Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses (OP)
I've spent some time now checking and rechecking references in the Qu'ran for the various propositions about the nature or the state of life, our world, and the universe.
From the supposed embryology references to the water cycle, everything stated seems to have been discovered already, in so far as the Qu'ran makes the references, by philosophers and naturalists from previous centuries.
That's not an issue for me. Okay sure, maybe it's a book of signs and not science and as to what could be revealed to a largely illiterate population in the middle east, that's as far as god went in describing the world.
Why is it that these "signs" are used as confirmation of god's divine revelation when there's nothing new in it or that the vague description, when interpreted, could be applied to our understandings today and to those of the Greeks without any conflicts.
Is it an acceptance of science as a means to validate a holy book? If so, why not accept all scientific understandings of this day, since the process by which human knowledge and societies progress in any scientific field is that same as the one that confirmed your beliefs.
Or is it that as a Muslim you cannot have any doubt, and that whatever science discovers (good or bad) is of no concern since the truth (the one and only) is already known?
So, is it really just a marketing ploy to recruit more members, or has anyone actually put more thought into it than say the lovely Zakir Naik (who on one hand credits science for it's discoveries and on the other rejects evolution on the basis that we're just rebelling against a church for the past 200 years).
There's no need for that kind of flirting you two.
On the one hand we're constantly told the Arabs were illiterate and had a strong oral culture, and then you're complaining there's no record of information transmitted from other places. You can't have it both ways.
I have no idea what point you are trying to assert here?
I can only conclude that you so wish to insinuate yourself in this thread, that you didn't bother acquaint yourself with the subject matter, the stance of modern science on embryology, the Quran or even the opinion of the members on board Muslim or otherwise!
From what we know Galen was born in Greece, learned medicine in Egypt and wrote most of his works in Rome while physician to Emperor Marcus Aurelius. We also know that Arabs of the time were trading in Syria, a nation which was not arabic speaking at the time, and less than 200 miles from Galen's home country, yet you find it inconceivable that in the intervening half a millennium this information could not have travelled that distance
Have you read Galen's work-- Did you contrast it with the what is in the Quran? and lastly did you study modern medicine specfically as relates to embryology?
here is an excerpt from Galen
"But for the present I need not speak of the foetus as an animal, for as a plant it got all its generation and formation from the semen, and right from the start it indicated, as plants do, that the beginning of its motion and formation was two-fold. The downward and underground growth of roots in plants corresponds in the foetus to the growth of the arteries and veins of the chorion to the uterus; and the ascending stalk in plants corresponds to the out growths from the three ruling parts in embryos. Again, just as plants have a two-fold growth from seeds, sending stalk and branches upward as far as the outer most shoots and dividing the root-growth downward, so also the embryos have much-divided outgrowths consisting in arteries and veins that extend as stalks to the whole foetus and as roots to the uterus." (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine: Galen: On Semen (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992) section I:9:1-10, pp. 91-95)
I don't personally see anything in the Quran assimilating the fetus to a plant!
And the first known illustrations of the fetus as far as I have learned in art history were exemplified in da vinci's journals.. he would actually steal dead bodies and was under threat of being arrested and convicted for doing so.. further, the microscope was invented around 17th century to describe 'STAGES' of evolution and differentiation of the fetus, and what it grossly looks like in its earliest forms development!
But again, I ask, what is your point? is there a point?
The description of human development in the Quran isn't so that it could be renowned or call dibs in the annals of genetics and embryology.. anymore than any of the other passing references to other sciences. I have already pretty much sublimated its resolution for the lot of you two posts ago?
I suggest you study in some details subjects that you wish to engage so we are not all wasting each other's times on recycled thoughts, hop-skipping around topics that have nothing in common save their deed of conveyance!
Read with some measure of detail the book you wish to refute, the works of he whom you'd like to assimilate the book to, and learn something of the subject matter itself as relates to modern science.. Go back and contrast it to the intention and purpose of the original book you wish to refute yet again, and come up with something a bit more meaningful and significant!
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I have no idea what point you are trying to assert here?
You know very well what is going on, but it is in conflict with what you would rather believe and so, once again, you need to stamp on it your own special brand of obfuscation and depracation.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I don't personally see anything in the Quran assimilating the fetus to a plant!
Well no, he didn't go into as much depth as Galen would've since he wasn't a physician. He had never seen a developing foetus rooted in the uterus, but Galen had. Anyway, you're side-stepping the real point by pasting an irrelevant section.
format_quote Originally Posted by galen
Let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which, as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails. At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood, and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it was, of all the other parts. You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed.
format_quote Originally Posted by galen
The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow.
Foetal development defined in four stages?
Bones clothes in flesh (albeit in more detail)?
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Azy
You know very well what is going on, but it is in conflict with what you would rather believe and so, once again, you need to stamp on it your own special brand of obfuscation and depracation.
I can tell you have strained really hard to come up with this. Again, until you have read the two texts in full, understood the subjects and purpose therein, made a comparative analysis, can you come up here give us your abstract and summarizes the main ideas and the assimilations that lie therein.
So far you have only danced around to save face, I am not really that interested on whether or not you can write or understand English or why it is you believe or don't believe the things you do!
Well no, he didn't go into as much depth as Galen would've since he wasn't a physician. He had never seen a developing foetus rooted in the uterus, but Galen had. Anyway, you're side-stepping the real point by pasting an irrelevant section.
first of all who is he? secondly, how am I side stepping the real point? This is actually the crux of the argument, and quite relevant, the topic expresses a doubt and a question of the originality of the Quran and whether or not the Quran plagiarizes ancient Greek Embryology citing Galen as the prime example, and I have just shown everyone that Galen found in his On the Natural Faculties compared animal embryo with plant seeds, and concludes that from beginning to end the process of growth in plants and in humans is exactly the same. And I am asking you where in the Quran is Human development in utero compared to plant growth?
Foetal development defined in four stages?
Bones clothes in flesh (albeit in more detail)?
Ok.. go ahead and compare Galen's embryology to the contents found in the Quran and the current science of anatomy and embryology. And This time please do pick up some books and read I'd recommend high yield embryology and anatomy, you can pick them up at amazon.com .. don't rush into a ready made net response, it really detracts from your credibility ---and I'll wait!
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
woah wats goin on 'ere eh?
He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers. [Quran {33:43}] www.QuranicAudio.com www.Quran.com
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
first of all who is he? secondly, how am I side stepping the real point? This is actually the crux of the argument, and quite relevant, the topic expresses a doubt and a question of the originality of the Quran and whether or not the Quran plagiarizes ancient Greek Embryology citing Galen as the prime example, and I have just shown everyone that Galen found in his On the Natural Faculties compared animal embryo with plant seeds, and concludes that from beginning to end the process of growth in plants and in humans is exactly the same. And I am asking you where in the Quran is Human development in utero compared to plant growth?
Just because *all* of Galen's work on embryos is not present in the Qur'an that does not mean *none* of it is plagiarised.
We're not talking here about one divine revelation vs another and deciding which is a more accurate prediction of some process to be discovered in the future, Galen had actually done the work himself and seen these things with his own eyes.
The passage you quote is using analogy with plant seeds, in a similar way to Hippocrates describing appendages as twig-like.
"The downward and underground growth of roots in plants corresponds in the foetus to the growth of the arteries and veins of the chorion to the uterus".
Corresponds 2. To be similar or equivalent in character, quantity, origin, structure, or function. I don't think it's that hard to see the similarity:
Rotated to save your neck/imagination.
The parts which are present in the Qur'an follow very closely with the passages I posted. Four stages as described.
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Azy
Just because *all* of Galen's work on embryos is not present in the Qur'an that does not mean *none* of it is plagiarised.
And again, I ask you to show me the part that is plagiarized, as you are starting to bore me!
We're not talking here about one divine revelation vs another and deciding which is a more accurate prediction of some process to be discovered in the future, Galen had actually done the work himself and seen these things with his own eyes.
I am not the one comparing divine revelation to a man who is so far off from embryology as we know it.. I think it is best you put up or shut up, don't you think? I can't believe this is what you came up with after two days of 'reading'
The passage you quote is using analogy with plant seeds, in a similar way to Hippocrates describing appendages as twig-like.
aha.. and what does Hippocrates have to do with the Quran-- did you think this would look pretty in here-- If all else fails throw in Hippocrates does it solidify your case?
"The downward and underground growth of roots in plants corresponds in the foetus to the growth of the arteries and veins of the chorion to the uterus".
fascinating.. that isn't how it works in real life, nor is it how it is described in the Quran!
Corresponds 2. To be similar or equivalent in character, quantity, origin, structure, or function. I don't think it's that hard to see the similarity:
What is with all the psychobabble? did you not understand the question posed? are you not interested in the topic? or do you wish we'd get besotted enough to make this dulling crap florid so we are left to decipher what we may?.. this isn't poetic medicine.. if you don't understand the topic, don't engage in it!
Rotated to save your neck/imagination.
very pretty images.. and I understand your frustration!
The parts which are present in the Qur'an follow very closely with the passages I posted. Four stages as described.
aha.. show me where the specific terms, Nutfah, ‘Alaqah, Mudghah, Izam, Lahm, Nash’ah resembles anything of Galen, yet again, oh learned one!
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
I believe Galen's point was about how a plant takes root in the soil and how similar it is to the way a foetus takes root in the womb/uterus.
You should go over fertalization as if first occurs in the upper 1/3 of the fallopian tube and all the the way through to implantation.. what he did was visualize something and likened it to plant growth not at all like the description in the Quran!
It's simply a visual description.
in pathology and histology many things are described grossly.. I reference to my earlier posts.. thus, there is nothing wrong with the visual and very 'MICROSCOPIC' description in the Quran.. it is actually quite accurate, whether or not you wish to character assassinate Dr. Keith moore!
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
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...
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
Quran 23:13 Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging
Galen: as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails.
Quran 23:14 Then fashioned We the drop a clot
Galen: But when it has been filled with blood, and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen.
Quran 23:14 then fashioned We the clot a little lump
Galen: The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it was, of all the other parts.
Quran 23:14 then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh
Galen: Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other
Quran 23:14 and then produced it another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!
Galen: the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed.
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by Azy
Quran 23:13 Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging
Galen: as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails.
The Quran in the above and other verses speaks the term 'amshag' which I have gone quite extensively over, to denote 'intermingled/mixed fluid' as in fertalized egg. A safe lodging place to denote the uterus. Semen 'prevailing' was indeed common belief at the time, but not in the Quran or sunna.. Again, I fail to see the similarity..
Quran 23:14 Then fashioned We the drop a clot
Galen: But when it has been filled with blood, and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen.
aha.. maybe I have missed something here in the way of similarity.. the next word is from the nutfah 3alaqa.. as in something that clings, describing the implanation of the zygote to the uterus.. not sure how I can assimilate that to blood, heart, brain and liver articulated.. does anyone else?
Quran 23:14 then fashioned We the clot a little lump
Galen: The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it was, of all the other parts.
lol.. perhaps you are banking on us being pressed for time to cut and paste more nonsensical crap?
Quran 23:14 then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh
Galen: Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other
Just one last note, before I waste more time on this, because I really do tire quickly of folks who can't follow simple direction, when I make a requisite of you reading the actual books, that is modern embryology/the Quran and Galen... I mean for you personally not to plagiarize someone else's work from some handy website.. it might actually be wrought with error and not work in your favor.. aren't you ashamed of yourself?
The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow ". KORAN: MUHAMMED 570-632 AD: Qu"an 023:13-14: "And we created man from a portion of clay. Then we made him a drop in a firm place. Then we formed the drop into a clot, then we formed the clot into a morsel, then we formed the morsel into bones, then we clothed the bones with flesh. Then we brought it forth as another creation. Blessed is Allah, the best of creators." [23:13-14]
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
Indeed. You're quite astute, I'm sure you'll notice that the colourful names ascribed to those conditions - Nutmeg liver, strawberry gallbladder, chocolate cyst, Orphan Annie eye nucleus, fried egg appearance, anchovy paste - the very ones you've quoted, give us little to no insight on the actual disease or symptoms and their causes.
Would that these were written 1500 years ago by a chinese faith healer I'm sure we would have another prophet on our hands with claims of devine revelation.
Comming around to your earlier comments...
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Can you write an embryology/physiology/numerology/geology etc book in metrical form, have it transcend centuries and still make perfect sense?
Numerology? Seriously? Actually yes, it shouldn't be too much to ask of our lord and master to reveal a book that is perfect in every aspect and free from bigotry and malice and one that could not be misconstrued by those who read it. Anyone who could claim to understand would truly believe, unlike today where most claiming to believe do not truly understand. I'm sorry if it just seems pedantic, but why leave so much up for interpretation. Where truly if one read the words without prior guidance the fringe minorities seem to be the true believers.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Were the Europeans themselves isolated from the world when they repugned the fact that the earth was round? and yet claim today that, their knowledge and roots come from literature already in existence?
So what happened in 1993?
I seem to remember a Sheikh Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz stating, "The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished."
Who was that guy? Did he not hear of the 2nd century astronomer Claudias Ptolemaeus, he was greatly admired in the muslim/arab world nearly 1000 years ago.
I just wanted to point that out, before you equate all of western history influenced by religious dogmatism with those who actually worked to advance our species (muslim and non-muslim alike).
Re: Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
Indeed. You're quite astute, I'm sure you'll notice that the colourful names ascribed to those conditions - Nutmeg liver, strawberry gallbladder, chocolate cyst, Orphan Annie eye nucleus, fried egg appearance, anchovy paste - the very ones you've quoted, give us little to no insight on the actual disease or symptoms and their causes.
it gives YOU no insight to the dz, condition or symptom that is true, but run it by any doctor and they'll know exactly what it is as this is the final product of a great deal of work... same with religion.. it takes great study and reflection-- if you want to learn, you are welcome to, if you wish to remain ignorant, it is your prerogative.. as is always the case!
We can't all be doctors, any more than we can all be religious scholars.. but I have always thought that little knowledge is much more dangerous than complete ignorance.. as you can see it gives you a false sense of understanding to things that are clearely over your head!
Would that these were written 1500 years ago by a chinese faith healer I'm sure we would have another prophet on our hands with claims of devine revelation.
I am sure you can be distracted by alot of things, I already sense it in your character .. learned people however, can distinguish real medicine from quackery, and it is no different when comes to religion!
Comming around to your earlier comments...
Numerology? Seriously? Actually yes, it shouldn't be too much to ask of our lord and master to reveal a book that is perfect in every aspect and free from bigotry and malice and one that could not be misconstrued by those who read it. Anyone who could claim to understand would truly believe, unlike today where most claiming to believe do not truly understand. I'm sorry if it just seems pedantic, but why leave so much up for interpretation. Where truly if one read the words without prior guidance the fringe minorities seem to be the true believers.
The Quran addresses every state of mind, every back ground, and every level of education. My religion knows no color or nationality.. as anyone can tell, Islam is embraced by all, east and west, Texas to the china sea!
The fact that you refuse it, speaks volumes of you, not the religion itself, how it is revealed or written!
Many people think it is a great not to conform, that they are shakers and movers.. in fact they are the losers..Don't fasten your seat belt because it is constricting hey you are a rebel.. most of the people who have died in shock truama due to car accidents didn't have their seatbelt on.. Don't read the manuel and operate your system, then incur the charges of someone else fixing it. Don't do the job right because you think your boss is an asshole and get fired.. Don't exercise because it takes great resolve and dedication, end up a fat slob dead at 40!
Don't want to be rpeached to, good for you, No one is holding a gun to your head asking you to be here or to read this!
So what happened in 1993?
I seem to remember a Sheikh Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz stating, "The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished."
I don't know, you seem to know more about his than me. a Sheikh doesn't represent Islam or the Muslim umma, we have no reverence for shyookh, like christians do for their pope.. I am not going to speak, nor apologize for one ignorant man, it really doesn't concern me.. If you want to fixate on every inertia of details that most other people haven't even come across to make a case for yourself, be my guest!
Who was that guy? Did he not hear of the 2nd century astronomer Claudias Ptolemaeus, he was greatly admired in the muslim/arab world nearly 1000 years ago.
I have in fact heard of him, and have quite a few pieces of lit by him.. however, I am not sure, what this has to do with the topic, pull other things out of your hat that are a bit more applicable.. Muslims have corrected many a mathematical formula, that were originally started by the Greeks, if you dig a little more, You'll learn of them, there was quite a grand lecture in Columbia university recently on just that topic.. the question however still remains-- why was Europe so retarded in the dark ages, when they have all their roots supposedly in this very enriching past of the Greeks and Romans?!
I just wanted to point that out, before you equate all of western history influenced by religious dogmatism with those who actually worked to advance our species (muslim and non-muslim alike).
well as usual you failed especially on wow factor, or even to tie your points together so I can make some sense of them.. I suggest you work to refine your skills a little!
cheers
Last edited by جوري; 06-08-2008 at 06:00 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Alrighty, you're a good sport.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks