[EMBRYOLOGY] Bones and flesh

[BleroX]

Assalamu alykum,
You know for sure the following verse:
Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the best to create! (23:14).
I showed some people the verse and they said that in fact muscles develop before (or at the same) the bones.

So what's wrong ?

[BleroX]

up please

[Ummu Sufyaan]

:sl:

I showed some people the verse and they said that in fact muscles develop before (or at the same) the bones.

maybe its because im half asleep, but how does that contradict the verse?

[Whatsthepoint]

:sl:

maybe its because im half asleep, but how does that contradict the verse?

Because it says Allah maketh the bones and then clotheth them with flesh(which is basically muscles), whereas BleroX claims the flesh develops before/simoltaniously with the bones. The verse suggests the flesh comes after or at the same time as the bones, so perhaps there's no contradiction...

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[BleroX]

Scientifically speaking, Do muscles come before or after bones ?

[Whatsthepoint]

Because it says Allah maketh the bones and then clotheth them with flesh(which is basically muscles), whereas BleroX claims the flesh develops before/simoltaniously with the bones. The verse suggests the flesh comes after or at the same time as the bones, so perhaps there's no contradiction...

Let me revise this.
The verse say Allah clothes the bones with flesh, which may suggest the bones are totally formed before any formation of muscles takes place...

[sur]

Assalamu alykum,
You know for sure the following verse:
Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the best to create! (23:14).
I showed some people the verse and they said that in fact muscles develop before (or at the same) the bones.

So what's wrong ?

OK, little attension plz:-
Quran doesn't speak med lingo spoken by docs today;

Bones r bones whether formed of plastic, metal, calcium compound or cartilage. Right!!!!



Many CARTILAGE bones r formed before muscles r wraped. These r called "Long Bones" or "Endochondral Bones". Like Femur(Thigh Bone), Tibia & Fibula(Shin Bones), Humerous(Arm Bone), Radius & Ulna(Bones in Forearm), Hip-bones.

Cartilage-Bones look exactly like bones, only material they r made of does NOT have calcium yet.

Then these cartilage bone models r CALCIFIED & calcium compound called Hydroxy Appetite deposits in them so final calcified-bones r formed.


While there r some bones that r formed at same time muscles r formed & NOT after muscles. These r called "flat bones" or "Membranous Bones". Like Vertebrae, scapula.

So if u believe that only calcified bones deserve to be called as "BONES" & cartilage bones don't deserve it. So that'd be taking sides unjustly.

So Quran refer to BONES made of cartilage.

[Whatsthepoint]

lol...

[sur]

may i ask what was the funny part.?

[Anwarica]

:sl:
Have a look at this video and notice "the microscopic level" .. they need to update their info. anyhow because that was an old issue.

[sur]

i don't have good speed internet to watch videos, so could u explain video a bit ??? i mean what's the conclusion from video.

Thx.

[Whatsthepoint]

i don't have good speed internet to watch videos, so could u explain video a bit ??? i mean what's the conclusion from video.

Thx.

They concluded the Quran is in perfect ahrmony with the modern science.:) what a shock, ain't it?
Otherwise, they basically said what you said about cartilage bones and tissue. However, they omited the "flat bones"...
Oh, they also quoted Keith L. Moore.....

[sur]

They concluded the Quran is in perfect ahrmony with the modern science.:) what a shock, ain't it?
Otherwise, they basically said what you said about cartilage bones and tissue. However, they omited the "flat bones"...
Oh, they also quoted Keith L. Moore.....

Thx.

Book of Keith L. Moore r taught to medical students in med schools all over world. He's an authority on embryology. He teaches in Canada i think.

[Whatsthepoint]

Thx.

Book of Keith L. Moore r taught to medical students in med schools all over world. He's an authority on embryology. He teaches in Canada i think.

He may be, his (and one other guy's) anatomy book is supposed to be the most popuar of all the anatomy books in the world.
I don't know whether he is an authority in the field of embryology. The video quotes his book saying the bones get their familiar shape in the seventh week whereupon the muslces take there position around the bone forms. This is a simple, general explanation, Moore mostly writes text books, which might be the cause for it. And the text omits membranous bones, it doesn't say the bones are not actual bones, as tehy do not have calcium yet...

[جوري]

why should the Quran get into such a specific on embryology or any other field for that matter? It is meant to ask you to reflect not memorize multiple tissues derived from all three germ layers for your board exams.
Come on, that is absurd...
I don't particularly care to dwell on the science of the Quran, the poetry of the Quran, the numerology of the Quran, the rules of grammar in the Quran, the biblical stories in the Quran, the prophetic signs of the Quran, the laws of inheritance in the Quran, the rules of economics in the Quran, how to establish a Govt. in the Quran.. then you'll have missed the point of what it is all about. It is meant as a guidance and a counsel for how you should live your life.. and it does it on many levels.. it need not be any more clear or any more vague than what it is. There will be those completely satsifed with the book and there will be those who always want to split hair..

I think that too is part of its intrigue, as their are verses to denote some will indeed question 'what did God want with that allegory'?..
each will make of it what he/she will.. and there will come the day when we shall all find out the truth, one way or the other..

peace

[wilberhum]

why should the Quran get into such a specific on embryology or any other field for that matter? It is meant to ask you to reflect not memorize multiple tissues derived from all three germ layers for your board exams.
Come on, that is absurd...
I don't particularly care to dwell on the science of the Quran, the poetry of the Quran, the numerology of the Quran, the rules of grammar in the Quran, the biblical stories in the Quran, the prophetic signs of the Quran, the laws of inheritance in the Quran, the rules of economics in the Quran, how to establish a Govt. in the Quran.. then you'll have missed the point of what it is all about. It is meant as a guidance and a counsel for how you should live your life.. and it does it on many levels.. it need not be any more clear or any more vague than what it is. There will be those completely satsifed with the book and there will be those who always want to split hair..

I think that too is part of its intrigue, as their are verses to denote some will indeed question 'what did God want with that allegory'?..
each will make of it what he/she will.. and there will come the day when we shall all find out the truth, one way or the other..

peace

I'm in total agreement with a Muslim about the Quran. :skeleton:
I would have never guessed. To top it off I'm in agreement with PA. That in it's self amazing.

A holy book should be about how to live not how many times a word is used or twist things to mean different than there intent.

Like "Verse of Quran calculated spee dof light".

[جوري]

I'm in total agreement with a Muslim about the Quran. :skeleton:
I would have never guessed. To top it off I'm in agreement with PA. That in it's self amazing.

A holy book should be about how to live not how many times a word is used or twist things to mean different than there intent.

I have been running a low grade fever for the past three to four days.. I had to do a double take on that post, just to make sure my eyes aren't betraying me...

ohhhhh this is a cold day in hell ;D

peace

[Trumble]

I'm in total agreement with a Muslim about the Quran. :skeleton:
I would have never guessed. To top it off I'm in agreement with PA. That in it's self amazing.

Likewise. It's amazing what can happen when people talk sense...:D

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

I showed some people the verse and they said that in fact muscles develop before (or at the same) the bones.

Just thought I'd pop in my two cents:

''...The shape of the skeleton determines the general appearance of the embryo in the bones stage during the 7th week; muscles do not develop at the same time but their development follows soon after. The muscles take their positions around the bones throughout the body and therefore Clothe the bones. Thus, the muscles take their well known forms and strcutures... The stage of clothing with muscle occurs during the 8th week..." (Keith L. Moore, Developing Human, 3 . edition, W. B. Saunders Company, 1982, p 364a)

:)

p.s; incase you aren't aware, the excerpt I gave backs up the ayat. Meaning, that the ayat is correct from a scientific point of view.

[Whatsthepoint]

:sl:



Just thought I'd pop in my two cents:

''...The shape of the skeleton determines the general appearance of the embryo in the bones stage during the 7th week; muscles do not develop at the same time but their development follows soon after. The muscles take their positions around the bones throughout the body and therefore Clothe the bones. Thus, the muscles take their well known forms and strcutures... The stage of clothing with muscle occurs during the 8th week..." (Keith L. Moore, Developing Human, 3 . edition, W. B. Saunders Company, 1982, p 364a)

:)

p.s; incase you aren't aware, the excerpt I gave backs up the ayat. Meaning, that the ayat is correct from a scientific point of view.

That's great. Now, can you provide a quote from some other book, preferably one not written by an islam-admirer?

and anyway, the embrionic development is not as black and white as "bones come first, then come the muscles". There are different types of bones and muscles that start forming at different times, there are different stages of bone and muscle formation. ( which leaves as with a question what is a bone, what is a muscle? when is it formed? A what stage does it become a bone...:hiding:)
Even muslims in this thread pointed out that certain bone and muscle tissues are formed simultanously, whereas in some cases bones come first.

[aamirsaab]

That's great. Now, can you provide a quote from some other book, preferably one not written by an islam-admirer?

Are you implying that Keith's admiration for Islam inflluenced his investigations and overall conclusion into embryology? That's a pretty big claim to make, seeing as he is a well respected scientist. Has it not occured to you that his admiration for Islam came from during and after he had reached a conclusion? Though, I shall look for another book that agrees with his statement if it is that neccessary.

and anyway, the embrionic development is not as black and white as "bones come first, then come the muscles". There are different types of bones and muscles that start forming at different times, there are different stages of bone and muscle formation.

Indeed there are bones that develop at later stages. But is it not well-known that the first things to be formed in an embryo are the spine and spinal cord (in addition to the heart and brain) - the muscles that surround those aspects are formed much later. If one thinks logically about it, it is neccessary to have some form of skeleton/framework first then the muscles/cement job come after and encompass the existing bones - where and when neccessary, extra framework and cement is added later on to create the full building (or in this case, the human body). That could be considered simplistic but I think you will agree on the concept.

( which leaves as with a question what is a bone, what is a muscle? when is it formed? A what stage does it become a bone...:hiding:)

That's a different question than the original one asked. However, I shall look into it and get an answer to this new one. Though I should note that I have only recently researched into embryology, so it may take some time. Unless of course, your question was rhetorical :p

Even muslims in this thread pointed out that certain bone and muscle tissues are formed simultanously, whereas in some cases bones come first.

I think Keith L Moore is going to know more about embryology than all of the participant's in this particular thread. I think Keith holds the greater credency in this argument than any of us :).

[Whatsthepoint]

[QUOTE]

Are you implying that Keith's admiration for Islam inflluenced his investigations and overall conclusion into embryology? That's a pretty big claim to make, seeing as he is a well respected scientist. Has it not occured to you that his admiration for Islam came from during and after he had reached a conclusion? Though, I shall look for another book that agrees with his statement if it is that neccessary.

You do that.
I am not claiming anything of the above, as it seems you've quoted from a book that's been published ebfore Moore wrote articles on embriology in the Quran. I'm just saying you should provide more sources.

Indeed there are bones that develop at later stages. But is it not well-known that the first things to be formed in an embryo are the spine and spinal cord (in addition to the heart and brain) - the muscles that surround those aspects are formed much later. If one thinks logically about it, it is neccessary to have some form of skeleton/framework first then the muscles/cement job come after and encompass the existing bones - where and when neccessary, extra framework and cement is added later on to create the full building (or in this case, the human body). That could be considered simplistic but I think you will agree on the concept.

Well, the Quran says Allah made the bones and clothed them with muscles, which may or may not imply that the bones are formed before the muscles.
Seeing that the heart, which is a muscle, is formed before the spine, no further debate is necessary, is it?:okay:
And I don't agree with what you said. Muscles and bones can start developing at the same time, even from the same tissue that later differentiates.

That's a different question than the original one asked. However, I shall look into it and get an answer to this new one. Though I should note that I have only recently researched into embryology, so it may take some time. Unless of course, your question was rhetorical :p

It was rhetorical, but now when I think about it, you can look into it. :D
the Quran may or may not suggest that Allah clothes the bones with muscles only after they are done, fully formed, which is of course wrong.
On the other hand, if muscles start forming around the tissues that are to become bones, before they officially become bones, the ayat is wrong.

I think Keith L Moore is going to know more about embryology than all of the participant's in this particular thread. I think Keith holds the greater credency in this argument than any of us :).

Yes, I agree, but seeing he is an expert in the field, I think the text you've quoted is probably a bolded text in the beginning of a chapter or a very short summary of something, a think boy at the bottom of the page perhaps, the Developing Human is a textbook. What I'm saying is that the part you've quoted could be intentionally simplistic, it could refer to the late developement of muscles rather than their formation etc.
It would be best if you could provide another source.

Does the verse in arabic suggest that the "clothing" of the bones comes after they're formed or at the same time (thumma, wa and all that).

[Whatsthepoint]

One more Q, is the verse 23:14 considered a miracle among muslims?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

Well, the Quran says Allah made the bones and clothed them with muscles, which may or may not imply that the bones are formed before the muscles.
Seeing that the heart, which is a muscle, is formed before the spine, no further debate is necessary, is it?:okay:
And I don't agree with what you said. Muscles and bones can start developing at the same time, even from the same tissue that later differentiates.

Lol I just realised something about the ayat. I'll discuss it below

Does the verse in arabic suggest that the "clothing" of the bones comes after they're formed or at the same time (thumma, wa and all that).

The ayat states this: Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the best to create! (23:14).

In the two translations of the Quran I have, the ayat is translated exactly the same - so there seems to be no discrepancy with translation. Now if I highlight the main point of this ayat that relates to this thread and argument: then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh
So the Quran is actually saying that after the bones were formed they were then clothed with flesh (which is backed up by all embryology research, regardless of their opinion or conclusions on the formation of bones and muscles!) - it doesn't state anything about muscles or bones coming before one another, it simply states that the bones were clothed with flesh. So with regards to this comment, in the first post:

I showed some people the verse and they said that in fact muscles develop before (or at the same) the bones.

So, once again the Quranic ayat mentions nothing about the bones or muscles forming before one another. In other words the ayat has nothing to do with the muscles forming before/after the bones!
Which means my initial post and argument was wrong since I bolded the wrong bit of the excerpt. It also means that the person who stated the comment in the previous quote (not the original poster, but someone he had asked) had missunderstood the ayat completely. Which is what I did too!

P.s; I shall take onboard what you told me, whatsthepoint. Thanks and peace!

[FatimaAsSideqah]

As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu

This continuation of Sura 23:14 indicates that out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm.

[Whatsthepoint]

In the two translations of the Quran I have, the ayat is translated exactly the same - so there seems to be no discrepancy with translation. Now if I highlight the main point of this ayat that relates to this thread and argument: then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh
So the Quran is actually saying that after the bones were formed they were then clothed with flesh (which is backed up by all embryology research, regardless of their opinion or conclusions on the formation of bones and muscles!)

Now, what exactly is flesh? what exactly is the thing bones are clotheth with? It's mainly muscles (and internal organs, but those are not clotheth around bones). Flesh is basically everything that is not bones. Mainly because it can be eaten and because the Quran does not mention anything else when describing the formation of the human body.
So, the Quran suggests that fetuses, for a certain period of time are skeletons, that is until the bones are (fully) formed, at which point they or their bones are clothed with flesh.I think this is the correct interpreation, especially in light of what you wrote:
after the bones were formed they were then clothed with flesh
The first part suggests the bones are completed, fully formed before they are clothed with flesh. If not, what were you trying to say?
In any way, the verse does suggest that the bones, for some time, are "naked", fleshless or at least that they are formed before the flesh. That is not the case as bones (or pre-bone tissues, such as cartilage), when formed, already are surounded by a certain tissue (and any tissue is flesh!). And some of them are, at the time of their formation, surrounded by tissue that is alredy forming into muscles, the flesh we, humans, eat.
The bones are always surounded by something, and that something will eventually become flesh. That brings us back to a question as to when does bone tissue become bones, does cartilage count as bones (I don't think it should, and by the time cartilage becomes bones, the surounding tissue is even more like the flesh we consume...) and when does non-bone tissue becomes flesh...

[Whatsthepoint]

As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu

This continuation of Sura 23:14 indicates that out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm.

Is cartilage bones? No, it isn't. And not all bones and their "models" start forming before muscles.

[Whatsthepoint]

1. Does the verse say that the bones are formed BEFORE they're clothed with flesh?

2. Do muslims consider this verse (and the rest of the embriology-related verses) to be miraculous?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

so who here knows arabic and is a scholar? no one well then i guess we cant understand the ayyat [perfectly].

case closed, good night people

[aamirsaab]

I don't think I explained the verse very well. I'll repeat it: it's got nothing to do with which was formed first - bones or flesh. It's simply saying the bones were clothed in flesh aka muscles. That's the core bit of the ayat. The miracle of this, is that all embryologyical study backs it up (since they all seem to agree that the bones are clothed in flesh!) - at that time, it was not possible to investigate the claim in the ayat, yet after many many decades, it has been proven. Hence it is seen as a miracle in Islam.

P.s; I'm not a scholar or a student of embryology. Just a bacha with a lacha and internet access.

[Trumble]

I'll repeat it: it's got nothing to do with which was formed first - bones or flesh. It's simply saying the bones were clothed in flesh aka muscles. That's the core bit of the ayat. The miracle of this, is that all embryologyical study backs it up (since they all seem to agree that the bones are clothed in flesh!)

If that is the extent of the claim, where is the supposed 'miracle'? Every child and adult human being has 'bones clothed in flesh'.. what possible other conclusion was anyone likely to come up with regarding embryonic development?

[Whatsthepoint]

I don't think I explained the verse very well. I'll repeat it: it's got nothing to do with which was formed first - bones or flesh. It's simply saying the bones were clothed in flesh aka muscles. That's the core bit of the ayat. The miracle of this, is that all embryologyical study backs it up (since they all seem to agree that the bones are clothed in flesh!) - at that time, it was not possible to investigate the claim in the ayat, yet after many many decades, it has been proven. Hence it is seen as a miracle in Islam.

P.s; I'm not a scholar or a student of embryology. Just a bacha with a lacha and internet access.

Ok, now that I think about it, the verse does not necessarily imply that the bones are clothed after they've been formed.
Well, that's one lousy miracle, no offence, The Quran can do better.:)

[Cabdullahi]

Ok, now that I think about it, the verse does not necessarily imply that the bones are clothed after they've been formed.
Well, that's one lousy miracle, no offence, The Quran can do better.:)

Have you thought maybe its your lousy brain that cannot get around it:?

[Whatsthepoint]

Have you thought maybe its your lousy brain that cannot get around it:?

No, I haven't.

[crayon]

The miracle is not in the bones before the flesh, it is in the shape of the embryo at its different stages. This link explains it. http://www.answering-christianity.co...evelopment.htm

edit- here's another one http://www.islam101.com/science/embryo.html

[Whatsthepoint]

The miracle is not in the bones before the flesh, it is in the shape of the embryo at its different stages. This link explains it. http://www.answering-christianity.co...evelopment.htm

edit- here's another one http://www.islam101.com/science/embryo.html

Lol, sorry, I've seen a couple of versions of this miracles but never have I seen such a thorough one. It's no better then the rest, but the gum really had me.:D
IMHO it is just another example of abusing science to get a confirmation of what's written in the Quran, no offence.
Muslim ingenuity in the field of Quranic miracles never fails to surprise me!

[crayon]

You can actually tell the difference between the words more in arabic, so it is clearer. But meh, suit yourself. :P

But what do you mean by "abusing science"? How was it abused?

"Muslim ingenuity in the field of Quranic miracles never fails to surprise me!"
Ever think of the possibility that they may actually be miracles? ;)

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

''...The shape of the skeleton determines the general appearance of the embryo in the bones stage during the 7th week; muscles do not develop at the same time but their development follows soon after. The muscles take their positions around the bones throughout the body and therefore Clothe the bones. Thus, the muscles take their well known forms and strcutures... The stage of clothing with muscle occurs during the 8th week..." (Keith L. Moore, Developing Human, 3 . edition, W. B. Saunders Company, 1982, p 364a)

And the ayat:

Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the best to create!

So the ayat is saying talking about the muscles wrapping over the bones. And the extract from Keith L Moore agrees with this.

The miracle is this:
* The Prophet could not have know that (i.e what was revealed in the ayat with regards to the bones being clothed by flesh). In fact, at the time, no scientist could have validated or made that claim. Thus, any possibility that the Quran contains the information borrowed from any human on the planet is debunked [in this case, atleast]. The only conclusion that one can make, is that the ayat is from God himself [note this is not directed at anyone in particular, just stating a point]
* It was only modern day science that proved this claim. So not only does this ayat contain the exact words of God, but scientists have validated His word.

My apologies for not making this clearer in the very first place - I had not properly digested the information before explaining it.

[Whatsthepoint]

You can actually tell the difference between the words more in arabic, so it is clearer. But meh, suit yourself. :P

But what do you mean by "abusing science"? How was it abused?

It was abused on many levels.
The leech is intentionally drawn in a way that resembles the embrio (even that way, it does not quite resemble it, but anyway the shape of a leech resembling the shape of an embrio has no significance whatsoever, as it is a completely different type of animal.
The suspension of the embryo. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. If it means that the mebryo "hangs" from something, it's wrong. If it means the embryo is suspended (as in located) in the uterus, there's nothing miraculous about it.
Blood clot. The presence of uncirculating blood in an embryo does not make the embryo any like a blood clot. And I don't know where did they get the idea that blood does not circulate until the third week. The embryo mighnt not have its own fully developed cardiovascualr system by that time, but that doesn't mean the same blood stays in it for three weeks.
The chewed substance... I don't think I need to comment on this one.:D

Ever think of the possibility that they may actually be miracles? ;)

Why of course! I am an agnostic. What I am saying is that the probability of the verses in question being miraculous is very low indeed.
I may be utterly mistaken.

[Whatsthepoint]

:sl:


And the ayat:

So the ayat is saying talking about the muscles wrapping over the bones. And the extract from Keith L Moore agrees with this.

The miracle is this:
* The Prophet could not have know that (i.e what was revealed in the ayat with regards to the bones being clothed by flesh). In fact, at the time, no scientist could have validated or made that claim. Thus, any possibility that the Quran contains the information borrowed from any human on the planet is debunked [in this case, atleast]. The only conclusion that one can make, is that the ayat is from God himself [note this is not directed at anyone in particular, just stating a point]
* It was only modern day science that proved this claim. So not only does this ayat contain the exact words of God, but scientists have validated His word.

My apologies for not making this clearer in the very first place - I had not properly digested the information before explaining it.

Remember our deal? You said you'll provide other sources proving your claims. Any progress?:)
Were we not having a debate about muscles and bones only one page ago?
And besides the muscles are not wrapped around the bones, they are grown, which is a whole different thing. It's not like bones are fleshless until the 8th week at which point they're suddenly clothed with muscles. Different connected tissues develop into different things (in some cases simultaniously, but that, as it seems, is not the issue).

[crayon]

Some nasty leech photos that have nothing to do with islam, that look exactly like the drawing. They do look like the embryo, actually.

Picture of a 24 day old human embryo from a site unrelated to islam.

[crayon]

The suspension of the embryo. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. If it means that the mebryo "hangs" from something, it's wrong. If it means the embryo is suspended (as in located) in the uterus, there's nothing miraculous about it.

I think it means that it is suspended from the umbilical cord, and why is it not miraculous? For all they knew in Arabia at that time, or any part of the world for that matter, babies could have rested snugly inside a mothers intestines. :P No reason for them to accept what is a well known fact NOW, but wasn't at their time. People didn't always believe the world to be round...


Blood clot. The presence of uncirculating blood in an embryo does not make the embryo any like a blood clot. And I don't know where did they get the idea that blood does not circulate until the third week. (5) The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 65. it says in the footnotes. The embryo mighnt not have its own fully developed cardiovascualr system by that time, but that doesn't mean the same blood stays in it for three weeks.


The chewed substance... I don't think I need to comment on this one.:D
How else would you describe that shape to people with no knowledge of anything outside their immediate environment? Allah gave examples to make what was said more tangible, comparing it to familiar things.

...

[aamirsaab]

Remember our deal? You said you'll provide other sources proving your claims. Any progress?:)

Indeed I do remember and I'm on it.

Were we not having a debate about muscles and bones only one page ago?
And besides the muscles are not wrapped around the bones, they are grown, which is a whole different thing. It's not like bones are fleshless until the 8th week at which point they're suddenly clothed with muscles. Different connected tissues develop into different things (in some cases simultaniously, but that, as it seems, is not the issue).

That relates to everything I said in my initial post. My later posts then stated that my initial posts' argument was wrong. I then moved onto the actual argument (see my previous two posts on this thread). They ayat doesn't contradict what you have stated since it's dealing directly with the fact that the bones were clothed with flesh (aka muscles - which is true). Now in honesty, you could argue that hey maybe that's not really a miracle and more of common sense - which I am completely open to as I am not a scholar of embryology or the Quran (I apologise if I lead anyone to believe this with my actions). But, the question raised in the initial post seemed to be dismissing this ayat as being incorrect since he (and eventually both you and I) thought it was dealing with bones and muscles growth formation - it is not!

In other words, the whole point of my last two posts were to show that the initial point (i.e the guy dismissing the ayat) that he is wrong in making that statement since the ayat doesn't deal with what he is dismissing it of.

Now, as far as embryology goes, I don't know any more on this topic. I will look into it and will gladly discuss it with you. But the entire point of this thread hinged on that one statement (which everyone seemed to have forgotten, including myself!). Thus it can now be closed.

Again, I'd be happy to investigate more into embryology as a science and discuss it with you, but this particular thread has been dealt with sufficiently.

Thanks for the conversation that we did have. I learned quite a bit and understood a whole lot more. Thanks once again and peace!

[Whatsthepoint]

IMAGES REMOVED:phew:X+o(+o(

Some nasty leech photos that have nothing to do with islam, that look exactly like the drawing. They do look like the embryo, actually.

Picture of a 24 day old human embryo from a site unrelated to islam.

The images do not look like the embryo, except that tehy're shaped similary, like a rectangle or an elipse, their lenght is bigger than their width, that's all. You can there's also a significant amount of differences between the creatures. What particulary strikes me is a giant blood sucking hole on a leech's head, that an average embryo lacks...:-[
And besides, leeches are not the only thing to resebmle an embryo. There's also worms, snails, various sea creatures, chewed gums...
And as I said, a leech and an embryo are so vastly different that a similar shape means nothing at all.

[Whatsthepoint]

I think it means that it is suspended from the umbilical cord, and why is it not miraculous? For all they knew in Arabia at that time, or any part of the world for that matter, babies could have rested snugly inside a mothers intestines. :P No reason for them to accept what is a well known fact NOW, but wasn't at their time. People didn't always believe the world to be round...

the Greeks knew quite a lot about embryology, I don't know how sufficient their knowledge on suspension of teh embryo was..
Ok, that's a fair interpretation, but there is no guarantee it's the right one. Personally, I think the verse refers to the suspension of the embryo in the amniotic fluid or some other fluid, which is not that hard to find out, even for the preislamic Arabs.
Anyway, this is xet another vague verse taht can be interpret in an way the interpretor wants.

(5) The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 65. it says in the footnotes.

Yes, I saw the reference.
I believe the author of the site may have misunderstood Mr Moore. It's true that an embryo does not have its own blood circulation, but I highly doubt that there is no blood circulation (blood replacing is a better word) in an embryo until the third week. think about it, how else could the embryo and its cells grow and develop if it weren't for (changing, circulating) blood? What's the point in keeping the same blood in an embryo for three weeks?
So the embryo does not resebmle a blood clot in any way. I realized I forgot to mention the main quality of a blood clot is gelled, hardened blood, which is not present in an embryo.

How else would you describe that shape to people with no knowledge of anything outside their immediate environment? Allah gave examples to make what was said more tangible, comparing it to familiar things.

I would certainly not describe it as "chewed substance". first, because it is not like a chewed substance and secondly because at this moment I can't think of anything more vague than a chewed substance.
If anything, Allah could have done better.
And, "Allah gave examples to make what was said more tangible, comparing it to familiar things." is an excuse all religions use.

[Whatsthepoint]

Indeed I do remember and I'm on it.


That relates to everything I said in my initial post. My later posts then stated that my initial posts' argument was wrong. I then moved onto the actual argument (see my previous two posts on this thread). They ayat doesn't contradict what you have stated since it's dealing directly with the fact that the bones were clothed with flesh (aka muscles - which is true). Now in honesty, you could argue that hey maybe that's not really a miracle and more of common sense - which I am completely open to as I am not a scholar of embryology or the Quran (I apologise if I lead anyone to believe this with my actions). But, the question raised in the initial post seemed to be dismissing this ayat as being incorrect since he (and eventually both you and I) thought it was dealing with bones and muscles growth formation - it is not!

In other words, the whole point of my last two posts were to show that the initial point (i.e the guy dismissing the ayat) that he is wrong in making that statement since the ayat doesn't deal with what he is dismissing it of.

Now, as far as embryology goes, I don't know any more on this topic. I will look into it and will gladly discuss it with you. But the entire point of this thread hinged on that one statement (which everyone seemed to have forgotten, including myself!). Thus it can now be closed.

Again, I'd be happy to investigate more into embryology as a science and discuss it with you, but this particular thread has been dealt with sufficiently.

Thanks for the conversation that we did have. I learned quite a bit and understood a whole lot more. Thanks once again and peace!

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

[crayon]

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

[Trumble]

And as I said, a leech and an embryo are so vastly different that a similar shape means nothing at all.

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'?

[Imam]

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.

[Whatsthepoint]

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..

[Trumble]

It is well known that microscopes were not developed until the sixteenth century AD, and even at that were very crude in design.

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.

[Imam]

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

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

at 24 days the embryo is between 2mm and 5mm long - perfectly visible with the naked eye .It actually remains looking 'leech-like' .

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

[Trumble]

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.

[Imam]

[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

[Trumble]

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

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!

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

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.

[Imam]

This has already been covered. The Qur'an does not say that. .

Where that has been covered?!!

again my Question


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

It is just 'interpreted' that way by those with a religious need to believe it does. .

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......

The 'chewed substance' description is so vague it's utterly meaningless.

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 .......

[Trumble]

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.

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...

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!

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

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.

[Imam]

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

.

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 (..............),

Galen 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!.

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.)

[Trumble]

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 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.

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

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.

any primary school kid can gusess the Galen concept

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

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

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 the relevant stage of it's development.

[جوري]

it does not quite resemble it, but anyway the shape of a leech resembling the shape of an embrio has no significance whatsoever, as it is a completely different type of animal.
ng miraculous is very low indeed.
I may be utterly mistaken.

That is actually the point if you read suret Al'mo'emnoon' in full...
what you were as a morula, a gastrula or a zygote (which can resemeble) anything you'd like and of course some here will argue semantics, the expression is clear in the Quran, it is quite different from you as you are today.. and just like you had no recollection of your person as a morula, will you be resurrected on the day of judgement from the nothing you were decomposed to.. please read the sura in full, as some might want to focus on the embryology aspect of it, and they are so entitled, it is scientifically sound if we were to stop at the gross description alone, there is however, a bigger picture and assimilation to be drawn..

cheers

[Silver]

He may be, his (and one other guy's) anatomy book is supposed to be the most popuar of all the anatomy books in the world.
I don't know whether he is an authority in the field of embryology. The video quotes his book saying the bones get their familiar shape in the seventh week whereupon the muslces take there position around the bone forms. This is a simple, general explanation, Moore mostly writes text books, which might be the cause for it. And the text omits membranous bones, it doesn't say the bones are not actual bones, as tehy do not have calcium yet...

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

[جوري]

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

[Whatsthepoint]

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

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...

[جوري]

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

[Whatsthepoint]

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.

[جوري]

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..

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

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.

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!

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'll agree with the very last statement..

cheers

[Whatsthepoint]

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

Well, I was thinking more like original research on embryology or some groundbreaking method of removing this and that from the uterus..

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

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.

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!

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.

[Imam]

The meanings of the word may or may not be. Which was intended in this context is
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.


..

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.

And it can be observed easily during pregnancy (although perhaps in rather unpleasant circumstances) that the embryo is 'suspended' within the womb.
..

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.....

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?).

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.....

But as I said, not knowing Arabic let alone in a Qur'anic context I have to concede that point...

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

[جوري]

Well, I was thinking more like original research on embryology or some groundbreaking method of removing this and that from the uterus..

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

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.

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!

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.

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

[Whatsthepoint]

[QUOTE]

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

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?

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 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.

[- Qatada -]

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.

[Whatsthepoint]

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.

[- Qatada -]

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?

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum
according to Ibn kathir, the meaning of the verse is:

(then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh,) which is like a piece of flesh with no shape or features.
[فَخَلَقْنَا الْمُضْغَةَ عِظَـماً]
(then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones,) meaning, `We gave it shape, with a head, two arms and two legs, with its bones, nerves and veins.'
[فَكَسَوْنَا الْعِظَـمَ لَحْماً]
(then We clothed the bones with flesh,) meaning, `We gave it something to cover it and strengthen it.'
source
B.t.w. tafsir ibn kathir was written before we had scientific knowledge of embriology

So in conclusion, the verse is saying first flesh, then bones then some more flesh. So there is no contradiction with science.

[Whatsthepoint]

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?

Indeed I can't. I'm not familiar with the original surahs in arabic, nor the attempts to make a surah like one of them. I'm not even sure what producing a surah like the ones in the Quran is suppossed to mean, what the criteria are if ther even are any, what can be different and what can't etc.
Why no one has succeeded so far? Well, could be many reasons, one of them being that quran is a true word of god of course. Others would be fear, as you already mentioned, it's possible that the criteria are so strict that it is simply impossible to do it, which does not necessarily imply a divine nature, or that there are no criteria and people rely solely on their subjective religious judgement which of course will favour their religious text etc etc.
and besides, Quran may not be the only inimitable piece of literature out there. Perhaps none is.
EDIT: Why it's completely possible that an iliterate man could have surpassed every Arab poet ever since. Unlikely, but possible, still a better explanation that a god, if you ask me.

No, I don't believe in a god, in fact I strongly doubt such being exists. But due to alck of evidence on either side I am an agnostic.
And if there were a god, I don't think he'd communicate with his people in a manner demonstrated by world's religions, through prophets, revelations etc. I'm even less confident about god posting his thoughts in a single language, like arabic for insatnce, and expect everyone to learn it in order to compehend his message and witness his true glory.
I'm not so sure about god punishing sinners, I'm quite certain though that a just god does not punish unbelievers though simply for their lack of "proper" belief.

[جوري]

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?

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!

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.

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

[Whatsthepoint]

[QUOTE]

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!

ok..

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

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.

[جوري]

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

[- Qatada -]

Indeed I can't. I'm not familiar with the original surahs in arabic, nor the attempts to make a surah like one of them. I'm not even sure what producing a surah like the ones in the Quran is suppossed to mean, what the criteria are if ther even are any, what can be different and what can't etc.

http://www.islamicboard.com/quran/53...challenge.html

and besides, Quran may not be the only inimitable piece of literature out there. Perhaps none is.

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.

[Whatsthepoint]

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

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.

[Whatsthepoint]

http://www.islamicboard.com/quran/53...challenge.html
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.

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.:)

[Imam]

Several of your ideas need a comment

No, I don't believe in a god, in fact I strongly doubt such being exists. But due to alck of evidence on either side I am an agnostic..

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.....

I'm even less confident about god posting his thoughts in a single language, like arabic for insatnce, and expect everyone to learn it .

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....

I'm not so sure about god punishing sinners.

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.......

I'm quite certain though that a just god does not punish unbelievers though simply for their lack of "proper" belief..

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....

[جوري]

Oops, my mistake. And I've only just realized the actual height was 90 feet.

So?

The hadith was narated by Abu Huraira who I read is considered trustworthy.

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!

If you remember we have quite a history of arguing about quranic flaws, mostly ones concerning astronomy.

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

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.

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!

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.

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

[Whatsthepoint]

So?

Just pointing out to my mistake, that's it.:)

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!

Not at all. Descencion from apes is theoretically possible, descencion from 90-footers is not, because 90-footers themselves are impossible.

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

Why thank you!

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!

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?

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!

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.

[جوري]

Just pointing out to my mistake, that's it.:)

That is humbling!

Not at all. Descencion from apes is theoretically possible, descencion from 90-footers is not, because 90-footers themselves are impossible.

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!

Why thank you!

:wink:

I don't remember ever using Galen to counter the Quran.

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!

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?

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).

أَيَحْسَبُ الْإِنسَانُ أَن يُتْرَكَ سُدًى ، أَلَمْ يَكُ نُطْفَةً مِّن مَّنِيٍّ يُمْنَى

as well as

وَأَنَّهُ خَلَقَ الزَّوْجَيْنِ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَىِ . من نُّطْفَةٍ إِذَا تُمْنَى) ) النجم 45-46 )

“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..

Is this a way to account for the lack of mention of female gametes?

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!

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.

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..:)

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.

And you are so entitled :D

cheers..

[Whatsthepoint]

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!

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
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...tml#post937683

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).

lol, this for me?.:)

“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..

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.

oh how is it missed?
“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!

Again, a matter of intepretation, this one is also a bit far fetched. Does the verse specifically mention any sort of female fluids?

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..:)

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.

[جوري]

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
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...tml#post937683

That is hilarious man.. should they have 21st century bone structure and skeletal system to support 90 tons of weight? where did you come up with that? I don't even need to open those threads to deleve into this much lunacy!

lol, this for me?.:)

sure why not?

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.

Nah, that is English for you.. in Arabic it is quite clear and not far-fetched, unless you simply want to deny what is written!

Again, a matter of intepretation, this one is also a bit far fetched. Does the verse specifically mention any sort of female fluids?

of the same caliber as male fluids are yes-- and in many other verses speaks of the womb itself.. I don't see how the female part is denied here?

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.

My approach to everything is usually step by step guide... I never actually stated in my previous posts other religions are wrong.. If you browse through my old posts you'll find this simulation

I don't think it is a matter of right or wrong..rather which is most correct...

I'll use the analogy of you showing up say with chest pain in the ER
1- Does your ER doc take your troponins?
2-Does he administer an EKG?
3-Does he give you an Aspirin/ heparin and draw a blood test?
4-Does he give you TPA on an emergent basis?
5-Does he secure your airway breathing and circulation?
6-Does he rule out other possibilites than a heart attack like an aortic dissection or GERD?

DO you see how they are all potentially correct answers? on a state licensing exam only ONE IS MOST CORRECT. Only one will score you a point on the test... Thus I say.. I personally don't believe the other monotheistic religions are wrong, whether Manadeans, sabeans, Jewish, Christian or whatever... it is a matter of which is most correct.. of course that is a decision left to the individual. In Islam generally we don't need to prove that the other prophets are wrong, to make prophet Mohammed (p) the one true messenger.. we hold them all in the same regards... It is actually a bonus being a Muslim Al7mdlilah.. one doesn't have to spend his/her life debunking the achievements of other messengers to shine a light on another....Islam to me and most practicing Muslims is the most well preserved and encompassing...

peace!
__________________

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post844253


your approach to anything in life should be systematic until you arrive to what is most satisfactory as there can only be one correct answer!


cheers

[Whatsthepoint]

[QUOTE]

That is hilarious man.. should they have 21st century bone structure and skeletal system to support 90 tons of weight? where did you come up with that? I don't even need to open those threads to deleve into this much lunacy!

Perhaps you should check this instead.

sure why not?

well, it felt kinda demeaning, but thanks anyway. :)

Nah, that is English for you.. in Arabic it is quite clear and not far-fetched, unless you simply want to deny what is written!

How is the arabic verse different?
Does the verse imply the presence of an ovum or female fluids and clearly state that females are not the ones to determine the gender.
Could you explain why the arabic verse is so clear in saying male gamets determine the gender?
"It's clear in arabic" isn't a particulary satisfactory reply.

of the same caliber as male fluids are yes-- and in many other verses speaks of the womb itself.. I don't see how the female part is denied here?

Does the verse specifically mention anyone's fluids. A couple posts back you said nutfa means a drop of water.
What are the fluids the verse, or any other verse abour procreation, speak of? Are tehy defined as ejaculation fluids or simply fluids...?

[جوري]

[QUOTE=Whatsthepoint;939183]

The mass of the Earth has remained pretty much unchanged a couple of billions of years, practically since it's formation. During the period in which the mass was changing due to different factors our planet was uninhabitable. The position of the Earth according to the sun has also remained mainly the same. And if the Earth were any closer to or further from the sun, it would be uninhabitable. At the current distance the sun's influence on our planet's gravity is practically zero, so moving it away wouldn't make a difference.
The only factor that could contribute to lower gravity is faster rotation of the Earth around it's axis, which I guess could only be achieved by changing the Earth's size and position according to the sun, possibly even its composition. As I said the Earth's mass and shape didn't change and changing the position would make it uninhabitable. And the difference would not be enough for a 90-footer to be able to survive.
Mars would be a great place for him, if it were any warmer. But the earth is not like Mars..

You really don't know that, any one theory from a reflecting mind is as good as the next... you have skyscrapers boeing 747 that don't collapse upon themselves or cave in under the pull of gravity.. it has more to do with the design of the element itself than anything.. unless you know exactly what the original design was like can you comment, else you must account for every variable and not simply state 'supposing' this without accounting for that..

Here's a literal translation of the verses
And that He created the pairs/couples , the male and the female.
From a drop/males or female's secretion , if/when (it be) ejaculated/discharged semen/sperm.

Only now I can see what your point is, and it's a good point really.. That is of course if the translation is correct, yours and the remaining 15 are different. Most mention sperm only, some mention fluid, this is teh only one to include female secretion. I believe the word nutfa is used? The wiki entry for nutfa you provided doesn't mention it.

I have provided you with two different verses.. one mentioning the sperms accountability for the sex of the fetus, the other using the term أَمْشَاجٍ (amshaj) to denote its combined form! You want a good translation aside from learning Arabic then I recommend Leopold Weiss he lived with the bedouins for 17 years and has a good grip on Arabic as well as English!

This is the only translation to mention both fluids and then say the males and females are created from sperm only, not even the one you provided says that.
So, does the verse in arabic say that?
Does the first verse translate to "males and females" or "sexes"? Or both? What exactly does it translate to? Try your best!

You keep dancing around the topic I notice you always like to beat every topic to death rather than read.. how about you pick up the Quran and read it? verses on creation are all throughout not just one or two!

I think I see your point. However, saying that males and females, or different sexes for that matter are created for sperm can be intepreted in different ways, one of them being females having no role in conception..

There is only one way to interpret the sex of the fetus a direct result of a male sperm, it isn't really subject to whimsey

Oh yeah, what I'm interested in is the time the males and the females are created. Does the verse translate to "when/as the drop(sperm) is emited"? Or does it merely say the sexes are creted from the drop?

verse 75:36-37 مَّنِيٍّ يُمْنَى literally translates to ejected semen.

Please do answer all the questions.

Nutfa can't have had that many meanings in Muhammad's time. Apart from sperm and semen all are modern medical concepts/terms.
And there's no mention of female fluids or ova.

I believe I have answered all your questions.. these terms are the ones used in the dictionary for semen/sperm/ejection.. I am not sure what to tell you.. you are entitled to believe what you want after all is said and done..

cheers

[Whatsthepoint]

[QUOTE=Skye Ephémérine;939383]

You really don't know that, any one theory from a reflecting mind is as good as the next... you have skyscrapers boeing 747 that don't collapse upon themselves or cave in under the pull of gravity.. it has more to do with the design of the element itself than anything.. unless you know exactly what the original design was like can you comment, else you must account for every variable and not simply state 'supposing' this without accounting for that..

Adam was suppossed to be a human, right?

I have provided you with two different verses.. one mentioning the sperms accountability for the sex of the fetus, the other using the term أَمْشَاجٍ (amshaj) to denote its combined form! You want a good translation aside from learning Arabic then I recommend Leopold Weiss he lived with the bedouins for 17 years and has a good grip on Arabic as well as English!
There is only one way to interpret the sex of the fetus a direct result of a male sperm, it isn't really subject to whimsey
verse 75:36-37 مَّنِيٍّ يُمْنَى literally translates to ejected semen.

I hope you understand why I am skeptical of all this. It's not beating the topic to death, it's trying to get a satisfactory reply. You keep telling me what the verse means yet you cannot provide me with an explanation, a brief linguistic analysys as to why that is. You know, word to word.
No English transaltion of the Quran, not even one by Mr Weiss, is as clear as you claim the arabic verse is. If teh verse were so clear that it's the male's gametes that determine the gender, I'd expect at least one of them, or at least those by arabic authors, to translate it in a way you're proposing.
Every English tranlation says that God made people in pairs, males and females, and it's the sperm or a mixture or sperm (or in one case a mixture of male and female excretion) that is responsible. Now, as I said, this can be intepreted in your way, but also in a totally different way. Why did all translators, Weiss included, made it so confusing when they could have simply translated it into something like "the sex is determined...".
Q: Is what you're saying your intepretation of the verse or simply a translation?

I you really have that sympathy for the thread, I can stop.:)

PS:

verse 75:36-37 مَّنِيٍّ يُمْنَى literally translates to ejected semen.

I was interested in 53:45,46, but never mind.

[جوري]

Adam was suppossed to be a human, right?

Sort of having a soul to animate him, how is it different?

I hope you understand why I am skeptical of all this. It's not beating the topic to death, it's trying to get a satisfactory reply. You keept tell me what the verse means yet you cannot provide me with a brief linguistic analysys as to why that is. You know, word to word.
No English transaltion of the Quran, not even one by Mr Weiss, is as clear as you claim the arabic verse is. If teh verse were so clear that it's the male's gametes that determine the gender, I'd expect at least one of them, or at least those by arabic authors, to translate it in a way you're proposing.

People translate to the best of their ability.. I have my doubt that you've purchased the message of the Quran or read any other translations in full sort of little snippets.. to translate 'literally' is impossible.. every word has more than one meaning and will always be subject to the translators understanding. If you look up any of the words in the dictionary you'll receive multiple meanings. Rather than deleve into what is intended, expressed or signified I offer you a dictionary and you draw your own conclusions.. but really you are making every thing much more difficult than it actually is and by choice!

Every English tranlation says that God made people in pairs, males and females, and it's the sperm or a mixture or sperm (or in one case a mixture of male and female excretion) that is responsible. Now, as I said, this can be intepreted in your way, but also in a totally different way. Why did all translators, Weiss included, made it so confusing when they could have simply translated it into something like "the sex is determined...".

See my above reply!

Q: Is what you're saying your intepretation of the verse or simply a translation?

a translation!

I you really have that sympathy for the thread, I can stop.:)

what does that mean? forgive me, when I reply, I am not looking at two responses rather the very last one!

PS:
I was interested in 53:45,46, but never mind.

وَأَنَّهُ خَلَقَ الزَّوْجَيْنِ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى {45}

And that He createth the two spouses, the male and the female,

مِن نُّطْفَةٍ إِذَا تُمْنَى

]46}
from a sperm emitted..

is it still difficult? I don't think it can be any more clear than that..
Sex in a mammal is determined by a pair of chromosomes, one called X and the other Y ..The male's sperm carries either an X or Y.
There was a time when folks thought being born a female was a woman's fault.. verses as such put an end to that, although many ignorant don't bother reading or understanding!


I don't see what is there left to ponder about?!

cheers

[Whatsthepoint]

Yes, it's still difficult! It hasn't gotten any less difficult in the course of the last couple of posts.
Q: Does teh verse in arabic use the word determine? Does it use the word sex/gender?
"He createth the two spouses, the male and the female"
Is this a translation you're happy with? would you say it translates teh basic idea?
If so, why do you think it speaks of sex determination? What exactly is the flaw in interpreting it in a way that allah created the spouses from sperm, which basically everything is created from (man, males and females, human nature...) according to weiss' translation.

Q: 53:45-46, are there female fluids mentioned in the verse?
If not, could you provide a verse about the creation of man, where they are.

the other using the term أَمْشَاجٍ (amshaj) to denote its combined form!

the verse in question uses words nutfa (sperm related meanings) and amshaj, which you claimed means mingled or combined. How can the combination of these words denote the presence of female fluids, which you claimed the verse gives equal significance to as the sperm.

[Whatsthepoint]

I've just spoken with 2 arabic speakers, one of them native, and they disagree with your intepretation.

[جوري]

Yes, it's still difficult! It hasn't gotten any less difficult in the course of the last couple of posts.

ok

Q: Does teh verse in arabic use the word determine? Does it use the word sex/gender?

yes, الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى denote male and female

"He createth the two spouses, the male and the female"
Is this a translation you're happy with? would you say it translates teh basic idea?

using the preceeding sentence from that which is emitted, he created zawjyen(both) (two) (the pair) (male and female)

If so, why do you think it speaks of sex determination? What exactly is the flaw in interpreting it in a way that allah created the spouses from sperm, which basically everything is created from (man, males and females, human nature...) according to weiss' translation.

what does from that which is emitted i.e sperm (mani youmna) or (noutfaten toumna) a male and female is created?.. how many other ways can you translate that?

Q: 53:45-46, are there female fluids mentioned in the verse?
If not, could you provide a verse about the creation of man, where they are.

no female fluids aren't mentioned in this verse since a woman plays no role in the gender of the fetus, the ova is always an X! which gets methylated and inactive but I don't want to get into genetics right now.

here is one verse

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

“Verily We created man from a drop of a mingled fluid-drop (nutfa amshaj), in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts), of hearing and sight.” (76:2).
here is another with a hadith confirmation


It has been agreed upon by commentators of the Holy Quran that “amshaj” means mingling, as man’s water mingles with that of the woman, and this is also what the Prophet (peace be upon him) confirmed in one of his speeches. Imam Ahmed indicated in his book “Al Musnad” that a Jew passed by the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) while he was addressing his companions. Some people from Quarish said; “O Jew! This man proclaims that he is a prophet.” The Jew said: “ I will ask him of something no one knows except a prophet.” He asked the prophet (PBUH); “ O Mohammed! What is man created from? The Prophet (PBUH) said; “O Jew! Man is created from both: man’s fluid (nutfa) and woman’s fluid.” The Jew said; “This is said by those prophets before you.” .

the verse in question uses words nutfa (sperm related meanings) and amshaj, which you claimed means mingled or combined. How can the combination of these words denote the presence of female fluids, which you claimed the verse gives equal significance to as the sperm.

Doesn't mean female fluid, it means a mingled sperm, not very difficult to conceive what it is mingled with?.. because the sexual act that has brought about off spring hasn't changed in the past oh say 5 million years of so. Aside from that see above hadith!

I've just spoken with 2 arabic speakers, one of them native, and they disagree with your intepretation.

really? lol how hilarious.. whatever they want to interpret as is inconsequential to me.. purchase a dictionary and use it, then there won't be a need for all this bizarre suspicion!

I am not going to conform to what you want it to be, just because you keep pressing the matter or impressing me with the list of Arabic speakers who disagree with me.

cheers

[Whatsthepoint]

Know what, let's call it a day.:)
Let's agree to disagree.

The very last question I'd like to ask is this:
In which of the following verses are female fluids mentioned:
16:4, 18:37, 23:13, 32:8, 36:77, 56:58, 75:37, 80:19.

[جوري]

There is nothing to agree to disagree on.... everything is clear for all to see. You wanting it to be different to cater to your particular mental attitude, isn't going to change the facts of the matter. Quran is cited and hadith is cited above. It is a done deal!

cheers

[Whatsthepoint]

There is nothing to agree to disagree on.... everything is clear for all to see. You wanting it to be different to cater to your particular mental attitude, isn't going to change the facts of the matter. Quran is cited and hadith is cited above. It is a done deal!

cheers

Ok!
Now if you could please answer my final question.

[Whatsthepoint]

He then said: I have come to ask you about the child. He (the Holy Prophet) said: The reproductive substance of man is white and that of woman yellow, and when they have sexual intercourse and the male's substance prevails upon the female's substance, it is the male child that is created by Allah's Decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the male, a female child is formed by the Decree of Allah. The Jew said: What you have said is true; verily you are an Apostle. He then returned and went away. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0614)"

Here's another thing to ponder on..

[جوري]

Thauban, the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), said: "While I was standing beside the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) one of the rabbis of the Jews came and said: Peace be upon you, O Muhammad. I pushed him back with a push that he was going to fall. Upon this he said: Why do you push me? I said: Why don't you say: O Messenger of Allah? The Jew said: We call him by the name by which he was named by his family. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: My name is Muhammad with which I was named by my family. The Jew said: I have come to ask you (something). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Should that thing be of any benefit to you, if I tell you that? He (the Jew) said: I will lend my ears to it. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) drew a line with the help of the stick that he had with him and then said: Ask (whatever you like). Thereupon the Jew said: Where would the human beings be on the Day when the earth would change into another earth and the heavens too (would change into other heavens)? The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: They would be in darkness beside the Bridge. He (the Jew) again said: Who amongst people would be the first to cross (this bridge).? He said: They would be the poor amongst the refugees. The Jew said: What would constitute their breakfast when they would enter Paradise? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: A caul of the fish-liver. He (the Jew) said. What would be their food alter this? He (the Holy Prophet) said: A bullock which was fed in the different quarters of Paradise would be slaughtered for them. He (the Jew) said: What would be their drink? He (the Holy Prophet) said: They would be given drink from the fountain which is named" Salsabil". He (the Jew) said: I have come to ask you about a thing which no one amongst the people on the earth knows except an apostle or one or two men besides him. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Would it benefit you if I tell you that? He (the Jew) said: I would lend ears to that. He then said: I have come to ask you about the child. He (the Holy Prophet) said: The reproductive substance of man is white and that of woman (i. e. ovum central portion) yellow, and when they have sexual intercourse and the male's substance (chromosomes and genes) prevails upon the female's substance (chromosomes and genes), it is the male child that is created by Allah's Decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the male, a female child is formed by the Decree of Allah. The Jew said: What you have said is true; verily you are an Apostle. He then returned and went away. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0614)"

your point being?

[جوري]

Corpus Luteum A yellow mass of cells that forms from the follicle that releases the egg at ovulation. The corpus luteum produces the hormone progesterone that is important for preparing the endometrium for implantation of the fertilized egg.

http://www.mymonthlycycles.com/mglossary.jsp

[جوري]

Corpus Luteum= yellow body--lutein derivative of Corpus 'Luteum'= Yellow carotenoid pigments in plants and animal fats and egg yolks


try as you may.. there is no error in Islam!
but you might just dig yourself a deeper hole

cheers

[Whatsthepoint]

your point being?

Well, gender determination is not really about which parent's substance prevails over the other, is it?
If 53:46 says sperm determines the gender, Muhammad could have said the same in the hadith..

[جوري]

You are into splitting hair?.. I suppose that is one does when he is confounded?.... there were no microscopes then to determine Corpus Luteum or sperm.
Gender determination a result of sperm donating its X or Y, mentioned in the Quran and hadith. All fetuses are female at first until 9 to 12 weeks, when transforming into a male becomes more apparent...

cheers

[Muezzin]

Okay, seriously, enough off-topic female ejaculation talk.

[Whatsthepoint]

Eh, just close the deamn thing. It serves no purpose anymore, apart from Trumble's debate with imam, which I don't think will continue.
the original question was answered a while ago.

[Trumble]

Eh, just close the deamn thing. It serves no purpose anymore, apart from Trumble's debate with imam, which I don't think will continue.
the original question was answered a while ago.

We were just going round in circles on every point but one. In that instance he was quite right in stating that, not knowing Arabic, I was in no real position to press the point so, for sake of argument, I conceded it rather than continue to argue 'second hand'.