Let's be straight about what the point actually is here.
The development and appearance of the unborn child had been observed 500 years prior to it's miraculous revelation in the Quran.
Yes, unlike its revelation in the Quran, the description by Galen though admirable, is still incorrect, again Galen taught that the embryo transformed from possessing the life of a plant to that of an animal, and the umbilicus was made the root in the analogy with a plant.. I see nothing of the sort in the Quran, nor in modern embryo!
There is nothing miraculous about describing something that has been seen half a millennium hence, except
to impress a bunch of illiterate, ignorant desert dwellers.
The miracle isn't simply sequestered to the accurate description of embryology. If you would read instead of going to such outrageous lengths that defy logic and understanding to defend a controverted point which I might point out has been refuted on all angels; you'd have ascertained in the brief and the distilled, the creation of man from a lowely form, the change in his morphology, the essence of his life, all the different phases are a testament, that just as he came from a humble emitted fluid to evolve into those various stages, so too shall he rise again on the day of resurrection, a revival from inactivity a life after death!
The ones lacking knowledge on all facets and deliberately insistent on an invalid argument whilst displaying frank sophism in reasoning in the hope of deceiving others here, is you and your pal!
That is the point, and whether you like Galen's or Hippocrates' analogies or not, doctors were doing autopsies to examine the developing foetus.
The point is actually in the correctitude of actual 'doctors' at the time compared to an illitrate messenger who not only was correct in the desription ofcreation of a fetus, but went on to cover geology/physiology/numerology/astronomy/poetry with no purpose for scientific reasoning at all-- Writing a science book isn't the purpose of the Quran!
further upon autopsies, you can't see microscopic findings, Have you actually attended an autopsy? There is gross examination of the organs, and there is a microscopic portion to follow from that.. You can't see a morula, a gastrula, a zygote upon naked inspection. Which takes me back to the original Galen theorized of what he couldn't see.. admirable.. the Quran was right on the mark, with what wasn't even known 300/400 yrs ago!
So you don't see the likeness of those images to a plant and that's fine, I see it, my 9 year old nephew saw it, but whether you see it or not doesn't
really make a difference since it's not critical to this argument nor does it detract from Galen's credibility as it was merely a descriptive aid.
I am glad you have the mental capabilities of a 9 year old. That isn't an accurate description of fetal growth and development nor is it par with what we know of embryology, even grossly speaking!
The problem here is that the Quran talks of mingled fluids, in the same way that Galen talked of the 'form of semen', ie fluid.
veritably, one concedes that a woman is involved in the process, to bring about what we know as a zygote whilst the other uses vague terminology to denote male ejaculate!!
Wouldn't it have been so easy to just say egg? Why not say sperm and the woman's egg, since that's what we know it to be rather than fluids which is wrong?That would have just killed the argument dead since noone had the equipment to observe a woman's egg, but instead they carried on with the same old
fluid nonsense that had been going around for hundreds of years.[/
Why not ova, or byda, or madwara, I think the term used is transcendent.. 100 years from now when they decide to call the egg, super cell, or if the term 'egg' is deemed politically incorrect because of some woman's movement that is anti-chickens, mingled fluid will still stand the test of time-- my experience with your type, is, it makes no difference how precise the terms.. you'll always find fault with it, because as you are a kanoods by nature!
The Quran was/is revealed in very complicated text, fewest words with the most sophisticated of meaning.. it takes seven words to describe just two I reference you for instance to the first verse of suret an-nazi3at. Would love to see you come up with just one verse that is, that powerful or transcendent or poetic, that actually conveys some universal message that would last a a couple of centuries let alone millenniums!
1) The knowledge of foetal development was not restricted to Greeks, Greece or the Greek language, even in Galen's lifetime.
2) Check out Nemesius (4th Century) and Sergius (6th Century), both of Syria who were familiar with Galen's ideas centuries before the Prophet travelled there.
3) What does being illiterate have to do with understanding what a translator says?
If you wish to branch out on tangents, I'd suggest you take yourself out of indistinctness and bring forth their assimilations and lets have another comparison going.. this time have a focus and read on the subjects be a bit more industrious before you dive in head first !
The fact that foetuses had been studied is enough on it's own since it gives a perfectly plausible mechanism for acquiring this knowledge by means other than divine revelation.
5 centuries, translation between languages and oral transmission work against this one but again it's not required since it is the ideas, not the style of writing that are important. Power.The Prophet of IslamNot really a prerequisite as we know these ideas were already present in various places and languages.A bit like writing a blog of how you carried out an armed robbery don't you think? Why incriminate yourself so easily.Miss, this isn't my dissertation, the quoted text that matters is either from the Quran or a translation of Galen from which you quoted. The website in question merely quotes from both those sources. I wasn't aware I had copied someone's work and passed it off as my own, but if someone somewhere makes a valid point and I will do it, this is not about personal credit for myself.
I have already sufficed a reply to your descending prolegomenon in my first or second paragraph.
As for not being aware you'd copied someone else's work, well I consider that hilarious sir, if not down right dishonest, considering three pages ago, you had no thought on the description of a fetus or even fetal growth according to Galen, and here you are a few pages later, with an apparent brigand composed of yourself and a 9 year old in agreement with anatomy and embryology and word for word from a web page, embarrassingly on material that is no longer supported by 21st century science. Here you are willing to go so far to defend it when you should be a bit more self-effacing--
Further, You haven't opened one page in the Quran to speak of its contents with such authority and confidence of its purpose let alone carry it to comparability-- and lastly you haven't a clue of modern embryo as advsed you'd at least purchase a high yeild book from amazon.com would have saved you a barrage of verbose but meaningless explanations.
There is no nidus to your story, and when caught with your head in your --- you convolute and pervert your this minute point to overtly mislead..
This isn't the point, that isn't the point.. well others came up with the same thousands and thousands of years earlier! That to me is the argument of recession of someone who can't accept defeat ( what a deadly sin this pride) at least be grateful this isn't a face to face discussion, you have time to change your SN and feign knowledge still in the future.... I am not going to sit here and do your homework for you, if a topic is clearely over your head, then the honorable thing to do least of which to save your own face, would be not engage in it.. How disgraceful.
cheers
eaceffspring: posterity
