of their life to this, like Dr. Gary Miller..
Not speaking the language isn't an excuse or a rebuttal!

If you can find error in the Quran then I challenge you to find it!

cheers

[quote]ok..
I know it isn't. That's why I never claimed the quran was wrong for sure, or that there's mistakes for sure. I said I think there were and I still do. I never claimed there's flaws in any holy book actually.
well, the lastest I came across is Quran claiming there was a human man 60 feet tall walking the Earth, which is impossible on many levels. Of course, you can argue the laws of physics were different back then or something like that.

Adam being 60 feet tall, isn't from the Quran.. it is a hadith..
There is a criteria against which the accuracy of hadiths are measured, and based on that people can choose to reject or accept it.. the Quran however is unaffected by that criteria given the nature of both.. The Quran (the word of God) hadiths, the words of the prophet SAS, and subjected to weak or strong narrative... I am sure the criteria is listed some where on this forum..

I am post call and I need a long snooze...

laters
cheers

http://www.islamicboard.com/quran/53...challenge.html (Understanding the Qur’an’s Literary Challenge)



Please do provide other pieces of literature which have had the same amount of influence world wide, which challenges others to bring something similar to it, while never being matched.

Oops, my mistake. And I've only just realized the actual height was 90 feet.
The hadith was narated by Abu Huraira who I read is considered trustworthy.
If you remember we have quite a history of arguing about quranic flaws, mostly ones concerning astronomy.
Neither of us reached any progress in convincing the other if I remmber correctly. It's like that with every religion, as well as irreligion I guess. Religious people will not admit their religion is flawed, nor will the irreligious admit any religion is flawless or perfect. Every religion has its share of apologetics claiming there's not a single mistake in their holy text, refuting every allegation and dispute. Some people are convinced and some aren't.

Interesting. Not conclusive though.
I don't really know any other book that challenges the public to produce a match, so I can't answer your question. teh Bible has had greater wordwide impact than the Quran, I'm not sure it was unmatched seeing that they had to gather a couple of years long council on which books to include.. Perhaps the psalms or other poetic parts of the OT are unmatchable. Or the revelation, I don't think there have been other versions of Revelation other than the one in the canon.
Well, you said it yourself, absense of proof is not proof of absence.

Several of your ideas need a comment

there is no lack of evidence

the Quran mentions some unseen claims eg;

God,paradise,angels,day of judgment,how the unseen embryo develope, all of the objects in the Universes are swimming in space,The Spherical Shape Of The Earth , mountains work as stabilizers for the earth, Lack of Oxygen in space , the fulfilled prophecy in 30:2-4 etc...

I never verified paradise,angels,day of judgment.......it is still unseen for us
but I verified the other (could be verified in modern times) quranic claims,

in other words if the Quranic words to be trusted in the scientific issues that scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time, so it is fair to trust the whole Quranic packet of the other unseen issues.....

who said you have to learn it !!!! ......

you could easily read the translations,and if there is verse that seems to be vague even with translation,you could consult dictionary to look up all its meanings....

that is justice my friend...

He Who will render to every man according to his deeds,the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.......

the Question why they lack "proper" belief.?

is it their arrogance,and being stubborn to the proofs of the validity of such proofs ,or they were misinformed,getting a deformed image of the message?


one Quranic verse when I read,comes such question in my mind:

while talking about the christians fate ,day of judgment:

"Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.

If Thou punish them, lo! they are Thy slaves, and if Thou forgive them . Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Mighty, the Wise.

Allah will say: "[B]This is a day on which the truthful will profit from their truth[/b]: theirs are gardens, with rivers flowing beneath,- their eternal Home: Allah well-pleased with them, and they with Allah: That is the great salvation, (the fulfilment of all desires).

the verse doesn't say This is a day on which the truthful muslims will profit from their truth....
it makes it a broad sense of truthfulness......

the truthful will profit from their truth.


those christians, jews ,buddihists ,others etc... who been misinformed,ignorant of the true message of Islam and been just will be judged with just and their lack of "proper" belief which due to misinformation or other causes I mentioned will not make Allah not to treat them with justice....

So?
Again, and? some are willing to believe they are a descendent of apes, but not the descendent of very tall persons.. which would make one a hypocrite at best in my opinion!

You have a long history of arguing much ado about nothing!

People will see what they want, but It doesn't touch written text.. if Galen wrote that the human zygote comes from a mixture of two sperms, it doesn't even make him remotely close to being correct even if the lot of you wish to push that down our throat.. in suret Al'qyema when the sex of the fetus is characterized and delimited to sperm alone in the centuries old book and unparalleled to any other at its time and in the region from whence it came, it is considered not only very correct, but very miraculous.. if you don't want to see it, well there is nothing anyone can do about it, religious or not!

That is a sweeping generalization and not very telling, in which one is simply left in a pool of nonesense as if to justify to oneself ones errors...

One can't really tackle 'every' , it is very non-specific and non-descript, as to leave ample room for escape...

You don't want to accept, because that is something in your person, not because of a flaw in Islam!

cheers

Just pointing out to my mistake, that's it.
Not at all. Descencion from apes is theoretically possible, descencion from 90-footers is not, because 90-footers themselves are impossible.

Why thank you!
I don't remember ever using Galen to counter the Quran.

37. Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?
38. Then did he become a clinging clot;
Then did (Allah) make and fashion (him) in due proportion.
39. And of him He made two sexes, male and female.
40. Has not he, (the same), the power to give life to the dead?

Are you refering to this?
Why exactly do you think the verse implies male gametes are the ones that determine the gender of a child?
Is this a way to account for the lack of mention of female gametes?

You're right, it is a generalisation, but some things are true in general. Very few religious people will admit to the mistakes suppossedly found in their holy book, let it be the Quran or the Bible or the Bahai texts and will always find a way to refute alleged flaws. Christians, whose religion I suspect you deem false, have refuted practically every alleged mistake and contradiction (except for the creationism, but I don't think you mind that..). Of course, not all people buy it, I guess you don't and neither do I. I for one won't buy other religion's aplogetics either.
It's possible one of the religions I mentioned is in fact flawless and I'm doing it harm by generalizing, but I seriously doubt it.
I don't know. Like every other person I am defending my beliefs.

That is humbling!

I don't see why not? the same genes that code for large ape Jaws, can be the same genes that code for tall stature.. it is really all very possible if you know how genetics works!

:wink:

I never accused you specifically.. I did however say many of you, use him as the correct source on embryology pre-dating the Quran.. in fact his theories have nothing to do with what is mentioned in the Quran.. and are in fact incorrect!

ha? The sperm contains 23 chromosomes, of which one chromosome determines the sex of the embryo. The chromosome in the sperm is either (Y) or (X), while the chromosome in the ovum is always (X). When a sperm of the chromosome type (Y) mingles with an ovum of the chromosome (X), the formed zygote will be male (XY), whereas the embryo will be female (XX) if the sperm (X) mingles with an (X) ovum. So, the sex of the embryo is determined by the sperm (the male), rather than the ovum (the female).

as well as

“That He created the pairs, male and female, from a fluid-drop sperm as it is emitted.” (53: 45-46),

is very descript for the sperm influencing the sex of the fetus.. a belief not commonly shared at that time, during preceeding time and actually not until very recently in medical history..



oh how is it missed?

(إِنَّا خَلَقْنَا الإِنسَانَ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ أَمْشَاجٍ نَبْتَلِيهِ فَجَعَلْنَاهُ سَمِيعًا بَصِيرًا ) (الإنسان:2)

“Verily We created man of a fluid-drop (nutfa), mingling (amshaj) , in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts of) hearing and sight.” (76:2).
The mingled nutfa in this verse reveals the Quran miraculous nature. Nutfa, in Arabic, is a single small drop of water, but it was described here as (amshaj) , which means its structure consists of combined mixtures . This fits with the scientific finding, as the zygote is shaped as a drop, and is simultaneously a mixture of male fluid chromosomes and female ovum chromosomes.

Amshaj here denotes that the drop admixed (mingled) with a female ovum!


Actually christians really haven't accounted for half the mistakes in their holy book, so they deem what they can't explain parables or scribal errors...
Bahais or ahmadis, have simply taken the Quran and snipped parts of it, added parts from other books to form a new sect... I can't deem it as a religion all together.. you must have a specific issue to want to discuss not just make random statements..


And you are so entitled

cheers..

That's not genetics that makes it impossible. A human 90-footer, no matter what caused his height, would almost certainly cruch under his own weight, a human skeleton is not designed for such heights. A human body that size would have to be significantly morphologically different, probably to an extent that would disqualify him as being human..
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...confusion.html (Adam and the 60 cubit confusion)
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...tml#post937683 (Adam and the 60 cubit confusion)
lol, this for me?.
Well, that's one intepretation, pretty far fetched if you ask me. I think the verse simply says a human being develops from a fluid-drop of sperm.
Again, a matter of intepretation, this one is also a bit far fetched. Does the verse specifically mention any sort of female fluids?
Well, whenever I talk to fundies and bring up a contradiction or a mistake they've already got a refutation stored in their pockets. Some are good and some are far fetched ramblings about symbolism..
I mentioned the bahai because I once came across to a rather extensive piece defending scientifically incorrect statements made by their prophet. I didn't mean to start a discussion.